sago

66 ms·

481.
by sago 11y ago
Genetic programming using a design grammar (i.e. a hierarchical rule system, like a language grammar) is probably a much more natural fit than neural networks for generating the logos. It's been done before with other domains, includin
482.
by sago 11y ago
It does have an explicit license CC4 Attribution. So you put Logos by XX in your credits and you're done.
483.
by sago 11y ago
I had dinner with Prof Minksy, about 15 years ago. He asked what I was working on (evolutionary algorithms) we got talking about domains of knowledge. He said all knowledge has a half-life, the time it takes for half of what you know to be
484.
by sago 11y ago
It's cargo cult mathematics. People who understand math can do X, Y, and Z. Therefore we should make sure children can do X, Y, and Z. Then they'll understand math too!
485.
by sago 11y ago
I don't think so, a game like Werewolf, say is very simple, and has a lot of love on the Geek. A game like Ticket to Ride, or the Resistance, or Forbidden Island is much less complex than Monopoly, but are routinely in top lists of gam
486.
by sago 11y ago
> I don't see why a factor of chance makes a game unworthy. Because it often makes it unfun. Not always, of course, many of the highest rated games on the Geek also have random elements. But in the case of, say, Chutes and Ladders,
487.
by sago 11y ago
Indeed, let's not forget that their anti-abortion laws are so strict that women have been imprisoned for more than a decade for having miscarriages, and premature (healthy) births .[0] Seems a high risk if you get pregnant in El Salva
488.
by sago 11y ago
How very patronizing. There's a tendency we all have to assume that someone would agree with us, if they weren't so ignorant/stupid/naive. None of us want to feel that we'd agree with them if only we understood. S
489.
by sago 11y ago
Wow, okay, thanks. I've a better respect for why Go is so hard to minimax now.
490.
by sago 11y ago
If it was because of loops, wouldn't there be infinite games?
491.
by sago 11y ago
There are billions of valid games on a 2x2 board? Can anyone explain or link to something that explains how this is possible?
492.
by sago 11y ago
> Hacker news for X Isn't this reddit? Subreddits, in particular. Sure mainline reddit can be banal and toxic, but there are a lot of valuable subs.
493.
by sago 11y ago
So next year, when there's a modest decrease in global temperature (as per regression to the mean, even if the mean is monotonically increasing), the climate skeptics will be out in force with their 'I told you so - it goes up and
494.
by sago 11y ago
Your irony meter is more sensitive than a large number of commenters who's responses are variants of "no, because... anecdote!" I agree, it is interesting to see data, though I struggle to design a study in my head for how to
495.
by sago 11y ago
Looked like 'got up at noon, haven't been to bed yet' to me. Surprising lack of difference between sleep and waking if the only change was the breakup. Not doubting it, just interesting.
496.
by sago 11y ago
It isn't, but it requires knowledge of the other strategies: there is at least a 'starting' strategy. That isn't the case here. Which is why you've been unable to express your disagreement with the puzzle without re
497.
by sago 11y ago
No, the point being made is there is no 'equilibrium' because the game is not repeated. Equilibrium meaning 'if everyone votes this way, there is no benefit for any individual to vote differently' - that doesn't app
498.
by sago 11y ago
The solution is contained in the post. I can't find a problem with it. It was you who were suggesting this is a naive analysis. Equilibria just seem to me to be the wrong tool for the job, you have to (as you have) invent a related inf
499.
by sago 11y ago
Oh don't get me wrong, my objection is not because I don't understand Nash Equilibria (my PhD was in evolutionary dynamics, so it's been a while, and I was never a game theoretician, but I'm not totally ignorant of the f
500.
by sago 11y ago
> If everyone votes "yes", one pirate deciding to vote "no" doesn't affect their expected return. If everyone knows what everyone else is going to do, then neither option is better or worse, sure. But where did y
501.
by sago 11y ago
The better games through simulation fallacy. We've had variations of this for at least the 25 years I've been involved with games. "We'll get better stories when the world is more accurate." because our lives are fu
502.
by sago 11y ago
The color depth, 8 bit per pixel, with 2 bit per channel. But that was my misreading, it is 64 bits per pixel. So not 'too limited' at all.
503.
by sago 11y ago
I meant 2R,2G,2B,2A images, i.e. 8 bit per pixel. That was my misreading - it is actually 2 bytes per channel, (I'm used to image color depths being quoted in bits.) I need to read more carefully, sorry.
504.
by sago 11y ago
I still don't understand, you seem to be responding with jargon. The point made was that your 'equilibrium' is not valid because a pirate voting that way decreases their expected return. I don't see how you need a differ
505.
by sago 11y ago
Having only 2222 images means it is a bit limited for me, but I appreciate the point made that too many file formats have 'internal compression'.
506.
by sago 11y ago
[edit: Read the article again, deleted previous response, sorry] So you think box office is a better correlate of 'good movie' than RT score? I didn't get that from the post, but if that's what you're saying, then y
507.
by sago 11y ago
> the general reliance on RT score for any movie The reliance of RT score for what? What are people routinely extrapolating from the RT score that you think is not valid? Extrapolating budget from the RT score is definitely invalid: you&
508.
by sago 11y ago
Right. For movies over $10m budget, there is a positive correlation, and because the OPs graphs are log, it isn't a minor one. Indies form the second clump high in the rankings. The negative correlation is caused, as the density contou
509.
by sago 11y ago
> which might have been displaced later by other countries' agencies or top-level hackers in 2012 and 2014 Which is why deliberately compromising crypto is short sighted and dangerous. At the moment the faustian bargain looks tempti
510.
by sago 11y ago
First Qn: yes. But the rabbit is hiding in the 'enough'. Most commonly the poor uses of BT end up with a narratively argued prior + a single suite of evidence. For a finite set of evidence (particularly chosen by someone with bias

More ›