July 20, 2010
On a recent airplane flight, I happened to catch the movie Groundhog Day. Again.
If you aren't familiar with this classic film, the premise is simple: Bill Murray, somehow, gets stuck reliving the same day over and over.
It's been at least 5 years since I've seen Groundhog Day. I don't know if it's my advanced age, or what, but it really struck me on this particular viewing: this is no comedy. There's a veneer of broad comedy, yes, but lurking just under that veneer is a deep, dark existential conundrum.
It might be amusing to relive the same day a few times, maybe even a few dozen times. But an entire year of the same day -- an entire decade of the same day -- everything happening in precisely, exactly the same way? My back of the envelope calculation easily ran to a decade. But I was wrong. The director, Harold Ramis thinks it was actually 30 or 40 years.
I think the 10-year estimate is too short. It takes at least 10 years to get good at anything, and alloting for the down time and misguided years [Phil] spent, it had to be more like 30 or 40 years [spent reliving the same day].
We only see bits and pieces of the full experience in the movie, but this time my mind began filling in the gaps. Repeating the same day for decades plays to our secret collective fear that our lives are irrelevant and ultimately pointless. None of our actions -- even suicide, in endless grisly permutations -- ever change anything. What's the point? Why bother? How many of us are trapped in here, and how can we escape?
This is some dark, scary stuff when you really think about it.
You want a prediction about the weather, you're asking the wrong Phil.
I'll give you a winter prediction.
It's gonna be cold,
it's gonna be gray,
and it's gonna last you for the rest of your life.
Comedy, my ass. I wanted to cry.
But there is a way out: redemption through repetition. If you have to watch Groundhog Day a few times to appreciate it, you're not alone. Indeed, that seems to be the whole point. Just ask Roger Ebert:
"Groundhog Day" is a film that finds its note and purpose so precisely that its genius may not be immediately noticeable. It unfolds so inevitably, is so entertaining, so apparently effortless, that you have to stand back and slap yourself before you see how good it really is.
Certainly I underrated it in my original review; I enjoyed it so easily that I was seduced into cheerful moderation. But there are a few films, and this is one of them, that burrow into our memories and become reference points. When you find yourself needing the phrase This is like "Groundhog Day" to explain how you feel, a movie has accomplished something.
There's something delightfully Ouroboros about the epiphanies and layered revelations in repeated viewings of a movie that is itself about (nearly) endless repetition.
Which, naturally, brings me to A/B testing. That's what Phil spends most of those thirty years doing. He spends it pursuing a woman, technically, but it's how he does it that is interesting:
Rita: This whole day has just been one long setup.
Phil: It hasn't.
Rita: And I hate fudge!
Phil: [making a mental list] No white chocolate. No fudge.
Rita: What are you doing? Are you making some kind of list? Did you call my friends and ask what I like and what I don't like? Is this what love is for you?
Phil: This is real. This is love.
Rita: Stop saying that! You must be crazy.
Phil doesn't just go on one date with Rita, he goes on thousands of dates. During each date, he makes note of what she likes and responds to, and drops everything she doesn't. At the end he arrives at -- quite literally -- the perfect date. Everything that happens is the most ideal, most desirable version of all possible outcomes on that date on that particular day. Such are the luxuries afforded to a man repeating the same day forever.
This is the purest form of A/B testing imaginable. Given two choices, pick the one that "wins", and keep repeating this ad infinitum until you arrive at the ultimate, most scientifically desirable choice. Your marketing weasels would probably collapse in an ecstatic, religious fervor if they could achieve anything even remotely close to the level of perfect A/B testing depicted in Groundhog Day.
But at the end of this perfect date, something impossible happens: Rita rejects Phil.
Phil wasn't making these choices because he honestly believed in them. He was making these choices because he wanted a specific outcome -- winning over Rita -- and the experimental data told him which path he should take. Although the date was technically perfect, it didn't ring true to Rita, and that made all the difference.
That's the problem with A/B testing. It's empty. It has no feeling, no empathy, and at worst, it's dishonest. As my friend Nathan Bowers said:
A/B testing is like sandpaper. You can use it to smooth out details, but you can't actually create anything with it.
