But now you've changed your point to something that I never argued against in the first place. Statistics surely do have to inform your betting, but I was arguing against playing purely on statistics. You're still operating under the false assumption that it's your cards that make the plays work, but that's quite a small part of it.
Yes, you do need to inform your play based on statistics, but my claim was that a perfect statistical player is in fact so bad they cannot win. I was not arguing the false dichotomy that therefore any of use statistics is invalid!
Is this the part where you acknowledge that you aren't familiar with the term meta-game?
Any purely probabilistic strategy is countered by meta shift. Oh, I know, you're the guy that inevitably always suggests putting in a random number element to make it 'unpredictable'! No one ever tried that!
Let me guess, you got to the bit in maths where you applied probabilities to things and the world made sense, but not to the bit where you learn when probabilities don't work?
Are you that guy in every AI discussion that insists that with enough compute power, any problem is probabilistic!
It's a moving target. The dynamic is more like rock, paper, scissors with a few extra orders of magnitude.
But hey, since you seem to be under the impression that your inadequate understanding of the maths is gold, go make the AI. I mean, it's not like no one else has tried and this is a *known block* that you so bravely declare solvable.
It's clear that you must be better at this than me and all the other people that properly understand the domain.;)
No, there's no misinterpretation, that was exactly what I thought you meant.
I'm saying that that is fundamentally untrue. A risk adverse chip strategy will lose almost always even to novice players because their risk taking will bias probabilistic estimates!
The problem isn't about the necessity for a highly optimised chip strategy, it's that a prefect probability game is inherently incompatible with ANY basic chip strategy that can even match the average player.
By committing to a perfect probability game you make *all* other winning strategies impossible.
It's not a missing component in an ideal strategy that other components can make up for, it's a component that literally makes you lose. It's not a "this didn't contribute to a win", it's a "this directly contributes so much to losing that you can't win".
Obviously accounting for variance in games - everyone wins sometimes out of luck - this strategy basically guarantees that unless every player you meet is a clueless novice, and you're also lucky, you lose.
You've skipped the whole rest of the post where it explains why probabilistic strategies do not work, and where meta-game is often equally as important.
There is no optimal based on probability, you are not properly understanding the maths and game.
But then big stacks play off on each other, so in order to avoid them bullying you, you also lose most opportunities to recover the ground.
Good players often take more risks as the game goes on specifically because the probabilities narrow. Mid to late game starts requiring calculated losses and risks, and if you play probabilities then you lose to that. Will you push in your 80% AA pre flop? What if three people call behind? That's the thing about poker. You're not playing to win a single game because that's not reasonable or possible. Luck factors will overwhelm any single outcome.
You're playing to win *more games than you lose*.
A trash player is rolling 60% return. They will get there occasionally through luck. They might even play a good hand in the mix. But over many games that 60% return is a 40% loss. A great player is rolling a 110% return. That still means luck pops them out a lot. It means bad beats 10 games in a row. It means the occasional gamble you know is the wrong call but you can't resist it. But after 50 games your average return trends to positive.
It's not like chess or go, you don't play then decide who is better and that is that. It's more like a casino where you bring your own dice dependant on your skill level. If you're good enough then you weight the averages in your favour, if you're not then you enjoy your wins as you gradually spend your bankroll.
When you play casino games it's not the single outcome that decides, it's the weight of many. The house always wins in the end because it has a small probability advantage spread over thousands of games.
Poker bots simply cannot maintain that consistency because doing the maths isn't enough. Because the good players have weighted their dice in different ways that matter more than playing the maths can come close to. Because it's not the average of individual hands that makes success, but the average of outcomes that require game threatening risks to achieve.
Because weighting your coin to give heads 60% of the time by playing probability isn't useful if your payout condition Is 10 heads in a row. What you'd really want is a coin that gives the same result as the prior flip 80% of the time instead. You get streaks of tails losing, but also a much much higher chance of 10 in a row. Yet if you counted the flips over a long period of time it'd be just a 50% chance of heads. Win conditions change the relevance of probability!
Winning 600 out of 1000 hands still earns you nothing if you needed to get 100 of those hands into the one game. You need a cluster of success to make the money, not merely be better in most hands you play.
That's why poker isn't yet a solved AI problem. Even when it is, players will adapt their games and the meta game will change and new bots will be needed. We see this effect in online video game competition already, where meta-game matters just as much or more than the quality of your individual play.
Incorrect. I never made any such assumption or claim.
I said that a specific weakness is too egregious to be successful, which is near the opposite.
Playing probabilities is not merely 'a relevant category', it's a fundamental fail that is so easily seen and broken by other players there's no way to victory.
There are a few basics you simply cannot exclude that aren't a matter of tactic or style. There's a lot of variation in aggression and risk vs chip gain, and in that respect you'd be right, but if you pay to probabilities you lose so much chip speed that you fail to meet the minimum threshold for being competitive.
