I appreciate the intent, I really do. I reality, it will be very, very difficult to right sensible rules that apply to every situation. Typically, when you think you might have been hacked, there are more questions than answers. You may never known if the intruder took any data.
Most investigations I've been involved in start with noticing something slightly odd - some non-critical machine has a file on it and we're not sure what the file is, or how it got there. It might be the installer for a Microsoft hotfix that an admin downloaded - a perfectly innocent file, just something someone forgot to delete when done, or it might be something a bad guy forgot to delete. (The typical hacker toolkits try to cover their tracks).
You investigate a bit more and find more suspicious stuff, so you become fairly convinced that a bad guy had some level of access to THIS computer. YOU might even know for sure that they had _some_ access to _this_ computer. You can never know for sure that they didn't have access to the entire network, because you can't prove a negative. You _think_ the intrusion was limited to this one machine.
Maybe you see something strange on a machine that has access to customer information. Maybe some typical Windows malware trying to send out spam. If the people running the botnet knew what machine they had infected, they could have gotten customer data. They probably didn't notice, though; they're just running spam botnet. Do you have to contact all of your customers and tell them that your Customer Service Manager's desktop had malware on it?
Typically, you KNOW that sensitive data was taken it starts showing up in public. So at what point do you contact customers?
I think that's a judgement call. It depends on both the likelihood of a leak and the type of data involved - could it do much damage, and is there anything to be done to lessen the damage? I've done it at different times depending on the data. Once, there was a small possibility that a bad guy could have accessed credit card numbers. We were 85% certain there was no bad guy, but we went ahead and called customers anyway. We called and told them "we're pretty sure there is no problem, but please look at your credit card statement and let us know if you see anything out of the ordinary". An example in the other extreme was that a bad guy could probably could have read the PHP source code of a public web site. That was much more likely, but who cares - it's mostly public anyway. I didn't hurry to notify anyone that time.
> heres another thought experiment for you, how many people would become more educated if they didng have to worry about working for an income to survive?
Most people go to college in order to get a better job. They show up in high school in order to get into college. Most people (not all) are essentially lazy - they will sit on their butt if they don't need to do more than that to meet their "needs". (Where needs is defined by media, etc.) If you doubt that, show up to any government office building at 5:15 PM and see how many people are still there, doing extra to serve the community. You'll see it's roughly zero. Any of them could theoretically stick around serving the society, but they do't - they leave at five because that's al that's required to get the paycheck.
Censorship is a specific METHOD of restricting speech. Specifically, it means having the censor approve publications before they are published. Under a censorship system, the Charlie cartoon wouldn't have been published, because the censor would not have approved it for publication.
Threat of punishment is ANOTHER way of getting similar results. The effect my be similar to censorship, but the method is via punishment, not via censorship.
It may still be bad, evil, unconstitutional, etc. It's just not censorship, because censorship is a specific process, not a result.
Of the error were using imperial units rather than metric...
Seriously, though, I understand they are considering / did consider getting within 3,000km of Pluto. If that course correction is made a million km out, 3,000km is just 0.3% error.
Texas doesn't specifically tax ISPs, it just doesn't give them a 100% exemption from the standard sales tax paid on all purchases. Texas DOES exempt the first $25/month, so low-end internet is tax free. Above $25, buying fast internet is just like buying anything else.
Texas has no income tax, so exemptions to the sales tax are necessarily limited - food, and school supplies and clothes during back-to-school season, and not much else.
The study actually proves my point nicely. The subjects did just enough to get the minimum - they didn't do better to get more. Applying that to this discussion, the results indicate people would sign up for basic income just as they signed up for the study. They would not be more productive, working all day, to make $30,000 instead of the $25,000 that's adequate.
Go visit anyone truly in need and offer them $500. You'll find that most people will do almost anything to get what they NEED - even go to work if NECESARY. As the study you mentioned found, most won't do much more than that to get more.
Your grossly simplified thought experiment is missing many things of course, but most importantly you assume that people don't change their behavior based on the rewards l. Specifically, you assume that people aren't motivated by money.
