What "half" of the population you moron? About 7% of the US population supports or agrees with the current feminism movement. The "womans" march after inauguration disallowed and dis invited anyone who was not pro choice, excluding at least half the women in the country. It was propaganda, and 93% of the women in the country that don't agree with feminism want people like you to fuck off and die.
The poll conducted by Public Policy Polling (PPP) shows that more Americans have a favorable opinion of the women who marched during Trump’s inaugural weekend – 50 percent – than they do of the new president, who only 44 percent of respondents support. Trump’s disapproval rating – 50 percent – is also historically high for a new president.
Wu? really, what's needed in Congress right now is an ex-General whose ACTUALLY been under fire and under a death threat.
Well she did experience death threats.
Really when the core defence of America is at stake, you have bigger problem to fix than misogyny. You need cold headed military and hard nosed politicians in Congress and Senate. Trump's men will call you a terrorist, threaten your life with actual police state, and you'll go crying, and that's no help to anyone.
You don't think defending the rights of half of the population is a worthwhile part of the struggle?
And why do you assume she'll be weak and cowardly? She stood up to a vile hate mob, had the opportunity to retire back into obscurity, and now is coming back for more. That's a lot more than I can say for a bunch of congressmen that come from a certain party that starts with R and ends with Trump.
Cynic in me says they are looking for someone who can be implicated as a terrorist supporter to be used to justify the ban.
As opposed to simply pointing to the fact that the seven countries in question are (as identified by the Obama administration hotbeds of violent jihaddi output?
A bill signed by Obama to avoid a government shutdown. Hardly an example of Obama actively pushing restrictions on those 7 countries.
As opposed to simply observing the fact that hundreds of people have died in the last couple of years at the hands of immigrants from those areas who have deliberately entered the countries where they murdered people... to murder them?
I haven't the slightest idea what you're talking about.
They were told legal residents were not included in the ban, then they were included, then a judge blocked deportation, now while everyone is stuck waiting around they might as well try to do some "extreme vetting".
There are the news reports that Trump's 90-day immigration moratorium is aimed at majority-Muslim countries excepting those where he has/had business interests. And also calling it a "Muslim ban". But those narratives don't fit the facts. Here's the list of majority-Muslim countries in descending order of population, plus those with severe civil unrest, and those subject to the moratorium. I'm measuring accuracy by country count. I should really come up with a more sophisticated measure of accuracy, but can't be bothered...
The overlap with his business interests may or may not be a coincidence, that's the problem with his business interests, you can't tell if he's making a decision for personal profit or not.
The list of countries banned corresponds to a list of countries singled out for extra scrutiny in an omnibus spending bill signed into law by Obama. But it's misleading to say it's Obama's list since the bill was primarily authored by congressional Republicans and if Obama didn't sign it when he did the US would have had another government shutdown.
From a safety concern this is entirely targeted at Muslims and not terrorists since it includes Iran which is the wrong religion.
Iran is a Shia majority country and Islamic terrorism is overwhelmingly confined to a few Sunni sects. It would be like banning immigration from London because you're afraid of the IRA. There is no rational reason to ban Persian immigrants from a safety perspective.
You don't seem to realize that you people are reacting EXACTLY as Bin Laden wanted you to. He baited you and you fell for it. Look at what our nation has become since 9/11. Bin Laden wanted to destroy our freedom, and he has succeeded because Americans are predictable morons. He knew exactly what he was doing, how we would react, and what the result would be. And you let him.
You're only half right.
Bin Laden didn't care about your freedom, he cared about Muslims. This was his plan.
1. Get the US to invade Afghanistan. 2. The US gets bogged down in a bloody war. 3. This was radicalizes the Muslim world. 4. Muslims overthrow their semi-secular dictatorships. 5. Muslims establish the caliphate.
Now in #1 he succeeded, #2 didn't quite work out Afghanistan but when Bush decided to invade Iraq #2 was also a success.
#3 was only a partial success, there's a lot more radicalization but there's still a ton of moderates. #4 was also a failure, Saddam fell, as did a few others in the Arab spring, but he didn't get the general radical uprising he wanted. #5 is also a failure, sure ISIS claimed to be the caliphate, but the caliphate was supposed to unite the Muslim world, not just chunks of a few countries, and ISIS is collapsing anyway.
Now the big challenge for ISIS and Al Queda is to radicalize more Muslims. The big risk for them is moderate Muslims emigrating West, further moderating Western Muslim populations, and then that moderation spreading back to their countries of origin.