The next time you reach for A/B testing tools, remember what happened to Phil. You can achieve a shallow local maximum with A/B testing -- but you'll never win hearts and minds. If you, or anyone on your team, is still having trouble figuring that out, well, the solution is simple.
Just watch Groundhog Day again.
Posted by Jeff Atwood
In this case, it seems to be a case of not enough A/B testing. Give him a couple more decades, and I'm sure he could have figured out the correct way to invoke emotions in a woman.
I saw an early draft of the screenplay, which included scenes in a library, where Phil was able to move a book (which somehow didn't get reset overnight) to act as a crude calendar, and the implication from these scenes was that he spent centuries re-living the day.
As for the overall A/B argument, it's worth remembering that at the end of the film, Rita accepts Phil, because he actually has changed. A/B testing can achieve shallow local maxima, but it is not limited to that; you can also A/B test larger, more significant changes. The nature of the difference between A and B is up to the creator.
Love the idea, but I can't stop thinking of what would happen if Groundhog day followed the reality of A/B testing...
- Phil would date people at random... "Well Ned _loved_ the fudge."
- Success for Phil would be waking up with anyone.
- Phil would have a product manager who wan't at any of his dates but who decided which feedback Phil was going to act on, and how.
- Said product manager would believe that sleeping with people is a function of ice sculpting.
- Said product manager would also be unaware of the repeating day which they are both stuck in.
Someone should point Eric Schmidt at this article. I can't think of any better example than Google of a company employing endless statistical analysis to the most anal degree at the cost of any level of soul or beauty in their products.
41 shades of blue, anyone?
(P.S. No IDs on comments? Poor form.)
Well done, Jeff. This article has a lot of heart. Plus, the sandpaper quote is pure gold.
Well, that was a well-written take down of a strawman you've called "A/B testing".
A/B testing is "empty. It has no feeling, no empathy, and at worst, it's dishonest"? Really? Rubbish. Marketing drones *can* be emotionless, cynical and dishonest. Anyone can. That they use A/B testing is neither here nor there. These naughty marketing drones might use other devilish tricks such as... fancy graphic design! Engaging copy writing! They may even offer a discount!
Oh, the horrors colors, words, and savings have wrought on us all. Down with empiricism!
Of course, if you have no ideas, no talent, nothing to say, and nothing to offer, then sure, filling the void with A/B testing isn't going to make much difference.
However I believe there are lots of interesting, creative people who have more than one good idea. I believe these same people cannot read the minds of every single person who visits their web site, or uses their app. Therefore, I think it's great that these people can test both their ideas, rather than having to make some evidence-free guess and rationalize it after the fact. An A/B test is only as good as your best idea, after all. Ideas still matter!
I think the really uncomfortable thing is A/B testing says *you don't know*. I think some people find that hard to get their heads around. I'm smart! I'm about the love, maaan! I'm not a greedy marketing whore! I don't need no stinkin' A/B testin'!
Well, if your pride is worth more than the benefits you and your users get from A/B testing, so be it :)
A/B testing is not used to find love, win over women, or make friends.
A/B testing is a tool created to score points, or in other words - make money.
Points, or money, are numbers.
Numbers = math. Math = science.
If your business is about creating friendships, I'm not here to judge, and I can't help you measure success. But if your business is about scoring points, A/B testing is a necessary tool.
I always quote Groundhog Day as the perfect example of "Comedy that makes you think... a LOT", and I usually watch it once or twice every year. It's simply timeless.
Rita: "Would you like to have dinner with Larry and me?"
Phil: "No, thank you. I've seen Larry eat."
An interesting assertion. I think it would benefit from an actual example of A/B testing, however, rather than just an interesting connection to a movie.
Hey Now Jeff,
A/B testing, great post!
Coding Horror Fan,
> “Give him a couple more decades, and I'm sure he could have figured out the correct way to invoke emotions in a woman.”
Have you ever read ‘The Game’ by Neil Strauss?
According to Dan Grobstein's summary of the Groundhog Day commentary: "Danny Rubin [the scriptwriter] envisioned that Phil would relive the day for 10,000 years. In the original script he kept track of time by reading one page each day in the bed and breakfast's library."