Let's take as an example a typical person currently bringing home $30,000. Under your scenario, they'd have a choice: they could continue working and bringing home $30,000, or they could stop working, play video games all day, and get $25,000. For many people, that would be an easy decision, and they wouldn't decide to keep working for $25,000 as you assume they would.
It gets worse. Their children have the choice of going to school today, and studying hard today, in hopes of making $30k fifteen years from now, or they can skip school, eat Cheetoh's all day, and plan to live on the $25k they'll get from the taxpayers. Now you have a whole generation of uneducated dolts who couldn't produce much value even if you fixed the policies that caused it.
Fiat currency has value, if for no other reason, because everyone needs it to pay their taxes. That's the unchangeable, fundamental value - ~everyone wants it because most everyone needsneeds it to pay taxes. Because the local store owner wants dollars to pay her taxes, she'll give me a box of cereal in exchange for dollars. Therefore, dollars are valuable to me even if I didn't pay taxes.
I actually pay half my income as various taxes, but even if I didn't, I could use dollars to get stuff from someone else who needs to pay their taxes.
That's right. Me, for example. My job is to maintain and improve some software my employer uses, and help others in the organization learn to use it. Since the software system is open source, all of my bug fixes and many of the improvements I do are sent back upstream. (Some aren't generally purpose, but are specific to my employer and their needs.)
I you asked if I've been able to consistently beat that computer. I've consistently playes as well as that computer. As described in the Wikipedia article, Perfect Play basically attempts to guarantee a tie. I'm going to assume the programmers don't have bugs, so they successfully tie everyone, over the long haul. I've done the same - I've tied that computer. I can guarantee a tie between me and the computer every week. My strategy is "don't play". That guarantees a tie.:)
Actually beating the computer is simple as well. Play sanely until you're up by one bet, then stop. It's virtually guaranteed that you'll be up by one bet at some point, so by stopping at that point you virtually guarantee a win against the computer.
Yes, it's interesting that the section of Wikipedia you linked to uses the same RPS example I used:
>. . As an example, the perfect strategy for Rock, Paper, Scissors would be to randomly choose each of the options with equal (1/3) probability. The disadvantage in this example is that this strategy will never exploit non-optimal strategies of the opponent, so the expected outcome of this strategy versus any strategy will always be equal to the minimal expected outcome.
As pointed out by the wiki, the expected outcome is the WORST possible non-losing outcome. I'm referring to a strategy with the BEST expected value.
You certainly can "solve" Hold 'Em the same way you can solve Tic-Tac-Toe. It's not that hard to do. Competent players all know that strategy more or less - close enough to be within the margin of random. For some, they calculate it numerically, others calculate it the same way an experienced quarterback calculates the trajectory of a thrown ball , subconciously, but effectively. Yet some players are much better than other competent players. Here's why.
You mentioned RPS, which is trivial to analyze mathematically - the winner each hand is random IF one opponents move is random. . All strategies mathematically tend to 50/50 over the long haul. Yet computers routinely beat people because people AREN'T random. Poker is like that. The optimum strategy is to play the psychology, NOT the cards. The psychology is different for every opponent.
Imagine you played 4x4 tic-tac-toe but put pictures on the board - one corner is Hitler, another corner is Beyonce, one is the prophet Mohamad, another is Obama. The pictures would likely affect your opponent's play if they don't have the exact optimum strategy memorized. Recognizing their psychological bias would CHANGE your optimum strategy. The psychology would be different playing against an Isis member vs against Jay-Z, so the optimum strategy would be different for each opponent.
Replying to myself, but I figured someone reading this might be interested. Linux does support CPU hotplug where you disable the CPU before removing it. Your motherboard might get mad about it if it's not supported by the board, though.
That's interesting. Apparently it was supported well enough that they actually did hotplug CPUs regularly, as standard practice. I wonder if they "unmounted" the components before removal and "mounted" them upon insertion. That's a much easier approach, especially for CPUs, than handling a CPU suddenly going AWOL.
PS I meant that in the best possible way. I didn't really think through the connotations of "neck beard" before posting. I was really thinking more "gray beard" , including wizardly connotations.