If ISIS had a Christmas list then Trump's Executive Order would have been at the top of it.
Climate change is not doomsday nor does it in any way compare to nuclear holocaust. It is a different climate, one in which humans and life can continue to prosper. Comparing that to total destruction of half of the world while the half would have to live in nuclear fallout for thousands of year is just a joke.
Climate change increases the number and severity of adverse weather events, and longer term increases sea levels.
Both of these increase political instability and thus war, that's why the US Department of Defence is very concerned about climate change.
You also have the issue of the new President who is absurdly temperamental (he's been in power for less than a week and has already started two ridiculous spats over his inauguration crowd size and voter fraud claims).
What happens if he has to deal with a genuine international crisis?
The grown-ups in the room might be able to stop him from making a single monumentally stupid decision, but crisis don't necessarily happen that way. A few months of tit-for-tat escalating tensions with China and it might be hard for even the grown-ups to stop an actual conflict.
He is trying to build a better buggy whip. The solution to traffic congestion is not more infrastructure capacity, but using the capacity we have more efficiently. Automatic braking, lane control and (eventually) SDCs, should be able to increase road capacity by a factor of 2 to 5. As the CEO of Tesla, he should focus on that. By the time the tunnel is built, it will no longer be needed.
I've no idea if Musk is serious, I'm pretty certain that digging a tunnel under a city requires a ton of permits and months/years of public consultation that don't seem to have happened, but if he were serious I wonder if he's thinking about a private tunnel for just the rich.
There's a lot of obscenely rich people in LA who don't want so spend hours in LA traffic, and private choppers have a lot of limitations.
So make a smaller scale tunnel that costs $10k/month, it doesn't fix the traffic problem but it allows him and his fellow rich folks avoid traffic along that particular route.
I've no idea if that would make the numbers add up but I'm not sure how else he plans to make money (or even afford the construction cost).
She took bribes from Russia for selling them US uranium.
False
I trust you're calling bullshit when Democrats talk about Trump's business ties to Russia then, yes?
Is someone said they knew for certain he had ties to Russia I'd call BS.
But probable ties? Probably. And he could easily disprove business ties by releasing his taxes.
She failed to follow government guidelines for record retention.
True, but very common.
Very much horseshit, to be technical. She is the only SoS to use a private email server exclusively. And starting a mere two years after she publicly blasted the Bush Administration for their private servers.
Yeah, she was hypocritical on that count. Also not unprecedented in a politician.
She also deleted tens of thousands of emails with the same authorization she had in setting up her server (none) which would have had her serving a few decades in prison for obstruction of justice, if her name was Hillary Smith.
Actually she's in the clear there. The law explicitly gives the official the right to identify official correspondence in their personal records, deliver it for retention, and then delete the rest. It was the responsibility of the law firm to properly sort the emails.
That only refers to information you know you have, she didn't realized classified info was on the server.
Pure sophistry. Hillary knew full well that the information she was dealing in was born classified. Think about it for two seconds: if the U.S. ambassador to Pakistan sends an email about the state of nuclear tensions between that country and India, does it have to be marked classified before it is treated as such?
So do you want to imprison the ambassador then?
Other people have been sent to prison for far less - just ask the Navy man serving time for taking a few selfies on an unsecured, unauthorized cell phone.
You mean the guy who was sneaking around the sub in off-hours to take photos of things he knew were classified, possibly to sell to a foreign government?
However, if the algorithm's play becomes so human-like that it defeats all attempts to distinguish it from that of an actual human (essentially passing the Turing test), would it still have an advantage over a human?
Yes.
Not all humans are equal, if my algorithm's play is indistinguishable from a really good human then I'll still make a lot of money.
The online poker sites have software that does its best to prevent bots from playing. It's also against their terms of use. It doesn't stop everyone, but it does prevent a lot of bot play.
Have two machines running side by side. Input game state from the poker site machine into your bot, and enter the moves from your bot into the poker site machine.
It's pretty much impossible to prevent unless you can algorithmically detect computer style play, or simply decide a user at a certain level is too good to be human.
a huge part of the post-election conversation is trying to understand why the left lost touch with the white working class.
I hope you're right. I have seen very little in terms of tone change since the election. In fact, I've heard the opposite stated a few times, that it would be akin to giving in to racist coercion to have a more straight-up populist message with less of the identity politics.
