MathYouF

Indeed, though to do it this way would be very wasteful of resources as the ratio of the manhole size to the size of the cover wouldn't be maximized. The cover would be needlessly covering a lip whose large size only exists because of the poor choice of shape.

Hit me up if you're looking for a like minded friend, my github and LinkedIn are the same as my username.

>The identity of all owners of virtual assets, senders or receivers of transactions would have to be verified by crypto service providers.

A crypto service provider being anyone who mints a block, right? So basically, miner nodes in the EU cant accept incoming transactions signed by "unregistered" wallet addresses. Sounds like mining in the EU is what's really being outlawed here. I suppose if nodes wanted to continue operating in the EU it would mean registered addresses may be processed slightly faster/cheaper, since the EU miners would only be allowed to mint blocks with them?

But would they be allowed to add blocks to chains with unregistered wallet transactions in previous blocks?

Seems like they're straight up banning mining in the EU on any blockchain that doesn't explicitly have registration for every single wallet.

This is what my intuition tells me about the idea that one should only do JIT learning and onboard to an idea only over a weekend.

I'm guilty of it, but when I've taken the deeper dive, I feel it has paid dividends down the road.

Most aren't able to get foreign bank accounts in which to store their money. If it was easier to do that your friend would've done it.

And I'm under no delusions that much of the crypto market isn't more than a glorified ponzi scheme, my post acknowledges that.

This is a very important point about shifting the calculus of automating human labor when doing it incompletely. There are still big debates in the self driving car world between people who want to get to level 2-3 (partial/conditional automation) vs level 5 (full automation).

The earlier group often says since Edge cases that they can't automate now constitute only <5% of training scenarios they encounter, they've automated 95% of the job. But with what you're saying, we can't really expect the calculus to work that way.

This is very true from what I've seen, but it doesn't mean managers who only do 3 hours of work aren't worth their daily wage. There are many programmers who only realistically do 3 hours of programming, but spend others thinking about the problem, researching, ect.

Good managers in my experience have three important jobs: Scoping projects and getting the team together, motivating employees and handling their compant interfacing problems (talking to HR for them, managing account access issues, ect.), and most importantly talking with clients/stakeholders in a sympathetic ans professional way that many developers just won't do at the same quality. All of that might only take 3 hours of video calls per day, but for the good ones, it's a full day's work. For some, certain functions they're doing aren't needed, but most of the managers I've had have done valuable work that I wouldn't do as well and wouldn't want to have to do which would distract me from my work.

Could professional football teams likely also have the players figure out training schedules, plane flights, diets, plays, recruiting? Probably, and some might be pretty good at it. So why don't they? Probably the reason those teams have coaches is the same as why managers in the tech space aren't all going to be proven useless working remotely, because they actually aren't.

My best friend is Venezuelan and I assure you there are real humans in the world who get real value from a stable digital form of currency that doesn't require a central bank account. The only ones they can legally have are ones in their country, and the exchange rate for foreign currencies is a rigged price that doesn't reflect real inflation.

They're almost literally financially enslaved to their countries central bank, which devalues their only legal form of life savings by 25% every month by printing more and more (for government members) and no other country will give them banking access but their own, which has regulated against them using any alternative currencies than the one the central bank controls.

Just imagine if the US made it illegal to own any currency besides USD, and then started printing so much that you lost 90% of the value of your savings every 3-6 months.

They've experienced 10,000,000% inflation since 2014. That would turn someone's retirement account of $5,000,000 into $49.95.

The only option there is a digital store of wealth that doesn't discriminate against them based on their citizenship, unlike every central bank in the world. Otherwise, the rug is just constantly being pulled out from under you, and your only legal store of value is the things you can buy in the store and keep in your closet to sell later. Back to a financial system more primitive than in ancient Athens (400BC).

Americans benefit from a global banking structure that is rigged in their favor. Their government prints the global reserve currency, most countries in the world welcome them with open arms and offer banking solutions, and their hegemony is backed by hundreds of military bases armed with tanks, airplanes, and soldiers across the world, and miltiary ships across the seas.

