dainank

I also dream of this someday... Maybe I should just use AI to generate a Windows fork based on the existing source. Should be more than enough information.

For me, competitiveness is largely about how directly players can influence and outwit each other. In tennis, psychological pressure is just one element alongside direct tactical interaction. In a parallel sport like golf, that interaction is much more limited, which makes it feel less competitive to me. I can see the counterargument, though: because golf has fewer direct competitive elements, the psychological battle may become more significant in its own right, but I personally don't value that so highly; its something that must automatically be done anyways in sports where you are directly influencing each other alongside all the extra baggage of strategy they bring!

They are not very much alike at all. This is a very poor analogy.

In boxing, chess and many other competitive sports, the actions of one player directly influence and have an effect on the other player. Golf is merely a parallel challenge, where both are playing against each other but not influencing each other directly (sure maybe there are some psychological effects that can occur between the players, but no strategical impact by the actions of one player on the other).

This is blatant misinformation. Three things led to defeat:

- European diseases

- superior weaponry

- alliances with local Aztec enemies

The first wave of smallpox killed 5-8 million and is by far one of the greatest factors.

> It’s the Windows Media Player of the AI industry.

I personally found WMP great. I never felt any urge to install alternatives (and the few times I did end up using another media player, I always thought it was a worse experience than WMP).

Nice find. Is there also somewhere online a test done with this (I believe you but am just curious to see how much)?

I agree. I think in general, any game that is 'turn-based' (in this case chess), with a limited set of options, quickly boils down to pure theory and in my opinion 'dumb intelligence' of just remembering many things and patterns (the AI of now). As soon as a game is in 'real-time' with many-many options, it reaches a level of complexity where you cannot ONLY remember theory and outsmart your opponent. It is far more about applying logic on the fly with the limited time and overwhelming set of options you are supplied. This skillset applies to almost everything in life and serves me personally very well thus far in life. Yes, I understand that chess has different modes that severely limit time per turns which transform it more into the 'real-time' games and value, but it is still turn-based and still has a limited set of options when compared to true 'real-time' games.

I would imagine that world running on fully autonomous cars would certainly be less error-prone than a world running on human-driven cars where each human has different intelligence, reflexes, emotions, moods e.t.c. A purely algorithmic system of autonomous cars is certainly safer, just needs to be fully adopted. The only drawback I suppose is the fear of these systems being hacked, something that is not so easy with biological humans.

On a serious note, it would be nice if in the far far future, once the browser is very stable, they release a windows binary since I do sometimes still use Windows 11 for moments when it is needed and it would be a shame to then temporarily still have to switch to Edge e.t.c. instead of being able to use Ladybird there too.

Maybe I missed it but has he posted his theme anywhere (I assume for VSCode since he mentioned he is using that)?

Sorry, this is my mistake, I misread the following statement:

> If you could simulate a human perfectly, the simulated human would not be a human, it would be a simulated human. It's not a given that it would be subject to the same rules of ethics as real humans.

I am glad we agree. Regarding this second statement, I also agree with you having reread it now. Even if the entity (simulated human) receiving signals is experiencing from their PoV the exact same data, from our perspective knowing this is a 'simulated human' and not a 'human' we indeed cannot assume it is subject to the same rules like you said.

Apologies for misreading your initial message.

Do you have a link for a list of these changes. I am curious.