There is a minimum cut off, because there are blinds. If you can't out pace them, you *cannot* win regardless of *all* other 'relevant categories'.
It's like attempting to win a marathon that's longer than the distance you can run.
But it does work that way because when playing probability alone if others rarely bet you then you build no stack. Then eventually there will be that hand that it has the 80%+ chance on versus a mammoth stack. Big stack takes the 20% chance call because it only cost them 10% of their stack and they potentially KO a player.
If you play probability alone you will get to mid game watching the dead money go to better players. The they will out stack your probabilities through sheer abuse of their stack.
Amatuers think that probabilities save them. They are merely donors to the winning pot.
Don't confuse being able to beat your mates with maths with the notion that it's actually some sophisticated strategy.
If you only bet probabilities you will not have sufficient 'good enough' hands to play to keep up. If every time you do no one plays then you're screwed.
Chip gain speed is important to winning, so why on earth would you consider it not part of an optimal program? It's necessary, therefore is absolutely part of an optimal program as without it you're guaranteed a loss.
Playing probabilities is basically the worst way to play because it's so incredibly predictable you can't get big wins or losses. You often will lose to the blinds before you get anywhere.
Fundamental misunderstanding of poker even at the skilled non professional level.
Worth remembering that a lot of women did play then but played male characters specifically to avoid the attention you're talking about.
We were always online. It's not that more women are into those games, but that gaming got more mainstream and the culture is being dragged slowly towards proper standards of behaviour.
That is not even close to true. A number of those 'safely categorized' then transition later in life because the decision made was wrong.
Many end up infertile, because the decision was wrong. Some end up without sensation of sexual function, because the decision was wrong. Some look unambiguous at birth and aren't questions as even being intersex, until they fail to menstruate and discover testes inside, or they don't have a male puberty because ovaries, or because they have a combination of both.
Most people who are intersex were not obvious at birth, and of those 'safely categorised' the fact they are intersex still has implications for their life.
The idea that docs can safely categorise intersex people at birth has been a source of pain for many intersex people, and a source of misunderstanding from the general community.
You cannot do this, you pretty much need to leave intersex people alone until an informed decision can be made by them, not for them.
Perhaps you missed the point, so I'll make it more clear. While it would be really messed up to arrest someone for pointing out a problem, the key factor here is that HE WAS NOT ARRESTED.
See how that kinda changes the overall theme?
Sure, direct some anger at the idiot company that reported him for this, they are morons and the police should tell them to stop being morons. But it sounds like they actually might have done just that, because the police did not arrest him.
They did not arrest. The overall theme should be about the idiot company, not the police.
While it would be great if a large number of people poisoned the well of information, the unfortunate reality is that the very people able to safely do that (those with no secrets they want to keep private) are the ones that also have little motivation to do so.
The people that genuinely understand the need for such privacy and the value of information poisoning are often also the ones that don't want to have their lives scrutinised.
This sort of system works so well because they've convinced so many that there's no need to worry, and the ones that understand the risk can easily become public examples.
My point to F'Nok is that it's not desirable for him or any one person to re-define autism, however poor (vague) the DSM definition is. When the mechanisms are better understood the diagnostic categories will almost certainly change, and his theory that "low functioning" autism and intellectual disability are distinct co-morbidities may or may not turn out to be true. In the meantime re-defining words is counterproductive. The DSM is bad enough - let's not confuse it further.
I am not a 'him' by any definition of that term, another things people get wrong about autism all the time. The expression of autistic traits in women is different, and often perceived to be 'higher functioning' based on some rather gendered misconceptions as well. The intersection of sexism is autistic discourse is a rather interesting, though frustrating.
And I am not the only one saying these old definitions of autism are wrong, the low/high/aspergers distinctions are all removed from the DSM-5 because of the complete impossibility of actually defining the difference between high and low functioning. I am one of those cases where placing either label would be misleading.
That is a very very narrow definition of 'high functioning', and it very NT-centric.
"Oh you can communicate with NT people, you are so high functioning". It's a value judgement on the capacity of people different to the people making the judgement.
If you knew how much difficulty I had with day-to-day tasks and the amount of external assistance I have relied on most of my life, you might start to question the idea that placing a functional label on me is at all useful, or accurate.
My capacity to communicate is not at all connected to my capacity to be an independently function person. It was not until after diagnosis (as an adult) and serious relearning of basically everything that I've managed to be... Kinda functional. lol What many do not appreciate is that those functional problems are very severe for me, despite having a very high intellect, and good communication skills. You have not seen severe executive dysfunction until you've met me. Coupled with severe anxiety problems, and a long history of bad experiences due to misunderstandings and just making sure I have food in the pantry can sometimes be a gold star worthy task for me. I didn't learn to resolve these issues until I was taught how to do them different, as an autistic. And even then, I'm still learning, and not terribly good at these things.
