You are looking at this shit all wrong, which is why I wont even bother with your absurd subsidy figures.
The fact is that the federal balance sheets have a big fat (+) next to oil companies, and and big fat (-) next to solar companies. One industry is putting hundreds of billions net per year into the federal budget, while another is taking billions net per year out.
And in your opinion, where from come the R&D money? From Santa Claus?
Primarily Uncle Sam.
You should head up the page to the subsidies argument, where you can bicker one way or the other about how the billions per year that the government hands out to green tech is or is not a subsidy.
My guess is you will find some way to justify the idea that it isnt a subsidy... just like right here where you found a way to ignore it completely.
I'm not sure how Yellow Taxi is some sort of "ideal" to strive for. Local taxi companies are corrupt and hand in hand with the politicians. The are exclusionary. I guess if opening up markets to new participants makes me "greedy" then I am "greedy".
You are blind to the disconnect between this view and your view on voters "voting against their best interests." Quite inconsistent. A yellow cab driver that supports uber and votes based on this support would be "voting against his/her best interests" as you so callously decided. You arent the arbiter of what is or is not in the best interest of others, especially when principles are on the table.
I'll never understand the hate for Uber. It reminds me of the middle class voting against their best interest.
What you decided was in their best interests.
Following ideals instead of greed is what a person thinks is generally in their best interests, but you have decided that doing this isn't in their best interests. This leads us to question why greed so easily overtakes your own ideals.
Greenpeace.. arent these the callous assholes that fucked up the Nazca site?
Here is the problem:
When your belief is a religion, you end up not giving a fuck what side effects you have while following that belief.
This not-giving-a-fuck goes well beyond the Nazca lines. All the warmers really care about is feeling good about themselves, which is it doesn't matter to them that their agenda is increased poverty. The 22000 children that already die every single day due to poverty doesn't matter. Thats 80 million per decade. 800 million children dead in the next century due to poverty if something isnt done.
The warmers have no concept of scale, and quite clearly there are no shits given by them about the side effects of their anti-co2 efforts.
IEEE 754 is not magical, and neither is working with the IEEE 754 format at the binary level.
Those that think that its an "ugly hack" to do so are computer science illiterate. Like that other guy that thinks leveraging twos-complement is an ugly hack.
Pretenders dont know what ugly hacks are. You are one of them.
"Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers. The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present – and is gravely to be regarded. Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite. The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present – and is gravely to be regarded. It is the task of statesmanship to mold, to balance, and to integrate these and other forces, new and old, within the principles of our democratic system – ever aiming toward the supreme goals of our free society." - President Dwight D Eisenhower, Jan 17, 1961
Everyone remembers his points about the military industrial complex, but amazingly they forget his points about what he called the scientific-technological elite that he made in the very same speech.
there's nowhere even near hospitable in this solar system
Thats why you build it and launch it into space.
One day billions of human beings will live on millions of space stations, each its own island in the void between your limited only-gravity-wells imagination.
You go ahead and live your life based on data dredging... there is always an infinite number of ways to crop the data triggering those 5% false positives 100% of the time... meanwhile the rest of us want actual science.
Not everyone swears in their day to day life, let alone at authority figures. Not everyone cheats. Not everyone lies.
So you are saying that some people do all of these things. Now start taking random samples from this population...
You do understand how this works, right? It is inevitable that eventually the last N randomly selected members with all swear, cheat, lie, etc...
If the situation cited here were common, your argument would have merit. However the situation cited here is a single outlier, so your argument doesnt apply. It is not only possible that every member of a class are among the top 5% worst behaving people, it is *inevitable* that eventually this will happen.
The subject of "optimal play" is always in terms of "an optimal opponent"
This doesnt define what the "best move" is if at least one player is not one of these "optimal players."
Here then is the problem: The grandparant learned about minimax and now think that he is an expert on chess engines, but hasn't actually put enough thought into it to even pretend to be an expert. He injects long series of assumptions into his arguments in order to reinforce his reliance on knowing what minimax is as being the focal point of his supposed expertise.
The fact continues to be that the "best move" is not defined by minimax. The best move is defined by all the same criteria that poker theorists rely on: The opponents knowledge, tendencies, etc...
