I'd really like to see a rundown of what moves the program its self thought were clutch. And how it predicted the game would have played out had it acted differently.
I believe the argument is a catch 22 of sorts. Medical professionals are inclined to believe that suicide isn't rational. If you view suicide as a rational choice then you shouldn't be allowed to make your own decisions. I guess that doesn't really speak to the legality question, but our society has a bad habit of making poor decisions illegal.
I didn't play until Fallen Empires, I think. But I was aware of the problems with the first edition, Black Lotus, Moxs and such. Those issues were seemingly mostly fixed by the time I started playing and I don't remember them cropping up much for the few years I played. I do seem to remember some kind of infinite mana combination that was resolved for tournament play by insisting that the player actually manipulate and declare each card/action for every step and iteration of the loop, thus limiting how infinite it could actually be via the play clock.
I didn't think they had computed every possible move and end state. But I think they've reduced it to probability trees or some such and can effectively rule out whole trees of possible moves as being unproductive towards a winning end state.
MTG in my mind is pretty limited. Your deck is going to have a finite size, and hand size is limited. Some cards can recycle used cards to prolong play but there is a relatively predictable end of play in terms of turns. Most deck builds will have a key strategy or two for winning which establishes a simple order of play. The only thing that really makes MTG difficult to play is the same factors that are at play in other card games where players hold a hand, namely luck of the draw and bluffing. As a result a computer is likely to only ever be as good as human players instead of far outpacing them. The only exception I can really think of to that would be a computer that had true lie detection abilities, although this is probably an impossible technology.
As it is I can think of a number of decks I played as a child in the 90's that would be very easy for a computer to play. White, black, and green creature decks would be simple to code for. Blue counter spell/denial and Tim decks would be relatively easy though require perhaps a little more work. Red direct damage would probably be the simplest to code.
One of the things that actually disappointed me the last time I played MTG was the prevalence of cards apparently designed with the intention of ending a game in under half a dozen turns. Maybe it's my rose tinted glasses but I don't remember that being as common when I played as a kid. The last game I played was with maybe half a dozen players each playing a different deck that angled for luck of the draw to win the game in three to five turns.
The smaller a jet engine the less efficient it is because of mechanical limits in the manufacturing process. Although technology has improved a good bit in the last few decades and smaller jet engines are far more practical than they were in the 80's. Even with those improvements though military drones mostly use props when endurance is a concern and speed isn't.
401K matching and equity is what I'd call long term, 5% cost of living adjustment every year is huge, even in the relatively short term. I mean if you are looking for a job and not planning to keep it for a year or more then you're really looking for contract or consulting work.
You can add carpenters to the list of viable jobs. Maybe the framing carpenters that are just cutting and nailing 2x4's together aren't rolling in it, but I knew a construction manager more than a decade ago who was having trouble finding a finish carpenter and was offering $30 an hour to start.
I don't think many parents really believe their kid is going to be a rock star someday. They probably have realized though that they haven't made practical use of much of their higher math education. Consequentially they don't see the sense in fighting with their child to make them learn it, if it falls outside their interest.
I've got a landline, but basically only because my work requires that I have real phone service. I don't keep a cell phone either as in my situation it'd be a waste 99% of the time, or more.
All that does is change the physics calculations which the computer would need to use. Which a computer is far better suited to do on the fly than a person. The car could also easily be equipped to identify dangerous road conditions before the car is actually in the midst of them. And once the car is on ice it would be able to react to changing conditions on a scale of milliseconds while a person at best deals in tenths of seconds.
I can see this being an issue a bit at first. But as SDC's hit a critical mass it'll stop being an issue because SDC's and their correct driving behavior will be the standard. Hell, I can easily foresee a day when human drivers will only be allowed on closed tracks. Auto accidents like the one you mention will likely become a thing of the past and be a real rarity. Rush hours will likely be much less of a hassle because the SDC's will be able to handle the congestion much more efficiently and intelligently.
That risk is very likely astronomically lower than the risk you, or any human, pose as a driver. So far as I've heard every accident that a SDC has been involved in was clearly the fault of the human driver in the other vehicle.
DFAS and MHS are both excellent and highly visible examples to cite here. That said there are hundreds if not thousands of smaller applications that are just as problematic because they were never designed and built with security in mind. When dealing with these entrenched programs security usually boils down to everyone filing mountains of CYA paperwork rather than actually securing anything.