Seems like a pretty clever solution to me.
@AaronSw Wouldn't it be easier to remember one up-to-5 digit number, and one up-to-3 digit number, each day, than remember a book title and its page number, then have to count up all the pages of all the books already read just to know what 'day' it is? ;-)
Didn't we do this yesterday?
I don't entirely disagree with this post, but I will point out that sometimes a shallow local maximum is exactly what you want. Even if you're going to do throw out your existing work and do a revolutionary design, you should figure out which subtle variant on that design works best. Don't rely on A/B testing to break new ground, but don't assume that breaking new ground is always the point of making a change to a product.
That about sums it up for me...
Your Groundhog day analogy makes me chuckle but seriously, I think the 'soulless' problem with AB testing only comes when you apply the AB testing "tool" dumbly with no particular goal in mind.
For example, applying AB testing to choose which background colour to use I would regard as "soulless", it's just testing opinion with no proper goal/s. However, what if I decide my goal is to increasing the number of replies to questions posted on my Q and A forum site. I use that goal to brainstorm out and then test ideas, then my test/s have a good honest and valuable purpose. I would not then call my AB testing 'soulless'.
Phil's problem was not AB testing, it was the original premise that the perfect date would result in Rita falling in love with him. That is a problem with a lot of testing. You are not necessarily testing for the right things.
It's a movie. She rejects him, not because of some inherent failure in the method he uses, but because it was written that way in the script. While it may be our (or the author's) idea of the "purest form of A/B testing imaginable," it's not real. If the author had chosen a different outcome, would you then change your opinion of A/B testing? I know it would have changed your opinion of the movie.
In the end the author chooses to have Rita reject Phil because on a fundamental level we want A/B testing to fail. We want to believe that we operate on some higher esthetic than our base instincts. We want to believe that we can't be manipulated by the satisfaction of our material desires. The success of companies like Amazon, Google, EBay that use it, though, belie this hope. In the end, we are all self-interested beings that only occasionally act outside those interests.
Two things. (1) I loved this movie. (2) I think Tim (above) brings up an excellent point. Imagine an alternate outcome of this movie -- imagine that after the perfect date, Rita fell in love with Phil, they got married, and lived happily ever after; how would this change in the movie affect this post about A/B Testing? Would you then be posting about how A/B Testing is the perfect solution to make users fall in love with your site / application / new toothbrush?
Ultimately, Groundhog Day is a scripted movie determined by a group of writers and editors and movie people - not real life. And while many of the ideas presented in movies ring true to us, they're often just playing on what we hope is true, and not what is actually true. We all hope that we can't be manipulated into love, that the feeling of love is sincere and beautiful and above corruption - but we should all know that this is not the case. Our feelings can be manipulated. Throw a baby or a puppy into any commercial and we're likely to associate the feelings we have for babies and puppies with whatever product the advertisement is peddling. We're simple and predictable - sad but true.
I like your blog, but you've got to be kidding me with this post. Are you saying that A/B testing doesn't work because of how a plot line in a comedy? Remember when your blog used to have numbers?
The thing is, on one level I agree with you; Google puts so much faith in numbers that it's virtually religion for them, which at the same times makes seem cold and unfeeling. They don't even provide end user support; they have forums of which I'm sure they analyze to death.
On the other hand, not doing A/B testing is like flying blind. In this case, Rita is just one subject, but A/B testing is to find the optimal way to achieve a goal given a diverse group, which is clearly not the case. Arguably, the multiple instances of Rita could be seen as the target audience, but perhaps we are reading too much into this.
Someone once said People don't buy what you do, they buy why you do it.
I think that's a great explanation for why A/B Testing doesn't yield miracles.
When you're doing something just for the numbers, you become the mainstream, at best. Yet the underdog will most always have a more passionate following. That's all because of the branding applied and the credo - or perceived credo - behind each operation.
Of course A/B Testing makes sense, but sometimes, trusting your gut makes even more sense.
