bskrobisz

No pitches at all would render it extremely difficult for those without perfect pitch, but supplying a reference tone or scale (like Earmaster) and highlighting the appropriate key rather than providing each tone on demand would be a good challenge, I think.

There's plenty of knowledge to be gained apart from that, there are top players that explain some of their thinking that have content on Youtube/Twitch. There are other examples along the lines of what you're saying -- traffic markings like bollards, signs, lines, license plates, etc. vary country-by-country; the position of the sun along with the date the google maps van took the image, telephone poles and other infrastructure. What's really interesting to me, though, is that there's some information that feels similar to when ML fits to metaknowledge about your training set -- e.g. there are some areas which can be ruled out entirely by the date the picture was created, there are certain areas where privacy laws alter what maps can provide or must blur, and there are areas where there was some issue with the google maps equipment that caused artifacts in the images (e.g. there are 'rifts' in the sky in some parts of SEA)

"Series of unfortunate events" is an understatement, but I would say it gets due recognition--it's an indie game over a decade old and still earns its slot at major fighting game tournaments and (after said events' hopeful end) still has support from developers and community alike.

>And of course there is pressng all 88 keys on the MIDI piano at the same time. I would like to know what that sounds like on a real piano though.

The mute pedal on an upright/console piano works by situating the hammers closer to the strings; if you stomp on it hard enough, you can get it to jerk all of the hammers such that they actually hit the strings and get this "all 88 keys" noise. I don't recommend this if you care for the piano, though :)

(On a grand piano, IIRC the mute pedal instead either adjusts the position of the hammer to only hit 1-2 of the strings, instead of all 3, or it moves the felts to dampen the sound).

This one has nailed a strong 'hook' for puzzle games, I think--the game appearing at first more challenging than it becomes after the initial learning.

At the risk of being oblivious to humor:

The point is the latency and loss of the message -- for a more red-team angle, suppose someone in the intervening space has captured the communicator and seized their phone?

The story is an allegory (metaphor?) for the inherent unreliability of communications between any given pieces of real-world infrastructure and the problems that arise when that unreliability reaches critical thresholds.

While I also agree with the sentiment, I do think it's a little bit like saying "90% of all programming is flow control and assignments"--it hinges on wide definitions that can be contextually helpful, harmful, or both. Resolving to those chords from tones that are outside of the key? Tritone substitutions? Modulations that change what chords exactly ii, V, and i are? &c.

I think it also depends on what jazz is actually being discussed -- it applies well to most jazz standards, but a lot of modern jazz and jazz-adjacent (or perhaps just what I'm familiar with) seems to gravitate heavily towards nonfunctional harmony.

I'd be surprised if there existed a significant number of software development professionals who could answer a flat 'no' to this (although I'm certain there exist some amount who only do it when it is more direct a solution than anything else, and not for its own sake).

Most of the code I write for personal use is for one-shot scrapers or "query this database and fiddle with that information to give me something interesting"--the only things larger in scale than that which I continue to work on are a Discord bot and... well, I had been working on a Slay the Spire mod and it's been rotting for quite a while.

I'm sure that those with a lot more hardware experience than me have the intuition to make guesses like this but I was surprised at:

>You have to register to download the HDMI spec which is more effort than I have for this, but the Hot Plug Detect pin has a pretty descriptive name. I guessed that this either has to be pulled up or pulled down to signal that a cable is connected. Sticking a 20K resistor to the 5V pin seemed to do the trick. With the oscilloscope, we can now see activity on the SCL/SDA lines when it's plugged into the laptop.

Is it really not that concerning to just guess what amperage will/won't fry something? I mean, you could test from very high resistances downwards, but you might overshoot, right? Or is there an assumption that the hardware on either end will provide the appropriate resistance, in this case?

I think, if you're familiar with go, this is an uncharitable reading of the question. The victory condition in this game is very directly analogous to a not-uncommon source of (sometimes-game-deciding) violence in go--two nearby weak groups where connection means a decisive victory for whichever player achieves it.

