1,313 karma · joined March 21, 2012
I think you can even switch between different commentators as well as a few other options.
As for myself, I'm sure plenty of money from my local taxes, once I move back to the US, will go to subsidizing pro sports teams. I don't particularly feel like doing so with a cable subscription as well.
> “We suspect they will trade up,” Skipper said.
The implication here seems to be that cable is the premium/preferred product, and people will switch to it once they can afford a cable subscription. That does not at all strike me as being the case in this day and age.
The internet, and piracy, created an even more extreme shift in how you can consume video than it did for music. At least when you shelled out a ton of money for a CD, you still had the same experience when listening to the music. When you pay for cable or watch broadcast TV, you then not only have to wait for the scheduled viewing time, but you spend half as much time watching commercials as you do watching the actual program (10 minutes out of a 30 minute block).
Then on top of that you have to deal with the famously awful cable companies?
I think piracy + netflix have probably irreversibly changed people's willingness to sit through commercials, wait for the scheduled time slot, and put up with the other inconveniences associated with the whole process.
I understand some of this has gone away through video on demand and DVRs, but I still have to think that Netflix is superior when it has something and Popcorn Time when it doesn't.
It's not even the cost issue either. The cost issue is what got me started downloading music and video when I was a teenager, but nowadays (even though I'd be willing to pay a couple hundred bucks/pounds a month in theory) I've just had too much frustration and annoyance every time I've used a set top box (mostly in hotel rooms these days) to even have it on my radar as something that has the potential to make my life better.
I'm of the same mind that I'm incredibly willing to shell out a bunch of money on super high resolution displays (and even more powerful video cards to drive them) just as soon as I'm sure I'm not going to be on the painful part of the adoption curve.
Since Bitcoin is currently ~$500, that's ~$1.8mm per day.
There are situations where you want to manipulate your range (set of hands) in a given spot so that your actions make up a certain distribution.
For example, if you want your range to be made up of 30% bluffs, you can figure out how often you get to that spot with a bluff and how often you get to that spot with a strong hand. Since you're always continuing with the strong hand, you can then know what percentage of the time you need to continue to bluff in order to accomplish this. Since it doesn't matter which of those hands you choose to bluff with, it generally makes sense to use randomness to decide in the moment.
Yes, I understand he probably didn't have final approval over the title. However, Wired as an organization is responsible for the presentation and content of the article; and the impression I came away with was one of Wired, not of Bob McMillan.
It doesn't seem like it comes from an attitude too far removed from congressmen being proud of not understanding tech issues because it's all nerd stuff.
Edit: A facebook comment on the article really showcases the sentiment, just more explicitly: "So keep them in the basement, feed them pizza and Redbull and let them wear what they need. Does the gardener wear a tux and bowtie?"
It encrypts files client-side, uses a "wallet" file to store your encryption keys, and performs challenges at regular intervals to ensure files are being held appropriately and automatically restoring redundancy if not.
Code rot aside, it should still be working, at least if there were any servers/nodes set up.
...
"Even though it might sound harsh and impolitic, here is the bottom line: if you don’t want to get shot, tased, pepper-sprayed, struck with a baton or thrown to the ground, just do what I tell you."
Even though I'd recommend not antagonizing cops just from a personal safety standpoint, this really rubs me the wrong way.
Most of the times this topic is broached from the point of view of the cops, it seems like there's shockingly little empathy for those on the receiving end of police violence, and that the justification for such violence is they were asking for it.
It's easy to hit random characters when touch typing on a full keyboard, but it's much easier to just swipe a couple words together in the url bar than it is to get the correct capitalization as well as having to hold down the key for about a second each time you need a number.
Once you're comfortable with the game, find a table that has a low minimum bet and a high max odds multiplier.
> But those who quote Holmes might want to actually read the case where the phrase originated before using it as their main defense. If they did, they'd realize it was never binding law, and the underlying case, U.S. v. Schenck, is not only one of the most odious free speech decisions in the Court's history, but was overturned over 40 years ago.
> First, it's important to note U.S. v. Schenck had nothing to do with fires or theaters or false statements. Instead, the Court was deciding whether Charles Schenck, the Secretary of the Socialist Party of America, could be convicted under the Espionage Act for writing and distributing a pamphlet that expressed his opposition to the draft during World War I. As the ACLU's Gabe Rottman explains, "It did not call for violence. It did not even call for civil disobedience."
> In what would become his second most famous phrase, Holmes wrote in Abrams that the marketplace of ideas offered the best solution for tamping down offensive speech: "The ultimate good desired is better reached by free trade in ideas -- that the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market, and that truth is the only ground upon which their wishes safely can be carried out."
If I could even go so far as to prepay for a set amount of time (1 to 6 months) for rent, sim, internet, and co-working space and have it all taken care of when I arrive, that would be even better.
So would dying at age 16.
It's definitely possible (probable?) they've taken the appropriate figures here, but there's definitely a chance for bad statistics here.
Thankfully in at least two other poker companies (hint: the largest one and its sister company) it was made impossible to see someone's hole cards before the hand is over, which is what allowed the cheaters at Ultimate Bet to perpetrate their con.
It's my pretty firm belief that when it seems like an entity is throwing away a pretty obvious economic self-interest, there's probably just a misunderstanding of where the economic self interest lies in the parties involved.
As we put so many resources behind that attempt, this proves it's a difficult problem to solve that requires more resources.
It logically follows that more taxpayer money is required for the next iteration. How else could we solve such an important problem?
There used to be prominent winning players who were unaware of the math behind the game, but the theory nowadays is they mostly just lucked into naturally playing in a style that happened to be better than the field during the period of time they played (i.e., years ago back when the game was less sophisticated).
Nowadays, those players are often the weak players who the players more skilled at theory can comfortably beat.
There's an eerie parallel to the early stock traders here.
It is true that most of the money changes in hands where you get farther in the hand because pots grow geometrically as you continue on in the hand.
However, the importance of decisions becomes more important as well, and most of the edge a skilled player will have over a weaker player comes about from those larger pots based on decisions made later in the hand.
Roulette is a particularly bad example as there is no decision (well, there's one decision on American Roulette tables that is worse than every other) that changes your expectation on the amount wagered.
From your residence (i.e., not store/business/etc)?
by 0700?
What if you're away on vacation, too frail to safely clear the snow, or you just never in your life want to be awake before 7am if humanly possible?
Much of this was because there was no white paper or documentation, and when pressed for details beyond the most basic, the developer just told you to read the source code once he open-sourced it.
Besides, they're only collecting metadata."
However, it's hard to know how much truth there is to that.