Discounting how serious my functional problems have been doesn't at all help anyone. By most accounts, if you exclude 'can talk' as a criteria, I am what others would call 'severe'. Autism is more complicated than "can speak to others" or "can't speak to others".
Functional labels hurt the 'low functioning' by assuming they cannot do things that they could do, if they were taught different ways, given different environments or provided alternatives. They also hurt the 'high functioning' by discarding their lived experiences as not relevant, assuming they can do things they cannot actually do, and failing to attempt to teach them different ways because 'if they just try harder they can do it'.
You're trying to define away the idea that severe autism can be debilitating. Basically "if it's a fundamental problem, then it isn't part of autism". Yes autism, like almost everything else in DSM N, is very far from being well defined. However, by playing games with words and categories, you're making that worse. DSM N may suck, but one way to look at it is that it's a dictionary (yes, I know there are many ramifications beyond that). As such it provides a widely accepted definition for terms. By re-defining autism you add to the confusion. If you want to use your own term then make something up.
There are many things where a certain amount just makes you different, but too much can be debilitating. For example, what's difference between being moody and being manic-depressive? Degree. Some would argue otherwise, but since the etiology is unknown, I think that's nonsense.
This is absolutely true and I do not at all deny that some traits can cause significant issues if they are 'too different'. I am very much in that box myself, with several relatively severe traits that prevent me from doing a lot of things.
Mostly these are environmental things (for me) that can be mitigated if others are willing to play nice. Some (such as non-verbal autistics) can be a bit harder to over come and can still be very readily identified as autistic traits.
I am mostly rejecting the idea that intellectual disability and a number of other conditions that also happen in non autistics should be attributed to autism. They almost always are when the person is autistic, this is the incorrect step.
That there actually exist some problematic autistic traits is not something I would deny, I agree entirely.
"Likely an increased incidence" is a vast understatement. Moreover the intellectual disabilities that severely autistic people display are often different in nature from those seen in non-autistic people. For example, people with autism usually have much greater difficulties with language than non-autistic but mentally disabled people who function at the same level on non-verbal tasks (alternatively you could say that the autistic people with the same degree of language difficulty perform much better at non-verbal tasks).
Studies are now showing that the vast majority of autistics do not suffer from these intellectual disabilities. I will agree that autistics are overrepresented in those other disability groups though, so there's a definite co-morbidity source going on that would be interesting to find, if for no other reason than it may help treat those other conditions that autistics are more susceptible to.
And yes, as I stated elsewhere, autistics absolutely do express other disabilities in different ways, the the fact someone is autistic is vital to how you approach the treatment of those other concerns.
Some non-verbal autistics. There is a difference between verbal and language difficulties. For those who only have the former, typing is great. For the latter, not as much. There are also those in-between. For example, my nephew can speak and understand verbal language, but does better with written language. Unfortunately he's still far from communicating fluently even in writing.
The use of speech versus non-use (ie, non-verbal not language difficulty) is definitely something that appears to be autism linked, and I'd describe it as an autistic trait. Put me in an unfamiliar situation and I have literally found myself unable to speak. Mouth moves, words get lost. It's a very surreal experience when you're used to speaking your mind.:p
Actual language difficulties are associated with intellectual disabilities. Being autistic as well might make that language difficulty very complicated, but it's not just autism at play, it's multiple disabilities intersecting to cause unpredictable results.
The distinction between high and low functioning autism is at best misleading, and in most cases simply wrong.
It also frequently ignores gender difference in autistic expression (I am female) and conflates co-morbid conditions with autism.
Someone that is intellectually disabled and autistic will likely have serious problems with day to day functioning, just like any non-autistic with an intellectual disability.
In every case I have seen where (typically by parents) autism has been blamed as the case, they neglect to mention the child is also intellectually disabled, or has some other serious disability that would make a non-autistic unable to function as well.
The correct approach is to recognise that in these people you cannot treat their autism, just as you cannot in me. You need to address the co-morbid condition that causes the serious issues. The fact they are autistic makes this more complicated and perhaps much harder, because their autistic traits make conventional approaches to dealing with those other conditions not work.
Just like the typical methods to socially teach me don't work, because I am autistic - the typical treatments for many other conditions don't work if the individual is autistic.
What tends to happen is that instead of correctly labelling these issues as intersectional disabilities the parents and the assortment of autism treatment 'gurus' will blame it all on autism.
When what it really means is that is you know someone is autistic, then you need to throw out the manual for any other co-morbid conditions, because half of it is wrong for autistics.
If there were a cure for intellectual disabilities and you gave it to such 'low functioning' people, you'd find they are still autistic, just like the (significant majority) of autistics that are called 'high functioning'.
So yet again, someone that is not autistic is telling someone that is autistic that you know better about autism. That IS paternalism.