It's very easy for all the rich tech people in this thread living in stable countries to denounce crypto as useless, because to them, right now, it is. But it is careless to denounce it as a concept.

The tweeter mentioned that it is a right wing tool. In the US that has a dirty connotation, and I agree that coming from the US, we can see first hand the dangers of unfettered right wing policy. But people coming from countries that have experienced extreme left wing governments that describe daily common horrors far worse than people peeing in bottles on Amazon's factory floors.

A little bit of sympathy for them and the real life saving use case the "right wing" tool of decentralised finance against the troubles they experience could go a long way.

All that said, I was very skeptical of the crypto community for a long time as well, because it is most of the same people who do MLM schemes. But real life experience has now made it impossible for me to ignore that the underlying tech has real humanitarian use cases as well, and those should be nurtured.

To be fair most religions are pretty cookie cutter as well. The Abrahamic ones even share text and repurpose holidays from other local cultures. Buddhism is the only popular one that is pretty uniquely cool, Sidhartha was pretty original.

One has to wonder, if demand for unbiased, non-partisan, reasonable, complete, measured, historically aware, accurate, non-inflammatory political news coverage exists, why is it only available via C-Span?

Seems like the American public have either been worn down into non-engagement or radicalised, and I think it's a combination of the designs of politicians (the partisan game is simpler to play and costs less and is more predictable than the one that is focused on societal progress) and that a lot of people would rather believe that the only thing between us and a better society is the evil 50 senators in the other party. Distracts them from having to take personal responsibility for their contribution (or lack thereof) to society and that many of our problems don't have obvious legislative solutions.

This is the answer I fundamentally agree with on this subject. Super Mario 64 for N64 is a part of humanity's cultural and history, and the supply of similar items will only decrease over time. The expected value is possible for several lifetimes from now though, and most rich families struggle to hold onto it forever.

I feel like that would have a much worse effect/cost ratio than going to the gym and buying nicer clothes.

I'm quite interested to see the study that showed infection rates amongst children in lockdown districts weren't significantly different than those with in person attendance.

If you could link to such a study, it would be worth a conversation itself I imagine, examining the methodology, age groups, zip codes, ect.

Makes me think you could have the character stats and game design decisions as parameters, and have it select characters based on attributes rather than hit encoding of their simple identities (names) but from what I know of LoL the unique thing is character abilities aren't really differentiated in that modular way and the exact values it aren't given (like a spin attack movie's exact radius, though I bet that could be derived).

Doesn't this ignore the real world realities of economies of scale though with the physical materials being used? I'd enjoy a bit deeper explanation for this if you don't mind. :)

This is only a problem if you care about predictable rate of blocks being mined right?

What reasons besides predictable inflation are there for desiring that property?

Indeed, the genetics of every living thing are not evidence of its fitness, but once it has reproduced, it is.

Dogs have achieved an unbroken chain of survival dating back as far as your ancestors have, so they've achieved the same survival goals as you.

They've managed to do so without our intellectual abilities, which goes to prove that our goals of making RL algorithms become "smart" is malformed since high level complex and abstract reasoning skills apparently aren't a necessarily prerequisite to survival, at least in our earth environment.

Well the failure of multilayer perceptrons to converge into useful models was because of limited compute scale, which eventually was solved with the advent of powerful GPU's and CUDA popularising using their parallel computationa meant for graphics rendering for the linear operations used during back propogation.

Maybe the problem isn't that the RL algorithm is wrong, but that it just doesn't work without a 3 billion year, atom resolution, planet scale computer.

Makes me wonder if anyone has looked into using genetic algorithms combined with RL where the genetics determine the reward function.

This seems to be how humans have evolved. Ultimately, all living animals are here based on only one reward function, the ability to have had an uninterrupted chain of reproduction. Our nervous system provides stimuli and our brains chemicals provide positive or negative rewards (pain or pleasure) that optimize us taking actions that result in having an uninterrupted chain of reproduction (it's why sex feels good and putting your hand on a stove feels bad).

Presumably, both the reward function within our brain, as well as the signal it interprets (nervous system) evolved to find a more optimal combination of inputs and reward scalars for each input to maximize for this singular goal (reproduction).

