That's not a complete analogy tho. Everyone knows Hans cheated in the past. But Magnus is going beyond that and saying that Hans cheated in the over-the-board game against him.
Coming back to your analogy. So now imagine this person suddenly has a new shiny car but he also has the Title and registration for that car. Not only that, someone reported him to the cops and the cops said that the car is not stolen. He also has income tax returns that show that he has a legit source of income. Would it be natural for a reasonable person to assume that theft is the most likely explanation?
I don’t understand your analogy. There’s no evidence that Hans didn’t cheat in the game against Magnus. This isn’t Hans’s fault, as it’s hard to imagine what such evidence could even be possible, but the fact remains that there’s nothing comparable to having the title, etc. to a car.
He has been caught of cheating online. Where you just open a new window and follow engine moves. Or you have a friend sitting beside you giving engine moves.
In his over-the-board match, he didn't have a laptop. He didn't have a friend giving him moves. He didn't have any communication device. He was mostly looking at the board or into the distance while he was playing. He was scanned with a metal detector. So we know he definitely didn't use any of his earlier methods of cheating if he even did cheat. Carlsen's statement confirms that his preparation wasn't leaked or hacked. I count these as evidence of him not cheating with his usual MO.
But in your analogy, it's completely possible for the guy to have used his usual MO to steal the new shiny car.
Now of course I'm not saying he didn't cheat. It's possible he used some other sophisticated method of cheating. But it would not be natural for a reasonable person to assume that theft using his usual MO is the most likely explanation.
There is a video explaining how Hans played ten 100% games (his moves matching 100% moves of what an engine would do) in the last three years and a lot of >90%:
For reference, Magnus at his best does a 70% match with engines, and between 70-75% is historically enough to earn you the World Championship. This guy is consistently over 80%, come on.
Reminds me of Lance Armstrong: a mediocre 90's cyclist that suddenly becomes the best in history, in such dominant fashion that I think everybody suspected something, but without proof you cannot do nothing about it.
And here's Hikaru's video examining the Yosha's evidence by comparing it to games he and other GMs have played. There's definitely something going on with Hans having so many >90% games, when the other higher rated players struggle to
80%.
Exactly. And Nakamura takes in that video the position that 100% is the perfect game. It's not. 100% means you made exactly the same moves an engine would made, but engines sometimes have two best moves with only a minimal preference for one of them. Those decisions are the ones that made Nakamura best games "mere" 80'ish%, in less important moves he did the second bests according to the engine.
If you are a top player and cheat, you would only require a couple of decisions here an there in complex positions, and the games would be still at roughly 75%. But if you don't fully understand the line, or you're not in the zone, and the engine suggest something crazy (but winner) you need all the following moves.
>Would it be natural for a reasonable person to assume that theft is the most likely explanation?
Based off of their previous behavior of stealing cars? Yes it would absolutely be the most likely explanation. Under such a circumstance, it would simply mean that their skill at stealing cars has improved to now include forging documents, and possibly bribing police.
Given their passed behavior, the objective is no longer for you to prove guilt, but for them to prove innocence. It is illogical to continually approach accusations of theft, or cheating, under a neutral assumption when a pattern emerges.
If you own ten chickens and come out one morning to nine, and a pile of feathers next to a fox, you have your culprit. Should you wander around demanding to see feathers each time another chicken goes missing before you blame the fox sleeping at your doorstep? The fox is there. There are fewer chickens. The easiest answer is the most likely.
There is enough certainty for the alternative to be inconsequential.
Because YouTube is doing it at the behest of the public. People voted in representatives that brought laws that force YouTube to do this. Your outrage is misplaced.
You think YouTube has any incentive in this? If it were up to YouTube they would just bring in rules that give creators ample flexibility while still making sure there's no infringement.
Anyone who is living in India knows that cases are severely underreported in India. Government is publishing statistics saying city a has x covid deaths in a day. But crematoriums are seeing 10-20x body bags.
You don't even have to believe me. Just look up covid deaths for your city and then go to the city's largest crematorium and count the number of bodies in covid body bags.
(I know you just posted a tl;dr of the article and this is not necessarily your opinion.)
