That doesn't make sense, much the science is centered around the problem of feedback loops whereby although CO2 is clearly the cause of initial warming, a number of other factors come into play as a result of that warming that in themselves increase warming; i.e. release of methane from melting permafrost.
Yeah and these are not well understood at all, so anyone asserting they know how they all operate is lying to you.
I did, and I kept coming up with articles about how base load is a myth, and the wind is always blowing somewhere, and how it's cheaper to get a given capacity with batteries and solar/wind than with
Yeah. Now find a place where baseload has been replaced by wind or solar power. The articles you read are all wishes and dreams.
Note: if you do find such an article or location, let me know because that will be sweet.
but it also has a duty to do the best it can to inform public policy.
Science is a tool to help find the truth. As soon as you talk about "duty to inform" then you are in the realm of politics, not science. (It can still be a good thing, but it's not science).
You still refused to address the cost of nuclear exceeds the cost of power storage capacity as built by even a single manufacturer, Tesla, by a factor of hundreds to thousands
The Tesla thing is cool, and I hope to see more of it in the future, but it doesn't work as general power grid storage solution. Also, your insults are tiring, learn to think.
Given their products, if they have more than $100million in annual expenses, they are doing something wrong. Now, they could be doing something wrong, but that's a different story.
Yes, nuclear power is a compelling option for low-CO2 sources of energy. But there are others. Solar, wind, geothermal, tides, and so on.
Nuclear is the only power source that can replace all CO2 generating electrical sources right now. Thus, if you were serious about getting rid of emissions, you'd immediately start switching to nuclear (solar and wind are fine for part of the electrical load).
If you were serious about getting rid of emissions, you'd also mandate electric (or non-combustion engine) cars, along with subsidies for people who couldn't afford them. If this is something serious enough that it must happen today.
In the united states you don't need to carry an id. You need to carry your driver's license if you are driving but that is state dependent. I didn't have an id until after I was an adult, and even now I don't carry it with me most of the time.
If AlphaStar's pre-learned strategies were as shallow as you feel, I doubt a world-class Protoss player would let himself get trapped into a purely mechanical defeat so easily - five times in a row. I would imagine a player of that quality could identify and circumvent any obvious strategies after the first game, but it took until his 6th game before he found an exploitable weakness.
I don't think number of games is what you should look at here. The games were played one after another, very quickly. As soon as he had time to stop and think for a while (and I think he discussed it with TLO), he was able to come up with a winning strategy. And actually beating it is not very hard: all you have to do is insist that they play on a map the computer has never seen. A new map would cause the computer to become hopelessly confused.
Each AI agent (there were five different agents for each human player) used the same strategy over and over. If TLO had been able to play the same agent over and over, he probably would have won 4 out of the 5 games. In his second game, he used a strategy that was tailored against the way the first agent played. By the third game, he was just confused about what to do.
Nonetheless, I believe the real achievement here is not that it won games,
I agree.
but that it played at such a surprisingly high level in a vast action space that makes Go look like Checkers, balancing economic requirements with scouting and unit builds while defending against a variety of counters
No, it didn't scout at all, watch again. Even when it did get information by chance (for example, in game 1 against MaNa when an Oracle flew right by the computer's army) it didn't respond appropriately (it should have built a shield battery by the harvesters or put stalkers in the mineral line to defend) and lost 15 harvesters. It won anyway because of incredible micro.
Also notable: it didn't seem to respond to the opponent's army composition at all. The human built a bunch of immortals? The computer didn't respond at all, it kept building stalkers (which are weak against immortals).
The AI strategy seems to be "build a set number of each unit time. If the opponent is in view, attack it with very good micro (or retreat if the other army is bigger). If the opponent is not in view, at certain times move to certain parts of the map."
And that's why Trump will win in 2020: the left is divided (seriously, would it hurt you to not make jokes about gender? People are trying to be taken seriously here). Howard Schultz is on one side of the divide, Alexandria Ocasio Cortez on the other. Kamela Harris is trying to sit in the middle, but will she succeed?
I think the biggest problem they are going to have to deal with is the lack of object permanence. "Guessing" what isn't on the screen is a huge part of Starcraft. That's just my opinion, though.
I'd be surprised if it didn't apply to Go. It certainly applies to chess, although the time scale is longer. A new player will appear (Bobby Fischer, Tal) with a new playing style, be very dominant, but after a while people will adjust to his style and he will fade (now many people can do the things Fischer innovated).
I like C and Smalltalk for the clarity and focus of their ideas (you may say that C is not focused or clear, but look how many languages have copied it). Smalltalk is powerful, even though people call it "Object Oriented" it really picks up a lot of ideas from Alan Kay's Lisp days. Squeak does a good job showcasing the ideas, it's worth downloading and playing with. APL is really cool, overloaded operators done right. (It was of course impossible at the time, but if Excel had been built on top of APL, it would have been a more natural, flexible, and beautiful product).
I also think Forth is worth looking at, but I'm not really good at it enough to say it's great.
Slashdot Mirror
In what part of the world has solar or wind replaced 100% of the energy needs? Nuclear can do it right now, but wind and solar are just theoretical.
That doesn't make sense, much the science is centered around the problem of feedback loops whereby although CO2 is clearly the cause of initial warming, a number of other factors come into play as a result of that warming that in themselves increase warming; i.e. release of methane from melting permafrost.
Yeah and these are not well understood at all, so anyone asserting they know how they all operate is lying to you.
I did, and I kept coming up with articles about how base load is a myth, and the wind is always blowing somewhere, and how it's cheaper to get a given capacity with batteries and solar/wind than with
Yeah. Now find a place where baseload has been replaced by wind or solar power. The articles you read are all wishes and dreams.
