This is the same problem as DNA 'fingerprinting'. Statistically, there are likely to be around 50 people in the UK who have the same DNA fingerprint..
Not that I'm doubting your 'integrity' (fwiw, I'm not) but this is a new statistic to me and one which, if true, is seriously troubling.
Would you, by any chance, have a reference to a reliable source for this figure? If that reference went into detail regarding accuracy based on number of STR's used or the number of sample sites or the like so much the better.
I have had a quick search online but I'm not seeing anything that would suggest a figure anywhere remotely close to the one you give (ignoring immediate family for a second, a 1 in 64 billion chance of a similar profile doesn't give rise to your statistic in a population of about 65 million people). Hence a link would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, in advance!
Yeah, I wanted to see this show... the acting was terrible...
To be fair, this is nothing new for the first episode of a new series, especially Star Trek. Try watching "Encounter at Farpoint" (at least I think that was what it was called: Series 1, Episode 1 of ST:TNG) again. Honestly, the characters were more wooden than a piece of 2" x 4". Whilst I haven't seen it, and am not likely to for the foreseeable future, I'd be tempted to give the actors a couple of episodes to 'settle' into their characters... that is, unless the rest was as bad as you say (and I have no reason, at all, to doubt you) in which case, fair enough - good riddance.
I think I understand what you're saying but, while I tend to agree with your (perceived) viewpoint, I think GP has a point regarding the slope. Take a simple, if extreme, example:
Person A says "I will give you £10,000 if you kill Person C", and, soon after, Person B kills Person C.
Clearly Person B is responsible for the murder, but what of Person A? Do they have any culpability at all and, if so, does that culpability begin the moment they spoke, the moment of the killing, the moment they pay Person B, or some other moment?
Sure, in the absolute, Person A is not responsible for the actions of Person B (barring issues of 'sound mind', 'parental responsibility', or other relational factors between the actors), but if they have influenced those actions it could be seen as reasonable to (be able to) question the extent of that influence and, if 'necessary', impose repercussions (to 'train' the behaviour out of society).
... I know it is much safer to do that when I am more car lengths ahead of someone else than following behind him.
It's cute that you can simplify the problem down to you and one other car and pretend that the 'solution' holds for all other problems in the class.
People will hack the AI because it exists. Owners will do so because it will make their car cooler. Others will do it because it is a challenge and they can get their leet haxor creds by causing damage.
And that would pretty much settle the question of where to start looking to 'apportion blame' in the event of an accident.
(on the other hand I make no opinion on whether people should be allowed to tinker with the programming or firmware of their cars (it'll take all night...))
If you were able to come up with a relatively simple general solution, it's not very hard for a computer to calculate 1mil x 1mil grid (https://www.quora.com/How-many-operations-per-second-can-a-computer-do-How-is-it-related-to-GHz). If you can parallelize this problem (which will do so nicely), the processing time of that experiment won't be noticeable. Proving that it's properly parallelized is another NP problem.
What you should be happy with is that in today's age of terrorism, despite that terrorists directly go after civilians that we simply don't level entire towns and cities like we used to.
Any reduction in violence is a good thing, on this I think we broadly agree.
But, while I would like to agree with your 'reason for happiness' I find little cause for happiness. Some of the 'before and after pictures' in Syria are heartbreaking.
If you'd care to agree, instead, that while there has been a blessed reduction in (the number of) some 'atrocities', and that is a reason we should be less 'unhappy' about it, there is a very long way to go before we can claim to be happy with the situation. (?)
I share CustomSolvers2's reserve in your apparent assumption that a technique that works specifically(?) on an 8*8 board would work for larger boards. A simple, and obvious test would be to try it with a 9*9 grid, and eyeball the result - though you'd have to implement some way to view the proposed solution for that board size. I don't even know, does the particular algorithm you're using work for all the smaller board sizes as well? FWIW, I'm a bit ashamed to admit I do not currently understand your code, nor, fully, the algorithm.