This planet's biological evolution is iterative A/B testing, no doubt based on a prerelease viewing of Groundhog Day, and that's worked out pretty well.
I'm surprised it didn't occur to you that her rejection was just one more step in the A/B testing.
Phil could then move on and put the "Contrived perfect date" into the "doesn't work" pile.
It seems like this post is trying to shoehorn an example that doesn't work into a preconceived notion of your own.
I think Sam made a really good point ("You are not necessarily testing for the right things."). In order for A/B testing to be useful, you have to be testing for the right things, but you also have to already have the right things there.
Testing the difference between a "Buy now" button and a "Buy this now" button is useless if your web site is trying to sell cow's blood and it is marketed to vegans.
It seems like Bill Murray's premise was flawed: He was offering a product (his heart/love/companionship) to someone who did not want it. Through A/B testing, he was able to maximize the enjoyment of her experience in "the store" (the date), but when the time came for a buy-or-fly decision, she flew because she was not interested in the first place.
Which is where Jaryl's point comes in - A/B testing isn't about grabbing a specific person (that's what sales calls are for!), it's about making your website more friendly/more usable/more in tune to what the larger number of people are looking for.
Yikes, you guys are taking this too seriously. Groundhog Day is an analogy for Jeff's thoughts on A/B testing, not evidence that led him to his conclusions.
I think the biggest problem with A/B testing is that people who want it don't understand why they want it. What are they testing? What do they hope to accomplish? What will they do with the data they get? All they know is that such-and-such company did A/B testing and increased sales 0.01% so they want it too. Without a plan of action, any tool will fail.
The "usability is like Sandpaper" quote should probably be attributed to Alan Cooper, who says the following on page 206 (not sure which edition I have) of "The Inmates are Running the Asylum":
"To me, usability methods seem like sandpaper. If you are making a chair, the sandpaper can make it smoother. If you are making a table, the sandpaper can also make it smoother. But no amount of sanding will turn a table into a chair. Yet I see thousands of well-intentioned people diligently sanding away at their tables with usability methods, trying to make chairs."
It's a good book. You should own a copy if you don't already. (He said, generally, to everybody in the universe.)
Jeff A/B testing is, incidentally, what the universe uses when turning tables into chairs with a lot less than sandpaper. It's called evolution. We can argue whether the universe has a soul or not, but I think it's basically honest.
But your essay is still good! We don't have time to play universe with our lives. And the monads that fill our hearts as this world turns (where they break and get twisted and eventually stop) will vibrate all the more sweetly if we stop pretending that we can judge the effects of our agency much and just try to connect ... using our hearts, and minds and souls and all the ingredients of what make us humble humans, not the cosmos, let alone machines.
Beautiful. My thoughts exactly. I never thought of the connection to Groundhog Day though. That's pretty clever.
But yeah, a couple years ago I was a little peeved about some SEO & marketing practices I was observing at the time. SEO, marketing, and A/B testing are all important to the success of an online business, of course. But there's a right way and a wrong way to go about it.
I wrote down my thoughts on subject it in my article titled, "Give and You Shall Receive: A Guide to Improving Your Website." The article is all about building the best possible user experience in all possible aspects. I bring up this idea that what's best for your user is also best for you.
A/B testing is absolutely imperative! But it is possible to over analyze it and eventually kill the entire point.
Truth is, most businesses don't have the time or resources to dedicate to continuous A/B testing so the next best thing is to find what hits and let it run until it doesn't work... then repeat the process over again.
Wow, some great discussion on here. The post here definitely is interesting, but it seems to throw out the baby with the bathwater: there are certainly things that A/B testing is good for and bad for, but what are those? And, for the things that A/B testing is bad for, how do you figure out which is which? I wrote an incomplete post on this once that used a restaurant as an example. There are plenty of things that a restaurant can't test with a typical A/B test. Or even worse, if they optimize for local minima (just as the author pointed out), they might be missing some other, longitudinal measure.
However, even though some numbers may not be immediately measurable, they're always measurable at some time: it might just be hard to pinpoint a drop in sales or traffic (or not getting the girl) to any single thing.
Sometimes you gotta go with your gut, but only after you've analyzed the heck out of the numbers.