I recently witnessed a branch of a government agency completely dismantle it's technical security group. All the employees who specialized in technical security were moved into their corresponding technical groups. The theory that was bandied about was that those people would train everyone on security and it'd just become a part of everyone's job. This largely falls apart though when the person conducting a security audit is also the person responsible for fixing the holes and appeasing the customers by not causing downtime or telling them their application needs a redesign to be more secure. The people in charge are most concerned with keeping customers happy and so security only becomes a critical issue when it has already failed. In the end nothing is actually done to improve security and instead monumental paper work processes are implemented for CYA purposes, which certainly doesn't speed up or improve the way anything gets done. Something that makes it even sadder is that this feeds back in on its self with much of the security checks becoming verification that the proper CYA bullshit is properly filed.
What I take issue with is that the arbitrary size measures they used didn't have any expectation of improving the quality of the candidate. I agree that the college degree is also arbitrary but it does set a baseline for some desirable skills/traits, even if that baseline is much lower than some would like to think.
While limiting the number of applicants is useful, doing so based on arbitrary size requirements is a very silly way of doing it. If you want to limit your candidate pool you should at least use a measure that increase the odds of getting someone with some desirable trait. Which is probably why one of the first requirements to be an officer in all branches is a college degree.
When I looked awhile back one of the best years on record for the FBI was merely identifying 50% of the suspects in bank robberies. Despite the hype it would seem the chances of getting caught aren't all that high if one is semi competent. The big downside though is that it really doesn't pay all that well. It is far and away safer to just get a normal job.
I remember a few years back it was noticed that the Air Force crashed a higher percentage of its drones than the Army. One of the big operational differences that caused this was that the Army let to drones handle take off and landings automatically, while the Air Force insisted on a human pilot doing it remotely. If that is still an issue then it could be contributing to the numbers in this report, especially as the Air Force has trouble finding and retaining drone pilots.
I consider myself smarter than the average bear, although I've no idea how much smarter. Motivation has always been a problem for me, even though I've never used any illegal drugs. In grade school I realized pretty early on that I could manage a passing grade without studying and usually without doing homework. From there on out I did the minimum necessary to get by and my grade cards showed it. If there had been some kind of carrot that interested me I might have been motivated to do better, but honor/merit rolls and college never really appealed to me. Meanwhile I know someone who is dyslexic but got straight A's because she wanted to go to college, and knew that an academic scholarship would be her only hope. She studied her ass off all the time and today has a Masters Degree and professional license to her name.
I'm for investment in mass transit, although I'd be really ecstatic if my community would at least invest in sidewalks and pedestrian crossings.
The problem that I see with denser housing in the USA is it would face huge social hurdles. There is a whole movement of people wanting to live in tiny houses. But the catch is that they don't want that tiny house stacked on top of another and surrounded on every side by similar units. They are going with a tiny living space so that they have more of their outside space usable. Most Americans still dream of owning a single family home with separate bedrooms for each child and plenty of living space to sprawl. Changing that mindset is certainly possible, but it'd require concerted effort shaping peoples hopes and dreams on a massive scale
It could amount to a very shrewd investment. We have about 30K traffic fatalities a year, which over the span of this proposal would amount to 300k deaths. If autonomous cars cut that number in half it'd cost us about $27k per life, again over the course of the ten years. The extra taxes you get to collect from those people over the course of the rest of their lives could quite possibly pay back that investment. And it's not like once the decade of funding is over autonomous cars would stop saving lives.
I'm curious what other areas you feel we as a society would be better served by investing $4 Billion in? Personally I'd suspect some medical research avenues might have better potential, but are likely already well funded. Even if there are better ways to spend the money, it isn't like we can only fund one such area at a time.
The danger isn't that some hacker would/could find some kind of nuclear launch codes or some equivalent. The danger is that if some basement dwelling teenage hacker can accomplish this, what does it say about our high level leaders vulnerability to more nefarious people and states. And you don't have to find the keys to the kingdom, or even anything that would ordinarily be classified. In Vietnam VC spies would simply observe when large formations of air craft took off, and what direction they where heading, that was enough to compromise operational security largely reducing the effectiveness of such missions.
My Father decades ago worked writing software for mainframes in assembler. Part of his compensation was some percentage of commission on sales and licensing of stuff he wrote. A fellow co-worker and him both noticed over the years that whenever either of their pay managed to exceed their managers pay for the year the commission percentage would get trimmed a little for the next year. My Father never seemed to indicate that this upset him, but he did seem to take perverse pleasure in pushing his pay high enough to get the commission cut each year.
I would argue that it led to trouble because you and your co-workers were 15 years old and couldn't behave and think like responsible adults. The entire Federal Government basically has open pay data. There is actually a site, I'm too lazy to look up atm, which lets you lookup how many civil servants, and of what pay grade, work for every agency. Within agencies everyone knows what pay grade everyone else is in. Many people will complain about how the government can't do anything right, but when it comes to fair and equal employment the federal government is heads and shoulders above most private industry.
