sharedfrog

Thanks for linking that. Nakamura's story (3rd video) was really inspiring.

IMO, the majority of people are stumped by the opposite realization of yours: That you can be faced with a problem outside your sphere of knowledge, decide to teach yourself how to solve it, and then solve it.

I'd say most people think learning is a passive activity -- happens when someone is teaching you, or forcing you to learn.

Simply telling it "continue" has worked for me.

Weeks, in their case.

They rely on sand to provide some insulation, alongside whatever they use in the walls of the containers. They heat the centre of the sand higher than the outside.

> No because not every sport starts ELO at the same baseline [...] (i.e. Lichess starts everybody with 1500, Chess.com starts everybody with 1000).

It's not just where they start - they actually use different rating systems, and neither of them is the actual Elo rating system. Chess.com uses Glicko and Lichess uses Glicko-2. This is also a big part of what makes comparing players from different player pools a bit meaningless.

What I think OP is asking is "If you used the same rating system in two different sports, would a 200 point difference mean the same thing?", for which I think the answer is "yes".

Draws are the most common outcome at the "supergrandmaster" level, yes, to the extent that calls for changes to tournament formats or the game itself are often called for. Chess960 is the most popular chess variant, in which the starting positions of the pieces are shuffled in some way, resulting in 960 possible starting positions. There's also been experiments done with no-castling chess or tweaks to how the pawns move, or the ability to capture your own pieces.

I'm not sure about your Elo question but I think a 200 points difference should meant the same thing regardless of sport.

For sure. On its own, it's no more than a raised eyebrow. The next few days will show if there's any solid evidence.

Btw. the 24% chance of "winning" against a 200 Elo higher rated opponent refers to "winning a point" - it includes draws as well.

This is relevant to today's events because Magnus Carlsen just withdrew from a tournament[1] after yesterday's loss to a significantly lower rated opponent who had previously been suspended for cheating on chess.com. The tournament organizers have also implemented additional anti-cheating protocols starting today.

Whatever comes out of these accusations, the chess world will sure enjoy its new infusion of drama.

[1] https://twitter.com/MagnusCarlsen/status/1566848734616555523

He's been doing that for a while now?

I don't understand the setup for what you describe in your second paragraph. Can you elaborate?

> essential amino acid

Essential means you both need it to live and your body can't make it on its own - you must get it from diet.

There's a several youtubers playing solo rpgs, including a channel called Geek Gamers[1] that focuses exclusively on it. She shows how to adapt many games for solo play.

I've also enjoyed Me, Myself and Die[2], where a voice actor plays Ironsworn, a game mentioned in the article.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/c/GeekGamers01/videos [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zVxJ3exjfgI&list=PLDvunq75Uf...

I've installed eight of these[1] CRI 98+, 5000K, 752 lm strips for a total of ~6000 lm, and during the day I use them in addition to about 3000 lm from two light bulbs, one of which is a nice CRI 90 2700K. I'm very happy with the quality of the light from the strips, though I probably should've gone for a few more. Another pair directly over the computer desk would be nice.

I generally find them uncomfortable when night starts to fall, at which point I just leave the dimmer yellow lights on.

[1] https://www.ledrise.eu/led-strips-modules/led-strips/multiba...

> I wonder when Magnus will stop being able to "beat" Magnus of 1 year ago.

While this doesn't answer your question, it's interesting to note Magnus's peak rating was actually 7 and a half years ago, when he was only 23.

They're saying it can go over 1(00%) per core.

> Classic fuzzers famously have a hard time circumventing magic values and checksums, and cryptography is full of these. This is further complicated by the fact that the double ratchet algorithm is very stateful and depends on the two ratchets evolving in lockstep.

Can the first issue be solved by scraping all the magic values from the codebase and putting them in the fuzzer's dictionary file? I wonder if this could even be automated when doing white-box fuzzing -- have the fuzzer scan the code when placing instrumentation and extract every "interesting" constant from e.g. `if` checks.

Regarding the second issue and the double ratchet specifically, are there even ideas on how it could be approached for feasible fuzzing?

I see, thanks!

According to this video[1], moisture setting it off is a myth.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NV6Jhw0hhBI (at ~3 min)

> The biggest problem with the saw stop is that wood when it is even slightly moist can set it off.

Is there any proof of this? From my understanding, that's a myth. Demonstrated here at about 3:00 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NV6Jhw0hhBI

USA stimulus package.

Intellimeds.net gives 8% off.

> the best chance to get rich is gone

The second best time to plant a tree is today.

> So there is definitely inflation at lichess

I don't think it's inflation. Lichess simply uses a different formula (Glicko-2) than either chess.com or FIDE.

The Big Vitamin D Mistake: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28768407/

> A statistical error in the estimation of the recommended dietary allowance (RDA) for vitamin D was recently discovered; in a correct analysis of the data used by the Institute of Medicine, it was found that 8895 IU/d was needed for 97.5% of individuals to achieve values ≥50 nmol/L.

> This could lead to a recommendation of 1000 IU for children <1 year on enriched formula and 1500 IU for breastfed children older than 6 months, 3000 IU for children >1 year of age, and around 8000 IU for young adults and thereafter.

> I prefer them not to give them a chance to be evil, rather than trust them not to be.

That's a good way of putting it.

It's safe to say a sufficiently large company doesn't care about good and evil, or any other kind of moral question, pretty much by definition. They care about making money. They'll do anything legal they can for that goal, as well as continually test and push the boundaries of what is legal, and lobby for different laws at the same time.

A very small company might care about other values, but I simply don't see that happening when you get to the stage of venture capital and shareholders.

Edit: Likewise, a hungry bear isn't evil.

> People are confusing their own individual preferences [...] with the larger motivations of the masses.

No, I don't think we are. We're lamenting the motivations of the masses.

Most people want something that 1) looks pretty, and 2) "just works". The advantages of something objectively better (let's assume there's a metric we can agree on) would have to be exponentially greater than the effort to make it work in order to make most people bother with the switch.

On top of that, it's a psychological defense mechanism to simply ignore bad things. Certainly if the effort to fix them is great.

And that gets us to "I don't care if I'm spied on."

> seen toxicity in some of her patients with doses of over 5000 IU per day.

I believe she said "per day for years".

> I used to be a wizard in a MUD.

Not Discworld MUD[1], by any chance?

[1] http://discworld.starturtle.net/lpc/

> I’d recommend you to look up a few games between AlphaGo and Stockfish

Agadmator's youtube channel covers a bunch of those. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1yM0D1iZLrg