mafuy

... which already happened repeatedly?

Thank you, that makes sense!

Does "all but" always mean "nearly"? I've been conversing in English for 20 years now but this one eluded me.

I guess I am just unable to parse the words to piece together such a meaning. In my mind, there are two ways to interpret it: "this subject may be all kinds of things, but one thing it is not" (all but = everything except), or the opposite "this subject may be all kinds of things, but one thing it is for sure". And neither of these means "nearly" :(

If you're in Germany, I would not be so sure. Copyright extortion used to be a huge industry here for two decades.

TPUs?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think all kinds of UTF, including 16 and 32, support arbitrary length for a single effective character. This would be because you can stack modifications as long as you like.

By being the first to offer a convenient solution, and pushing it heavily with ads and subsidies, I suppose. Then economy of scale kicks in and you're set.

Just one example: Facebook is mandatory for school/university in large parts of Asia. You cannot trivially block them. They should be considered an utility.

> Or are these TVs auto connecting open WiFi or the neighbor’s Xfinity WiFi?

Yup. How does that make you feel? Because for me, it was the moment when the border to not only blatantly, but also actively evil was passed.

You'll be delighted to learn that this exact reasoning had, in fact, been used by the copyright industry against (illegal) movie streaming websites. If I remember correctly, this was in Germany and was, after a relatively short time, no longer accepted by the courts.

It is simply unethical, period. Knowing that a solution exists is a gigantic advantage when working on a solution. Normally, noone can abuse the knowledge fast enough to gain an advantage, but here, they could. This is fraud and as a journal, I would reject it.

Especially if they kept telling us how dangerous the machine is.

No, the parent is exactly right. I've seen it countless times and I am so sick of it. The poor, poor CEO has to be evil, it is his duty.

Depends on where you put the perfect play ceiling. I think each side has good points in their respective favor. There have been strong pushes by both humans and computers in improving their best play in the past few years.

A 2 stone handicap, however, does not scale linearly with strength. It becomes relatively more impactful at higher levels. For pro players, 2 stones are gigantic, and for beginner players, they make zero difference. Same for a point advantage (komi adjustment). So there might come a point where it is physically impossible for a computer to beat a top human under some handicap.

I'm not sure if I'm allowed to name the source on this here, but someone very familiar with the top Go program scene explained that there is a fair chance that a perfect game has been played already. This is based on the probability of a mistake per move in relation to the number of games there were played by top programs. Hard to believe at first, but perchance it is true. The problem is, of course, that we don't know which games are perfect.