It seems to me from the voter turnout perspective, it wasn't so much that Trump and Republicans turned out huge numbers, but that Hillary and the democrats failed to turn out the Obama coalition and didn't woo a significant number of new Latino voters. I think it speaks more to lacking a charismatic leader at the top or perhaps hubris by democrats due to all the expectation that the election was in the bag.
I think a big factor this time was Sanders playing the populist card to capture a majority of the most outspoken progressive voters.
Even when he conceded he couldn't reverse the damage to Clinton's brand, and even though those voters still supported Clinton they did so grudgingly and didn't really defend her against attacks. And that's what let the stream of scandals bring her popularity down to the point where the EC and a poorly timed FBI announcement could swing the election.
Donald Knuth is an elitist. It is not necessary to have a background in mathematics to write software. I taught myself PHP and I certainly don't have any kind of mathematics background whatsoever. It isn't dumbing down as he claims. It's about creating opportunities. If you can code and you can do it well without mathematics, so be it. The math side is for those that want to do research. I work in the real world....
There's a lot of jobs for coders who don't know math, but there's a ceiling on how good a programmer you can become.
Fundamentally all programming is research, you have a problem and you need to develop a robust solution on how to solve it.
Sometimes those problems don't involve math, but sometimes they do. You might need to implement a specific calculation (and understand how to verify and debug it), if you have a large data base you need some math for your queries to return quickly. And for any non-trivial problem where you need to design your own algorithm you need to have enough of a mathematical mindset to write it efficiently.
Think of it like race car driving. Driving a race car has a lot of special skills useless for 99% of of driving in a city. But someone who trains with race cars is probably going to be better at that 99% because they push past their limits. And the 1% where those special skills do come in handy they'll see a drastic difference.
And the problem with the left is that they can't compromise and won't evolve.
Have you been sleeping the past 8 years? The right refused compromise on principle.
I was just listening to Bill Maher from last night, and all the liberals encouraging the audience to fight, disrupt, oppose, insult(*), and combat everything the right wants to do.
I didn't see the segment in question, but I'm pretty sure he was talking about Trump, a character so dangerous the GOP spent most of the primary desperately trying to stop him.
Nowhere did anyone say "we have to become better". Nothing about making better policies, making more intelligent arguments, doing things voters want, making the country better, or anything that could be considered noble.
The left talks about that constantly, a huge part of the post-election conversation is trying to understand why the left lost touch with the white working class.
But as to "better policies" and "intelligent arguments", a huge part of the criticism of Sanders was that his policies weren't robust. The right has spent the last few year using high deductibles as a major criticism of Obamacare, all the while selling high deductible coverage as their replacement.
Trump's speeches were warm and inclusive, saying essentially "we're in this together, we can win, we can do better".
"Warm and inclusive" is an odd description of mass deportation, immigration bans based on religion, promises to imprison your rival, and the constant demonization of the media.
I don't think anyone on the left has a clue how ineffective their campaign of crying, whining, and insulting is.
It can be very effective, whiny insulting campaign speeches won Trump the election.
Or more accurately, a backlash against subsidies - $10 per megawatt hour.
It's a middle finger to progressives.
This is the problem with the political right at the moment. They're not trying to correct the market or protect local jobs, they're trying to rile up their base by pissing off people concerned about global warming.
One would expect that. Even a bad computer program with a dozen eyes is likely to be better than a bag of meat with only two.
I'm more concerned about the long-term secondary effects. Do drivers who get used to this technology become dependent on it, and thus have higher accident rates when driving rental cars that lack this technology?
That's a concern, but my bigger worry is the seat belt effect. That in response to the perception of better safety people start to take more risks.
That's also the major reservation with this data set. These are all users relatively new to the auto-pilot, I know if you installed an auto-pilot in my car I'd be pretty damn paranoid for the first few months and my accident rate would plummet too. I'm not certain they're measuring the safety benefit of the auto-pilot or just their own drivers being extra careful while using it. Similarly drivers might start getting really careless as they start to trust the software, ie changing lanes without a shoulder check because they expect the Tesla to catch it.
Additionally, I'm less than convinced by the use of a single number here. To be meaningful, you need at least two numbers: the number of crashes avoided because of software intervention and the number of crashes caused by driver inattention. After all, if the system saves a bunch of lives because of things that a human driver couldn't have predicted, but costs a small number of lives because some humans depended too much on the vehicle to drive for them, then it is great from a statistical perspective, but that's little comfort for the families of people who died because the autopilot lulled them into a false sense of security.