I note that you said the 'program' took about 1 second to run for a grid size of 1,000. While I think I could figure out roughly the running time for a grid of 1,000,000 perhaps you could 'weigh in'?
I was going to say something along these lines in my original post, but I couldn't be bothered to look up any links to support such an assertion, so thank you.
They did sort of back up my somewhat flippant up-side though:
"...they theorised that parents may benefit from social and financial support from their children in older age, which childless people lose out on."
I did find the fact that the differences in life expectancy diminished as age increased somewhat interesting I must admit, but, like my personal observations, that might simply be an artifact of that particular study and not actually 'a thing'.
LOL, have you seen what they've done to Game of Thrones.
Made it one of the most widely anticipated, watched, and talked about shows anywhere on the planet right now? Created a series that has, if anything, gained in popularity over six(?) seasons, and made them buckets of money in subscriptions, licensing, and dvd / blu-ray sales?
HBO are overrated garbage. I wouldn't count on Netflix, either. They've got plenty of stinkers to their credit.
Oh, right, you're a critic not a consumer (nor presumably a creator).
Well congratulations, enjoy your pretensions of taste and discernment.
Slashdot Mirror
This is the same problem as DNA 'fingerprinting'. Statistically, there are likely to be around 50 people in the UK who have the same DNA fingerprint..
Not that I'm doubting your 'integrity' (fwiw, I'm not) but this is a new statistic to me and one which, if true, is seriously troubling.
Would you, by any chance, have a reference to a reliable source for this figure? If that reference went into detail regarding accuracy based on number of STR's used or the number of sample sites or the like so much the better.
I have had a quick search online but I'm not seeing anything that would suggest a figure anywhere remotely close to the one you give (ignoring immediate family for a second, a 1 in 64 billion chance of a similar profile doesn't give rise to your statistic in a population of about 65 million people). Hence a link would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, in advance!
Weird, =/=
Never saw that ideogram in 45 years of coding and design.
Just goes to show that all education / experiences are not equal...
Yeah, I wanted to see this show ... the acting was terrible...
To be fair, this is nothing new for the first episode of a new series, especially Star Trek. Try watching "Encounter at Farpoint" (at least I think that was what it was called: Series 1, Episode 1 of ST:TNG) again. Honestly, the characters were more wooden than a piece of 2" x 4". Whilst I haven't seen it, and am not likely to for the foreseeable future, I'd be tempted to give the actors a couple of episodes to 'settle' into their characters ... that is, unless the rest was as bad as you say (and I have no reason, at all, to doubt you) in which case, fair enough - good riddance.
feed them proper grass and neither corn nor soy beans... problem solved
Unfortunately that doesn't solve the problem.
This, however, might...
Plants don't crave gin and tonic...
The real reason ... is because ... Gasoline is taxed more than diesel...
And what reason, do you think, explains why governments reduced that tax on diesel?
(I'll give you a clue: incentivise behaviour you want to see more of.)
I think I understand what you're saying but, while I tend to agree with your (perceived) viewpoint, I think GP has a point regarding the slope. Take a simple, if extreme, example:
Person A says "I will give you £10,000 if you kill Person C", and, soon after, Person B kills Person C.
Clearly Person B is responsible for the murder, but what of Person A? Do they have any culpability at all and, if so, does that culpability begin the moment they spoke, the moment of the killing, the moment they pay Person B, or some other moment?
Sure, in the absolute, Person A is not responsible for the actions of Person B (barring issues of 'sound mind', 'parental responsibility', or other relational factors between the actors), but if they have influenced those actions it could be seen as reasonable to (be able to) question the extent of that influence and, if 'necessary', impose repercussions (to 'train' the behaviour out of society).
..."English," in tennis and pool.
But that's just not cricket!
... I know it is much safer to do that when I am more car lengths ahead of someone else than following behind him.
It's cute that you can simplify the problem down to you and one other car and pretend that the 'solution' holds for all other problems in the class.
People will hack the AI because it exists. Owners will do so because it will make their car cooler. Others will do it because it is a challenge and they can get their leet haxor creds by causing damage.