>. Many teams would have written it off as a hardware bug a long time ago, but the linux kernel team was willing to consider and investigate the possibility that it was a rarely triggered bug in the software before they passed the buck.
And try to avoid crashing due to hardware bugs, if possible. A contractor once hotplugged one of the CPUs in one of my servers. That's right, they took the processor out and replaced it with the machine running. The box did not crash. It kept running at least for the few minutes it took me to find out what they did and reboot the machine properly. Hardware error doesn't HAVE to mean a crash, though you can't guarantee that it never will.
Of course if you're holding it wrong, that'll always cause problems, because the special rectangle shape needs to be held at the proper aesthetic angle*.;)
* I use and enjoy Mac pros, which are nice Unix systems. iOS mobile devices - not so much.
I left out a step in my explanation about analyzing their folds so you know which hands they fold.
Suppose you observe that they fold 34% of the time they're bet into at the first interval, when they've only seen their hole cards.
You then refer to your table of odds and see that the 34th percentile corresponds to a hand of 8-9 suited or worse.
Now you know that they fold 8-9 suited or worse.
If that's not clear, maybe an example will help:
You drop 100 coins at intervals in the middle of the sidewalk, 50 pennies, 30 nickels, 15 dimes and 5 quarters.
From a distance, you watch me walk down the sidewalk, counting how many coins I pick up, but you can't see WHICH coins I pick up or pass by.
You observe that picked up 20 coins, passing up 80 others.
You deduce that I decided to pick up dimes and nickels, while passing up (folding) nickels and pennies.
You didn't need to see WHICH coins I picked up. Knowing HOW OFTEN I picked up coins allowed you to deduce which ones I picked up.
In poker, out of 200 hands, you'll have some hands rated 1 on a scale of 1-10, some rated 2, some 3, etc. By knowing which portion of hands you play, I know what your cutoff is to consider it a hand good enough to play.
With human players, analyzing 100 hands is enough to put them into one of four categories. This is what internet poker software does. I've written a not and tested it based on hundreds of thousands of hands, and I found that categorizing your opponent based on 100 hands truly does work. In other words, it's empirically proven. Analyzing the computer, we already know ahead of time that it plays strict odds, so we can place it in category 4 a priori. Watching a few dozen or a few hundred hands allows us to narrow it down even more specifically.
When the opponent folds, you don't learn much specific, but you do learn a few very important things: How often do they fold at each betting interval, called P(Fx). Facing a bet, what is P(Fx). This is called P(Fx|I) On the button, what is P(Fx)? Facing a check, what is their P(Fx)? etc.
All of these numbers allow you to categorize them on certain axis.
The programmers assume an optimal strategy for poker, but there is no such optimum strategy as such. There is a mathematically optimum strategy ASSUMING THAT YOUR OPPONENT PLAYS THE SAME STRATEGY, which what they probably calculated. That strategy is too tight for play against most humans. A different strategy is optimum for playing a loose/wild opponent, which is different from the optimum strategy against a tight/cold.
Blackjack has one mathematically optimum strategy, because you are effectively playing against a robot - the opponent always has the exact same strategy. Professional level poker is more like football. When playing against the 2014 Broncos, the best strategy is to defend against the short play because Manning rushes himself, and doesn't throw deep very often. Playing against Elway's Broncos, the optimum was to rush while covering deep because Elway would take his time and throw deep. The optimum strategy depends very much on which opponent you're playing, so understanding your opponent and making the appropriate adjustments is key.
That's precisely what the last paragraph of my post addressed. A bit of random choice is no problem - you can easily solve for that. I've copy-pasted my last paragraph for you below. I should also add, however, that I doubt the bot does much of that, if any, because for Hold 'Em specifically that' more likely to be harmful than helpful. In the vast majority of Hold 'Em situations, there is one answer that is unequivocally much more mathematically, and deviating from that more than 5% of the time will cost the bot significantly. (Given that the bot is playing the math, not understanding the psychology of their opponent). Some situations in Hold Em are borderline, but those fall within the margin of error. Without getting into poker notation you may not be familiar with, suppose you could choose randomly for a pair of threes. That would mean you'll need to bet a bet of fours and fold a pair of twos - the smart opponent can tell, by your bet, whether you hold "pair of threes or higher" vs "pair of threes or lower". You're only "hiding" your cards when they happen to be exactly a pair of threes, so it's probably not worth the trouble.