Slashdot Mirror
I'd really like to see a rundown of what moves the program its self thought were clutch. And how it predicted the game would have played out had it acted differently.
I believe the argument is a catch 22 of sorts. Medical professionals are inclined to believe that suicide isn't rational. If you view suicide as a rational choice then you shouldn't be allowed to make your own decisions. I guess that doesn't really speak to the legality question, but our society has a bad habit of making poor decisions illegal.
I didn't play until Fallen Empires, I think. But I was aware of the problems with the first edition, Black Lotus, Moxs and such. Those issues were seemingly mostly fixed by the time I started playing and I don't remember them cropping up much for the few years I played. I do seem to remember some kind of infinite mana combination that was resolved for tournament play by insisting that the player actually manipulate and declare each card/action for every step and iteration of the loop, thus limiting how infinite it could actually be via the play clock.
I didn't think they had computed every possible move and end state. But I think they've reduced it to probability trees or some such and can effectively rule out whole trees of possible moves as being unproductive towards a winning end state.
MTG in my mind is pretty limited. Your deck is going to have a finite size, and hand size is limited. Some cards can recycle used cards to prolong play but there is a relatively predictable end of play in terms of turns. Most deck builds will have a key strategy or two for winning which establishes a simple order of play. The only thing that really makes MTG difficult to play is the same factors that are at play in other card games where players hold a hand, namely luck of the draw and bluffing. As a result a computer is likely to only ever be as good as human players instead of far outpacing them. The only exception I can really think of to that would be a computer that had true lie detection abilities, although this is probably an impossible technology.
As it is I can think of a number of decks I played as a child in the 90's that would be very easy for a computer to play. White, black, and green creature decks would be simple to code for. Blue counter spell/denial and Tim decks would be relatively easy though require perhaps a little more work. Red direct damage would probably be the simplest to code.
One of the things that actually disappointed me the last time I played MTG was the prevalence of cards apparently designed with the intention of ending a game in under half a dozen turns. Maybe it's my rose tinted glasses but I don't remember that being as common when I played as a kid. The last game I played was with maybe half a dozen players each playing a different deck that angled for luck of the draw to win the game in three to five turns.
The smaller a jet engine the less efficient it is because of mechanical limits in the manufacturing process. Although technology has improved a good bit in the last few decades and smaller jet engines are far more practical than they were in the 80's. Even with those improvements though military drones mostly use props when endurance is a concern and speed isn't.
401K matching and equity is what I'd call long term, 5% cost of living adjustment every year is huge, even in the relatively short term. I mean if you are looking for a job and not planning to keep it for a year or more then you're really looking for contract or consulting work.
You can add carpenters to the list of viable jobs. Maybe the framing carpenters that are just cutting and nailing 2x4's together aren't rolling in it, but I knew a construction manager more than a decade ago who was having trouble finding a finish carpenter and was offering $30 an hour to start.
I don't think many parents really believe their kid is going to be a rock star someday. They probably have realized though that they haven't made practical use of much of their higher math education. Consequentially they don't see the sense in fighting with their child to make them learn it, if it falls outside their interest.
I've got a landline, but basically only because my work requires that I have real phone service. I don't keep a cell phone either as in my situation it'd be a waste 99% of the time, or more.
All that does is change the physics calculations which the computer would need to use. Which a computer is far better suited to do on the fly than a person. The car could also easily be equipped to identify dangerous road conditions before the car is actually in the midst of them. And once the car is on ice it would be able to react to changing conditions on a scale of milliseconds while a person at best deals in tenths of seconds.
I can see this being an issue a bit at first. But as SDC's hit a critical mass it'll stop being an issue because SDC's and their correct driving behavior will be the standard. Hell, I can easily foresee a day when human drivers will only be allowed on closed tracks. Auto accidents like the one you mention will likely become a thing of the past and be a real rarity. Rush hours will likely be much less of a hassle because the SDC's will be able to handle the congestion much more efficiently and intelligently.
That risk is very likely astronomically lower than the risk you, or any human, pose as a driver. So far as I've heard every accident that a SDC has been involved in was clearly the fault of the human driver in the other vehicle.
DFAS and MHS are both excellent and highly visible examples to cite here. That said there are hundreds if not thousands of smaller applications that are just as problematic because they were never designed and built with security in mind. When dealing with these entrenched programs security usually boils down to everyone filing mountains of CYA paperwork rather than actually securing anything.
