drugstorecowboy

Oh thank you I hadn't considered that. After commenting I realized that I had never seen anyone play multiple hands. This is why.

How can you collude and cheat at poker? If there are 4 people playing, and 3 of them "collude", its litterally no different than one person just playing 3 hands at once which shouldn't make any difference. The fact that you would win more hands is offset by the big losses you would take when the 4th person wins.

Personally I think you have 2 issues, 1. You are early. This is something people will care about AFTER they get burned. AI adoption isn't quite there yet so you are solving a problem they don't have. 2. I have a background in marketing, I do not want to insult you but you need to hear this. I hate your website. I hate your website with passion. Your website will make people nope out sooo quickly. I'm not going to list the things that are wrong with it, because you need to take it out back, set it on fire, along with whatever demon is forcing you to make so many lists. I know that is harsh and I apologize for that, but if you want to do well you have zero chance with that website.

So, I read those links and it seems to me your basis for calling Snowden a "tinfoil hat wearing high school dropout" with "high school dropout reading skills", is that he misunderstood that slide to mean that the US gov had direct access to servers at those companies, when in fact it was just a government program that forced those companies to query their own data at the government's request. Am I correct in saying that your argument then, is that all of this is completely overblown and noone should be concerned at all with this because it is all the product of a barely literate government contractor and an unscrupulous journalist?

Ok, but nothing in that leaked slide says anything about a court order or disproves much of anything about PRISM. I'm not saying you are wrong, in fact I sincerely hope you are 100% correct, but all that slide says to me is that the "FBI DITU" got the data somehow, and forwarded it to CIA, NSA, and the rest of the FBI. Additionally, lets be honest, a single image of a slide posted on imgur is a lot more "trust me bro" than it is proof.

Thats a good point about multiplayer, I was really thinking single player only. I guess the main thrust of my point is that the reason there isn't more ML in games isn't related to performance, its that the goal of game design(single player anyway) isn't to make enemies into unbeatable gods so the usefulness of ML is somewhat limited.

In my completely unqualified and baseless opinion, I think the reason machine learning in games isn't more popular, is that ruthlessly difficult enemies that learn and adapt to the player just aren't.. fun. Level playing fields between characters and enemies just don't work. For example, the Dark Souls series is generally known for being "difficult but fair", however enemies are not smart by any means, they ultimately have a very limited number of attacks and very basic AI that consists of "Wait until player is in range, Run in a straight line toward the player until in attack range, attack". Even with that simplistic AI its pretty difficult and enjoyable.The player is meant to triumph over hundreds of enemies, its the player that learns and adapts to a static set of obstacles. If enemies in Dark Souls learned and adapted to the player, it would go from difficult to impossible very quickly and would not be enjoyable.

The purpose of AI in games isn't making something thats impossible to beat, its making something that is ALWAYS possible to beat while remaining fun and engaging.

To be honest with you, you haven't convinced me. Secret messages do in fact require "targets"... I would love to hear an example of a situation where someone might want to send a secret message with no "targets" in mind. For all you know, my replies are coded messages and you are providing the cover for it right now. And to use your example were I trying to traffic in something illicit, handing it to a random carton or envelope collector in the hopes that they will trade it again to the intended person would be an extremely risky and ineffective method of doing that, so ineffective in fact that I would never consider that to be possible. Someone attaching a package to the underside of your car and the target grabbing it when you park would be much more likely, would actually make sense, and still is not really a risk worth considering.

I don't agree with you at all, nor do I understand how your mind works, but I very much appreciate you taking the time to respond and respect your commitment not to facilitate anything nefarious even though we disagree.

But.. unless your mother or the people she was sharing them with were the intended target of the secret messages how would you be a mule? Do you think terrorists were depending on you to save the memes so that later they could break into your sweet meme stash and find all their evil secret plans?

Normally would not comment just to make fun of someone but this is just a wild take, how could you be sure that HN is not full of coded messages?

I really don't think this is the same thing. A closer analogy would be you enjoy your meal at a restaurant, and at the end the waiter tells you the chef was a robot. Why should the provenance of something make any difference at all? If the author of your favorite book was convicted of some terrible crime, would the book you loved so much before you heard the news suddenly lose all its value to you?

History is filled with examples of this going very wrong, because it turns out that everyone's "observable reality" is different, filled with bias they are blind to, and people in general are very bad at differentiating between "I saw some people doing something I don't like" and "This is a society wide issue that needs to be corrected immediately". Science, when done properly, is the antidote to that. Many things are counterintuitive and involve levels of nuance that just aren't accessible to a layman.

In spite of my comments like you I also don't believe I have to wait for experts to explain things to me or spoon-feed me opinions. I also realize that I don't have the ability to do large-scale studies and that my off-the-cuff opinions on issues really aren't worth much. I am certainly not trying to say that the way things are done today is the correct way. Like you I find that many "experts" with long lists of credentials give lackluster opinions and likely don't deserve their title. Financial interests have corrupted things etc... However, in my mind, going back to a "well its obvious to me so lets make some laws" society is a step backwards and throwing the baby out with the bathwater. When incentives are properly aligned and people act in good faith, studies and experts can certainly offer information far more accurate and better than anything I can do as an individual.

Oh absolutely, we don't need "science" and "evidence" to decide what to do, it's so much easier to use the "well I just know it" standard. Historically, that kind of thinking created a wonderful utopia, I have no idea why we have abandoned it in modernity. I mean seriously, think of the children!

I think in much the same way that your life has been touched by a murderer and it has influenced your opinion, if you were wrongly accused of a crime it would likewise have influence.

That being said, I'm sympathetic to your point here and I'm not advocating for eye witness testimony becoming the only source of truth. If I could somehow know for sure that this would ONLY be used for the worst of violent crimes it would soften my opinion, but I am very sure that the more normalized this sort of dragnet investigation becomes the standard of what "requires" it's use will get lower and lower.

If policing were entirely focused on violent and property crimes many of my opinions might change, but realistically I think we can agree that whatever investigative technique we are talking about will primarily end up being used to prosecute drug crimes, because that is much safer and more profitable for the police. Do you really want to be on a suspect list everytime someone thinks they saw a drug deal somewhere and you happened to be near?

Exactly, and to make sure that never happens again why not just arrest all 12 of those people until they prove their innocence? With enough constant surveillance we can be positive that no bad person ever gets away with anything.

Honestly, do you look at the justice system in the United States and think "You know the real issue here is that not enough people are being punished"?

This might be a little pedantic and certainly off topic, but Coke ads really aren't intended to convince you that you need one right now, they are intended to make sure they are the first drink you think of when you think of sodas. Everytime a waitress says "oh sorry will Pepsi be ok?" Coke ads have achieved their purpose even though they didn't sell any soda or change your preferences.

RC Cola exists right alongside Coca Cola, but has a marketing budget that is a tiny tiny fraction of Coke's, do you ever hear anyone ask for an RC Cola? Coke spends on marketing so they don't become RC Cola, not to convince you of anything.