I've been really critical of Tesla so far and their previous "statistical" safety claims have been ridiculous.
But other than sample size and the reservations I mentioned I think this is the proper test. Comparing "crashes avoided because of X" is a really arbitrary and hard to judge standard, plus it avoids secondary effects such as driving conditions and changes in behaviour.
The proper test is the total accident rate for Tesla drivers with the auto-pilot vs without, with proper controls to handle confounders. But this is a data set that needs to be continually monitored since both the auto-pilot software and drivers are moving targets.
When Trump's nominee said something that was untrue to congress he almost certainly knew it was untrue.
When Clinton did the same she probably thought she was telling the truth.
or something that's been done by high profile member of the incoming administration.
See above.
GOP shenanigans do not excuse Democratic shenanigans, and vice versa. Case in point, you probably didn't give Trump a pass for being a sexually harassing womanizer during the election last year, because Bill Clinton did it first.
Fine, I'll go through point-by-point:
She took bribes from Russia for selling them US uranium.
False.
She took $600 million in bribes for directing State Department mandates.
False.
She failed to follow government guidelines for record retention.
True, but very common.
She stored classified information on unsecure servers.
True, but also very common.
She had a non-cleared house cleaner go into her secure room and get secure faxes for her.
True, but again I suspect it isn't unprecedented.
She failed to turn over all classified information she had after finishing her term.
She failed to report mishandling of classified information.
That only refers to information you know you have, she didn't realized classified info was on the server.
Her classified information ended up on Anthony Weiner's laptop.
Unknown... and a really confused statement which actually reveals a bunch of misconceptions about the whole scandal.
Hillary Clinton did not use Anthony Weiner's laptop, her aid Huma Abedin did, likely with her official State Dept email address.
IF there was classified information on the laptop, it's because it was sent to Huma's official email, probably by another person who wasn't Clinton, and this other not-Clinton was probably using an official government email address.
And this scenario, where two government employees sent each other emails containing classified information using their official government email addresses, is exactly the same thing Clinton is accused of. The fact that Clinton's email address was on a private server is irrelevant.
The reason why the GOP focused so much on the private email server is because it you just focus on the actual crime, sending classified information over unclassified channels, they'd look ridiculous when it became clear that a huge portion of high level government employees were guilty of the same crime.
Hey buddy, I am President of the United States now, you can't talk to me that way! So knock it the hell off or I'll have the Secret Service grab you right by the pussy!
Obviously an imposter.
Trump could never write a sentence that well structured. Much less two in sequence.
It amazes me that people continue to believe Trump is impulsive. There's nothing impulsive about anything Trump does; it's all extremely calculated. If I didn't know better I was say the press were in collusion to spread that myth in order to make people underestimate Trump, but as usual Occam's razor applies and the press are just full of idiots.
And you think this because he won, likely due to a very poorly timed announcement from the FBI, against the second most unpopular candidate in history while still losing the popular vote by 3 million.
And now he's going into office with by far the lowest inauguration approval rating in history and a transition that's massively behind schedule because he purged his first transition team (not to mention his first two campaign managers).
If that's all calculated I'd hate to see him screw up.
For those that don't know what that is, here is the entirety of the text of that clause
No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States: and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state.
Trump is NOT in violation of this clause. And it is a hillarious claim coming from anyone that voted for Hillary, who would have been actually in violation of this clause, with the Clinton Foundation.
Whether Trump is in violation is debatable just because it's so hard to figure out what a proper violation would be.
But Hillary didn't accept gifts from foreign states, her foundation did (which did not personally profit her).
Also, I believe she said she would shut down the foundation (or at least drastically curtailed it) as every President who has significant outside interests has done, other than Trump.
If Trump wants to be President he has to sell his company. I'm sorry if he'll become slightly less rich as a result, if he wasn't prepared to do the job he shouldn't have run.
Slashdot Mirror
What "half" of the population you moron? About 7% of the US population supports or agrees with the current feminism movement. The "womans" march after inauguration disallowed and dis invited anyone who was not pro choice, excluding at least half the women in the country. It was propaganda, and 93% of the women in the country that don't agree with feminism want people like you to fuck off and die.
Nope.
The poll conducted by Public Policy Polling (PPP) shows that more Americans have a favorable opinion of the women who marched during Trump’s inaugural weekend – 50 percent – than they do of the new president, who only 44 percent of respondents support. Trump’s disapproval rating – 50 percent – is also historically high for a new president.