I agree with Tim VanFosson and Russell Uresti -- the only reason Phil did not succeed by simple approach to A/B testing dates is that it's a movie. And movie should deliver on hopes of audience, which likes to believe in pure non-rational love.
In real life (I mean in real Groundhog Day situation :-)) Phil would succeed in ~30 days or less.
That's a very well thought out post, and some very interesting comments. Great discussion.
Like some commenters, I disagree with the premise that the movie has anything to teach us about A/B testing. I don't have to tell anyone here, that A/B testing is comparing 2 or more subtle differences and measuring which one performs better. I don't think Phil did any measuring.
If anything this is a better example of iteration, more akin to Agile programming. He made small improvements to his approach every day. Refine, deploy, refine, deploy, etc.
I agree with the commenter that mentioned Neil Strauss' The Game. Basically, in about 1 year, the author became an expert pick up artist. I have no doubt that Phil could have conquered his target in 30 days as Dennis said, or even in less than a year, in reality. But this is fiction.
I suppose this concept was repeated in the movie, 50 First Dates. Instead of the day repeating, the woman had short term memory loss, so Adam Sandler could take her out again and again and try different things and she wouldn't remember. What did you think of that? (Also not A/B testing.)
Now that you mention it Jeff, I feel that Phill's behavior more closely matches programming methods than marketing testing. Code, Test, Debug, Correct, Code, Test, Debug, Correct...
Never thought of associating Groundhog Day to anything much really. But It's an interesting thought you have, although I think it stretches a little the boundaries of what is A/B testing.
I have to agree with Michael Dorfman here.
In particular, I don't think anything about conducting A/B testing suggests the origin of the inspiration. There's no reason why you can't A/B test a totally novel design. You could argue that the final progress Phil makes is as much an A/B test as the failed, disingenuous A/B test that Rita rejects. The motivation and source of the test are totally different, but that's a failed experiment, not a failure of the method.
This is a really great post. I’m not going to argue with the premise (it is a movie after all!), but I do have some problems with the analysis. Most of the problem with splitting testing is in its application. Most people focus on conversion. In Phil’s pursuit of Rita, its worse: he is focusing on click-through! Focusing on click-through and conversion is easy, but the focus should be on lifetime value. By the end of the movie, Phil has focused on improving the lifetime value of everyone in the town, including himself. Is the movie satisfying because this leads to Rita’s conversion? No, she is just the icing on the cake. It’s satisfying because Phil has learned through trial and error how to be a better person, on improving his lifetime value. Ultimately, split testing is about learning. Even unsuccessful tests help you learn about your market and winning conversion tests need to be weighed against the lifetime value. Unfortunately, most of us don’t have 40 or 50 years to spend on one test.
One of my all-time favorite movies...watched it over 20 times. :)
I think your argument is a tad off for A/B testing, because you ignore the fact that Phil should actually be dating hundred or thousands of women (his target audience) to get the most accurate data (a good enough sample group that gives you 95% confidence rate). Some would fall off (dump him along the way, not answer his calls) and some will convert right to the end of the funnel. But the important thing the test(s) would tell him, what are the most likely variables that convert to "catching" the woman or "hitting a home run" whatever his desired outcome was defined in the beginning for his ideal woman. (Aka conversion)
I disagree completely.
The problem with Phil's success (or lack thereof) isn't a limitation of A/B testing. It also isn't because he was 'faking' it.
The problem is that when you give someone a series of A/B tests, all you end up with is the result of their those tests.
In other words, she got EXACTLY what she THOUGHT she wanted.
We see this ALL THE TIME, with all sorts of things. For example, why would you hire an interior decorator? You can use a series of tests to determine what, in your own opinion, is the best at each step of the way.
It's not 'fake'. It's not that you are lying to yourself or failing to buy the paint color you thought you wanted.
The problem is that people rarely know what they want. We're so much better at knowing when we have something we don't want - IE, 'God, this room is ugly'.
Have you ever actually done A/B testing? I find you often preach from the pulpit.