In poker if both players are "optimal" then the sum of the game is $0.00, and the sum of the two different positions in heads up player are exactly opposite each other. Ergo "optimal" in poker has all the same characteristics that it does in chess so why then do we allow ourselves to use one definition of "best" in poker (happily declaring "because psychology!") while arbitrarily assign "only optimal is best" (happily declaring "fuck psychology!") in chess?
We only do so if we are naively trying to justify a belief that hasnt any other justification. You think the top human chess players arent psyching each other out? arent bluffing? then you havent been paying attention.
No -- There is an absolute best way to win in chess, from every possible position, and it can be calculated.
Wrong. If every move leads to a draw in minimax, that does not mean that ever move is equal. Your thinking is extremely shallow on this subject.
Your sort of thinking is the same reason that the top chess engines sometimes suicide against its opponent because while the top engine sees that it is lost (and thus immediately commences to delay the loss as long as possible by sacrificing every piece that it can) its opponent does not see it.
Its straight up suicide, and now you please explain how straight up suicide is "best" play.
Chess rating websites like CCRL is chock-full of games where the losing engine saw that it was losing while its opponent did not (the engine evals are in the pgn files), and then the losing engine proceeded to force the loss. Made sure that it happened. Guaranteed it. Saw to it that its opponent would eventually and with certainty find a win.
The problem is that the only real option you have is abstaining.
The problem here is that some people for some extremely bizarre reason think that stuff like cable television is a necessity. Because of this they think that abstaining causes them harm.
The facts are that if you are paying $150/month for your deluxe cable package, then you must think that its actually worth it. All the bitching about the cost is a dishonesty because its not a god damned necessity you god damned imbecile.
That said, it's entirely possible that Verizon's contract with ESPN is worded in such a way that they can get away with doing this. Verizon seems to think so, but ESPN seems to disagree. So that's where an impartial (theoretically) judge decides the result of how its worded, and how it will be enforced.
Also of note is that in the end even if ESPN wins in court, Verizon still does not have to do what ESPN wants them to do. In American contract law, it is always cold hard cash that makes the harmed party "whole." The court will put a dollar value on the contract breach and award it to the plaintiff if Verizon wants out of the contract.
In chess all players know the complete state and the best move is to make the beat move possible, regardless of what your opponent may be thinking.
For a highly restricted definition of "best", sure...
Chess isn't an AI problem,because it does not need to learn about the nature of your play.
It does if it wants a maximal score in a tournament...
You have defined "best" to mean "best against this opponent" in poker, but have arbitrarily defined "best" to not mean the same thing in chess.... there is no justification for using separate definitions here.
People struggle at memorizing chances, taking shortcuts, computers have exact picture talking into account every single bit.
Memorizing chances isn't very important in no-limit. A rough estimate is all you need because other factors will completely dominate whatever error exists in your estimate. When the implied odds can vary between ~1:1 and 100:1, the second or third digit of your estimate of the chances of making a winning hand (for instance, ~2.5:1 against making a flush) is drowned out.
In car analogy terms, its like worrying about if insurance will cover the broken taillight after your car has been t-boned at an intersection by another car going 60 mph. Yeah, it would be nice if the insurance will replace that taillight... but its more important that they will cover the hospital bills
I think he's wrong on this. A computer would still need to consider what his opponent thinks he holds and raise accordingly.
Isn't necessary for chess... the top competitive chess programs (like the foss stockfish...) are not the best suited to beating humans... they still beat humans repeatedly, without mercy, game after game after game. Even the world (human) chess champion (Magnus Carlsen) admits that playing one of these engines is like repeatedly ramming your head into a wall.
No, it doesnt depend. All the cards that you have seen are visible to you for the entire hand. Card counting is about remembering statistics about cards that you have seen but are no longer visible.
The guy that you linked to thinks that knowing how many outs you have is "card counting" -- no. you also apparently think so, which means that you cannot possibly have anything to add on this subject (and your ignorance on this subject is not a secret to you, so why are you pretending?)
Slashdot Mirror
You are looking at this shit all wrong, which is why I wont even bother with your absurd subsidy figures.
The fact is that the federal balance sheets have a big fat (+) next to oil companies, and and big fat (-) next to solar companies. One industry is putting hundreds of billions net per year into the federal budget, while another is taking billions net per year out.
