agarden

lichess.org

If there are three or four good moves of approximately equal strength in a position, then it just isn't a position where someone at grandmaster level needs to cheat or benefits from doing so. They were going to find one of those moves anyway.

Regan's analysis works, in part, the way you suggest is better. He looks for tricky moves with non-obvious consequences and looks at one's success rate in those. For the Niemann-Carlsen game, he identified two such moves and Niemann chose suboptimally for both of them. For one is those, Niemann played a nice that could have cost him a tempo. Definitely an inaccuracy.

Regan claims that if you consult the computer just three times during a game, he will catch you after three games. If you consult just once, it gets a lot harder.

Regan's analysis is a good deal more detailed than that. He claims that if you check the computer just three times a game, he is going to catch you within three games. Now, if you check just once, it becomes a lot harder.

For the game against Carlsen, he looked at the key moves in that game. The first 20 or so moves were theory. You can't ever prove cheating in theory. After they diverged from theory, Regan said there were only two really key moves. For both of those, Niemann did not use the computers top choice. One of them he played a downright inaccurate move that could have cost him a tempo.

I don't know if Niemann cheated or did not, or even what exactly Carlsen suspects, but Regan's analysis seems to me to be strong enough that it counterbalances the known character deficiency of Niemann.

Hikaru was making six figures before he ever took up streaming. He was sponsored by Red Bull back then.

A universal theory is not the same thing as universal advice. What would one universally do just because one knows the universal theory?

...Now that you bring it up, the OP is offering a piece of universal advice. The irony seems stronger there. Not sure if that invalidates his advice or not. Probably just invalidates taking it as a hard and fast rule.

The overriding concern of the constitution is that the federal government not tromp all over the rights of the States. It would not be reasonable for the constitution to have provisions to secure the right of the federal government to arm its police, but it does seem reasonable to me to have provisions to ensure that the federal government does not interfere with the right of the several States to arm their police.

However, multiple states specify in their constitutions who comprises their militias. In Virginia, for example, it is "composed of the body of the people." In Illinois, "The State militia consists of all able-bodied persons residing in the State except those exempted by law." Given such constitutional provisions, it seems unreasonable to think that police were in view when speaking of a "well-regulated militia."

Have you ever watched a press conference after a sports game and the losing coach is convinced that all the calls went against his team? And then the other coach gets up and starts talking about the calls that went against his team? One could conclude that there is not a reliable way to determine when fouls should be called. And in some sports for some rules that comes into play. But a much larger factor is just self-interest. A man with a great desire to win will be blind to objective reality, all the while fully convinced that he is utterly in the right.

There are very different views on what the United States Constitution means and requires. Arguments about it are had on the internet daily, in congress frequently, in the court system constantly, and there was once even a war over it. One could conclude that the Constitution is such a badly written document that you can make it mean whatever you want it to mean, but I see here the work of self-interest. When the stakes are sufficiently high, men are geniuses at convincing themselves that what they want to be true, is true.

For churches claiming that they believe the bible to be the divinely inspired word of God, the stakes are very, very high. In consequence, the incentives to convince yourself that the bible says what you want it to say are also extremely high. Self-deception thrives under those conditions.

If they are using the money saved on taxes to sell their products cheaper, then it is not themselves (only) that they are enriching thereby, but (also) you and I and everyone else who buys IKEA products. The consumers end up being the ones paying less money into governmental coffers.

I think you are getting this wrong. The problem is not all the inexpert persons styling themselves as "independent journalists", the problem is all the inexpert persons who think they understand enough about the world's problems to cast a vote on who should legislate solutions for them. The electorate must be restricted to those who prove they can use the franchise wisely. /s

Okay, you probably are not opposed to democracy. But if not, why not? If the people are too stupid to choose to consume good journalism and ignore bad journalism, how can they be considered wise enough to elect good legislators instead of bad ones?

The US system of government is predicated on having a populace that is sufficiently intelligent, prudent, and moral that it will not give in to mob excess. If we the people no longer possess that sort of character, restricting the speech of said people will not be sufficient to solve the problem. A full dictatorship will be the only solution.

Your point about the character of the people is a good one. But if you jettison free speech, you have jettisoned the entirety of democratic government with it.

Sperm count. It has been dropping precipitously over the handful of decades. Many men are already infertile and if the sperm count continues to fall at the rate it has been, most will be infertile before this century is done.

There is reason to believe that plastics may be a contributor to this phenomenon: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/may/24/toxic-americ.... https://www.gq.com/story/sperm-count-zero

This is an entirely different idea. Banning inheritance makes corporations even more powerful, as they can increase their wealth from one generation to another and families cannot.

It seems to me that the two-party system in the United States is, practically speaking, the same thing. Within each major party there are smaller caucuses, such as the Freedom Caucus, which are more extreme than the party as a whole and exercise outsized influence because the larger party needs them to maintain its big tent. "Big tent" == coalition.

Do you have a source on your claim that Swedes have changed their behavior?