Wu? really, what's needed in Congress right now is an ex-General whose ACTUALLY been under fire and under a death threat.
Well she did experience death threats.
Really when the core defence of America is at stake, you have bigger problem to fix than misogyny. You need cold headed military and hard nosed politicians in Congress and Senate. Trump's men will call you a terrorist, threaten your life with actual police state, and you'll go crying, and that's no help to anyone.
You don't think defending the rights of half of the population is a worthwhile part of the struggle?
And why do you assume she'll be weak and cowardly? She stood up to a vile hate mob, had the opportunity to retire back into obscurity, and now is coming back for more. That's a lot more than I can say for a bunch of congressmen that come from a certain party that starts with R and ends with Trump.
Cynic in me says they are looking for someone who can be implicated as a terrorist supporter to be used to justify the ban.
As opposed to simply pointing to the fact that the seven countries in question are (as identified by the Obama administration hotbeds of violent jihaddi output?
A bill signed by Obama to avoid a government shutdown. Hardly an example of Obama actively pushing restrictions on those 7 countries.
As opposed to simply observing the fact that hundreds of people have died in the last couple of years at the hands of immigrants from those areas who have deliberately entered the countries where they murdered people ... to murder them?
I haven't the slightest idea what you're talking about.
And I'm pretty sure that makes two of us.
Cynic in me says they are looking for someone who can be implicated as a terrorist supporter to be used to justify the ban.
The cynic in me says that border control agents are as confused by the order as everyone else.
They were told legal residents were not included in the ban, then they were included, then a judge blocked deportation, now while everyone is stuck waiting around they might as well try to do some "extreme vetting".
There are the news reports that Trump's 90-day immigration moratorium is aimed at majority-Muslim countries excepting those where he has/had business interests. And also calling it a "Muslim ban". But those narratives don't fit the facts. Here's the list of majority-Muslim countries in descending order of population, plus those with severe civil unrest, and those subject to the moratorium. I'm measuring accuracy by country count. I should really come up with a more sophisticated measure of accuracy, but can't be bothered...
The overlap with his business interests may or may not be a coincidence, that's the problem with his business interests, you can't tell if he's making a decision for personal profit or not.
But this is intended as a Muslim ban, Giuliani is taking credit for the policy saying that Trump asked him for a legal way to do the Muslim ban and that's what they came up with.
The list of countries banned corresponds to a list of countries singled out for extra scrutiny in an omnibus spending bill signed into law by Obama. But it's misleading to say it's Obama's list since the bill was primarily authored by congressional Republicans and if Obama didn't sign it when he did the US would have had another government shutdown.
From a safety concern this is entirely targeted at Muslims and not terrorists since it includes Iran which is the wrong religion.
Iran is a Shia majority country and Islamic terrorism is overwhelmingly confined to a few Sunni sects. It would be like banning immigration from London because you're afraid of the IRA. There is no rational reason to ban Persian immigrants from a safety perspective.
Seriously, ban legal, visa-holder residents for 90 days? Was he expecting that not to turn into a shitshow?
This is what happens when you let Bannon write foreign policy.
Trump doing something wildly incompetent? I'll believe it when I see it.
Next you're going to tell me that his hair is really just a crappy weave!
You don't seem to realize that you people are reacting EXACTLY as Bin Laden wanted you to. He baited you and you fell for it. Look at what our nation has become since 9/11. Bin Laden wanted to destroy our freedom, and he has succeeded because Americans are predictable morons. He knew exactly what he was doing, how we would react, and what the result would be. And you let him.
You're only half right.
Bin Laden didn't care about your freedom, he cared about Muslims. This was his plan.
1. Get the US to invade Afghanistan.
2. The US gets bogged down in a bloody war.
3. This was radicalizes the Muslim world.
4. Muslims overthrow their semi-secular dictatorships.
5. Muslims establish the caliphate.
Now in #1 he succeeded, #2 didn't quite work out Afghanistan but when Bush decided to invade Iraq #2 was also a success.
#3 was only a partial success, there's a lot more radicalization but there's still a ton of moderates.
#4 was also a failure, Saddam fell, as did a few others in the Arab spring, but he didn't get the general radical uprising he wanted.
#5 is also a failure, sure ISIS claimed to be the caliphate, but the caliphate was supposed to unite the Muslim world, not just chunks of a few countries, and ISIS is collapsing anyway.
