Because Wordle is a trick.
The trick is that it makes you feel far smarter than you really are. People are impressed with their own solutions.
It makes us sad to see people fall for the trick.
For me today, this makes me look real smart, I got it in 3 on hard mode
⬜⬜⬜🟨⬜
⬜⬜🟩🟩⬜
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
But when I look at the odds, I doubt I'm smart. With knowledge given at step #2, I had a 1 in 5 (20%) getting it right on the third guess ("drinn" isn't in their word list)
Presumably, the website records guesses, makes statistical studies, and can adjust their puzzles to be harder or easier. In other words, choosing a word like DRINK as the right answer rather than CRINK or PRINK. Is Wordle playing fair?
In any case, we get people impressed with their success when it's just statistics. Statistically, if my third guess were fair, I'd have guessed it on round #5, which is relatively bad. But I only tweet my #3 scores and not my #5s.
So we are being manipulated. I feel like the cat who gives me suspicious looks playing with the laser pointer, as if the game were completely rigged to make me feel good.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
1/ Buckle up kids, time for me to dunk on this story.
Suppressing the truth because it hurts the cause is never the right answer. It's the reason that truth is suppressed by the corrupt. vice.com/en/article/m7v…
2/ As you all know, I attended Mike Lindell's cybersymposium. After Lindell failed to provide the promised "Absolute Proof" for us 20 cyberexperts to look at, 2 of them convened a meeting of all of us in order to come up with a common message.
3/ Their concern was that Lindell's failure would hurt this important cause of exposing the stolen election.
This meeting actually restored my faith in humanity. The other 18 cyberexperts were Republican partisans were having none of this. ONLY 2 of 20 were bad faith actors.
Every time there has been a "transfer of power", the presidency changing from one party to the other, there has been a concession speech where the party voted out of office has confirmed the legitimacy of the party who won.
The modern concession speech starts in 1952 when Adlai Stevenson lost to Eisenhower. He stressed that his loss was legitimate, that the people had spoken, to put aside partisanship in accepting the results.
The next transition from Democrats to Republicans was Nixon's win in 1968. Hubert Humphrey stresses that Nixon clearly one and that Nixon had Humphrey's support. www2.mnhs.org/library/findai…
Maybe those like @orinkerr can opine, but it seems like these days they always have a probable cause for a search warrant to search your phone. Am I right in thinking that if you are involved in such a case they'll always grab your phone?
I can't find the search warrant. The NYTimes quotes it thusly. It seems this justification could apply to virtually ever case they investigate. archive.is/Crd5y
Presumably, Alec Baldwin has good reason for not handing over the phone, knowing that any texts or emails may be used out-of-context and prejudicially against him.
I also remember, shortly before the dot-com crash, predictions that all these nonsense dot-com businesses, like "pets.com" with their sock-puppet, would fail. And they did.
Missouri state government computers were making the SSN#s of teachers public. The governor is responding prosecuting the expert and reporter who notified them of the problem. The cybersecurity community is outraged by this.
What gets lost in this discussion is what the law says.
Obviously, everyone should be outraged when a well-meaning whistleblower pointing out government incompetence is then prosecuted by the embarrassed government. You don't need to be a computer scientist to understand the problem here.
Such "disclosure" of vulnerabilities is a standard practice in cybersecurity. Outsiders pointing out problems is pretty much the only way cybersecurity improves -- something that has been known since the late 1800s. So we are especially offended by this.