Comment by generalizations
6 months ago
Given how many non-marshmallow articles are out there on the internet, and your apparent risk-reward ratio, I wonder if you're the one failing the test. And you haven't really justified your original claim that GP failed the marshmallow test.
> how many non-marshmallow articles are out there on the internet
Most of the HN front page aren’t marshmallows. If you believe they are, it’s irrational to be here, let alone waste time commenting about it.
The contents of the HN front page is determined by the HN readers, and is not uniformly interesting to all of them. It is up to the article presented to the users to prove that it is worth the time to read and deserves to be on the front page, and this one doesn't to a great job of that.
The marshmallow test should have a follow up, where the person offering the marshmallow has to prove credibility, and the person receiving it has to decide if it's worth waiting. Would be an interesting view of human interactions.
> marshmallow test should have a follow up, where the person offering the marshmallow has to prove credibility
This thread is becoming a parody of itself. I linked to literally this study above [1][2].
[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3730121/
I think GP just wants you to be smart enough to commend them for knowing of the marshmallow test but not smart enough to know if the reference is applicable.