Having not played Hex, I can't say whether it's strategically similar (although just from the first couple of chapters, there are definitely similar concepts of important shapes and ladder breakers).

And leave a webcam on the door of every single person I'm professionally engaged with, to record their visitors? Use it to understand where each of those persons spends all of their time, to the best of my capability? Learn who has what vices, and sell that information (or a service to employ it) to anyone who would take advantage?

What I mean is that some group of people earns dividends from the profit of the insurance company (stockholders or private owners), the insurance company earns profit by charging each little guy more than they are expected to cost.

When I say 'inherently predatory', I don't mean that every insurance company is doing the equivalent of loan sharking, I mean that the concept of mandatory participation in a system that then also makes its own determination of how much wealth is reasonable to take from you in exchange for its service seems fundamentally immoral.

You know, when I write it like that, this applies to life in basically any situation --

* fully-capitalist (have to work, a market you have no control over determines your value)

* fully-communist (have to work, a government you have no control over determines your value)

* completely anarchist (have to work, the conditions of the world around you determine how much work you need to do to stay alive)

So I think what I'm actually saying might just be 'life isn't fair' which is kinda banal.

I think the idea of that service being all three of mandatory, not owned by its participants, and profit-driven is what causes it to feel inherently predatory -- that there exist companies which take on risk on behalf of entities who cannot take on that risk (and therefore must participate), and then profit by charging those entities more than they are expected to cost and using the pool of wealth created as investment funds for which only owners of that company derive benefit.

The service is obviously not worthless--some entity has to assess risk, coordinate, and administrate--but it is predicated on terms that make it (I would assert) immoral to transfer more than is necessary from those that participate in the service to those that own the service.

I dunno, for-profit insurance has always struck me as something predatory by nature. The only functional difference between the two sides is that the sellers of insurance have capital to absorb loss--sure, there's some overhead in organization and risk calculation, but fundamentally it's leveraging the wealth of a few people so they can extract some wealth from many more.

It seems weird to hear "a company here in Japan called LINE" -- LINE is big enough in Japan that it sounds kind of equivalent to "a company here in America called Discord".

I'm... confused as to what your interpretation of my comments here is. I'm explicitly stating that the issue isn't about people deciding they owe something to other people, or what the market decides the value of something is--it is about people in highly-leveraged positions who are currently able to waste resources or actively cause damage with some impunity because of the value their leverage allows them to provide.

I'm not making the suggestion that those who are wealthy should divest themselves of their wealth and donate it to charity, the point I'm intending to communicate is that such leverage shouldn't act as a pass to engage in unethical behavior.

This is not really the point that I'm arguing--my point would be that if you wanted your house entirely encrusted in precious jewels, each of which was individually polished by a team of people paid 50 USD an hour to do this weekly, nothing stops you from making that decision even though you are monopolizing a large quantity of resources for status, almost entirely. Someone with a large amount of wealth is generally within their rights to do this, which I would view as a problem.

This isn't to say that I would accuse the majority (or even very many) individuals in positions where they're able to leverage a lot of wealth of anything specifically this egregious, but rather that because they're able to control many resources because their efforts have enormous leverage (and therefore are worth more to the system they operate in), they can consume orders of magnitude more resources to gain comparably minuscule increases in personal utility.

In addition, because of how valuable their leverage makes their effort, when they cause damage whose negative value is on the scale of individuals, the disparity leads a system that's self-interested to forgive them much more quickly--if someone can get 1% more value out of 10 billion dollars' resources than anyone else, that system doesn't have any purely value-driven reason to replace them in their position if they should murder someone and its negative effects never amount to more than a couple million dollars' loss in value. From any ethical standpoint that holds "death at the whims of billionaires" incompatible with "certain unalienable rights", this is a problem.

I think the primary issue is not precisely 'wealth inequality' but rather a lack of accountability and responsibility from people with large amounts of wealth. If one has assets whose value is representative of the life's work of several thousand people, it's one thing to have someone who is demonstrably capable and responsible manage it, and another thing entirely to have someone /own/ it. If I had to guess (and I clearly am) a larger proportion of people are upset with the latter than the former.