Biased much?
And in your opinion, where from come the R&D money? From Santa Claus?
Primarily Uncle Sam.
You should head up the page to the subsidies argument, where you can bicker one way or the other about how the billions per year that the government hands out to green tech is or is not a subsidy.
My guess is you will find some way to justify the idea that it isnt a subsidy... just like right here where you found a way to ignore it completely.
I'm not sure how Yellow Taxi is some sort of "ideal" to strive for. Local taxi companies are corrupt and hand in hand with the politicians. The are exclusionary. I guess if opening up markets to new participants makes me "greedy" then I am "greedy".
You are blind to the disconnect between this view and your view on voters "voting against their best interests." Quite inconsistent. A yellow cab driver that supports uber and votes based on this support would be "voting against his/her best interests" as you so callously decided. You arent the arbiter of what is or is not in the best interest of others, especially when principles are on the table.
The above is proof that libertarianism is superior. We even let this guy above us decide for himself that he is to be our spokesperson.
Free to choose.
I'll never understand the hate for Uber. It reminds me of the middle class voting against their best interest.
What you decided was in their best interests.
Following ideals instead of greed is what a person thinks is generally in their best interests, but you have decided that doing this isn't in their best interests. This leads us to question why greed so easily overtakes your own ideals.
If you actually go to the Greenpeace web site
Greenpeace.. arent these the callous assholes that fucked up the Nazca site?
Here is the problem:
When your belief is a religion, you end up not giving a fuck what side effects you have while following that belief.
This not-giving-a-fuck goes well beyond the Nazca lines. All the warmers really care about is feeling good about themselves, which is it doesn't matter to them that their agenda is increased poverty. The 22000 children that already die every single day due to poverty doesn't matter. Thats 80 million per decade. 800 million children dead in the next century due to poverty if something isnt done.
The warmers have no concept of scale, and quite clearly there are no shits given by them about the side effects of their anti-co2 efforts.
New corrections are done monthly. Literally.
IEEE 754 is not magical, and neither is working with the IEEE 754 format at the binary level.
Those that think that its an "ugly hack" to do so are computer science illiterate. Like that other guy that thinks leveraging twos-complement is an ugly hack.
Pretenders dont know what ugly hacks are. You are one of them.
You are an idiot if you think that dredging data is "observation and experiment."
Water is a basic necessity of life. It's not a product.
Its also a chemical.
In fact, its a fracking chemical.
"Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers. The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present – and is gravely to be regarded. Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite. The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present – and is gravely to be regarded. It is the task of statesmanship to mold, to balance, and to integrate these and other forces, new and old, within the principles of our democratic system – ever aiming toward the supreme goals of our free society." - President Dwight D Eisenhower, Jan 17, 1961
Everyone remembers his points about the military industrial complex, but amazingly they forget his points about what he called the scientific-technological elite that he made in the very same speech.
Its not nitpicking when you are exposing propaganda spread by biased liars.
there's nowhere even near hospitable in this solar system
Thats why you build it and launch it into space.
One day billions of human beings will live on millions of space stations, each its own island in the void between your limited only-gravity-wells imagination.
You go ahead and live your life based on data dredging... there is always an infinite number of ways to crop the data triggering those 5% false positives 100% of the time... meanwhile the rest of us want actual science.
Not everyone swears in their day to day life, let alone at authority figures. Not everyone cheats. Not everyone lies.
So you are saying that some people do all of these things. Now start taking random samples from this population...
You do understand how this works, right? It is inevitable that eventually the last N randomly selected members with all swear, cheat, lie, etc...
If the situation cited here were common, your argument would have merit. However the situation cited here is a single outlier, so your argument doesnt apply. It is not only possible that every member of a class are among the top 5% worst behaving people, it is *inevitable* that eventually this will happen.
The subject of "optimal play" is always in terms of "an optimal opponent"
This doesnt define what the "best move" is if at least one player is not one of these "optimal players."
Here then is the problem: The grandparant learned about minimax and now think that he is an expert on chess engines, but hasn't actually put enough thought into it to even pretend to be an expert. He injects long series of assumptions into his arguments in order to reinforce his reliance on knowing what minimax is as being the focal point of his supposed expertise.