Now the big challenge for ISIS and Al Queda is to radicalize more Muslims. The big risk for them is moderate Muslims emigrating West, further moderating Western Muslim populations, and then that moderation spreading back to their countries of origin.
If ISIS had a Christmas list then Trump's Executive Order would have been at the top of it.
Climate change is not doomsday nor does it in any way compare to nuclear holocaust. It is a different climate, one in which humans and life can continue to prosper. Comparing that to total destruction of half of the world while the half would have to live in nuclear fallout for thousands of year is just a joke.
Climate change increases the number and severity of adverse weather events, and longer term increases sea levels.
Both of these increase political instability and thus war, that's why the US Department of Defence is very concerned about climate change.
You also have the issue of the new President who is absurdly temperamental (he's been in power for less than a week and has already started two ridiculous spats over his inauguration crowd size and voter fraud claims).
What happens if he has to deal with a genuine international crisis?
The grown-ups in the room might be able to stop him from making a single monumentally stupid decision, but crisis don't necessarily happen that way. A few months of tit-for-tat escalating tensions with China and it might be hard for even the grown-ups to stop an actual conflict.
He is trying to build a better buggy whip. The solution to traffic congestion is not more infrastructure capacity, but using the capacity we have more efficiently. Automatic braking, lane control and (eventually) SDCs, should be able to increase road capacity by a factor of 2 to 5. As the CEO of Tesla, he should focus on that. By the time the tunnel is built, it will no longer be needed.
I've no idea if Musk is serious, I'm pretty certain that digging a tunnel under a city requires a ton of permits and months/years of public consultation that don't seem to have happened, but if he were serious I wonder if he's thinking about a private tunnel for just the rich.
There's a lot of obscenely rich people in LA who don't want so spend hours in LA traffic, and private choppers have a lot of limitations.
So make a smaller scale tunnel that costs $10k/month, it doesn't fix the traffic problem but it allows him and his fellow rich folks avoid traffic along that particular route.
I've no idea if that would make the numbers add up but I'm not sure how else he plans to make money (or even afford the construction cost).
I trust you're calling bullshit when Democrats talk about Trump's business ties to Russia then, yes?
Is someone said they knew for certain he had ties to Russia I'd call BS.
But probable ties? Probably. And he could easily disprove business ties by releasing his taxes.
Yeah, she was hypocritical on that count. Also not unprecedented in a politician.
Actually she's in the clear there. The law explicitly gives the official the right to identify official correspondence in their personal records, deliver it for retention, and then delete the rest. It was the responsibility of the law firm to properly sort the emails.
So do you want to imprison the ambassador then?
Other people have been sent to prison for far less - just ask the Navy man serving time for taking a few selfies on an unsecured, unauthorized cell phone.
You mean the guy who was sneaking around the sub in off-hours to take photos of things he knew were classified, possibly to sell to a foreign government?
What about the guy who sent classified information with foreign governments without authorization? I don't think he got punished... in fact I think he just got a new job.
A software developer reaaally doesn't want to come in to work on Monday.
However, if the algorithm's play becomes so human-like that it defeats all attempts to distinguish it from that of an actual human (essentially passing the Turing test), would it still have an advantage over a human?
Yes.
Not all humans are equal, if my algorithm's play is indistinguishable from a really good human then I'll still make a lot of money.
The online poker sites have software that does its best to prevent bots from playing. It's also against their terms of use. It doesn't stop everyone, but it does prevent a lot of bot play.
Have two machines running side by side. Input game state from the poker site machine into your bot, and enter the moves from your bot into the poker site machine.
It's pretty much impossible to prevent unless you can algorithmically detect computer style play, or simply decide a user at a certain level is too good to be human.
a huge part of the post-election conversation is trying to understand why the left lost touch with the white working class.
I hope you're right. I have seen very little in terms of tone change since the election. In fact, I've heard the opposite stated a few times, that it would be akin to giving in to racist coercion to have a more straight-up populist message with less of the identity politics.
It seems to me from the voter turnout perspective, it wasn't so much that Trump and Republicans turned out huge numbers, but that Hillary and the democrats failed to turn out the Obama coalition and didn't woo a significant number of new Latino voters. I think it speaks more to lacking a charismatic leader at the top or perhaps hubris by democrats due to all the expectation that the election was in the bag.
I think a big factor this time was Sanders playing the populist card to capture a majority of the most outspoken progressive voters.