> Anyone who is living in India knows that cases are severely underreported in India. Government is publishing statistics saying city a has x covid deaths in a day. But crematoriums are seeing 10-20x body bags.
What would be the incentive for India's government to do this?
That was my first thought as well but wouldn't that same logic apply to other countries as well? If not, why is this intentional suppression of COVID cases happening in India and not other countries like the United States and United Kingdom? At what point does the comparison of COVID cases between countries become meaningless as a result of countries manipulating the data they report?
You're not the audience. I think art has always been a game of finding something unique in the sea of mainstream. If there were 50 other artists who made art similar to Pollock, he would never have achieved this fame.
I'm sure you've encountered someone saying something along the lines of "Oh, I like it a lot but it's so common, literally every other person has it.". That's the kind of audience art is targeted towards. It's easy to classify if art is good or bad:
1. Is unique. If something is very similar to other famous
and sought-after pieces of art then it's not good.
2. Is popular in the art-community and sought after among the rich.
If something satisfies these two requirements then it's good art. Otherwise it's not.
Remember the $120,000 banana? It satisfies both conditions. So it was "good art". It also got three buyers apparently.
I don't agree. Millions (maybe even billions) of people user their devices and the country absolutely should regulate their systems. As an extreme example imagine if Apple tomorrow said that all apps have to pay a 95% cut instead of a 30% cut and all customers have to pay $20/month to use Wifi or internet on their iPhone. Obviously this is unlikely to happen but then I would expect the govt. to intervene.
If Apple want to impose rules without any government oversight, they are free to start their own country with their own government and impose their own rules.
That's a pretty big straw man argument. If Apple said all apps have to pay a 95% cut and all customers have to pay $20/mo to use Internet on their phones then they'd nearly instantly lose massive market share and the backlash would be so severe that they'd never regain that market share. In other words; they'd never do that.
>if Apple tomorrow said that all apps have to pay a 95% cut instead of a 30% cut
But Apple could easily say "no more 3rd party apps" -- again, equally unlikely given the values those apps bring. But zero 3rd party apps is precisely what the iPod was, no?
>As an extreme example imagine if Apple tomorrow said that all apps have to pay a 95% cut instead of a 30% cut and all customers have to pay $20/month to use Wifi or internet on their iPhone.
If they did they did this with the app store as used by existing iphones, then that would probably cause them to get in trouble, but if they made a new app store with these policies that was only used by a new model of iphone, then while extreme, I'd think it's within their rights. It's not that long ago that feature phones with limited app selection and internet browsing as a premium feature were a thing.
> You cannot send power to the camera without also sending power to the LED, which will in turn cause the LED to light up. Unless the LED is broken, in which case you will know because it will never light up.
You make multiple assumptions here
1) You assume that the during the time that passes between the LED breaking and the user noticing, there was not a single attack or a single blunder that caused the camera to turn on and record/capture something that was unintended.
2) You assume that the LED breaks deterministically. The LED can break randomly. Maybe it lights up when nothing is being recorded resulting in a false positive. The user has no way of differentiating between a false positive and a true positive which can result in unintended captures.
3) Similarly the LED can break in a way where it sometimes doesn't light up when something is being recorded even though power is always sent to the LED when the camera is on resulting in a false negative. Again, the user has no idea of differentiating between a false negative and a true negative.
That's not what incognito mode is. It literally says on the first page when you open incognito window. People want to skip reading technical details when provided but then get angry when a company does the exact thing they warned about.
Also where does this end? Should car dealerships be allowed to analyze your data? Cars you've bought, cars you test drove etc.?
A disclaimer that a technical vulnerability exists isn't some kind of implicit invitation for a company like Google to use that vulnerability for their benefit. It's true that it's technically possible to track users using a private browsing mode, but it is not ethical.
If you have a car with a broken lock, that's not some kind of open invitation to burglars to steal whatever they want from your car.
Google is a publicly listed company. Members of the public, either directly or indirectly partially own Google. Google has a duty towards its shareholders. Isn't that some accountability?
I know that not everyone owns Google stock. But I'm guessing hundreds of thousands of people do.
I would love to give this a try if it has an MIT license.