I recently witnessed a branch of a government agency completely dismantle it's technical security group. All the employees who specialized in technical security were moved into their corresponding technical groups. The theory that was bandied about was that those people would train everyone on security and it'd just become a part of everyone's job. This largely falls apart though when the person conducting a security audit is also the person responsible for fixing the holes and appeasing the customers by not causing downtime or telling them their application needs a redesign to be more secure. The people in charge are most concerned with keeping customers happy and so security only becomes a critical issue when it has already failed. In the end nothing is actually done to improve security and instead monumental paper work processes are implemented for CYA purposes, which certainly doesn't speed up or improve the way anything gets done. Something that makes it even sadder is that this feeds back in on its self with much of the security checks becoming verification that the proper CYA bullshit is properly filed.
What I take issue with is that the arbitrary size measures they used didn't have any expectation of improving the quality of the candidate. I agree that the college degree is also arbitrary but it does set a baseline for some desirable skills/traits, even if that baseline is much lower than some would like to think.
While limiting the number of applicants is useful, doing so based on arbitrary size requirements is a very silly way of doing it. If you want to limit your candidate pool you should at least use a measure that increase the odds of getting someone with some desirable trait. Which is probably why one of the first requirements to be an officer in all branches is a college degree.
The civilian count is likely only counting Civil Servants. Contractors could very easily make up the difference.
When I looked awhile back one of the best years on record for the FBI was merely identifying 50% of the suspects in bank robberies. Despite the hype it would seem the chances of getting caught aren't all that high if one is semi competent. The big downside though is that it really doesn't pay all that well. It is far and away safer to just get a normal job.
I remember a few years back it was noticed that the Air Force crashed a higher percentage of its drones than the Army. One of the big operational differences that caused this was that the Army let to drones handle take off and landings automatically, while the Air Force insisted on a human pilot doing it remotely. If that is still an issue then it could be contributing to the numbers in this report, especially as the Air Force has trouble finding and retaining drone pilots.
I consider myself smarter than the average bear, although I've no idea how much smarter. Motivation has always been a problem for me, even though I've never used any illegal drugs. In grade school I realized pretty early on that I could manage a passing grade without studying and usually without doing homework. From there on out I did the minimum necessary to get by and my grade cards showed it. If there had been some kind of carrot that interested me I might have been motivated to do better, but honor/merit rolls and college never really appealed to me. Meanwhile I know someone who is dyslexic but got straight A's because she wanted to go to college, and knew that an academic scholarship would be her only hope. She studied her ass off all the time and today has a Masters Degree and professional license to her name.
I'm for investment in mass transit, although I'd be really ecstatic if my community would at least invest in sidewalks and pedestrian crossings.
The problem that I see with denser housing in the USA is it would face huge social hurdles. There is a whole movement of people wanting to live in tiny houses. But the catch is that they don't want that tiny house stacked on top of another and surrounded on every side by similar units. They are going with a tiny living space so that they have more of their outside space usable. Most Americans still dream of owning a single family home with separate bedrooms for each child and plenty of living space to sprawl. Changing that mindset is certainly possible, but it'd require concerted effort shaping peoples hopes and dreams on a massive scale
It could amount to a very shrewd investment. We have about 30K traffic fatalities a year, which over the span of this proposal would amount to 300k deaths. If autonomous cars cut that number in half it'd cost us about $27k per life, again over the course of the ten years. The extra taxes you get to collect from those people over the course of the rest of their lives could quite possibly pay back that investment. And it's not like once the decade of funding is over autonomous cars would stop saving lives.
I'm curious what other areas you feel we as a society would be better served by investing $4 Billion in? Personally I'd suspect some medical research avenues might have better potential, but are likely already well funded. Even if there are better ways to spend the money, it isn't like we can only fund one such area at a time.
The danger isn't that some hacker would/could find some kind of nuclear launch codes or some equivalent. The danger is that if some basement dwelling teenage hacker can accomplish this, what does it say about our high level leaders vulnerability to more nefarious people and states. And you don't have to find the keys to the kingdom, or even anything that would ordinarily be classified. In Vietnam VC spies would simply observe when large formations of air craft took off, and what direction they where heading, that was enough to compromise operational security largely reducing the effectiveness of such missions.
My Father decades ago worked writing software for mainframes in assembler. Part of his compensation was some percentage of commission on sales and licensing of stuff he wrote. A fellow co-worker and him both noticed over the years that whenever either of their pay managed to exceed their managers pay for the year the commission percentage would get trimmed a little for the next year. My Father never seemed to indicate that this upset him, but he did seem to take perverse pleasure in pushing his pay high enough to get the commission cut each year.
I would argue that it led to trouble because you and your co-workers were 15 years old and couldn't behave and think like responsible adults. The entire Federal Government basically has open pay data. There is actually a site, I'm too lazy to look up atm, which lets you lookup how many civil servants, and of what pay grade, work for every agency. Within agencies everyone knows what pay grade everyone else is in. Many people will complain about how the government can't do anything right, but when it comes to fair and equal employment the federal government is heads and shoulders above most private industry.