The general strategies carry cross because the game is so conceptually simple. I suspect humans may be better at long term planning, and this would carry across well to a larger board.
I won't be satisfied until we can compare smaller and greater than 19x19 board sizes. Would humans be better on a 29x29 board where deep strategy comes into play? How about a 13x13 board, or even a 49x49 board?
I would love to see the the type of correlation between board size and human versus computer skill.
I was thinking of the taxpayer paying. Doing it alone for the environment could be a worthy cause (or just for cleaner air if that floats your boat).
.
One could at first skip rough/thug neighbourhoods, and like you say, install in public areas for maximum benefit. If 120V is cheaper, then that might be worth a shot for more run down places since it'll be on all night. Build for durability and minimum maintenance.
People are saying that the interior is concept-like atm (I mean there aren't even any vents yet). Also, you'll probably have buttons on the wheel like the Model S.
Besides, you can get a refund of the 1000 at any time.
Ignoring the cancelling of forces on a micro-local scale, are you saying the power for the strong forces are inverse squared like gravity? If not, what are they?
How much more progress could we make if we dedicated half of that money to research on batteries, nuclear power, solar power, space travel, stronger materials, or room temperature super conductivity?
At least half of it should go to the sciences imo.
This is such a tough cookie to crack that the best way we can solve is to keep grinding at the problem like this. Any attempt to diagnose the issue wholesale will clog up the 'machine', and ultimately slow progress down.
I'm really tired of stupid date math. Bad enough it's already five different bases across six different numbers, with three of those bases dynamic based on four of the others.
Love that quote.
This is why I've always advocated for two times. One based on what you want (constant intervals of time), and one based on the position of the sun as a percentage or similar. We can go to town with the complexity of the latter, but the former should be kept as simple as possible like you say.
Well then why have optimization algs at all? Why not just use brute force and be done with?
As you know, patterns in the real world have structure to them and have dips and valleys, characteristic shapes, and repeating fractal elements. I think what you don't appreciate enough is that there are classes of optimization algorithms (e.g: genetic algorithms or neural networks) which have a very GENERIC way of working with MANY kinds of search spaces, some of which one can't even imagine.
What you say about all algs being equally bad/bad would only apply to search spaces that are completely random. In this case, then any algorithm is about as good as brute force.
Kinda like the relativistic view on maths instead of aesthetics, but no less distasteful:P There's a lot we can still learn and improve on contrary to your view.
Slashdot Mirror
The general strategies carry cross because the game is so conceptually simple. I suspect humans may be better at long term planning, and this would carry across well to a larger board.
I won't be satisfied until we can compare smaller and greater than 19x19 board sizes. Would humans be better on a 29x29 board where deep strategy comes into play? How about a 13x13 board, or even a 49x49 board? I would love to see the the type of correlation between board size and human versus computer skill.
Batteries, especially solid state, are around the best possible use such a vast sum of money could be used for. I wish him all the best.
Here you go: http://cleantechnica.com/files/2015/05/image14-e1431849359184.jpg
I was thinking of the taxpayer paying. Doing it alone for the environment could be a worthy cause (or just for cleaner air if that floats your boat).
. One could at first skip rough/thug neighbourhoods, and like you say, install in public areas for maximum benefit. If 120V is cheaper, then that might be worth a shot for more run down places since it'll be on all night. Build for durability and minimum maintenance.
Hope you saw the winky. I meant no harm.
This kind of comment reminds me that I'm on Slashdot and not Reddit.
So are you trying to say it's taken hundreds of years? Cars have been around a LOT less than that.
;)
Can't we just install plug sockets in apartment car parks? I imagine it would be very cheap to do this, even if done nationwide.
Perhaps do the maths from 100-efficiency. So 96.666% would be 3x as efficient as 90%.
It's at 200k now: https://twitter.com/elonmusk
People are saying that the interior is concept-like atm (I mean there aren't even any vents yet). Also, you'll probably have buttons on the wheel like the Model S. Besides, you can get a refund of the 1000 at any time.
I'm one of the 115,000 who put down a £1000 reservation for this space capsule.
Take a look at interior, the pictures here and tell me that's not something to die for.
The strong force stays roughly constant at growing distances.
You don't mean linear right? So the force is as strong a million miles away as it is just a metre away? If so, that's quite..... odd.
Ignoring the cancelling of forces on a micro-local scale, are you saying the power for the strong forces are inverse squared like gravity? If not, what are they?
I agree - this favoritist forceism must stop.
If the force of gravity is the inverse square of the distance, what are the 'powers' of the other forces? Cubed, quad power, 10th power?
How much more progress could we make if we dedicated half of that money to research on batteries, nuclear power, solar power, space travel, stronger materials, or room temperature super conductivity?
At least half of it should go to the sciences imo.
The S is a great example of the 18650. What's the issue?
This is such a tough cookie to crack that the best way we can solve is to keep grinding at the problem like this. Any attempt to diagnose the issue wholesale will clog up the 'machine', and ultimately slow progress down.
I'm really tired of stupid date math. Bad enough it's already five different bases across six different numbers, with three of those bases dynamic based on four of the others.
Love that quote.
This is why I've always advocated for two times. One based on what you want (constant intervals of time), and one based on the position of the sun as a percentage or similar. We can go to town with the complexity of the latter, but the former should be kept as simple as possible like you say.
You forgot "Is it heavy?". Sounds perverse, but many associate heaviness with quality. Yuck.
Elon Musk's Hyperloop is a far better idea for so many reasons, and far cheaper.
Scrap this train and build that instead.
Well then why have optimization algs at all? Why not just use brute force and be done with?
:P There's a lot we can still learn and improve on contrary to your view.
As you know, patterns in the real world have structure to them and have dips and valleys, characteristic shapes, and repeating fractal elements. I think what you don't appreciate enough is that there are classes of optimization algorithms (e.g: genetic algorithms or neural networks) which have a very GENERIC way of working with MANY kinds of search spaces, some of which one can't even imagine.
What you say about all algs being equally bad/bad would only apply to search spaces that are completely random. In this case, then any algorithm is about as good as brute force.
Kinda like the relativistic view on maths instead of aesthetics, but no less distasteful
Confirmed.