Paragraph from original post: Suppose the bot throws in a bit of randomness. No problem since Bayes theorem in 1700s. We want to know the probability of a strong hand, given the bet. That's written as P(S|B). We calculate that as P(S|B) = P(B|S) * P(S) / P(B). P(S) we just look up from any of the sources who have calculated the odds of getting a sttong hand. We have P(B) and P(B|S) empirically, from its betting history.
I see you're in California. California GUARANTEES full transfer of credits, and tere is guaranteed admission, for anyone completing the two-degrees at California community colleges. There are currently 24 majors that qualify, with more planned. For full details see http://adegreewithaguarantee.c...
Suppose you don't choose any of the 24 majors with guaranteed full transfer of credits. UC accepts may classes, including technical classes like a variety of computer science courses, from your local community college, Mendocino. Here's where you can find precise details: http://web1.assist.org/web-ass...
For example, you can select "Computer Science" in the drop-down and see that UC gives credit for these computer science classes taught at Medocino: CSC 201 Computers and Computer Aplications CSC 210 Computer Organization and Architecture CSC 220 Introduction to Computer Science CSC 221 Programming and Algorithms I CSC 222 Programming and Algorithms II
History classes from your local school, Medocino, accepted by UC include:
==== History ==== HST 200 History of Western
Civilization I HST 201 History of Western
Civilization II HST 202 United States History
to 1877 HST 203 United States History
Since 1865 HST 205 World History to 1500
HST 206 World History since
1500 HST 207 Mexican American
History
HST 208 Women in American History HST 220 Mexican History HST 221 California History HST 222 Native American History HST 250 Contemporary America: The People and the Issues
I've never quite understood your habit of making blanket statements about topics you know nothing about, which you seem especially prone to do in response to someone who actually knows the subject at hand. I told you in my post I run an ecampus for the Texas A&M System where we deal with transfer of credits. Our department MAKES the atriculation agreements with the other schools. So why you'd pull something completely out of your butt, a complete and total guess, is bewildering. You aren't stupid - there are topics you know a lot about. Then there are topics where you're completely clueless - utterly and completely wrong. You'd look like a genius if you kept discussing the topics you have a clue about but just stopped making these declarations of "fact" on topics you are completely unfamiliar with.
You can tell the other people who replied to you to suck it, because routers running alternative firmware ARE vulnerable if that alternative firmware is forked from asuswrt. AsusWRT-Merlin is one example, and is actually shown in TFA.
> I was on the job market for a little over 3 months in the southern US a few years ago.
Okay, so "a few years ago" you were looking for a job. So that's 2011-2013.
> I got my BS CS earlier in this decade... though I've been in and out of industry to do other things.
So you got your degree in 2010-2012, meaning when you interviewed, you had close to zero years of experience actually doing anything in the field.
> can run circles around algorithm, logic, and design
You've never done anything like what we do every done, and have been doing for decades. You read a book about the system I designed, which means you can run circles around me, you think. To quote Adam Savage, "THERE'S your problem."
In your books at school, you might have read about the Morris-Pratt algorithm. You might have learned something about Apache. They may have mentioned the Linux kernel. That all prepares you to be able understand what I'm talking about when I tell you what changes I contributed to the kernel. Based on your study of what we've done, you might be able to look at the work I've done on Apache and ask intelligent questions about it. Coming at me like as a know-it-all who is going to school us is guaranteed to send you right out the door. Your type comes in thinking they know everything and you completely fuck everything up because you won't listen when those of us who built the damn thing tell you "don't do that, that'll break the production system".
Slashdot Mirror
I appreciate the intent, I really do. I reality, it will be very, very difficult to right sensible rules that apply to every situation. Typically, when you think you might have been hacked, there are more questions than answers. You may never known if the intruder took any data.
