kevinwang

9 ms·

91.
by kevinwang 3y ago
> If the loser got 0.6666c instead of 0.6c, and the winner got $1.50, then over time you'd break even, on average. For what definition of "average"? Yes, the most likely outcome would be to break even. But if we mean &quot
92.
by kevinwang 3y ago
> Your stake should grow or shrink by the same factor if you win or lose. > If you lose, it should then be divided by 1.5 (multiplied by 0.66..). In what sense "should" this be true?
93.
by kevinwang 3y ago
> Over time it does not. Yes, the article shows that almost certainly, any individual's wealth will approach 0 from repeatedly taking this gamble. However, the comments I replied to say: > But this is purely a result of the distr
94.
by kevinwang 3y ago
The comment I'm replying to says: > But this is purely a result of the distribution of returns from a single toss. Your examples contain two tosses.
95.
by kevinwang 3y ago
Can you clarify? I think you might be mistaken, since a gamble with payoffs of 150% and 60% has positive expected value.
96.
by kevinwang 3y ago
> When I lose, I lose more than I win. I don't see how this is true. Winning adds 0.5x of your current bankroll. Losing subtracts 0.4x of your current bankroll. When you win, you win more than you lose. The gamble has positive expec
97.
by kevinwang 3y ago
The absolute madman
98.
by kevinwang 3y ago
The nihilist argument is that we're not here "to" make copies of our DNA. It just so happened that each of our ancestors were were good at making copies of their DNA (and thus we are good at making copies of ours). But outsid
99.
by kevinwang 3y ago
Do you know that there's no polynomial time algorithm that solves the problem exactly?
100.
Erdős and Shannon: A Story of Probability, Communication, Combinatorics [video](simons.berkeley.edu)
4 points by kevinwang 3y ago|0 comments
101.
Malament–Hogarth Spacetime(en.wikipedia.org)
2 points by kevinwang 3y ago|0 comments
102.
Myrmecophytes (Ant-Plants)(en.wikipedia.org)
4 points by kevinwang 3y ago|0 comments
103.
by kevinwang 3y ago
It is surely helpful to have a "mechanism of action" so that you're not just blindly AB testing and falling victim to coincidences like in https://xkcd.com/882/ . Not sure if people do this, but with a m
104.
by kevinwang 3y ago
My comment was merely a reaction to the thread above, not the original article. lisasays: this is rubbish because there's no first-hand evidence e.g. of the vehicle fragments of the Debrief article phyallow: here's first-hand evid
105.
by kevinwang 3y ago
Sorry, I meant to say that he has not seen the evidence first-hand, which is pretty important IMO.
106.
by kevinwang 3y ago
Also it seems like even the whistleblower does not have first-hand evidence: "Grusch also said he has not seen photos of the alleged craft himself, but has spoken extensively with other intelligence officials who have." from http
107.
by kevinwang 3y ago
re (1), that guy (Dr. Garry Nolan) is quoted in the OP article, although upon reading the OP article again, it doesn't seem that the guy has first-hand knowledge of the supposed evidence, so it doesn't mean much. Although I guess
108.
by kevinwang 3y ago
Thanks for the links, the interview was a good read! I guess if the findings are just like little chunks of metal with some weird isotopes I'm not very convinced that they're like alien technology or anything. The original article
109.
by kevinwang 3y ago
And arxiv paper, which has a surprisingly readable Introduction section: https://arxiv.org/abs/2001.02665
110.
Ringel's Graph Conjecture Proved After 60 Years (2020)(quantamagazine.org)
2 points by kevinwang 3y ago|1 comments
111.
by kevinwang 3y ago
Ahh sorry, I see what you're saying now. Yeah I guess it's in PSPACE if the length of each game is polynomial in n, and EXPTIME if games can go on for longer. I guess chess (without the 50-move rule), checkers, and go (with a cert
112.
by kevinwang 3y ago
Here's the quanta article referenced by the title: https://www.quantamagazine.org/computer-scientists-achieve-c...
113.
by kevinwang 3y ago
It's orthogonal, right? How do you go from tokens to vector? Fully connected NN? lstm? Or transformer?
114.
by kevinwang 3y ago
If a tree's branching factor (i.e. the number of possible actions per turn) is N, and the depth of the tree (i.e. the length of the game) is N, the size of the tree is N^N, not N^2.
115.
by kevinwang 3y ago
Consider a game like go, where board size is n. This means the game tree's branching factor is O(n). Let's say the game tree's depth is O(n) too. Then what is the size of the tree?
116.
by kevinwang 3y ago
Seems like it wouldn't be Turing complete if you couldn't make an infinite loop
117.
by kevinwang 3y ago
Agree, this was one of the most captivating pieces I've read in recent memory.
118.
by kevinwang 3y ago
I just see "tap the notification" and "didn't get the notification?" brings me to a page that says "do not disturb active" and "you can allow clearspace anyway in Settings -> Focus". I went to
119.
by kevinwang 3y ago
Hm... I was prepared to be skeptical, but the winning pair is indeed a really great anagram. Good stuff!
120.
by kevinwang 3y ago
I just started this: A collection of tools to pull in personal data from various sources, in the spirit of a "quantified self". I just got it to a state yesterday where I can do do this: https://raw.githubusercontent.co

More ›