Maybe we need to frame RL goals in much more simple terms, and allow genetic algorithms to evolve their own inputs and reward functions on their own.

RL is one of my weakest fields of knowledge in the AI field, so I'm sure some of this has been tried before, I'm curious how much and what the results have been.

Yes, the wisdom of his statements jumps from "utterly nonsensical" to "occasionally somewhat correct" if you interpret what he says with the same leniency you might a 12 year old.

For example, he probably meant immune by the definition "protected from" with the implied thing being "serious medical harm" rather than "infection".

I agree it's disingenuous to call him a deliberate liar here when the truth is he just speaks with the vocabulary and scientific acumen of a candid 6th grader.

The real shame is triplicate here:

1. That we must settle for a president with those verbal skills

2. That his verbal skills are perhaps more reflective of the average American than we'd like to believe

3. That people with sometimes exceptional verbal skills and education can somehow not comprehend some of the simple truths that he can (children being at extremely low personal health risk should've been obvious to everyone after the first few months of the pandemic)

And in my opinion, the well educated being deluded into a false perception of reality is a lot more startling of a fact than that a person who has an obviously mediocre command of his native language and paltry understanding of scientific fundamentals said something that was incoherent and not technically correct when trying to verbalise his opinions.

When it comes to solving complex AI problems I always like to think, if I had given a human this task, what would they want to know.

And I think even a human would struggle winning the character select mini game just with tabular data related to the players' win rates with those characters in previous matches. Learning about actual play styles of each playerand customising their play style with a given character would be a huge factor in them gaining an edge.

For example, let's say there is a player picking a slow but tanky character, but I happen to know the player who picked it often attempts a certain cheeky move to gain an advantage (like jungling early in the case of LoL, I really don't know much about Dota or LoL so you'll have to work with the metaphor here) and THAT cheeky technique is what increases their win rate. But then I know of a move that can be done by a certain character only in that specific cheeky scenario that will tip the scales and let me get a kill on them early, tipping the entire balance of the game early. As a pro player, that could be why I win with my selection, but the cheeky strategy also why the other guy often wins with his, even against other players who pick mine.

There's essentially a list of known play styles between different characters and optimal strategies to use with them against certain other characters. I think when you filtered to the top 10% of players, you essentiallly made sure a larger percent of those optimal play styles were the ones that generated the outcome data.

But still, if the player doesn't know what those in game strategies are, or their opponent doesnt know the ones they're "supposed" to be using, it'll throw off the value of making it the best selection.

I found that heavy amounts of discussion of the "why" for any activity, and then instilling confidence in that person that they're capable of doing the thing that they've already agreed to the "why" for, is a necessary prerequisite for their self directed activities to be productive ones.

The problem with most kids and adults I know is they either lack a depth of reasoning for why they ought to be doing something better, or lack the confidence that they'd be able to accomplish it if they put their mind to it.

If you can't come up with a convincing "why" for them, then you should reflect on how sustainable forcing them to do that thing will be once they have independence.

There were a lot of things my mom expected of me (similar to these kids with tutors). Some of them I agreed with, some of them I didn't.

When I finally got my independence at 18, guess which ones stuck, and which ones (where a lot of time and effort was put into cultivating them) evaporated?

Talk to your children deeply about the why, and, as the saying goes, they'll suffer almost any how.

The steak allows for MPS (muscle protein synthesis) which means your body will have protein available to repair muscle mass which regularly breaks down throughout the day. If your diet has no protein a much higher part of the weight you lose will be muscle mass instead of fat mass, which is why two people on the above diets will look very different.

A lot of social circles live flat out in denial of the simple truth of weight loss and perpetuate the idea that it's not this simple, but it really is.

Genetics and medication might affect your appetite, metabolism, water retention levels, fat storage areas, ect., but at the end of the day one only needs to know one number and follow one rule to lose fat:

Number: Daily caloric expenditure

Rule: Consume items with fewer total calories than the above number

Measure weekly for best results.

Daily caloric expenditure can be approximated with heart rate data over a day and your height & weight.

The exact weight lost if it's only fat will be 1lb per 3500 kcal deficit.