Knowing that Ground Hog was a big-name Hollywood production, it most likely went through a whole bunch of A/B testing of its own before it was released. And seeing you liked the result, we can conclude that A/B testing works just fine.
Thanks for pointing this out. I did not know that Chesterton was public domain. I have been meaning to read this for awhile and just downloaded it to my iTouch. From what I have heard about his stuff and based on Jeff's comments, I too would recommend that he read it.
"It has no feeling, no empathy, and at worst, it's dishonest."
I didn't know testing was used for psychiatric consoling, or for friendship, or for 'winning hearts and minds'.
I thought it was about producing reliable software.
It's important to notice that in the movie Groundhog Day, Phil takes up ice sculpting. This is also quite a beautiful symbol to his eventual balance. Ice sculpting by it's nature is eternally evanescent. You work long and hard, but ultimately your art will always un-create itself.
For Phil, he could have been carving in titanium, and yet he'd have the same outcome. His actions only had the meaning of that moment. There's an acceptance of change that is symbolized by his talent.
I think you're missing the point with A/B testing, it's largely used to convince clients (and prospective clients) that the sizable sum of money they've just paid you or going to pay you to redesign their website is actually worth it and generates more turnover. The people who make the money decisions want this, you can't just tell them 'it looks nicer'. If you can't prove that your work generates results they aren't going hire you?
AB testing - If there were one example to confirm the merits of A-B testing wouldn't it be the astounding variety, beauty and well adaptedness of the millions of life forms on this planet? Isn't every living thing you see around you a product of ab testing? Consider your brain, that wonderfully sophisticated device that can contemplate A-B testing, read this article and understand these comments, isn't it just a product of a very long series of A-B tests. Isn't evolution the ultimate confirmation of the power of A-B testing? There were many comments in this series that A-B is limited by your ingenuity in coming up with good variations to test. Nature in fact eschews purposeful design of new variations. In evolution variations are in fact introduced completely randomly on A to create B without design and without regard to the consequences they will have. The results are nevertheless spectacular.
Doesn't evolution also refute the sandpaper analogy? After all, homosapiens, blue whales, centipedes, blue green algae, and tube worms in undersea volcanic vents that consume sulfur for energy all have the same great great grandmother. It seems to be just a question of how many iterations you are willing to do and perhaps whether you are willing to try truly random variations.
Evolution works through a form of A/B testing. That seems to be working pretty well.
I should have read the other comments first. Several people already presented the evolution argument:)
Whilst I agree with the fundamentals of this post and the problems of A/B testing I think the analogy with Groundhog Day is completely wrong.
The "Perfect Date" was never the perfect outcome of Groundhog Day and therefore achieving it did not end the movie. Once that particular goal was achieved it produced another failure. The true perfect outcome was for Groundhog Day to end. This did eventually happen after many more outcomes were achieved and this is when the A/B testing scenario happened.
So whilst A/B testing can be considered "bad". Groundhog Day itself is an absolutely perfect example of how it could work, not how it couldn't.
One thing about movies is although the writers may want to send a positive message, that message won't get out there if it isn't believable. It may be subconscious, but there is usually some kind of truth hidden in there - just not what it appears to be on the surface.
In groundhog day, Phil eventually succeeded because (1) he impressed Rita indirectly, by impressing everyone else, and (2) he had decades of experience to develop the knowledge and abilities and experience he needed to impress everyone else.
Of course was also relaxed, natural and happy that last day - but that's a social status symbol too (hard to be relaxed and happy if you're under stress and not coping). Also, it only emphasizes just how much practice he'd had finding helpful things to do, learning the piano, and generally impressing people.
Groundhog day had that superficial nice message, but it was believable precisely because it wasn't nice at all. Intuition isn't magic. Rita wasn't some superior being. We're supposed to believe Phil changed, but we only saw one good day after however many years of failure. Rita was fooled by one good day and the fact that he impressed lots of other people during that, for her, single 24 hour period.
As for intuition - it's not magic. It's information processing in the brain. Even expert systems developers have found that it's usually a lot easier to invent a heuristic solution that'll probably work than to justify that solution rationally. Evolution had the same issue to deal with. But rely on intuition and to a large extent you're relying on the cro-magnon instinct. Just because it more-or-less worked for cro-magnons doesn't mean it'll work here and now, and a lot of the cro-magnon solutions really weren't very nice.