I have yet to see a single case of "severe and debilitating disability" caused purely by autism. The people you are talking about usually have one of many severe debilitating conditions that are not autism in addition to being autistic, and yet people like you go around saying that their problem is they are autistic.
If someone has an intellectual disability AND autism, then the reason they cannot function is because they have an intellectual disability. If someone had an intellectual disability and happened to be black or female, we wouldn't go around saying, "Oh it's because they're a woman", or "it's because they are black" It's because they're intellectually disabled as well.
When you look at autistic people you need to understand that autistics are like everyone else in their capacity to have other problems that are not autism. This is compounded by the fact that statistically autistics are more likely to have a co-morbid issue, so people mistaken conflate the symptoms of these co-morbid issues with autism itself. There's probably some good research to be done to find out what it is about autistics that makes the more susceptible or more likely to developed these other conditions that CAN be debilitating.
Thinking that this is autism though is wrong-headed and actually leads to inappropriate treatments being given to autistics, and often to people with other severe problems not being given appropriate assistance because the people around them think it's all about autism.
Intellectual disability is not autism, but can happen in people that are autistic - there's likely an increased incidence as well.
Just because the sample of autistics YOU have met happened to be intellectually disabled, and couldn't function on their own doesn't mean that those traits are the fault of autism, or even common. The vast majority of autistics are NOT intellectually disabled. Heck the rate of variance in sexual orientation and gender identity is more than four times higher in autistics, why aren't we blaming autism for people being gay now too?
This is the same fallacy that leads someone that met a couple black people that happened to be criminals to conclude that all black people are criminals. We'd readily identify that fallacy as both wrong headed, and racist.
So please recognise that the way you are viewing autism is exactly like that. It's wrong. Trying to dismiss my opinion (as an autistic, that other than intellect could be considered fairly 'severe' on the spectrum) by saying I have not met people with 'severe' autism says several things that you can't reasonably claim.
1. That I have not met people with what YOU call 'severe autism'. I have met many, probably many more than you as an autistic self-advocate. 2. That you are making an assumption about my functionality purely on the basis that I am capable of talking for myself. Facilitated communication has been proving that non-verbal autistics can communicate perfectly well with non-verbal tools. Such as by typing! 3. That you as a non-autistic know more about autism that I do, as an autistic.
I couldn't find a more textbook example of inappropriate paternalism if I tried.
Paternalism (or parentalism) is behavior, by a person, organization or state, which limits some person or group's liberty or autonomy for their own good. Paternalism can also imply that the behavior is against or regardless of the will of a person, or also that the behavior expresses an attitude of superiority.
When autistic adults are saying this attitude and view of autism is harmful to autistics and you need to find excuses to dismiss our views, that's what is disgusting.
You are making the deeply flawed assumption that just because I can communicate I must be 'high functioning'.
Everything about functioning labels is wrong, it undervalues the functioning of people that can't communicate well, and under appreciates the functional challenges 'high functioning' people frequently have. There's a reason that these distinctions are removed from the DSM-5, because no matter how many times they tried, they actually couldn't find a consistent way to judge people as high or low functioning.
In reality, functional labels seem to only get used to dismiss the opinion of those that can communicate: ie, "well you're not like those people that can't communicate, you're high functioning so you can't understand how they feel. The ironic undertone in that attitude is that the person saying it always makes the assumption that they must therefore understand the supposed low functioning people better. It's the most glaring example of paternalism in psychology that exists.
Which is pretty much what many adult autistics have been saying for quite a while now.
Autism itself isn't something you can cure, nor would most autistics want you to attempt to do so.
The current interventionist 'treatments' are all based on the idea that autistics lack something that non-autistics possess and that they can attempt to change that with treatment.
The reality is that autistics are simply wired differently, and many things that are intuitive to non-autistics are difficult for autistics. Trying to teach such people to see the world the way non-autistics do is like trying to teach colour blind people to understand the nuances of colours. It's misguided and of course is ineffective because it ignores the actual fundamental differences in autistics.
Most autistics can learn to navigate the non-autistic world and the social expectations of it, but that skill does not come from trying to change them, but by teaching them how they vary from others so they can appropriate respond to those others in a way they will understand, and communicate these differences where they matter.
What this all fails to address however, is if people communicate with these children in an autistic friendly way, and teach them directly about how others vary from them, do the outcomes change? From (admittedly anecdotal) reports I've seen, it does. The only way to improve these outcomes is to throw out the idea that we can fix autistics and start to accept the idea that it's natural variation and as acceptance and understanding of this grows, negative outcomes will reduce.
Disclaimer: I am an autistic adult, and I do not want or believe in any cures.
Actually, anyone that falls into any one of quite a large number of groups with emotional/psychological differences will almost certainly be misread by such things at least a noticeable portion of the time.