Most investigations I've been involved in start with noticing something slightly odd - some non-critical machine has a file on it and we're not sure what the file is, or how it got there. It might be the installer for a Microsoft hotfix that an admin downloaded - a perfectly innocent file, just something someone forgot to delete when done, or it might be something a bad guy forgot to delete. (The typical hacker toolkits try to cover their tracks).
You investigate a bit more and find more suspicious stuff, so you become fairly convinced that a bad guy had some level of access to THIS computer. YOU might even know for sure that they had _some_ access to _this_ computer. You can never know for sure that they didn't have access to the entire network, because you can't prove a negative. You _think_ the intrusion was limited to this one machine.
Maybe you see something strange on a machine that has access to customer information. Maybe some typical Windows malware trying to send out spam. If the people running the botnet knew what machine they had infected, they could have gotten customer data. They probably didn't notice, though; they're just running spam botnet. Do you have to contact all of your customers and tell them that your Customer Service Manager's desktop had malware on it?
Typically, you KNOW that sensitive data was taken it starts showing up in public. So at what point do you contact customers?
I think that's a judgement call. It depends on both the likelihood of a leak and the type of data involved - could it do much damage, and is there anything to be done to lessen the damage? I've done it at different times depending on the data. Once, there was a small possibility that a bad guy could have accessed credit card numbers. We were 85% certain there was no bad guy, but we went ahead and called customers anyway. We called and told them "we're pretty sure there is no problem, but please look at your credit card statement and let us know if you see anything out of the ordinary". An example in the other extreme was that a bad guy could probably could have read the PHP source code of a public web site. That was much more likely, but who cares - it's mostly public anyway. I didn't hurry to notify anyone that time.
> heres another thought experiment for you, how many people would become more educated if they didng have to worry about working for an income to survive?
Most people go to college in order to get a better job. They show up in high school in order to get into college. Most people (not all) are essentially lazy - they will sit on their butt if they don't need to do more than that to meet their "needs". (Where needs is defined by media, etc.) If you doubt that, show up to any government office building at 5:15 PM and see how many people are still there, doing extra to serve the community. You'll see it's roughly zero. Any of them could theoretically stick around serving the society, but they do't - they leave at five because that's al that's required to get the paycheck.
Censorship is a specific METHOD of restricting speech. Specifically, it means having the censor approve publications before they are published. Under a censorship system, the Charlie cartoon wouldn't have been published, because the censor would not have approved it for publication.
Threat of punishment is ANOTHER way of getting similar results. The effect my be similar to censorship, but the method is via punishment, not via censorship.
It may still be bad, evil, unconstitutional, etc. It's just not censorship, because censorship is a specific process, not a result.
Of the error were using imperial units rather than metric ...
Seriously, though, I understand they are considering / did consider getting within 3,000km of Pluto. If that course correction is made a million km out, 3,000km is just 0.3% error.
Texas doesn't specifically tax ISPs, it just doesn't give them a 100% exemption from the standard sales tax paid on all purchases. Texas DOES exempt the first $25/month, so low-end internet is tax free. Above $25, buying fast internet is just like buying anything else.
Texas has no income tax, so exemptions to the sales tax are necessarily limited - food, and school supplies and clothes during back-to-school season, and not much else.
The study actually proves my point nicely. The subjects did just enough to get the minimum - they didn't do better to get more. Applying that to this discussion, the results indicate people would sign up for basic income just as they signed up for the study. They would not be more productive, working all day, to make $30,000 instead of the $25,000 that's adequate.
Go visit anyone truly in need and offer them $500. You'll find that most people will do almost anything to get what they NEED - even go to work if NECESARY. As the study you mentioned found, most won't do much more than that to get more.
Your grossly simplified thought experiment is missing many things of course, but most importantly you assume that people don't change their behavior based on the rewards l. Specifically, you assume that people aren't motivated by money.
Let's take as an example a typical person currently bringing home $30,000. Under your scenario, they'd have a choice: they could continue working and bringing home $30,000, or they could stop working, play video games all day, and get $25,000. For many people, that would be an easy decision, and they wouldn't decide to keep working for $25,000 as you assume they would.
