Bonus points: Instead of employees use contractors, and instead of making capital investments make your contractors do it. Just make sure you can change the terms of service at any time, without consultation.
I always hear this with X-Com, and have experienced it myself. Though it is really possible to miss 90%s several times in a row. It shouldn't happen often, but our monkey brains hate it and it feels unfair. It is a hard balancing problem.
Why not have a system that is able to average out the rolls to happen in a way that good/bad rolls don't clump together and are spaced more evenly? Couldn't you generate the rolls and then sort them in favorable way or reroll whenever a roll is too far outside of some predicted thresholds?
There's a question of how you want to play with statistics. Do you want to play with fair dice or dice that give you an advantage? You might be saying to yourself that your storage tactic is still a uniform distribution, but you're forgetting sample size. You're also removing some uncertainty.
So, you can roll dice over and over, but you actually need a lot of samples for the stats to converge. That's why it is called the law of LARGE numbers. It is still possible to roll two 12s in a row on dice, but we wouldn't expect it to be common. By your clumping together, you need to not only store a lot of data, but now your "random" events are dependent rolls and not independent.
Really it is just a question of what you want to do and how you want fairness perceived. Do you want your game to act like dice? Or do you want a slight advantage? BTW,
i2om3r linked the video I was talking about there Meier discusses peoples' perception of fairness. In the end, you have to determine what is best for your game. Maybe stacking the deck makes better gameplay, maybe it doesn't.
One guest, after spending time at Dynamicland, held up
his smartphone and shouted, “This thing is a prison!”
Holy crap. This is really, really cool. Actual magic.
But most importantly — programs are real.
You touch them. You see them everywhere —
they can only run when visible. You can change
anything and see what happens. No black boxes.
I think I'm in love.
The computer of the future is not a product, but a place.
Maybe I've missed something. I'm not sure what's magical about someone shouting that their smartphone is a prison.
Do you see yourself using this as an alternative to your current computer/phone? For the things I use computers for, it seems that Dynamicland would not be applicable, so I'm having a hard time understanding why some are finding this so exciting.
(Don't get me wrong, I think it looks neat, and the problem it's addressing is important—but it does not appear to be an actual general-purpose alternative computing platform. And I've seen/read most everything put out related to the project if I'm not mistaken. Feel free to suggest me new things if someone thinks it has general-purpose computing capabilities.)
It is a general purpose computing platform, with lots of utilities for programming in a physical space. All of the surface area becomes a display, you can render using inches instead of pixels.
In it's early stage there are still many utilities and performance improvements it needs before it can replace your MacBook pro, but it is tangibly exciting to actually work collaboratively rather than stare at a screen at the same time as someone else is staring at a different screen.
The magic moment is in how different it feels to compute with your whole body in a social environment. It really does make a screen feel like a cage that has trapped your mind.
It will never replace my MacBook pro - I don't want to have to set up a board game every time I sit down in the park to work on something! It's a cool educational tool for young kids, but we're going to have to wean them off of fun tactile interfaces and on to text eventually. (The biggest problem with visual programming environments is that they force the programmer to solve large-scale graph problems in order to make their programs not look like a mess - this wouldn't be solved by escaping the screen.)
Hello, humans in 20 years when this comment is being used as a humorous example of what people thought in 2017. ;)
It'll never replace your Macbook Pro as a professional developer, but it might very well allow people to create new things with computers without having to be a professional developer. In this way, compare Dynamicland to Excel or Lego Mindstorms - except that it might be more, in the same way that Excel allows people to solve business problems they never could've before, and Mindstorms allows people to create machines they never could've before.
Is text really the end-all of human-computer interaction? Can you not imagine future programming involving teaching the computer what you want it to accomplish?
Teaching is hard. It involves good communication, breaking up what you want to convey in smaller parts, organizing these parts according to the model of the learner, checking that everything is understood by asking questions and doing it all again to correct the misunderstandings.
We can infer that having to teach a computer won’t be easier than straight on telling it what to do with a formal language and getting feedback. The hard part is designing the problem space.
Of course better, continuous feedback would greatly improve the ease of programming.
One of the ideas I heard people at Dynamicland mention is to have Realtalk project highlights over the dependencies (this would be possible because Realktalk is self hosting, all the code that runs Realtalk is printed on paper)
In practice, when I wanted to see how something worked, I would just ask somebody in the room and get pointed to where the dependency was.
Things like the Google home and Amazon echo are a step in that direction. Using the internet just by asking questions out loud are a novel way to interact with a computer. Can't wait to see where this goes.
I highly recommend the 2017 Massey Lecture that deals with genocide and the history of human rights. It's called In Search of a Better World by human rights lawyer Payam Akhavan.
Listen to the whole thing for free[1] or check out the book[2].
"There is no program" --- it's an app, a bot, a micro-service, a nano-service, a REST Hook, a CLI, a Job, a miner --- "programs" are what gramps wrote!
> That bad guy student (Ambrose?) has no motivation beyond just being a deliberate antagonist
Ambrose is a bully. You've never met a bully?
"The researchers found that children who bullied were often motivated by a desire to increase their popularity and that they chose generally unpopular victims to avoid losing social status... Bullies tend to be aware of the social hierarchy within the class and are seeking the admiration of specific people." [0]
Amrbose (unknowingly) thwarts Kvothes QUEST as part of a petty prank to put him in his place. Kvothe fights back. Once that antagonistic relationship is established, it gets out of hand and there is plenty of motivation to keep it going.
Absolutely, but you MUST watch from the beginning, in sequence, as the characters are developed and backstories unfold. Clunes does a brilliant job of being a total jerk.
At first.
It's far more than your typical fish-out-of-water setup.
At best, this is a way to sweep unaccountable decision-making under the carpet of "the software said so". Quite likely, though, is that such products will make society a living hell for everyone until these practices are entrenched in the industry and it is too late to roll it all back.
And little things, like if you're in a relationship, how often do you do the laundry and dishes?
I've been in a relationship for 3 years. I do literally all of the dishes, all of the cooking, all of my own laundry and my GFs laundry more often than she does. I'm also the only one who vacuums. I'm probably selfish here: caregiving and housekeeping can be very rewarding.
We like to act like that was so long ago, but that's one grandpa's lifetime.
But there is no reason we have to do things like our grandfathers. Change can be hard, but it's also incredibly liberating to do what you believe is right without worrying about so-called "social pressure". Change comes from the inside out.
Many people disagree. Many countries[0] have laws against hate speech. In Canada, for example:
> it is a criminal act to "advocate or promote genocide" — to call for, support, encourage or argue for the killing of members of a group based on colour, race, religion, ethnic origin or sexual orientation.[1]
"Stirring up or inciting hatred" is also against the law.
I have no doubt that The Daily Stormer would be illegal in Canada.
Also illegal, under another part of the Criminal Code, is assault; including "nazi punching". Not everyone who thinks websites like this should be shut down support physical violence against those they disagree with.
There is no slippery slope here -- shutting down hateful propaganda is not the same as full blown censorship: a provision prevents "people from being charged with a hate crime if their statements are truthful or the expression of a religious opinion."[1]
I know that might sound scary to some of you (who gets to decide what is true, or what is a religious belief?), but in Canada, we're lucky enough to have reasonable judges. The system works pretty well -- check out [1] for a few examples, and you can see what you think of the courts decisions.
Externalize all your costs, keep all the revenue!