Autism spectrum, AD/HD, bipolar, and an assortment of other labels and people that might be considered part of the 'highly sensitive persons' end of the human spectrum.
These sorts of technologies are going to be hell for all those people if they fall into more common use. These things are already a significant issue when law enforcement misread such people, having a computer back up their misreading would be appalling.
Sure, you could do those things. I wasn't responding to the viability of preventing printing, because as you have pointed out, you could at the very least make that really hard.
I was refuting the claim that the price of a printer would be prohibitive. (ie, too expensive) The price certainly wouldn't be the thing stopping people. But a sufficiently technically impaired environment certainly could do it.:)
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, complain about an older game while making a youngsters on my lawn statement?
Super Mario Kart. Released 1992
Quake. Released 1996
GTFO my lawn.
But now you've changed your point to something that I never argued against in the first place.
Statistics surely do have to inform your betting, but I was arguing against playing purely on statistics.
You're still operating under the false assumption that it's your cards that make the plays work, but that's quite a small part of it.
Here's an rather extreme (and rare) example of not even looking at your cards.
http://www.pokerlistings.com/v...
Yes, you do need to inform your play based on statistics, but my claim was that a perfect statistical player is in fact so bad they cannot win. I was not arguing the false dichotomy that therefore any of use statistics is invalid!
No they most certainly do not!
But why on Earth would you think they do? That's not the meaning. Gosh, this is awkward now
Is this the part where you acknowledge that you aren't familiar with the term meta-game?
Any purely probabilistic strategy is countered by meta shift.
Oh, I know, you're the guy that inevitably always suggests putting in a random number element to make it 'unpredictable'! No one ever tried that!
Let me guess, you got to the bit in maths where you applied probabilities to things and the world made sense, but not to the bit where you learn when probabilities don't work?
Are you that guy in every AI discussion that insists that with enough compute power, any problem is probabilistic!
It's a moving target.
The dynamic is more like rock, paper, scissors with a few extra orders of magnitude.
But hey, since you seem to be under the impression that your inadequate understanding of the maths is gold, go make the AI.
I mean, it's not like no one else has tried and this is a *known block* that you so bravely declare solvable.
It's clear that you must be better at this than me and all the other people that properly understand the domain. ;)
No, there's no misinterpretation, that was exactly what I thought you meant.
I'm saying that that is fundamentally untrue.
A risk adverse chip strategy will lose almost always even to novice players because their risk taking will bias probabilistic estimates!
The problem isn't about the necessity for a highly optimised chip strategy, it's that a prefect probability game is inherently incompatible with ANY basic chip strategy that can even match the average player.
By committing to a perfect probability game you make *all* other winning strategies impossible.
It's not a missing component in an ideal strategy that other components can make up for, it's a component that literally makes you lose. It's not a "this didn't contribute to a win", it's a "this directly contributes so much to losing that you can't win".
Obviously accounting for variance in games - everyone wins sometimes out of luck - this strategy basically guarantees that unless every player you meet is a clueless novice, and you're also lucky, you lose.
You've skipped the whole rest of the post where it explains why probabilistic strategies do not work, and where meta-game is often equally as important.
There is no optimal based on probability, you are not properly understanding the maths and game.
But then big stacks play off on each other, so in order to avoid them bullying you, you also lose most opportunities to recover the ground.
Good players often take more risks as the game goes on specifically because the probabilities narrow.
Mid to late game starts requiring calculated losses and risks, and if you play probabilities then you lose to that. Will you push in your 80% AA pre flop? What if three people call behind?
That's the thing about poker. You're not playing to win a single game because that's not reasonable or possible. Luck factors will overwhelm any single outcome.
You're playing to win *more games than you lose*.
A trash player is rolling 60% return. They will get there occasionally through luck. They might even play a good hand in the mix. But over many games that 60% return is a 40% loss.
A great player is rolling a 110% return. That still means luck pops them out a lot. It means bad beats 10 games in a row. It means the occasional gamble you know is the wrong call but you can't resist it. But after 50 games your average return trends to positive.
It's not like chess or go, you don't play then decide who is better and that is that. It's more like a casino where you bring your own dice dependant on your skill level. If you're good enough then you weight the averages in your favour, if you're not then you enjoy your wins as you gradually spend your bankroll.
When you play casino games it's not the single outcome that decides, it's the weight of many. The house always wins in the end because it has a small probability advantage spread over thousands of games.
Poker bots simply cannot maintain that consistency because doing the maths isn't enough.
Because the good players have weighted their dice in different ways that matter more than playing the maths can come close to.
Because it's not the average of individual hands that makes success, but the average of outcomes that require game threatening risks to achieve.
Because weighting your coin to give heads 60% of the time by playing probability isn't useful if your payout condition
Is 10 heads in a row. What you'd really want is a coin that gives the same result as the prior flip 80% of the time instead. You get streaks of tails losing, but also a much much higher chance of 10 in a row. Yet if you counted the flips over a long period of time it'd be just a 50% chance of heads. Win conditions change the relevance of probability!