Nothing is stopping someone from employing their wealth to build a yacht, fifteen McMansions, and a thirty-foot solid-gold Mothman statue just after getting off of a six-month prison stint for a billion dollars of ecological damage (all purely hypothetical but I would assert entirely plausible); that people exist with the right to exchange a colossal amount of wealth to be allowed to waste an equally colossal amount of actual effort and resources is the problem.

I won't say nobody has an issue with individual people being allowed to direct huge amounts of funding, but I would assert that more people recognize that extravagant waste for the purpose of status should not be scaled to the extant degree of wealth disparity.

> 3... e6: "A solid move, and I have never seen it before. It has been played by many strong players, including GMs, Zvjaginsev, and others.

It seems quite good overall, but occasionally there are fun AI-isms like this :)

>when one would simply need a microscope to find them in devices

This isn't a true statement, if strictly read--there are many techniques to hide undocumented components on boards, and covering all of them requires more than just a pass under a SEM. There's a fun talk that goes over a lot of them here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RqQhWitJ1As

Very cool! There's another site I used to frequent with a similar bent, focused on golfing: https://www.dwitter.net/

>Also, notably, the bot can still lose in the short term to terrible players, which was the thrust of my post. In fact, given its bluffing frequency, it might actually do worse against weaker players than it did against pros.

To be clear about why this might be true for someone who doesn't know much of poker strategy--the AI is (I presume) going to optimize for strategies that can't be beaten by changing one's own distribution of plays (for (simplified) example, if the AI raises a given hand 20% of the time and folds 80%, it's doing so because even if opponent were to call 100%, fold 100%, or something in-between; it wouldn't change the overall expected value of that hand with that distribution of plays). Professional human players, on the other hand, will absolutely cotton onto a player whose distribution of plays is not optimal and can therefore be exploited for profit.

Though I know very little Russian, I know enough to say that "how" and "pochemu" do not map 1:1 -- If I asked, in English, "how is this cardboard box flat?", the natural response would be "it's designed to be flattened" rather than "someone folded it down", but the natural response to "pochemu" would be the second. The full translation that was given would be necessary to disambiguate.

As a prime example of this, I'd point to the horrifying source for VVVVVV, a darling indie game of its time:

https://github.com/TerryCavanagh/vvvvvv (my favorite piece: https://github.com/TerryCavanagh/VVVVVV/blob/master/desktop_...)

(There was also discussion about it on HN before as well, if one is interested: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22011358)

That said, refactoring for later gains might be wasted time if you have only a certain amount of scope planned for the rest of time, counter to the typical heuristic.

You've painted the above comment as a negative spin, but I'm not really understanding, in your post, where it isn't just a less extreme version of this same spin.

You're suggesting a human should spend otherwise free time (which would otherwise be spent enjoying leisure, which we can presume has high positive value for that human) to generate value for others, in the hopes of receiving value in return?

In a system where this isn't an iterated version of the game (e.g. you're only playing against other actors a small number of times each), I don't see how this could function without systems like social credit which are abusable at higher levels than the individual actors.

I wouldn't call it the worst way to draw -- these studies are excellent at training the eye to understand things as they truly look (rather than the shorthand symbols we are accustomed to), but would agree that one will find their ability to draw from imagination extremely lacking if studies from reference are the only exercise used. An understanding of construction in 3D space is fundamental to the creative aspect of drawing.

I think these are reasonable. I should highlight, though, that 1, 3 and 4 are true for sign languages as well -- 3 and 4 doubly so (given how large a component individual expressions and gestures play in communication without sound).

It's faster to read text than to listen to someone speak, yet speech remains popular. There are aspects of communication which are not easily replicated in text -- sign languages do not lack the semantic information that is provided in speech by the tone, pitch, and rhythm of voice which is not, for the most part, reflected directly in grammar (in English, anyways). These components take other forms (expression and aspect, primarily) in ASL.