Agree 100%. I want to be able to see how many actions it took me. And it would be good if it were possible to see how well I'm doing compared to other humans, i.e. what is my percentile.
Hmm, but party of the strategy of this one is that different cells have different odds, and you know those odds. It's not just a random 50% chance, that wouldn't be so interesting.
I could see probabilistic cheese working as each grid square having an odds that the move will "work." Those odds stay the same the whole game. If you try to move from that square, the odds dictate whether you do your move or just lose it and skip your turn.
This would mean that certain squares become very valuable. A queen on a 95% square is much more powerful than a queen on a 40% square. But those squares may not may not be in useful positions. And the battles may be over who gets to put good pieces on those squares.
An additional possible variation: The probability of a square could determine not just whether you can successfully move from it, but also whether you can successfully capture a piece on it. So, for instance, a queen on a 40% square is much less powerful offensively, but much more powerful defensively, because 60% of the time you can't capture it. You could "hide" powerful pieces on low-probability squares, and you'll have a hard time getting them back out but your opponent will have a hard time capturing them and might not try. (You could either have capture failure leave the piece that attempted capture on its original square, or have the piece that attempted capture get captured.)
Sticking your king on a 20% square would be a great way to probabilistically buy yourself time to bring other pieces to its defense, at the cost that the king can't easily try to escape.
That has a nice symmetry to it, where rather than making 95% always "good" and 40% always "bad", they're both valuable for different reasons.
not even that. the miners follow the nodes. if fidelity holds all transactions andbonly show them to their private miners, they will always mine with more transactions then the others, hence the 51 attack is based on transactions not miners nor nodes.
again, the cheerleaders who might know math (usually not even that) forget about the ruthless of business
Lol that isn't what a 51% attack is...The confidence people on this thread are speaking about something they have no clue about is staggering. A 51% is ALL about miners and nodes.
Noone has forgot a thing just aren't clowns like you who think businesses are some substitute god who can't be beat. Fidelity doesn't "hold" the transactions. Transactions to be relevant MUST be broadcast to the network and if this doesn't happen then the blockchain plods along as if they didn't happen.
Honestly, learn a bit more about how this stuff actually works before commenting.
I like this perspective as well. If the coin is rotating around a point (radius 0), the point on the coin edge touching the point will not move at all, yet the coin will make one rotation before returning to its original position.
The most pure form of free-market is a black market. Without any government, the free market does not have a mechanism to prevent monopolies (AKA absolute winners). Further, many markets do not even exist without the government. EG: there is no Tesla without the department of Energy [1]. The housing market would be totally different without Freddie & Fannie Mae, the banking system would also be totally different without FDIC insurance.
Capitalism creates bubbles & winners (aka monopolies). Government has to be involved to keep an even playing field and to smooth out the bubbles. No industry in the US has had no government involvement. All industries are involved with government in some form - if only to enforce contract law, or for more physical matters like using public roads, buying electricity from government run electrical companies, benefitting regulation that requires phone providers to provide service, etc..
The most profitable companies can afford the most security. It would probably work to some extent. I imagine it would mostly be for defensive purposes and to protect employees but you never know.
> most profitable companies can afford the most security. It would probably work to some extent.
Monopoly on violence requires enforcing that monopoly. Such a firm would also stomp out its competition. You’re describing government-run healthcare by an unelected government.
> You’re describing government-run healthcare by an unelected government.
Government run healthcare, the healthcare where you just go to the hospital and then you just get treated.. (?) Government run healthcare does not have a great reputation for doing cutting-edge health care, but on the other hand it does have a good reputation for taking care of people for basic needs. How is that describing a monopoly on violence? Repairing broken bones is the same as breaking bones? (If the implied argument is that health care is so heavily rationed, that people are left untreated, tantamount to violence, I would beg you to look at the statistics of which countries have more complications due to untreated illnesses (hint, the US is high on that list [1]; or we could look at health outcomes per dollar spent, US is very far down on that list, US spends multiples of other countries for the same outcome))
I would think a more apt description and example of a monopoly on violence would be narco-states. Otherwise the example is a well functioning government, and that is demonstrated in the police force and judicial system (not healthcare).
When considering the absence of the government monopoly on violence, drug markets are the closest thing there is to a true free-market. And yes, there contract enforcement is contingent upon a bunch of people standing behind you with guns.