Winning 600 out of 1000 hands still earns you nothing if you needed to get 100 of those hands into the one game. You need a cluster of success to make the money, not merely be better in most hands you play.
That's why poker isn't yet a solved AI problem. Even when it is, players will adapt their games and the meta game will change and new bots will be needed. We see this effect in online video game competition already, where meta-game matters just as much or more than the quality of your individual play.
The person that solves poker, they'll be rich.
Incorrect. I never made any such assumption or claim.
I said that a specific weakness is too egregious to be successful, which is near the opposite.
Playing probabilities is not merely 'a relevant category', it's a fundamental fail that is so easily seen and broken by other players there's no way to victory.
There are a few basics you simply cannot exclude that aren't a matter of tactic or style.
There's a lot of variation in aggression and risk vs chip gain, and in that respect you'd be right, but if you pay to probabilities you lose so much chip speed that you fail to meet the minimum threshold for being competitive.
There is a minimum cut off, because there are blinds.
If you can't out pace them, you *cannot* win regardless of *all* other 'relevant categories'.
It's like attempting to win a marathon that's longer than the distance you can run.
But it does work that way because when playing probability alone if others rarely bet you then you build no stack.
Then eventually there will be that hand that it has the 80%+ chance on versus a mammoth stack.
Big stack takes the 20% chance call because it only cost them 10% of their stack and they potentially KO a player.
If you play probability alone you will get to mid game watching the dead money go to better players. The they will out stack your probabilities through sheer abuse of their stack.
Amatuers think that probabilities save them.
They are merely donors to the winning pot.
Don't confuse being able to beat your mates with maths with the notion that it's actually some sophisticated strategy.
If you only bet probabilities you will not have sufficient 'good enough' hands to play to keep up. If every time you do no one plays then you're screwed.
Chip gain speed is important to winning, so why on earth would you consider it not part of an optimal program?
It's necessary, therefore is absolutely part of an optimal program as without it you're guaranteed a loss.
Playing probabilities is basically the worst way to play because it's so incredibly predictable you can't get big wins or losses. You often will lose to the blinds before you get anywhere.
Fundamental misunderstanding of poker even at the skilled non professional level.
Worth remembering that a lot of women did play then but played male characters specifically to avoid the attention you're talking about.
We were always online. It's not that more women are into those games, but that gaming got more mainstream and the culture is being dragged slowly towards proper standards of behaviour.
That is not even close to true.
A number of those 'safely categorized' then transition later in life because the decision made was wrong.
Many end up infertile, because the decision was wrong.
Some end up without sensation of sexual function, because the decision was wrong.
Some look unambiguous at birth and aren't questions as even being intersex, until they fail to menstruate and discover testes inside, or they don't have a male puberty because ovaries, or because they have a combination of both.
Most people who are intersex were not obvious at birth, and of those 'safely categorised' the fact they are intersex still has implications for their life.
The idea that docs can safely categorise intersex people at birth has been a source of pain for many intersex people, and a source of misunderstanding from the general community.
You cannot do this, you pretty much need to leave intersex people alone until an informed decision can be made by them, not for them.
Perhaps you missed the point, so I'll make it more clear.
While it would be really messed up to arrest someone for pointing out a problem, the key factor here is that HE WAS NOT ARRESTED.
See how that kinda changes the overall theme?
Sure, direct some anger at the idiot company that reported him for this, they are morons and the police should tell them to stop being morons.
But it sounds like they actually might have done just that, because the police did not arrest him.
They did not arrest. The overall theme should be about the idiot company, not the police.
The article says he was reported to police, but not arrested or even contacted by the police.
He only even knows he was reported to the police because the journalist told him.
Seriously, can we at least read the article before making up wrong headlines?
While it would be great if a large number of people poisoned the well of information, the unfortunate reality is that the very people able to safely do that (those with no secrets they want to keep private) are the ones that also have little motivation to do so.
The people that genuinely understand the need for such privacy and the value of information poisoning are often also the ones that don't want to have their lives scrutinised.
This sort of system works so well because they've convinced so many that there's no need to worry, and the ones that understand the risk can easily become public examples.
I am not a 'him' by any definition of that term, another things people get wrong about autism all the time.
The expression of autistic traits in women is different, and often perceived to be 'higher functioning' based on some rather gendered misconceptions as well. The intersection of sexism is autistic discourse is a rather interesting, though frustrating.
And I am not the only one saying these old definitions of autism are wrong, the low/high/aspergers distinctions are all removed from the DSM-5 because of the complete impossibility of actually defining the difference between high and low functioning.
I am one of those cases where placing either label would be misleading.
That is a very very narrow definition of 'high functioning', and it very NT-centric.