Even when he conceded he couldn't reverse the damage to Clinton's brand, and even though those voters still supported Clinton they did so grudgingly and didn't really defend her against attacks. And that's what let the stream of scandals bring her popularity down to the point where the EC and a poorly timed FBI announcement could swing the election.
Donald Knuth is an elitist. It is not necessary to have a background in mathematics to write software. I taught myself PHP and I certainly don't have any kind of mathematics background whatsoever. It isn't dumbing down as he claims. It's about creating opportunities. If you can code and you can do it well without mathematics, so be it. The math side is for those that want to do research. I work in the real world ....
There's a lot of jobs for coders who don't know math, but there's a ceiling on how good a programmer you can become.
Fundamentally all programming is research, you have a problem and you need to develop a robust solution on how to solve it.
Sometimes those problems don't involve math, but sometimes they do. You might need to implement a specific calculation (and understand how to verify and debug it), if you have a large data base you need some math for your queries to return quickly. And for any non-trivial problem where you need to design your own algorithm you need to have enough of a mathematical mindset to write it efficiently.
Think of it like race car driving. Driving a race car has a lot of special skills useless for 99% of of driving in a city. But someone who trains with race cars is probably going to be better at that 99% because they push past their limits. And the 1% where those special skills do come in handy they'll see a drastic difference.
by pissing off people concerned about global warming.
Why shouldn't they? When have "people concerned about global warming" shown them anything but hatred and contempt and enmity?
Simply put the left is yelling at the right because the right is refusing to accept AGW and reduce emissions.
The right is yelling at the left because they got yelled at.
And the problem with the left is that they can't compromise and won't evolve.
Have you been sleeping the past 8 years? The right refused compromise on principle.
I was just listening to Bill Maher from last night, and all the liberals encouraging the audience to fight, disrupt, oppose, insult(*), and combat everything the right wants to do.
I didn't see the segment in question, but I'm pretty sure he was talking about Trump, a character so dangerous the GOP spent most of the primary desperately trying to stop him.
Nowhere did anyone say "we have to become better". Nothing about making better policies, making more intelligent arguments, doing things voters want, making the country better, or anything that could be considered noble.
The left talks about that constantly, a huge part of the post-election conversation is trying to understand why the left lost touch with the white working class.
But as to "better policies" and "intelligent arguments", a huge part of the criticism of Sanders was that his policies weren't robust. The right has spent the last few year using high deductibles as a major criticism of Obamacare, all the while selling high deductible coverage as their replacement.
Trump's speeches were warm and inclusive, saying essentially "we're in this together, we can win, we can do better".
"Warm and inclusive" is an odd description of mass deportation, immigration bans based on religion, promises to imprison your rival, and the constant demonization of the media.
I don't think anyone on the left has a clue how ineffective their campaign of crying, whining, and insulting is.
It can be very effective, whiny insulting campaign speeches won Trump the election.
Or more accurately, a backlash against subsidies - $10 per megawatt hour.
It's a middle finger to progressives.
This is the problem with the political right at the moment. They're not trying to correct the market or protect local jobs, they're trying to rile up their base by pissing off people concerned about global warming.
One would expect that. Even a bad computer program with a dozen eyes is likely to be better than a bag of meat with only two.
I'm more concerned about the long-term secondary effects. Do drivers who get used to this technology become dependent on it, and thus have higher accident rates when driving rental cars that lack this technology?
That's a concern, but my bigger worry is the seat belt effect. That in response to the perception of better safety people start to take more risks.
That's also the major reservation with this data set. These are all users relatively new to the auto-pilot, I know if you installed an auto-pilot in my car I'd be pretty damn paranoid for the first few months and my accident rate would plummet too. I'm not certain they're measuring the safety benefit of the auto-pilot or just their own drivers being extra careful while using it. Similarly drivers might start getting really careless as they start to trust the software, ie changing lanes without a shoulder check because they expect the Tesla to catch it.
Additionally, I'm less than convinced by the use of a single number here. To be meaningful, you need at least two numbers: the number of crashes avoided because of software intervention and the number of crashes caused by driver inattention. After all, if the system saves a bunch of lives because of things that a human driver couldn't have predicted, but costs a small number of lives because some humans depended too much on the vehicle to drive for them, then it is great from a statistical perspective, but that's little comfort for the families of people who died because the autopilot lulled them into a false sense of security.