You must consume 2g of protein daily per lb of muscle (approximating this requires calipers) to not lose muscle mass.

Water weight will vary, but over a week the number ought to go down if you're eating at an actual deficit.

You'll see the results in the mirror after a month if you actually do the above.

Indeed, nationalistic fascism has often had that effect on growing economies, one only has to look at the reverence for 1930's Germany many contemporary American business tycoons had to see respect for growth can lead people astray of what a society is really about.

The National Socialist German Workers Party wasn't always as unpopular as it is today, many thought they were doing a great job lifting Germans out of poverty who had experienced the devastation of the 1922-1924 inflation.

As an aside you may find the book "How Asia Works" illuminating. All the credit to China's relative success ought not be attributed exclusively to fascism, but many of the things that worked are sort of hybrid attempts at adapting to the global capitalist society with some land reforms (seizures) and protectionist measures mixed in.

We had it in the era of America's greatest relative growth (by some measures at least) in the 1950's-60's,they were called beatnik's. The conversation around them at the time tightly mirrors that about tangping today.

I've been saying for a while now that China is undergoing a Mccarthy era politically, and that their "summer of love" is less than two decades away, and they'll be radically tranformed by it.

Thanks for the metaphor with the Stirling engine, hasn't heard of that before. Interestingly I've always considered capitalism to only work in a system without scarcity of resources (land, minerals, ect.) as it's often the most efficient way to extract those resources and convert them into more useful products (by humans subjective standards). It's when raw resources are limited that the paradigm for endless extraction breaks down, as there's nothing more to extract, and quality of life starts diminishing as we extract beyond replacement level of natural resources.

But I think your point is about scare processed resources being the motivator for capitalism, and that once the gradient diminishes and the top is warmed enough, and the heat differential with the bottom is less, certain members will opt out of further extraction. This is why inadvertently a lot of conservstive lawmakers advocate reducing entitlements, to artificially "cool" the top plate, to keep the engine turning, even if they don't know for what purpose.

Still, communism even in it's converted versions has not worked (I'm sure you don't seriously consider China's economic system one that is concerned with equal distribution of wealth among the working class right?) and has brought many horrors to those living in states that claim to be using its doctrine, and those failures must be accepted and addressed before better alternative approaches can be considered.

I'm highly sympathetic to the goals of communism and agree that the problems it's trying to solve exist and are inherent in our current system of economics.

But one doesn't have to read much history to see that the prescribed methods offered for solving the problems laid out in The Communist Manifesto haven't been successful in any implementation tried in the 20th and 21st centuries.

At this point I consider any communist who doesn't admit the ideology's massive failures to be either ignorant, or disingenuous, because if someone actually wants to solve the problems with the capitalist system, they have to admit what has been tried and failed so far.

I do hope one day we'll find new solutions to the distribution problem that don't create other massive problems like we've seen, because the issues inherent in capitalism won't go away without acknowledging its failures either.

>If we solve this distribution issue

I recall some shaggy bearded 19th century German philosopher who wrote a book on this.

Thought he was pretty popular with the Chinese government. I'm surprised to hear they're still having problems with distribution 100 years later.

And if I were to go through the effort of providing proof of my Venezuelan best friend and his accounts of life in Venezuela, since my hacker news profile is the same name as my real identity profiles, I'm sure you'd capitulate and appologize for assuming anyone who disagrees with you is arguing in bad faith?

For posterity, I have a github profile of this same name, and my venezuelan friend and I are doing a hackathon project to allow Venezuelans to use crypto in the exact way I've described. In one month that project and a youtube video will be uploaded for it.

The person above who assumes that people argue in bad faith and that first hand reports are meaningless is not someone you should emulate or consider reliable. He's lost to his ego and dogma, please safely ignore him.

Privileged people have no idea what struggles others face and don't have much to lose by being wrong about their bad assumptions anyway. Let the way he thinks serve as a cautionary tale.

I doubt the person above (lottin) would be willing to share his identity, and have the foul temper and bad faith arguments of his associated with his real persona. This should tell you all you need to know if true.

Anyway, I won't be responding to the above poster anymore, you know what Twain said about arguing with fools.