"Oh you can communicate with NT people, you are so high functioning".
It's a value judgement on the capacity of people different to the people making the judgement.
If you knew how much difficulty I had with day-to-day tasks and the amount of external assistance I have relied on most of my life, you might start to question the idea that placing a functional label on me is at all useful, or accurate.
My capacity to communicate is not at all connected to my capacity to be an independently function person. It was not until after diagnosis (as an adult) and serious relearning of basically everything that I've managed to be... Kinda functional. lol
What many do not appreciate is that those functional problems are very severe for me, despite having a very high intellect, and good communication skills. You have not seen severe executive dysfunction until you've met me. Coupled with severe anxiety problems, and a long history of bad experiences due to misunderstandings and just making sure I have food in the pantry can sometimes be a gold star worthy task for me.
I didn't learn to resolve these issues until I was taught how to do them different, as an autistic.
And even then, I'm still learning, and not terribly good at these things.
Discounting how serious my functional problems have been doesn't at all help anyone.
By most accounts, if you exclude 'can talk' as a criteria, I am what others would call 'severe'.
Autism is more complicated than "can speak to others" or "can't speak to others".
Functional labels hurt the 'low functioning' by assuming they cannot do things that they could do, if they were taught different ways, given different environments or provided alternatives.
They also hurt the 'high functioning' by discarding their lived experiences as not relevant, assuming they can do things they cannot actually do, and failing to attempt to teach them different ways because 'if they just try harder they can do it'.
This is absolutely true and I do not at all deny that some traits can cause significant issues if they are 'too different'.
I am very much in that box myself, with several relatively severe traits that prevent me from doing a lot of things.
Mostly these are environmental things (for me) that can be mitigated if others are willing to play nice.
Some (such as non-verbal autistics) can be a bit harder to over come and can still be very readily identified as autistic traits.
I am mostly rejecting the idea that intellectual disability and a number of other conditions that also happen in non autistics should be attributed to autism. They almost always are when the person is autistic, this is the incorrect step.
That there actually exist some problematic autistic traits is not something I would deny, I agree entirely.
Studies are now showing that the vast majority of autistics do not suffer from these intellectual disabilities. I will agree that autistics are overrepresented in those other disability groups though, so there's a definite co-morbidity source going on that would be interesting to find, if for no other reason than it may help treat those other conditions that autistics are more susceptible to.
And yes, as I stated elsewhere, autistics absolutely do express other disabilities in different ways, the the fact someone is autistic is vital to how you approach the treatment of those other concerns.
The use of speech versus non-use (ie, non-verbal not language difficulty) is definitely something that appears to be autism linked, and I'd describe it as an autistic trait. Put me in an unfamiliar situation and I have literally found myself unable to speak. Mouth moves, words get lost. It's a very surreal experience when you're used to speaking your mind. :p
Actual language difficulties are associated with intellectual disabilities. Being autistic as well might make that language difficulty very complicated, but it's not just autism at play, it's multiple disabilities intersecting to cause unpredictable results.
The distinction between high and low functioning autism is at best misleading, and in most cases simply wrong.
It also frequently ignores gender difference in autistic expression (I am female) and conflates co-morbid conditions with autism.
Someone that is intellectually disabled and autistic will likely have serious problems with day to day functioning, just like any non-autistic with an intellectual disability.
In every case I have seen where (typically by parents) autism has been blamed as the case, they neglect to mention the child is also intellectually disabled, or has some other serious disability that would make a non-autistic unable to function as well.
The correct approach is to recognise that in these people you cannot treat their autism, just as you cannot in me. You need to address the co-morbid condition that causes the serious issues.
The fact they are autistic makes this more complicated and perhaps much harder, because their autistic traits make conventional approaches to dealing with those other conditions not work.
Just like the typical methods to socially teach me don't work, because I am autistic - the typical treatments for many other conditions don't work if the individual is autistic.
What tends to happen is that instead of correctly labelling these issues as intersectional disabilities the parents and the assortment of autism treatment 'gurus' will blame it all on autism.
When what it really means is that is you know someone is autistic, then you need to throw out the manual for any other co-morbid conditions, because half of it is wrong for autistics.
If there were a cure for intellectual disabilities and you gave it to such 'low functioning' people, you'd find they are still autistic, just like the (significant majority) of autistics that are called 'high functioning'.
So yet again, someone that is not autistic is telling someone that is autistic that you know better about autism.
That IS paternalism.
I have yet to see a single case of "severe and debilitating disability" caused purely by autism.
The people you are talking about usually have one of many severe debilitating conditions that are not autism in addition to being autistic, and yet people like you go around saying that their problem is they are autistic.
If someone has an intellectual disability AND autism, then the reason they cannot function is because they have an intellectual disability. If someone had an intellectual disability and happened to be black or female, we wouldn't go around saying, "Oh it's because they're a woman", or "it's because they are black"
It's because they're intellectually disabled as well.
