asher_

This x 1000.

Also, it appears they are playing a tournament, which increases the variance significantly. I actually think tournament play is less suited to measuring AI performance than a cash game, because you're basically playing a series of different games as the tournament progresses that may not be generalizable because the decision math changes based on blinds and stack size unlike a cash game.

> To ensure that the outcome of the competition is not due to luck, the four pros will be paired to play duplicate matches — Player A in each pair will receive the same cards as the computer receives against Player B, and vice versa. One of the players in each of these pairs will play on the floor of the casino, while his counterpart will be isolated in a separate room.

This technique won't work for the same reason mentioned above. Hands in tournament poker are necessarily not independent events.

If you're not into wine, a lot of this kind of stuff seems like it is probably bullshit, but it's not (necessarily).

Something I can't recommend enough even if you only have a passing curiosity is to find a wine tasting or event where most variables are held constant within the selection. One of my favourite wineries in Western Australia holds an annual Cabernet tasting with 20 Cabernets of the same vintage from around the world. When you hold the varietal and year constant and you still experience a remarkable range of different tastes, it really helps you to understand how wine experts can do what they do. It's very easy to differentiate wines when tasted one after the other like this, and wine experts/enthusiasts (in addition to their more refined palates) are simply able to make the same kinds of discriminations based on their experience rather than having all the options in front of them.

While it's a no-brainer that the US should adopt metric, that map isn't the reason. The same argument could have been made against adopting metric when it was first invented.

The reason that it should be adopted is simply because it's a far simpler system to use and understand. Units of measurement have simple relationships with other units, and there are standard prefixes.

I actually find it quite sad. Not being able to think about these things in a simple way makes learning much much harder for children, and even for adults there is no way someone using imperial measurements can perform operations anywhere near as quickly or easily as someone using metric. This is especially true of unit conversions. Not using metric makes you ostensibly dumber.

For many of us outside the US, the continued use of imperial measurements is thought of as akin to eschewing cars in favour of horse drawn carriages. For those in the US, how it is viewed from the inside?

I wonder how much this reason alone is responsible for comparatively poor results of the US in science education. It's obviously far from the whole reason, but I can't help but think that young kids would be turned off learning all of these esoteric and arbitrary rules.

This whole topic is very bothersome, as many of the comments in the thread so far have pointed out.

For anyone who is generally for these kinds of policies (equality, diversity, whatever), can you please explain your position from the ground up? I am genuinely asking, because from my point of view there are huge assumptions made that seem to me, on the surface, to be unjustified.

I agree. Dropbox are massively more expensive than competitors like Google Drive. I stopped using Dropbox years ago when I realised that shared files and folders take up quota for ALL people that have access to it. This is absurd, and is a terrible experience when you're trying to share something with someone and they then have to upgrade their account.

I used to love Dropbox, but the pricing model is terrible.

I think studies like this are a real shame. The topic is interesting, but the method and the analysis are terribly poor. It is quite disingenuous to use "Across the Life Span" in the title of the paper when no longitudinal data was collected. Also, "smoothing" and "dampening noise" are quite worrying to see. The process of making data fit your statistical models or tools like this is another form of inaccuracy (or dishonesty).

I'm not addressing the claim of this article, just the methods.

IQ has a misleading (and factually inaccurate) name. The Q stands for quotient, but an actual IQ is not a quotient at all. IQs are ordinal ONLY. They allow you (to the extent that IQ tests measure intelligence) to rank people, not assign numerical values. It is not possible from IQ scores to say "Alice is x% more intelligent than Bob", only "Alice is more intelligent than Bob".

Due to the non-cardinal nature of IQ scores, the correlation with income as reported in the article isn't something that you can really do. To do this, we would need a cardinal measurement of intelligence instead.

I don't understand how it's not exploitable. The casino can't control whether cards get marked. They get marked all the time during regular gameplay.

Response to your edit.

I still think this was the wrong opinion. If the cards are not shuffled that is a clear violation of the rules of the game. No such violation occurred here.

There are no such rules about card orientation because usually casinos use ones with symmetrical backs.

Ok, let's get technical.

The (a) part of that law is written for casinos, not players, as it refers to dealing and operating games. The requirement is that they do this knowingly. The casino didn't know.

The operation of this game did not in any way deceive the public. No player was tricked. The operation of the game also did NOT alter the result of the game. The same side (banker/player) would have one irrespective of the rotated cards, as the rotation has no affect on gameplay and the outcomes are deterministic (no choices during play like in blackjack).

All that was changed as a result of the extra knowledge was which side to bet on. The game itself was not affected in any way.

I have a few problems with this.

The law DOES make a distinction based on who did the marking. Your quote clearly states that it refers to people playing the game, which would exclude the casino.

The cards also weren't marked. The backs were identical. The dealer selectively rotating some cards is what made some identifiable.

The law also says that the player must "substitute and use" marked cards. The casino made the substitution. The cards were marked or tampered with.

Moreover, if this interpretation is correct, and the game is simply invalidated, then it is far more exploitable. In the case of any kind of marked card a player could simply bet huge (randomly) and if they lose invoke this law, invalidating the game.

This seems like a ruling unlikely to stand up on appeal. This technique is akin to card counting, where skill is combined with luck to create a long term advantage.

I also think it should have been fairly obvious to the casino employees that some kind of advantage play was happening. Ivey is very well known as a poker player, and while he also is known as a gambler, arbitrary superstitions are outside of his character. The specificity of the conditions he asked for should have tipped his hand earlier than they did, but the casinos probably treated him like any other baccarat whale.

