fixf

7 ms·

1.
by fixf 6y ago
I have GOL running on my keyboard. You will be missed but not forgotten.
2.
by fixf 7y ago
They could, though I think much of that can be mitigated with effort. I believe the textbook example is domestic abuse, but I worry that the scope also coincides with fallout from poisoned well attacks and tribalistic recruitment efforts.
3.
by fixf 7y ago
Against the use of double binds. To me they are an indicator of hostile intent, although as demonstrated here and in the practice of law, adversarial interactions can be constructive. This abstraction is incredibly beautiful, but typical ex
4.
by fixf 7y ago
Glad to hear that. The Freemium solution is certainly a simple one, but I didn't feel it was appropos. Personally I'd have to start writing a day ahead to have a chance at formalizing my question before the time limit. Expert advi
5.
by fixf 7y ago
Not at all. It's correct that this problem is formally recognized as a false paradox. It is a thought experiment infamous for its illustrative misuse in relation to other areas. "What are the 'boxes' in this case?"
6.
by fixf 7y ago
I share a similar view, that testing whether the examiner is lying is itself worthwhile. But while the analysis has several interpretations this question may pose the agency a small problem. They are answering a paid user and therefore have
7.
by fixf 7y ago
What is your agency's policy for answering Newcomb's problem?
8.
by fixf 7y ago
Well met, and thanks for identifying the solution using overhead.
9.
by fixf 7y ago
Good point, loose language on my part. I am thinking of false positives or collision. The required statistical properties aren't met.
10.
by fixf 7y ago
The minimum number motivated to work is also the cheapest. 2 was simply deemed insecure.
11.
by fixf 7y ago
There's multiple bounds. The mounting evidence for BPP=BQP unfortunately falls aside P=BPP for evidence without proof. The weak interpretation is that BQP is vulnerable, and the strong interpretation is that BQP is broken. It's in
12.
by fixf 7y ago
I find it amusing that I didn't say anything for OR against, just mentioned them and that apparently someone 'disagrees.' With what, an inaccuracy? Then post a reply. Just voting says: I don't get it.
13.
by fixf 7y ago
Self squared dragons and monstrous moonshine.
14.
by fixf 7y ago
No, it's much more likely that BTC was a state funded vehicle for surveillance. Take that with a grain of salt, I could be totally wrong.
15.
by fixf 7y ago
Buboard may be assuming that performance is greatly influenced by skill and that skill is learned rather than innate, leaving a 'string of failure' in the learning process. Probabilistically, this is roughly that skill-based succe