The difference with the evolution argument is that evolution is based on random mutations, sometimes drastically different in a single iteration. The reason A/B tests arrive only at local maxima is because we don't often throw big random changes at it -- we make a small change and the numbers move slightly in the direction we want, so we follow that up with successive changes in the same vein, usually stopping when we can't find any (minor) modification that gives better numbers.
I'm astonished that no-one's mentioned 'the tunnel under the world' (Frederik Pohl). It's a story where a town lives the same day over and over, to test marketing strategies, and is therefore very applicable :) Also a very good story, and out of copyright: http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/31979
Jeff, why did you break quoting? I hate Twitter-style "@whoever" syntax.
I've seen your photo on wikipedia. You look like a child molester. LOL
Genius- how you elegantly explained the danger of A-B testing all the while drawing reference to a popular movie and philosophy. Not only am I more dissuaded from falling into the A-B testing trap, but I'm forced to reflect on the larger truths of purpose and plan. Thanks for posting this.
This is a perfect example of why I love reading your blog! Keep it up Jeff!
VoiceXML I Want to Tell You That Really your article is amazing <3
horoscope thank you very much for sharing with us this great note.
astrologie gratuite thank you very much for the quality of your articles are always fascinating.
voyance gratuite As usual what you write is well thought out and is well said, thank you
astrologie Congratulations and best of luck with your new adventure
Then put your little hand in mine,
There ain't no hill or mountain we can't climb...
I got you babe...
I got you babe...
Abercrombie&Fitch clothing are staying marketed in distinct types. You possibly can obtain Abercrombie T-Shirts and polo t shirts, from from any of the outlet stores. That is simply of searching even a solitary Abercrombie&Fitch shirts is than you can purchase it in excess of website. And you’re going to receive your clothing inside number of days and nights, regardless of the space one are in.
Ha, this is still a comedy in my book. You can't possibly take this movie too seriously. Its to be enjoyed as a comedy. Especially since the main characters don't die in the end (happy ending) - its a comedy even on technical terms. Plus there's no way someone would relive Ground Hog's day over and over again... Except me perhaps, because I've been watching this movie at least once a day since June 2010, on my Android, while I work (along with a couple other 80's flicks).
Interesting blog post, nonetheless...
... keep repeating this ad infinitum until you arrive ...
"Ad infinitum" ("to infinity, forever, without limit") and "until" don't mix well. You could go with "ad libitum" or just drop it altogether: "keep repeating this until you arrive".
Wow! I just happened to (re-)stumble across this site while cleaning up old inactive URLs. Apparently I had bookmarked it a long time ago and just forgotten about it. I have always liked "Groundhog Day", so I read the entire post and all 72 comments. I really enjoyed the post and discussion, but the reason I said "Wow!", is because I couldn't believe that in all that, it seems that NOBODY grasped (or at least no one mentioned) the whole POINT of the movie! So I felt compelled to register and make this comment.
There is obviously some "god" or "force" or "karma" or whatever you want to attribute it to, that is forcing Phil to repeat the same day UNTIL he learns a particular "lesson". The reason the day stops repeating has NOTHING to do with "getting the girl". The day ONLY stops repeating because he buys the homeless guy a hot meal and therefore prevents him from dying! (Or perhaps that was just intended to be the final step in his transformation into a "caring person". Remember he was DAILY catching the boy falling out of the tree, as well as other "good deeds".)
In order for "Groundhog Day" to be the "feel good" movie that I believe it was intended to be, you have to perceive "getting the girl" as a REWARD for becoming a caring person.
In a (probably vain) attempt to keep this "on topic", I suppose you could say that the GOAL of his A/B testing was to "get the girl", and becoming a caring person was simply an unintended (but fortuitous) side-effect.
I see your point from a broader perspective.
Whenever we optimize to gain maximum revenues or some kind of quantifiable outcome, we lose something inside us.
This is the insight I get after reading this article.
And for that I feel that this article is fucking brilliant.