The fact continues to be that the "best move" is not defined by minimax. The best move is defined by all the same criteria that poker theorists rely on: The opponents knowledge, tendencies, etc...
In poker if both players are "optimal" then the sum of the game is $0.00, and the sum of the two different positions in heads up player are exactly opposite each other. Ergo "optimal" in poker has all the same characteristics that it does in chess so why then do we allow ourselves to use one definition of "best" in poker (happily declaring "because psychology!") while arbitrarily assign "only optimal is best" (happily declaring "fuck psychology!") in chess?
We only do so if we are naively trying to justify a belief that hasnt any other justification. You think the top human chess players arent psyching each other out? arent bluffing? then you havent been paying attention.
No -- There is an absolute best way to win in chess, from every possible position, and it can be calculated.
Wrong. If every move leads to a draw in minimax, that does not mean that ever move is equal. Your thinking is extremely shallow on this subject.
Your sort of thinking is the same reason that the top chess engines sometimes suicide against its opponent because while the top engine sees that it is lost (and thus immediately commences to delay the loss as long as possible by sacrificing every piece that it can) its opponent does not see it.
Its straight up suicide, and now you please explain how straight up suicide is "best" play.
Chess rating websites like CCRL is chock-full of games where the losing engine saw that it was losing while its opponent did not (the engine evals are in the pgn files), and then the losing engine proceeded to force the loss. Made sure that it happened. Guaranteed it. Saw to it that its opponent would eventually and with certainty find a win.
The problem is that the only real option you have is abstaining.
The problem here is that some people for some extremely bizarre reason think that stuff like cable television is a necessity. Because of this they think that abstaining causes them harm.
The facts are that if you are paying $150/month for your deluxe cable package, then you must think that its actually worth it. All the bitching about the cost is a dishonesty because its not a god damned necessity you god damned imbecile.
That said, it's entirely possible that Verizon's contract with ESPN is worded in such a way that they can get away with doing this. Verizon seems to think so, but ESPN seems to disagree. So that's where an impartial (theoretically) judge decides the result of how its worded, and how it will be enforced.
Also of note is that in the end even if ESPN wins in court, Verizon still does not have to do what ESPN wants them to do. In American contract law, it is always cold hard cash that makes the harmed party "whole." The court will put a dollar value on the contract breach and award it to the plaintiff if Verizon wants out of the contract.
In chess all players know the complete state and the best move is to make the beat move possible, regardless of what your opponent may be thinking.
For a highly restricted definition of "best", sure...
Chess isn't an AI problem,because it does not need to learn about the nature of your play.
It does if it wants a maximal score in a tournament...
You have defined "best" to mean "best against this opponent" in poker, but have arbitrarily defined "best" to not mean the same thing in chess.... there is no justification for using separate definitions here.
You want AI that's capable of making good decisions even when the information is incomplete.
People struggle at memorizing chances, taking shortcuts, computers have exact picture talking into account every single bit.
Memorizing chances isn't very important in no-limit. A rough estimate is all you need because other factors will completely dominate whatever error exists in your estimate. When the implied odds can vary between ~1:1 and 100:1, the second or third digit of your estimate of the chances of making a winning hand (for instance, ~2.5:1 against making a flush) is drowned out.
In car analogy terms, its like worrying about if insurance will cover the broken taillight after your car has been t-boned at an intersection by another car going 60 mph. Yeah, it would be nice if the insurance will replace that taillight... but its more important that they will cover the hospital bills
I think he's wrong on this. A computer would still need to consider what his opponent thinks he holds and raise accordingly.
Isn't necessary for chess... the top competitive chess programs (like the foss stockfish...) are not the best suited to beating humans... they still beat humans repeatedly, without mercy, game after game after game. Even the world (human) chess champion (Magnus Carlsen) admits that playing one of these engines is like repeatedly ramming your head into a wall.
No, it doesnt depend. All the cards that you have seen are visible to you for the entire hand. Card counting is about remembering statistics about cards that you have seen but are no longer visible.
The guy that you linked to thinks that knowing how many outs you have is "card counting" -- no. you also apparently think so, which means that you cannot possibly have anything to add on this subject (and your ignorance on this subject is not a secret to you, so why are you pretending?)
I do not understand why people do not use the proper term for this, data dredging.