What they should do is turn off the spectrum a bit each year ranging from the top frequency down. That way people can adjust, stations can move on the dial, and there is no cold turkey. In the US this might mean I could hear my favorite Top-40(tm)songs only 24*60mins/4mins/40songs times a day, (and who knows if I would be willing to buy [obnoxious furniture store ad] furniture any more at that rate) but it would be a resonable way to do it.
if their goal was to reveal what they were doing to the world, this is a fine way to go about it and build some anticipation and get a PR splash.
if their goal was to train the best go-bot, they could have had it play not to win but to go down to the wire with very strong players but frequently lose.* Experienced players might have identified it as a bot, but would have dismissed it as "not good enough yet"
*especially as per the recent story that children don't learn when they win, so trains yourself without training your opponents :)
Unless you're talking about the Nuremberg Rallies, you've got your history screwed up: "just following orders" is NOT a defense against war crime accusations, and punishing those who commit war crimes "trying to get by as best they can" is completely appropriate, was the conclusion of the Nuremberg Trials.
> is insulting much as if Premier Xi in China started having friendly chats with the governor of Hawai'i or Alaska while publicly pouring scorn on DC
speaking somewhat loosely, actually there is no "much as if" in this sense. The Chinese have a "face saving is the most important thing" culture, and the US does not. Think of it more like the tribal regions of the -stans: China is metaphorically ready to do some honor killing over this in a way we can't grok. Doesn't mean we should acquiesce of course. I'd perhaps make the analogy that everybody in the Chinese government is as thin skinned as Trump. (I'm exaggerating to make analogies here, no need to jump all over me, of course it's more nuanced.) Meanwhile, our neighboring Mexican politicians publically pour scorn on the US all the time and it doesn't particularly affect our relations (not sure if Trump can take it tho)
In any case, it would not actually bother the US all that much if China talked to Hawaii, nor does it bother US that China talks to the Philippines; it would be to our benefit if China and the Philippines resolved their differences mutually, and the same with Taiwan; it does bother US that the Philippines would make short-sighted unwise bargains inasmuch as we get the sense that we will be involved in cleaning up the mess later, and inasmuch as it reinforces China's belief that they should throw their weight around more WRT the Biển Đông (the East Sea, off the coast of Vietnam;)
> The Chinese have a "face saving is the most important thing" culture, and the US does not. Think of it more like the tribal regions of the -stans: China is metaphorically ready to do some honor killing over this in a way we can't grok.
Please, can we ditch the outdated stereotypes? The Chinese govt uses the parallel tropes to the US ("we've suffered under years of foreign domination" "Here we're on an anti-corruption campaign so you don't have to suffer under unnecessary taxes" etc. And funding local SoEs to keep the jobs flowing).
Is make America Great Again any different? "Other countries are laughing at us." "We never win any more""We're going to bring back coal"
I just picked MAGA because it was a recent successful platform. But consider dispassionately: 15 years ago a small bunch of bandits killed 3000 people and cause a few billion in property damage. IN return the US has spent trillions killing people who had nothing to do with it in order to to restore its honor. Movies from Rambo to Shooter to anything by Chuck Norris are simply ways to pander to loss of face.
Of course there are differences between the two but let's stick to facts.
It's not an outdated stereotype. There are fundamental differences between eastern and western cultures. Individualistic vs collectivist, guilt based vs shame based.
The very fact that English has the expression "Lose Face" is because it was translated from Chinese and imported into the language in the 19th century[0].
That's really my point in those examples: Rambo and Shooter have an explicit story that ties to a particular individualistic-in-group-context narrative, but they also rest upon an underlying group identification and sense of group shame. Shooter is interesting in that I don't feel race plays any role in the group, except through the use of an "outside mercenary"
My in-laws are Vietnamese-Chinese so I'm painfully aware of how upsetting a perceived loss of face can be.
I would say, though, that there's a big difference between Hawai'i and the Phillipines. The latter is a treaty partner of the US but that's still something less than being territory. (Of course many Hawai'ian people would rather go back to being a sovereign nation but I don't want to veer far off topic.)
when I read it it wasn't clear to me either, so I looked at what was written and saw that the fractions on the right side were clearly getting smaller and smaller fast because each successive denominator consisted of the multiplication of a clearly increasing number of clearly increasingly large integers so within a matter of seconds it was clear to me that within that small number of terms that each additional term would have a vanishingly small effect on the (alternating sign) summation so what they said was had to be true.
So, I do sympathize with your overall point, but this isn't really a good example of it. It's less clear to me what they said about the left side of the (in)equality because that expression to me is much more eye-glazing...but it doesn't take long to convince yourself of that one too. I think it's fair for them to say it's "clear", but you have to not let yourself be put off by the large number of algebraic symbols strung together.
> With Trump elected, Europe is turning to itself for its defence...
wait, what?... Europe wasn't paying for its own defense before Trump, because why, they just liked the US presidents?! Was it something about them, or were they just these big suckers and Europeans were like "hey free defense!"? Quite frankly, you're making Trump sound better.
Europe does have its own defense, but Germany does not because of the whole Nazi thing. Also, strategically, the US has lots of valid reasons to be want to be the dominant military player in the area. We much rather be fighting a shooting war on that continent than ours. If you take a very shallow view, we are "paying for" or "subsidising" European defense, when in fact we are doing what we always do - engaging in what's best for us. The dollar cost is insignificant next to the value theater access and regional support.
imho his TL;DR is better than yours, but your improvements could be made to his. In my education we was taught that in science and business, the abstracts should tell the whole point of the story; the "spoiler" should not be saved till the end even though that makes for more fun; this is to allow a busy person to get the takeaway quickly and assess if they need to read all the detail. Whether anybody agrees with that or not, it's been burned into my way of looking at the world, so even when reading this article, all the way through I was gritting my teeth thinking "I wish I had some clue as to what I'm reading about."
so to add in your point, to his TL;DR I would put in "the intial dataset included only the trains that had suffered the fault, but as the fault was caused by a functioning train, a more comprehensive dataset was necessary to find the problem; had it been provided initially, less detective work might have been necessary"
from 2008... as the market has been up and to the right almost the entire time
Was there a time that the market did not go to the right since 2008?! Where's Dr. Strange?!
something learned during the recent campaign was where Donald Trump's inherited money originally came from: the Yukon gold rush! but not from gold, it was bled from all the people chasing after the gold, most of whom lost their meager investments. This is the business model A16Z et al is pursuing here. And if gold is discovered, they'll be first on the scene.
well, not only is it true that--(if a sentient AI is possible with nothing more than software...), but also if you assume that we don't lose our enthusiasm for building simulations of ourselves, and for helping our little sisters with their projects, then you must conclude that with all probability we are actually living in such a school project simulation made of cardboard and marbles!
It can't be proved that "it's marbles all the way down", but the odds are overwhelming that one of the layers is. Then once you accept that you have to accept that in all probability it's at least a layer of marbles every so often all the way down...
thought experiment: In how many of those layered universes is there a cardboard and marbles Peter Thiel funding quirky ideas? Is it Peter Thiels all the way down?!