Note: if you do find such an article or location, let me know because that will be sweet.
How fucking ignorant must you be to demand that there's no moral imperative to educate others or tell the truth?
Less ignorant than you, who can not even read to the last sentence of my post.
I wonder what they're doing with all their money. What could they possibly be spending it on?
Nah, each cumulative addition of CO2 produces a logarithmically smaller increase in temperature. That's the way the physics works.
but it also has a duty to do the best it can to inform public policy.
Science is a tool to help find the truth. As soon as you talk about "duty to inform" then you are in the realm of politics, not science. (It can still be a good thing, but it's not science).
It's not only been considered, it's being studied.
Sounds like a solution that is being considered and studied, not implemented.
You would think so, but given the fact they're still losing money
Are they losing money? Is that mentioned somewhere?
You still refused to address the cost of nuclear exceeds the cost of power storage capacity as built by even a single manufacturer, Tesla, by a factor of hundreds to thousands
The Tesla thing is cool, and I hope to see more of it in the future, but it doesn't work as general power grid storage solution. Also, your insults are tiring, learn to think.
Which other "one"? That's a fail by itself. ALL of them
All of them? So kinetic watch movement?
You need to research baseload electricity.
Given their products, if they have more than $100million in annual expenses, they are doing something wrong. Now, they could be doing something wrong, but that's a different story.
- False. Next bullshit assertion presented as fact?
Oh yeah? Which other one can do it?
Yes, nuclear power is a compelling option for low-CO2 sources of energy. But there are others. Solar, wind, geothermal, tides, and so on.
Nuclear is the only power source that can replace all CO2 generating electrical sources right now. Thus, if you were serious about getting rid of emissions, you'd immediately start switching to nuclear (solar and wind are fine for part of the electrical load).
If you were serious about getting rid of emissions, you'd also mandate electric (or non-combustion engine) cars, along with subsidies for people who couldn't afford them. If this is something serious enough that it must happen today.
But it's not that serious.
In the united states you don't need to carry an id. You need to carry your driver's license if you are driving but that is state dependent. I didn't have an id until after I was an adult, and even now I don't carry it with me most of the time.
No, they are going to melt by 2035. Count on it.
If AlphaStar's pre-learned strategies were as shallow as you feel, I doubt a world-class Protoss player would let himself get trapped into a purely mechanical defeat so easily - five times in a row. I would imagine a player of that quality could identify and circumvent any obvious strategies after the first game, but it took until his 6th game before he found an exploitable weakness.
I don't think number of games is what you should look at here. The games were played one after another, very quickly. As soon as he had time to stop and think for a while (and I think he discussed it with TLO), he was able to come up with a winning strategy. And actually beating it is not very hard: all you have to do is insist that they play on a map the computer has never seen. A new map would cause the computer to become hopelessly confused.
Each AI agent (there were five different agents for each human player) used the same strategy over and over. If TLO had been able to play the same agent over and over, he probably would have won 4 out of the 5 games. In his second game, he used a strategy that was tailored against the way the first agent played. By the third game, he was just confused about what to do.
Nonetheless, I believe the real achievement here is not that it won games,
I agree.
but that it played at such a surprisingly high level in a vast action space that makes Go look like Checkers, balancing economic requirements with scouting and unit builds while defending against a variety of counters
No, it didn't scout at all, watch again. Even when it did get information by chance (for example, in game 1 against MaNa when an Oracle flew right by the computer's army) it didn't respond appropriately (it should have built a shield battery by the harvesters or put stalkers in the mineral line to defend) and lost 15 harvesters. It won anyway because of incredible micro.
Also notable: it didn't seem to respond to the opponent's army composition at all. The human built a bunch of immortals? The computer didn't respond at all, it kept building stalkers (which are weak against immortals).
The AI strategy seems to be "build a set number of each unit time. If the opponent is in view, attack it with very good micro (or retreat if the other army is bigger). If the opponent is not in view, at certain times move to certain parts of the map."
And that's why Trump will win in 2020: the left is divided (seriously, would it hurt you to not make jokes about gender? People are trying to be taken seriously here). Howard Schultz is on one side of the divide, Alexandria Ocasio Cortez on the other. Kamela Harris is trying to sit in the middle, but will she succeed?
If he memorized it, there's a good chance it could be brute forced. You can get through a lot of passwords with $137million worth of hardware.
Not that I care, everyone involved seems like an awful person.
I think the biggest problem they are going to have to deal with is the lack of object permanence. "Guessing" what isn't on the screen is a huge part of Starcraft. That's just my opinion, though.
They were making $500 million a year fairly recently.
The only reason to do it, of course, is investors want to cash out.
I'd be surprised if it didn't apply to Go. It certainly applies to chess, although the time scale is longer. A new player will appear (Bobby Fischer, Tal) with a new playing style, be very dominant, but after a while people will adjust to his style and he will fade (now many people can do the things Fischer innovated).
What is your favorite language?
I like C and Smalltalk for the clarity and focus of their ideas (you may say that C is not focused or clear, but look how many languages have copied it). Smalltalk is powerful, even though people call it "Object Oriented" it really picks up a lot of ideas from Alan Kay's Lisp days. Squeak does a good job showcasing the ideas, it's worth downloading and playing with. APL is really cool, overloaded operators done right. (It was of course impossible at the time, but if Excel had been built on top of APL, it would have been a more natural, flexible, and beautiful product).
I also think Forth is worth looking at, but I'm not really good at it enough to say it's great.
No, any language that allows you to write and read anywhere on the disk is not meant to be secure.
I would be inclined to think that Java could have run well on smartphones if someone had made the efforts.
Yes I agree, and Flash would have, too.