Thanks for considering the response. I did not quite miss that bit, it's a bit of a tangled web of nuances. Ultimately, I don't think it matters whether a government provides healthcare was elected or not relative to that _not_ being an example of government exerting a monopoly on violence.
For the good track record, I'm referring to governments like the UK, Norway, France & Canada that all have better health outcomes compared to the privatized healthcare system of the US. The US system tends to stand out for the very specialized cutting edge (and super expensive) procedures; though you still have to overcome a lot of accessibility problems to get that. At present day, if you break a bone, have a child [1], need to be in hospital for a few days - generally you're better off not in the US
[1] "Despite spending less on coverage, France has comparable or even better health care outcomes than the United States. The United States has a higher rate of infant mortality. In France nearly four children die out of every 1000 live births. In the U.S. that number is closer to six." https://healthchoiceofmichigan.com/lectorium/MHzUCToycks
[2] https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/dutton.... This resource sites that France was ranked #1 back in 2001. While the US might have improved in that time, it goes to show it has been decades where the US is not the leader in healthcare. This implies that on average and for at least a couple decades running now, there are better outcomes in other countries (than the US). The dependent variable does seem to be how healthcare is financed, payed for, and how the profit incentive compares between those different places.
Why would companies that claim their own monopolies on violence and have no laws to answer to other than their own allow customers to do so? What's to stop companies from blacklisting such customers or collaborating to fix prices?
What's being described here is what anarcho-capitalism and pure free markets always devolve into - the mafia. You don't get to just shop around for a better mafia if you don't like the one running your town.
NPR has a clear political agenda biased toward a particular party. While I happen to agree with a lot of their politics, I don't think organizations with political agendas should receive public funding. Also, the bulk of their funding is not from the government, so they should do fine. Musk is not pushing for something crazy with this.
One other problem with NPR is that they also take money from some seriously questionable orgs, like Walmart and McDonald Douglas.
Just tried this with ChaGPT for giggles. It spit out words, but I wouldn't call it sound reasoning.
__user__:
- A system in composed of two elevators.
- Each have their own unique velocity parameter.
- At each time step in the system, the elevators can move up or down a number of floor equal to their velocity, or change their velocity.
- Assume that both elevators move at the same time step.
- The elevators may never occupy the same floor.
- Elevator A starts on floor 11, and Elevator B at floor 3.
- Both elevator velocities start at 1.
Is it possible for A to ever reach floor 2?
__assistant__:
No, it is not possible for Elevator A to ever reach floor 2 while maintaining the rule that the two elevators may never occupy the same floor.
To see why this is the case, note that Elevator A starts at floor 11 and Elevator B starts at floor 3. Since both elevators move at the same time step, Elevator A can never move to a floor lower than Elevator B without violating the rule that they may never occupy the same floor.
Furthermore, since Elevator A and Elevator B have the same velocity at the start and Elevator B is already on a lower floor, Elevator B will always reach any floor below Elevator A before Elevator A can get there. This means that Elevator A can never occupy any floor that is below the current position of Elevator B, including floor 2.
Therefore, it is not possible for Elevator A to ever reach floor 2 while maintaining the given constraints.
__user__:
what if at the first time step, both velocities became equal to 5?
__assistant__:
If both elevators have their velocities set to 5 at the first time step, then it is possible for Elevator A to reach floor 2.
With both elevators moving at velocity 5, Elevator A will reach floor 6 after the first time step, while Elevator B will reach floor 8. Since Elevator A is now on a lower floor than Elevator B, it is possible for Elevator A to continue moving down to floor 2 without violating the constraint that the elevators may never occupy the same floor.
Specifically, Elevator A can continue moving down at velocity 5, reaching floors 1 and 2 after two more time steps. Elevator B, with velocity 5, will reach floor 13 after the same two time steps.
So, if both elevators have their velocities set to 5 at the first time step, then it is possible for Elevator A to reach floor 2 while maintaining the given constraints.
Yes, if they were to move any number of floors at the same time step. But the language model isn't necessarily going to automatically discover those rules for you. Even if it did, the model won't necessarily be able to frame the problem as a BDD and solve it.
At best (and the is a valuable trait) the LLM would be able to reframe your problem in such a way that you could discover the necessary precision in the problem statement. Perhaps it could even encode it in some syntax for another tool.