It gets worse. Their children have the choice of going to school today, and studying hard today, in hopes of making $30k fifteen years from now, or they can skip school, eat Cheetoh's all day, and plan to live on the $25k they'll get from the taxpayers. Now you have a whole generation of uneducated dolts who couldn't produce much value even if you fixed the policies that caused it.
Fiat currency has value, if for no other reason, because everyone needs it to pay their taxes. That's the unchangeable, fundamental value - ~everyone wants it because most everyone needsneeds it to pay taxes. Because the local store owner wants dollars to pay her taxes, she'll give me a box of cereal in exchange for dollars. Therefore, dollars are valuable to me even if I didn't pay taxes.
I actually pay half my income as various taxes, but even if I didn't, I could use dollars to get stuff from someone else who needs to pay their taxes.
That's right. Me, for example. My job is to maintain and improve some software my employer uses, and help others in the organization learn to use it. Since the software system is open source, all of my bug fixes and many of the improvements I do are sent back upstream. (Some aren't generally purpose, but are specific to my employer and their needs.)
I you asked if I've been able to consistently beat that computer. I've consistently playes as well as that computer. As described in the Wikipedia article, Perfect Play basically attempts to guarantee a tie. I'm going to assume the programmers don't have bugs, so they successfully tie everyone, over the long haul. I've done the same - I've tied that computer. I can guarantee a tie between me and the computer every week. My strategy is "don't play". That guarantees a tie. :)
Actually beating the computer is simple as well. Play sanely until you're up by one bet, then stop. It's virtually guaranteed that you'll be up by one bet at some point, so by stopping at that point you virtually guarantee a win against the computer.
Yes, it's interesting that the section of Wikipedia you linked to uses the same RPS example I used:
>. . As an example, the perfect strategy for Rock, Paper, Scissors would be to randomly choose each of the options with equal (1/3) probability. The disadvantage in this example is that this strategy will never exploit non-optimal strategies of the opponent, so the expected outcome of this strategy versus any strategy will always be equal to the minimal expected outcome.
As pointed out by the wiki, the expected outcome is the WORST possible non-losing outcome. I'm referring to a strategy with the BEST expected value.
You certainly can "solve" Hold 'Em the same way you can solve Tic-Tac-Toe. It's not that hard to do. Competent players all know that strategy more or less - close enough to be within the margin of random. For some, they calculate it numerically, others calculate it the same way an experienced quarterback calculates the trajectory of a thrown ball , subconciously, but effectively. Yet some players are much better than other competent players. Here's why.
You mentioned RPS, which is trivial to analyze mathematically - the winner each hand is random IF one opponents move is random. . All strategies mathematically tend to 50/50 over the long haul. Yet computers routinely beat people because people AREN'T random. Poker is like that. The optimum strategy is to play the psychology, NOT the cards. The psychology is different for every opponent.
Imagine you played 4x4 tic-tac-toe but put pictures on the board - one corner is Hitler, another corner is Beyonce, one is the prophet Mohamad, another is Obama. The pictures would likely affect your opponent's play if they don't have the exact optimum strategy memorized. Recognizing their psychological bias would CHANGE your optimum strategy. The psychology would be different playing against an Isis member vs against Jay-Z, so the optimum strategy would be different for each opponent.
Replying to myself, but I figured someone reading this might be interested. Linux does support CPU hotplug where you disable the CPU before removing it. Your motherboard might get mad about it if it's not supported by the board, though.
http://www.cyberciti.biz/faq/d...
That's interesting. Apparently it was supported well enough that they actually did hotplug CPUs regularly, as standard practice. I wonder if they "unmounted" the components before removal and "mounted" them upon insertion. That's a much easier approach, especially for CPUs, than handling a CPU suddenly going AWOL.
Sometimes it screws up the post, where "it" is the Android browser.
PS I meant that in the best possible way. I didn't really think through the connotations of "neck beard" before posting. I was really thinking more "gray beard" , including wizardly connotations.
>. Many teams would have written it off as a hardware bug a long time ago, but the linux kernel team was willing to consider and investigate the possibility that it was a rarely triggered bug in the software before they passed the buck.
