kawzeg

I think your valuing of moves is flawed. Yes, during the fuseki the best move may be worth 20 points. But there are often many moves that may be worth 19 or 18 points. So, playing perfectly only gains a few points compared to playing acceptable moves. In comparison, tactical situations often have a crucial move that wins many points - in low-level play swings of over a hundred points are not uncommon. There, missing the crucial move can lose the entire game, no matter how perfect the opening was played.

I think the point the poster you're responding to was making is this: If people lose their money quickly to bots/collusion/cheating (or simply skilled players), they will quickly run out of money. If they play each other, they can play more hands, so more profit for the casino.

To exemplify the two extremes, assuming 10% rake: Player A has $10, and loses $1 every hand: after 10 hands, he's broke and $1 went to the casino. Player B and Player C are equally skilled and equally lucky. They keep playing $1 pots, trading back and forth. After twenty hands, both have still have $9 while the casino already earned $2. They could essentially keep going until they have given all their money to the casino.

Similarly:

> Lastly, I = AC means that we can’t tell the difference between doing nothing at all, compared to adding an egg and adding nuts on top.

But test 0 and test 2 are doing nothing and adding an egg & nuts respectively. What are we missing here?

On further reading, it seems like "doing all three options" should be interpreted to mean "the interaction of all three options"? So we aren't able to tell if an improvement of taste comes from B alone or from the interaction of A, B, and C. I'm mostly guessing though.

If the whole list was sorted last, then first, "Alpine Linux" wouldn't appear first.

Time dilation! Time is relative. For an outside observer, over 1000 years pass, but aboard the ship, much less time passes. There are calculators for this, e.g. at [0]. If you constantly accelerate at 1g, flip around at the halfway point and accelerate in the opposite direction for the rest of the journey, roughly 13 years would pass from the traveler's perspective.

This site also has a "Newton's universe" mode, which pretends that relativity doesn't exist. Interestingly, in that case you would take over 44 years!

[0]: https://www.omnicalculator.com/physics/space-travel?c=EUR&v=...

You can replace Ctrl+k, ESC, ESC with Ctrl+L, I think.

What helped me overcome the dreadful empty mail window was using a brainstorming / editing approach:

1. Using a different editor to write the draft, to prevent the immediate negative reaction to the mail client.

2. Brainstorming my draft. That is, I wrote down the first thing that came to mind, no matter how ridiculous or nonsensical. It doesn't even have to be related to the message at hand. It only needs to remove the daunting empty page and get my brain into "write something" mode.

3. Edit and repeat. Read what you've written and select anything that actually makes sense. Use that as a starting point and start again.

I think an important aspect of this is to freely allow my brain to write silly things. It's not a fun task to write serious emails, but writing a silly outline and filling it in with more serious wording makes it possible, for me at least.

Beside the difference in scale, there are also different incentives. The bartender typically doesn't sell your data. They probably don't have a list of favourite drinks which they could share with others, they just have the information in their head.

As soon as that data can be collected and sold at scale, there's an incentive to collect and sell as much data as possible, without any repercussions.

Spreading rumours doesn't pay the bills, so there's no large scale incentive to spread them.

Discussions on the BBC article about the incident:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27468766

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27462952

I know this idea is a little ridiculous, but it just popped into my head: what about using one of those rubber ducky USB keys that pretend they're a keyboard and enter certain keystrokes? You could have it enter the password when inserted.

Or, perhaps a physical password manager that can store multiple passwords, with a labeled button for each?

Using `dosbox .` skips two steps by mounting the current directory (at least on linux where I tried it)

I remember minikanren being able to generate expressions that evaluate to a value.

In general, I guess the search space of all algorithms that might or might not solve a problem is simply extremely huge, so you'd need some good heuristics to find an interesting algorithm.

I can't think of any reason why there would be a theoretical limit on this, but I'm no expert in this.