Thank you for the link. It has been an interesting read.

I’m curious if Bloodstock Research had any particular value as a target or it just happened to have vulnerable architecture that piqued his curiosity.

I wonder if the distribution changes when the systems are compared. Is a 3.5 rater as likely to give a 7 to the same movie?

I view the stars-with-halves akin to letter grades with pluses. As in, “it’s a two-star movie, but that one actor was cooking—2.5.” (Chaos, I know)

I had the same feeling when they rolled the Steenbecks out of the film school I attended/worked at. Excited for the new technology, but nostalgic for the physical process that was going away.

Just a few small steps from owning a forest. (But seriously my fear would be my impatience in waiting for stock to dry)

Ah, yes, sometimes you can judge a book by its cover.

Thankfully my job doesn’t start until the 30th, but I will say it has been a very weird existence in the time between taking the bar and now.

This has been my take as well. It often comes off as trying to end up on the best-of list, especially when the possible answers can be so clearly narrowed down.

My old boss is a randonneur and he always said that no matter how long the ride was (200k, 400k, 600k…) the last 20% was always miserable. My experience definitely mimics this - though I would never admit it to Strava.