And try to avoid crashing due to hardware bugs, if possible.
A contractor once hotplugged one of the CPUs in one of my servers. That's right, they took the processor out and replaced it with the machine running. The box did not crash. It kept running at least for the few minutes it took me to find out what they did and reboot the machine properly. Hardware error doesn't HAVE to mean a crash, though you can't guarantee that it never will.
Of course if you're holding it wrong, that'll always cause problems, because the special rectangle shape needs to be held at the proper aesthetic angle*. ;)
* I use and enjoy Mac pros, which are nice Unix systems. iOS mobile devices - not so much.
Sometimes it
I left out a step in my explanation about analyzing their folds so you know which hands they fold.
Suppose you observe that they fold 34% of the time they're bet into at the first interval, when they've only seen their hole cards.
You then refer to your table of odds and see that the 34th percentile corresponds to a hand of 8-9 suited or worse.
Now you know that they fold 8-9 suited or worse.
If that's not clear, maybe an example will help:
You drop 100 coins at intervals in the middle of the sidewalk, 50 pennies, 30 nickels, 15 dimes and 5 quarters.
From a distance, you watch me walk down the sidewalk, counting how many coins I pick up, but you can't see WHICH coins I pick up or pass by.
You observe that picked up 20 coins, passing up 80 others.
You deduce that I decided to pick up dimes and nickels, while passing up (folding) nickels and pennies.
You didn't need to see WHICH coins I picked up. Knowing HOW OFTEN I picked up coins allowed you to deduce which ones I picked up.
In poker, out of 200 hands, you'll have some hands rated 1 on a scale of 1-10, some rated 2, some 3, etc. By knowing which portion of hands you play, I know what your cutoff is to consider it a hand good enough to play.
With human players, analyzing 100 hands is enough to put them into one of four categories. This is what internet poker software does. I've written a not and tested it based on hundreds of thousands of hands, and I found that categorizing your opponent based on 100 hands truly does work. In other words, it's empirically proven. Analyzing the computer, we already know ahead of time that it plays strict odds, so we can place it in category 4 a priori. Watching a few dozen or a few hundred hands allows us to narrow it down even more specifically.
When the opponent folds, you don't learn much specific, but you do learn a few very important things:
How often do they fold at each betting interval, called P(Fx).
Facing a bet, what is P(Fx). This is called P(Fx|I)
On the button, what is P(Fx)?
Facing a check, what is their P(Fx)?
etc.
All of these numbers allow you to categorize them on certain axis.
The programmers assume an optimal strategy for poker, but there is no such optimum strategy as such. There is a mathematically optimum strategy ASSUMING THAT YOUR OPPONENT PLAYS THE SAME STRATEGY, which what they probably calculated. That strategy is too tight for play against most humans. A different strategy is optimum for playing a loose/wild opponent, which is different from the optimum strategy against a tight/cold.
Blackjack has one mathematically optimum strategy, because you are effectively playing against a robot - the opponent always has the exact same strategy. Professional level poker is more like football. When playing against the 2014 Broncos, the best strategy is to defend against the short play because Manning rushes himself, and doesn't throw deep very often. Playing against Elway's Broncos, the optimum was to rush while covering deep because Elway would take his time and throw deep. The optimum strategy depends very much on which opponent you're playing, so understanding your opponent and making the appropriate adjustments is key.
I wish Slashdot would allow me to mark users not just as "friend" or "foe", but as "neckbeard". :) That must have been 1986 or 1987?
That's precisely what the last paragraph of my post addressed. A bit of random choice is no problem - you can easily solve for that. I've copy-pasted my last paragraph for you below. I should also add, however, that I doubt the bot does much of that, if any, because for Hold 'Em specifically that' more likely to be harmful than helpful. In the vast majority of Hold 'Em situations, there is one answer that is unequivocally much more mathematically, and deviating from that more than 5% of the time will cost the bot significantly. (Given that the bot is playing the math, not understanding the psychology of their opponent). Some situations in Hold Em are borderline, but those fall within the margin of error. Without getting into poker notation you may not be familiar with, suppose you could choose randomly for a pair of threes. That would mean you'll need to bet a bet of fours and fold a pair of twos - the smart opponent can tell, by your bet, whether you hold "pair of threes or higher" vs "pair of threes or lower". You're only "hiding" your cards when they happen to be exactly a pair of threes, so it's probably not worth the trouble.
