falserum

3-3 invasion takes teritory at the expense of influence (future potential).

I think I improved a lot when I stopped 3-3ing (it opened up different style of game for me)

Noobies love 3-3 (I definitely did), because it’s kind of simple and familiar move. (Especially at the start of the game, when board is empty, there is gadzilion of possibilities and most of them unknown and possibly risky)

If not discouraging 3-3, I would still recommend starting without it, to learn that way of play (if for nothing else, to deal with 3-3 invasions)

Some part yes (maybe..).

But I doubt that it’s majority.

Whatever policy you implement, end result must be that stuff costs more and people live with less: virtually no personal cars, no for-fun-flights (vacation), force people to wear same pants for years and repair them when they get damaged.

That is hard pill to swallow for many, even for somewhat environmentally-aware beings.

Assuming no free energy is invented.

Related: exponential growth (x % each year) is not sustainable (approx 2500 years to consume whole universe converted to energy on 5% yearly growth); effectivity increases only multiply exponential function by a constant.

I would like to label guilt/innocence as irrelevant.

The scenario above, describes the dynamics of how incentives work.

As long as consumers expect stuff to be cheap, somebody will step up to provide that (reaping profits). Only highly conscious society or totally authoritarian one can make these changes (though probability of dictator caring about environmental effects is low, and probably not sustainable).

Edit: guilt/innocence are irrelevant in the sense that they do not change the outcome. If human gets into a tigers cage and gets eaten (or seriously injured), outcome was predictable without the need to know who is at fault (tiger or human).

Informative

Lets start with best country of the world that is made of 300 million consumers and 1000 factory owners (also known as polluters) each of which has identical share of the market.

To reduce pollution, factory owners would need to use less polluting means (i.e. less profit) and produce less (again less profit).

What happens if 999 factory owners do adhere to pollution-reduction, while 1 of them is polluting a bit more than others? (Answer: The polluter increases his share of the market, as more profits can be reinvested; and with more market share the profit will grow even more)

The point: consumers incentivize factory owners to polute, if consumers buy stuff despite polution.

This exercise ignores legislation, but law will not change until enough of consumers/voters start to care of the topic and will be ready to pay more for less and demand for it.

if you replace “they” with “prime minister that is hanging by a thread for quite some time”, you would get my personal conspiracy theory.

Not the author, but I assume he is not against you taking over. Code is still there if you are willing. (It is not too late)

How extensive safety testing of a hammer should be?

Should there be double blind clinical trials for it’s health impact when caried daily on a tool belt?

For most people, answer will differ depending on what the hammer is made of (iron vs uranium vs radium).

My point here would be that a) we must choose appropriate set of tests as they cost in money/time/opportunities, b) the choice of tests must be influenced by what we know and/or suspect.

If unknown is unknown, then we don’t know that we need a test for it.

Can’t argue on that. More transparency is always good for end user.

I think what parent meant was, all poplar art tries to sarisfy some “algorithm”. (Algorithm of what will masses listen to)

20 years ago that was trying to pick good ratios of bass, haircut, and marketing to get into mtv top ten.

Does art need to “make a statement”?

I think:

- It is subjective.

- if you enjoy it, then it is art.

Doing music for profit is not a new concept, just look at pop music (and especially “boy bands”)

But if end result sounds good to a lot of people, how is that not an art?

Is that actually sketchy though?

- Each artist has different royalties, some are more expensive than others.

- appearantly people do listen to ”cheaper” artists, in right circumstances

- consumers prefer that cost of subscription would be lower

- I assume scenario in the article saves money for spotify, and in turn allows to remain profitable without increasing subscription prices.

Seems it aligns well with interest of consumers in the long run.

Nice.

Are these numbers the same: “0.5 in base10” and “0.1 in base2”?

I have a further nitpick regarding terminology.

Wording like “game is more complex” overal seems incorrect. Game is not complex by itself (for example go rules are extreemly simple), all the difficulty and challenge depends on the skill of your oponent. Game only allows the opponent to demonstrate the skill.

Is 1/10 (also known as 0.1) a valid number in base 10?

What about same number expressed in base 3? (I think in base 3 that would be written as 1/31)

And what about number 0.1 in base 3? (Which is equivalent to 1/3 in base 10)

In neibhouring thread that deeper difference appeared to be: “PI is not actually a number.”

1/3 is also a special kind of procedure.

Important to note: When ggp asked for a recursive procedure to generate real numbers, they wanted that exactly same proceedure would generate all reals (not special procedure for each number)

If we have special procedure for each number, then procedure to generate 1/3 is just 1/3. …of course naively assuming notation of 1/3 is as valid as 0.33333…, and that base 10 is not the only possible base.

Fun.

What about 1/3, 1/7, …? Previously outlines recursive procedure doesn’t generate those.

But yeah, if you deny existance of irrational numbers, and redefine Real:=Rational, then you can generate these “real” numbers recursively and it does follow that all infinities have same cardinality here.

Btw. what is the diagonal of a unit square formed by 4 objects at the corners? I assume it is a rational number. Btw2. If you take that answer and multiply by itself, what do you get?

Thanks for reply.

When will this reach PI or e or sqrt(2)?

(There are infinitely many numbers that will not be reached by this procedure)

1, 1.1, 1.01, 1.001, …

This will never reach 2, so it will not generate all real numbers. (Which was what parent was asking for, to recusively generate all R)

proof of infinity

This combination of words seems strange.

Like: proof of ‘zero’ or proof of ‘left’.

All of them have definitions, not proofs.

(Qualitative distinction of different infinity types has a proof though)

I'm happy to accept that I have two apples of my desk if all my friends and the guy I bought them from agree with that definition.

That’s useful, but very vague, and very movable criteria for “exists”. (Approx. Must be based in physical reality + enough people subjectively agree on it)

Do following finite numbers exist: -1, 0, 0.5, PI, 2^300 (more than particles in observable universe), sqrt(-1)? Do individual digits exist? If PI exist, how many digits does it have? Do models and algorithms in general exist? Do model existance depend on limits of your/somebodies capacity to understand them?

I would propose alternative, but useful way to look at this. “Two” and “infinity” are models. Both these models are useful, but “two” is just more common one. (Still, various infinities are useful for bunch of people)

Problem is that unknown unknows are not actionable.

You dont even know what or where to look for them.

(Though I agree regarding hubris part)

Are audiobooks much easier for you than physical books? (I’m just comparing notes)

Might be abit too dramatic regarding consequences.

Mentoring is force multiplier in virtualy all scenarios, but there is a fraction of people who are self starting eager readers, that will manage to get out of the newbie stage on their own (as long as they are not actively sabotaged).

Btw. You sound overburned. Btw2. I find being selective of whom to help, very healthy for me.

I found it useful. Allowed me to compare if I have similar idea to the author.

Thanks.

Good to know that there was no repealment for Cunningham’s law.

Duplicates could be useful if they are properly linked with earlier question/answer. (Something like “import answer” could be useful)

but it's unfair to the dozens of people who follow in their footsteps and find their question years later.

Exactly.

In similar fashion: duplicate questions are alternative ways how people can find the question. (I.e. Useful for later searchers)

I bet that problem was not the answer but how you did it.