When you look at autistic people you need to understand that autistics are like everyone else in their capacity to have other problems that are not autism.
This is compounded by the fact that statistically autistics are more likely to have a co-morbid issue, so people mistaken conflate the symptoms of these co-morbid issues with autism itself. There's probably some good research to be done to find out what it is about autistics that makes the more susceptible or more likely to developed these other conditions that CAN be debilitating.
Thinking that this is autism though is wrong-headed and actually leads to inappropriate treatments being given to autistics, and often to people with other severe problems not being given appropriate assistance because the people around them think it's all about autism.
Intellectual disability is not autism, but can happen in people that are autistic - there's likely an increased incidence as well.
Just because the sample of autistics YOU have met happened to be intellectually disabled, and couldn't function on their own doesn't mean that those traits are the fault of autism, or even common. The vast majority of autistics are NOT intellectually disabled.
Heck the rate of variance in sexual orientation and gender identity is more than four times higher in autistics, why aren't we blaming autism for people being gay now too?
This is the same fallacy that leads someone that met a couple black people that happened to be criminals to conclude that all black people are criminals. We'd readily identify that fallacy as both wrong headed, and racist.
So please recognise that the way you are viewing autism is exactly like that.
It's wrong. Trying to dismiss my opinion (as an autistic, that other than intellect could be considered fairly 'severe' on the spectrum) by saying I have not met people with 'severe' autism says several things that you can't reasonably claim.
1. That I have not met people with what YOU call 'severe autism'. I have met many, probably many more than you as an autistic self-advocate.
2. That you are making an assumption about my functionality purely on the basis that I am capable of talking for myself. Facilitated communication has been proving that non-verbal autistics can communicate perfectly well with non-verbal tools. Such as by typing!
3. That you as a non-autistic know more about autism that I do, as an autistic.
I couldn't find a more textbook example of inappropriate paternalism if I tried.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paternalism
When autistic adults are saying this attitude and view of autism is harmful to autistics and you need to find excuses to dismiss our views, that's what is disgusting.
You are making the deeply flawed assumption that just because I can communicate I must be 'high functioning'.
Everything about functioning labels is wrong, it undervalues the functioning of people that can't communicate well, and under appreciates the functional challenges 'high functioning' people frequently have.
There's a reason that these distinctions are removed from the DSM-5, because no matter how many times they tried, they actually couldn't find a consistent way to judge people as high or low functioning.
In reality, functional labels seem to only get used to dismiss the opinion of those that can communicate:
ie, "well you're not like those people that can't communicate, you're high functioning so you can't understand how they feel.
The ironic undertone in that attitude is that the person saying it always makes the assumption that they must therefore understand the supposed low functioning people better.
It's the most glaring example of paternalism in psychology that exists.
Which is pretty much what many adult autistics have been saying for quite a while now.
Autism itself isn't something you can cure, nor would most autistics want you to attempt to do so.
The current interventionist 'treatments' are all based on the idea that autistics lack something that non-autistics possess and that they can attempt to change that with treatment.
The reality is that autistics are simply wired differently, and many things that are intuitive to non-autistics are difficult for autistics. Trying to teach such people to see the world the way non-autistics do is like trying to teach colour blind people to understand the nuances of colours. It's misguided and of course is ineffective because it ignores the actual fundamental differences in autistics.
Most autistics can learn to navigate the non-autistic world and the social expectations of it, but that skill does not come from trying to change them, but by teaching them how they vary from others so they can appropriate respond to those others in a way they will understand, and communicate these differences where they matter.
What this all fails to address however, is if people communicate with these children in an autistic friendly way, and teach them directly about how others vary from them, do the outcomes change? From (admittedly anecdotal) reports I've seen, it does.
The only way to improve these outcomes is to throw out the idea that we can fix autistics and start to accept the idea that it's natural variation and as acceptance and understanding of this grows, negative outcomes will reduce.
Disclaimer: I am an autistic adult, and I do not want or believe in any cures.
Actually, anyone that falls into any one of quite a large number of groups with emotional/psychological differences will almost certainly be misread by such things at least a noticeable portion of the time.
Autism spectrum, AD/HD, bipolar, and an assortment of other labels and people that might be considered part of the 'highly sensitive persons' end of the human spectrum.
These sorts of technologies are going to be hell for all those people if they fall into more common use. These things are already a significant issue when law enforcement misread such people, having a computer back up their misreading would be appalling.
+5, Funny is simply not enough for this post.
Made my day. :-)
Sure, you could do those things.
I wasn't responding to the viability of preventing printing, because as you have pointed out, you could at the very least make that really hard.
I was refuting the claim that the price of a printer would be prohibitive. (ie, too expensive) :)
The price certainly wouldn't be the thing stopping people. But a sufficiently technically impaired environment certainly could do it.