Paragraph from original post:
Suppose the bot throws in a bit of randomness. No problem since Bayes theorem in 1700s. We want to know the probability of a strong hand, given the bet. That's written as P(S|B). We calculate that as P(S|B) = P(B|S) * P(S) / P(B). P(S) we just look up from any of the sources who have calculated the odds of getting a sttong hand. We have P(B) and P(B|S) empirically, from its betting history.
I see you're in California. California GUARANTEES full transfer of credits, and tere is guaranteed admission, for anyone completing the two-degrees at California community colleges. There are currently 24 majors that qualify, with more planned.
For full details see http://adegreewithaguarantee.c...
Suppose you don't choose any of the 24 majors with guaranteed full transfer of credits.
UC accepts may classes, including technical classes like a variety of computer science courses, from your local community college, Mendocino. Here's where you can find precise details:
http://web1.assist.org/web-ass...
For example, you can select "Computer Science" in the drop-down and see that UC gives credit for these computer science classes taught at Medocino:
CSC 201 Computers and Computer Aplications
CSC 210 Computer Organization and Architecture
CSC 220 Introduction to Computer Science
CSC 221 Programming and Algorithms I
CSC 222 Programming and Algorithms II
History classes from your local school, Medocino, accepted by UC include:
==== History ====
HST 200 History of Western
Civilization I
HST 201 History of Western
Civilization II
HST 202 United States History
to 1877
HST 203 United States History
Since 1865
HST 205 World History to 1500
HST 206 World History since
1500
HST 207 Mexican American
History
HST 208 Women in American History HST 220 Mexican History
HST 221 California History
HST 222 Native American History
HST 250 Contemporary America: The People and the Issues
I've never quite understood your habit of making blanket statements about topics you know nothing about, which you seem especially prone to do in response to someone who actually knows the subject at hand. I told you in my post I run an ecampus for the Texas A&M System where we deal with transfer of credits. Our department MAKES the atriculation agreements with the other schools. So why you'd pull something completely out of your butt, a complete and total guess, is bewildering. You aren't stupid - there are topics you know a lot about. Then there are topics where you're completely clueless - utterly and completely wrong. You'd look like a genius if you kept discussing the topics you have a clue about but just stopped making these declarations of "fact" on topics you are completely unfamiliar with.
You can tell the other people who replied to you to suck it, because routers running alternative firmware ARE vulnerable if that alternative firmware is forked from asuswrt. AsusWRT-Merlin is one example, and is actually shown in TFA.
They currently offer:
M.S. Information Security and Assurance
M.S. Information Technology Management
MBA Information Technology Management (from the College of Business)
> I was on the job market for a little over 3 months in the southern US a few years ago.
Okay, so "a few years ago" you were looking for a job. So that's 2011-2013.
> I got my BS CS earlier in this decade ... though I've been in and out of industry to do other things.
So you got your degree in 2010-2012, meaning when you interviewed, you had close to zero years of experience actually doing anything in the field.
> can run circles around algorithm, logic, and design
You've never done anything like what we do every done, and have been doing for decades. You read a book about the system I designed, which means you can run circles around me, you think. To quote Adam Savage, "THERE'S your problem."
In your books at school, you might have read about the Morris-Pratt algorithm. You might have learned something about Apache. They may have mentioned the Linux kernel. That all prepares you to be able understand what I'm talking about when I tell you what changes I contributed to the kernel. Based on your study of what we've done, you might be able to look at the work I've done on Apache and ask intelligent questions about it. Coming at me like as a know-it-all who is going to school us is guaranteed to send you right out the door. Your type comes in thinking they know everything and you completely fuck everything up because you won't listen when those of us who built the damn thing tell you "don't do that, that'll break the production system".