I've been really critical of Tesla so far and their previous "statistical" safety claims have been ridiculous.
But other than sample size and the reservations I mentioned I think this is the proper test. Comparing "crashes avoided because of X" is a really arbitrary and hard to judge standard, plus it avoids secondary effects such as driving conditions and changes in behaviour.
The proper test is the total accident rate for Tesla drivers with the auto-pilot vs without, with proper controls to handle confounders. But this is a data set that needs to be continually monitored since both the auto-pilot software and drivers are moving targets.
Irrelevant.
We'll I'll admit there's one big difference.
When Trump's nominee said something that was untrue to congress he almost certainly knew it was untrue.
When Clinton did the same she probably thought she was telling the truth.
or something that's been done by high profile member of the incoming administration.
See above.
GOP shenanigans do not excuse Democratic shenanigans, and vice versa. Case in point, you probably didn't give Trump a pass for being a sexually harassing womanizer during the election last year, because Bill Clinton did it first.
Fine, I'll go through point-by-point:
She took bribes from Russia for selling them US uranium.
False.
She took $600 million in bribes for directing State Department mandates.
False.
She failed to follow government guidelines for record retention.
True, but very common.
She stored classified information on unsecure servers.
True, but also very common.
She had a non-cleared house cleaner go into her secure room and get secure faxes for her.
True, but again I suspect it isn't unprecedented.
She failed to turn over all classified information she had after finishing her term.
She failed to report mishandling of classified information.
That only refers to information you know you have, she didn't realized classified info was on the server.
Her classified information ended up on Anthony Weiner's laptop.
Unknown... and a really confused statement which actually reveals a bunch of misconceptions about the whole scandal.
Hillary Clinton did not use Anthony Weiner's laptop, her aid Huma Abedin did, likely with her official State Dept email address.
IF there was classified information on the laptop, it's because it was sent to Huma's official email, probably by another person who wasn't Clinton, and this other not-Clinton was probably using an official government email address.
And this scenario, where two government employees sent each other emails containing classified information using their official government email addresses, is exactly the same thing Clinton is accused of. The fact that Clinton's email address was on a private server is irrelevant.
The reason why the GOP focused so much on the private email server is because it you just focus on the actual crime, sending classified information over unclassified channels, they'd look ridiculous when it became clear that a huge portion of high level government employees were guilty of the same crime.
Hey buddy, I am President of the United States now, you can't talk to me that way! So knock it the hell off or I'll have the Secret Service grab you right by the pussy!
Obviously an imposter.
Trump could never write a sentence that well structured. Much less two in sequence.
I think less of people like you because you watched an adult mock a disabled person in front of a crowd and still supported him.
I don't believe you.
Then I have a bridge to sell you because the fact he was mocking the disability is really, really, really obvious.
Just because you like Trump doesn't mean you need to defend every obvious lie he makes.
Or should we call him 'Pussy-Grabber-in-Chief'?
Personally I prefer 'President Pussy-Grabber', and I encourage everyone so inclined to refer to him as such whenver possible.
I prefer Crybaby-in-chief.
He's by far the whiniest person to ever sit in the Oval Office.
It amazes me that people continue to believe Trump is impulsive. There's nothing impulsive about anything Trump does; it's all extremely calculated. If I didn't know better I was say the press were in collusion to spread that myth in order to make people underestimate Trump, but as usual Occam's razor applies and the press are just full of idiots.
And you think this because he won, likely due to a very poorly timed announcement from the FBI, against the second most unpopular candidate in history while still losing the popular vote by 3 million.
And now he's going into office with by far the lowest inauguration approval rating in history and a transition that's massively behind schedule because he purged his first transition team (not to mention his first two campaign managers).
If that's all calculated I'd hate to see him screw up.
For those that don't know what that is, here is the entirety of the text of that clause
No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States: and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state.
Trump is NOT in violation of this clause. And it is a hillarious claim coming from anyone that voted for Hillary, who would have been actually in violation of this clause, with the Clinton Foundation.
Whether Trump is in violation is debatable just because it's so hard to figure out what a proper violation would be.
But Hillary didn't accept gifts from foreign states, her foundation did (which did not personally profit her).
Also, I believe she said she would shut down the foundation (or at least drastically curtailed it) as every President who has significant outside interests has done, other than Trump.
If Trump wants to be President he has to sell his company. I'm sorry if he'll become slightly less rich as a result, if he wasn't prepared to do the job he shouldn't have run.