And that would pretty much settle the question of where to start looking to 'apportion blame' in the event of an accident.
(on the other hand I make no opinion on whether people should be allowed to tinker with the programming or firmware of their cars (it'll take all night...))
Welcome my son, welcome to the machine
Thanks. That was very informative.
I don't think 1,000,000 is feasible with this algorithm.
You might be right. It might not be productive either.
Thanks.
If you were able to come up with a relatively simple general solution, it's not very hard for a computer to calculate 1mil x 1mil grid (https://www.quora.com/How-many-operations-per-second-can-a-computer-do-How-is-it-related-to-GHz). If you can parallelize this problem (which will do so nicely), the processing time of that experiment won't be noticeable. Proving that it's properly parallelized is another NP problem.
And I tend to agree.
Troubling isn't it.
Partially a side effect of contractors for everything and enough shell corps to sell at the beach, I'll be bound.
I'm English.
Are you sure that I'll only tell you to fuck off if you call me Scottish? :-)
Funny, because it might be true. ;-)
What you should be happy with is that in today's age of terrorism, despite that terrorists directly go after civilians that we simply don't level entire towns and cities like we used to.
Any reduction in violence is a good thing, on this I think we broadly agree.
But, while I would like to agree with your 'reason for happiness' I find little cause for happiness. Some of the 'before and after pictures' in Syria are heartbreaking.
If you'd care to agree, instead, that while there has been a blessed reduction in (the number of) some 'atrocities', and that is a reason we should be less 'unhappy' about it, there is a very long way to go before we can claim to be happy with the situation. (?)
I share CustomSolvers2's reserve in your apparent assumption that a technique that works specifically(?) on an 8*8 board would work for larger boards. A simple, and obvious test would be to try it with a 9*9 grid, and eyeball the result - though you'd have to implement some way to view the proposed solution for that board size. I don't even know, does the particular algorithm you're using work for all the smaller board sizes as well? FWIW, I'm a bit ashamed to admit I do not currently understand your code, nor, fully, the algorithm.
I note that you said the 'program' took about 1 second to run for a grid size of 1,000. While I think I could figure out roughly the running time for a grid of 1,000,000 perhaps you could 'weigh in'?
Thanks
I confess I didn't understand the code, but that doesn't prevent me asking:
How long did it take to run for n=1,000?
How long will it take to run for n=1,000,000?
Mine too.
What a day to have no mod points.
+1 Insightful
And what do the union representatives want?
I can't say it any better than this!
I thought his meaning was pretty clear from his post, after all he actually included examples of what he meant.
His point: The rate of tax doesn't increase as the value of your property increases.
Your Counter: The amount of tax you pay increases as the value of your property increases.
Not the same thing at all!
I was going to say something along these lines in my original post, but I couldn't be bothered to look up any links to support such an assertion, so thank you.
They did sort of back up my somewhat flippant up-side though:
"...they theorised that parents may benefit from social and financial support from their children in older age, which childless people lose out on."
I did find the fact that the differences in life expectancy diminished as age increased somewhat interesting I must admit, but, like my personal observations, that might simply be an artifact of that particular study and not actually 'a thing'.
Working Title
"Cabin Boy 2: The Dirty Little Nipper"
Reading that reminded me of "The Good Ship Venus", the relevant verse going something like:
The cabin boy was chipper
Pernicious little nipper
He stuffed his arse with broken glass
And circumcised the skipper
Ah the songs we remember from our youth...
LOL, have you seen what they've done to Game of Thrones.
Made it one of the most widely anticipated, watched, and talked about shows anywhere on the planet right now? Created a series that has, if anything, gained in popularity over six(?) seasons, and made them buckets of money in subscriptions, licensing, and dvd / blu-ray sales?
HBO are overrated garbage. I wouldn't count on Netflix, either. They've got plenty of stinkers to their credit.
Oh, right, you're a critic not a consumer (nor presumably a creator).
Well congratulations, enjoy your pretensions of taste and discernment.