Passing wealth on to one's children is natural. It has been practiced time immemorial. The Jewish faith is predicated on the idea that promises made to Abraham can be fulfilled by giving the thing promised (land) to his descendants many generations after his death. Take away the idea that wealth should be passed down to one's children and the Jewish faith does not cohere. By extension, neither does the Christian faith.

The idea that you think needs to be defended - inheritance - lies near the root of Western mores. It is fine to question it, but it is the sort of thing that one cannot refute without a very, very strong argument.

This article gets into that: https://www.outsideonline.com/2380751/sunscreen-sun-exposure...

Short excerpt: People don’t realize this because several different diseases are lumped together under the term “skin cancer.” The most common by far are basal-cell carcinomas and squamous-cell carcinomas, which are almost never fatal. In fact, says Weller, “When I diagnose a basal-cell skin cancer in a patient, the first thing I say is congratulations, because you’re walking out of my office with a longer life expectancy than when you walked in.” That’s probably because people who get carcinomas, which are strongly linked to sun exposure, tend to be healthy types that are outside getting plenty of exercise and sunlight.

I live just a couple miles from town and have no cell phone service at my house. And it isn't even down in a valley. Forget LTE; cell service in general is really spotty in this region.

Today, sure, using a van would be much more efficient. But this is probably a way to test and improve the technology, working towards making it more efficient than a van.

More importantly, the optics here are not just about you and me and other adults. Think about it how it looks to a kid. You can have your library books show up in a van, and that might be fun, but if you could have a drone drop off your library books? What kid wouldn't sit around outside all day waiting for their books to arrive?

This could just be a coincidence. There are multiple people in the thread claiming they set their password to the same thing and have suffered no consequences.

If one wants to figure out how your question could be answered, I think the question to ask oneself is, would someone from the 19th or 18th century think we have more or less regard for human dignity than they did? And if they would think we have less regard for human dignity, why would they think that and what argument would they make?

You use 'dignity' to mean, I think, that an individual has been granted autonomy. So a woman is now free to sleep around, terminate her pregnancies at will, and live her life however she pleases; she has rights. To you, she is being treated with dignity because she has autonomy. But that is not, I think, the way the 19th century mind thought (obviously this is a generalization; but think in terms of the kind of person who would have defined what 'common decency' meant in 19th century America). Dignity back then had to do with comportment and behaving well. What you call 'dignity' they would call 'licentiousness', and it would be considered the antithesis of dignity. One of the words for such a woman was 'indecent'.

You can argue that political correctness is just the decent way to speak, but to assume that it is 'common decency' is to assume an awful lot, especially when using that phrase to put down approximately half of the US electorate. The disagreement on just what constitutes 'common decency' is the exact issue here. One cannot resolve the issue by appealing to it. Conservatives and liberals have a different idea of what is offensive/harmful and what is decent because they have different fundamental values.

Or at least some of them do. A whole bunch of people on all sides are just engaging in thoughtless tribalism and mood affiliation. You are not one of the thoughtless ones, obviously. :)

Offensive to whom? By definition, a conservative has a bias towards keeping things as they have been. As such, we should expect a conservative's sensibilities to be more along the lines of our parent's or grandparent's (or maybe even great-grandparent's) generation.

So look at it this way: are the things that conservatives say outside the bounds of common decency of the 1980s? 1950s? 1930s? Then ask if the kind of things that left-leaning users say are outside the bounds of common decency of the 1980s, 1950s, 1930s.

You say that political correctness is just common decency. Your grandparents probably had a different standard for common decency in their day.

Your claims lack evidence. The article was all about surveying the available evidence for indications that PTSD was or was not a thing experienced by soldiers in the past at a rate similar to today. What is more, when he decides that the evidence does not support that, he suggests that the feelings experienced by soldiers have not changed, but that in ancient societies there were different mechanisms by which they were processed such that those same feelings did not produce what we call PTSD, at least not at the rate it does today.

Not only do you have no evidence or arguments (except vague claims to authority), but your claims do not even contradict the original article.

If the conductor wants you to make the consonants clear, then there will be spittle. Agreed that the deep breathing is likely just as important.

How much money would it take to make testing everyone a realistic possibility? How much money are we losing by just shutting everything down? Which one costs more?

That is a reasonable line of thought, but incomplete. How many lives are we risking by tanking the global economy? That seems like it should be a more quantifiable risk. It becomes a trade-off between the amount of lives we can calculate will be lost via our pandemic-prevention measures (and to what degree of certainty) and the number that might be lost without them (and to what degree of certainty).

The trade-off is between loss of lives one way versus loss of lives another way.

No need to wait for a pandemic to donate all superfluous earnings to life-saving causes. There doesn't seem to be a shortage of them.

He is comparing to the '90s, not 2010. Search was terrible in the '90s.

Thibault commented on the post: "Before anyone asks, no, this has nothing to do with the Regium scam." Thibault is the guy behind lichess and the one who wrote the post exposing Regium as a scam.

https://lichess.org/forum/general-chess-discussion/blog-XlRW...

Trevor Bauer has been loudly stating that the Astros' pitchers are using foreign substances on the ball to get the tremendous spin rates that they do. McCullers throwing 24 straight curveballs might in fact be suspicious.