Hopefully this decision is reversed. I don't know what part of the law it supposedly broke, but it seems like the judge believes that the player in the casino has a legal obligation to be a sucker.

To expand on this..

You could use $exists, $gt, $eq, $ne, $in, $nin, regex, and all kinds of other ways to query what you want.

If the programmer wanted to exclude "secret projects" the query should have had a form similar to

{ $and: [{ type: { $ne: 'secret projects' }}, <rest of query>] }

This isn't injection at all. No commands other than the find are being performed. Little Bobby Tables (Little Bobby Collections?) will not have any luck here.

In addition to the fact that you can't execute arbitrary commands with this example, the example itself is flawed. If the programmer's intention was to exclude "secret projects" from all searches, then they should have written the query to do that. They didn't, and allowed multiple other ways of accessing those records.

Writing some code that does something different to what you intended it to do is not a NoSQL injection, it's just bad code.

Unrelated to the actual topic but...

Knots occur in headphone cables because of how people wrap or store them. If you take each end of the cable and fold it in half a few times (I do it 3 times) then you're far less likely to get any tangles than if you wrap them around your fingers in a continuous loop.

How is using semver casual? In AngularJS they introduced breaking changes a number of times, without a major version bump. Using semver makes it really clear, and since they are being so strict about it, there is greater confidence when updating to non-major releases. I think this is great.

Their 6 month release cycle is also very smart and allows for planning. I know that I'm only ever going to need to fix things once every 6 months when updating the library (if I do choose to update it) which seems pretty good to me.

For clarification, these naming conventions aren't something that was just announced, but have been used since Angular(2) was in beta.

While it's slightly confusing given there is a clear divide between versions 1 and 2, it makes sense going forward to use these names.

Also, technically, there was a name change between v1 and v2, from "AngularJS" to "Angular".

This even isn't the absurd part.

If you increase the backlog time you are building for, then it's a one-off increase, it doesn't increase the quantity of new work coming in, so once they've worked through this one-off extra with their 10% spare capacity, things will just go back to how they were before.

Does anyone know what happens in the eventuality of Mark's death or incapacity? I don't think control like this is inherently wrong, as it seems to have worked well for Google, but I do wonder what happens after the founders die. These rather extraordinary provisions for control of public companies make sense when being granted to specific, exceptional individuals, but less so as a general power that can be transferred.

So, does anyone know what would happen in that case?

The margins on their displays was surely massive. They were in the order of 2x as expensive as equivalent Dell models. I think it was probably volumes, not margins, that had them drop the thunderbolt display.

We are experiencing the same from Vietnam

You might have had the wrong size. If the length of your body is mismatched to the chair then this can happen.

Cool.

It would be great if the site explained why it is different to the alternatives. If I was using Kubernetes for instances, why would I swap out the default service discovery mechanism for this one?

Based on the demo they showed, this isn't needed. As long as they know the orientation of the device relative to a flat plane they can move the virtual items within the bounds of that device's screen. When it crosses over on to another device, it only needs to calculate movement based on it's relative orientation.

I'm currently in the same boat.

Both are similar in that they are component-oriented.

There are two important factors in my mind.

1. The ecosystem (as you mentioned). React has a clear head start here, but I expect Angular2 to make some gains over time.

2. Angular2 gives you a full framework, and as they say now, a whole platform. React is smaller and you rely on a bunch of other packages to get all the extra features you need. If you want a full solution, Angular2 gives you that.

This can be argued as a good thing or a bad thing. More flexibility with React, but also more things you need to figure out and make a decision about. With Angular2, once you buy in, you don't need to make all of those decisions.

In my particular circumstance, which is to migrate an Angular1 app to a newer framework over time (mainly for the server side rendering features), Angular2 provides a clearer path and offers some nifty features like component styles that allow a similar migration with CSS.

metametaprogramming (verb.) The act of talking about people talking about programming, rather than doing any actual talking about programming.

I use Google Infrastructure personally. I'm very happy with it.

If I were you I'd look at kubernetes. Not just because it's great, but because it has cross-provider support. Configuring it is fairly easy, and you can then deploy locally on dev environments, to Google, to AWS, to Azure etc.

I favour this over solutions where you are locked in.

This is a complex issue. There are a few things to keep in mind when thinking about suicide attempts.

The first thing is that the paper cited in this article to back up this claim actually does not say that females have a higher rate of attempting suicide, but rather that they have a higher rate of deliberate self-harm. These two things are not equivalent.

The second factor to consider is the availability and accuracy of self-harm or suicide attempt statistics. Males are far less likely to seek professional help, as noted in the article, so it stands to reason that far more male suicide attempts and actions of deliberate self harm go unreported, even if this data is gathered independently, as males are in general less likely to share such things.

Suicide attempts are often unsuccessful. It's harder to complete than is the general belief. Success rates are something like 5%. If we were to assume that the base incidence rate of suicide attempts for males and females was the same, we would still expect more men to die by suicide because of the related statistics about seeking help/treatment. I'm not saying that the base levels are the same, I'm just giving a hypothetical to show how the variables interact.

This is not a simple picture. The personal and cultural stigma around suicide makes things like this very difficult to untangle.

This is still a hard problem.

I use Google Apps OAuth for everything possible. This makes it pretty easy. You can also use SAML or any other SSO mechanism.

You should absolutely create new users when that is an option. Then, when someone leaves, it's easy to remove access without having to worry about things.

We use Lastpass to store all company passwords, and there are some shares done through it as well, but we don't share unless we have to.

If you are sharing an account with someone you should change the password for that account when they leave the company. If you're using something like Lastpass or similar this is easier to do than distributing the password another way.