Stats I’ve seen are that around 2% of games between grandmasters include a promotion.
What you might be overlooking is that often the player that promotes might have temporarily given up material in order to get the promotion so it is may just be restoring approximate equality.
Or it could be that the second player will also promote soon.
Resignation is a signal that you know your opponent knows how to win so why waste everyone's time playing it out. For high level players you can be confident they know how to win but there might be more than 100 moves left in the game, so not wasting time playing out a losing game is the polite thing.
When playing someone low rated your opponent isn't good enough to think they can win unless there are less than 3 moves left so you may as well just play the rest of it out at that point. Even then, if you are in a simple (rook?) endgame if the low rated player makes a couple right moves you can assume they know the remaining moves so is it worth wasting your time to prove it?
That all depends on time control. If you watch Titled Tuesday for instance you'll see plenty of games where a player promotes and their opponent doesn't concede hoping to get a stalemate or a dirty flag.
There's a very chill streamer named Eric Rosen that does stalemate tricks at all levels, and it's surprising how often he gets them to work (even with super GMs from time to time).
The ability to install what I want is one of the reasons I went with Android, I guess I will have to look elsewhere when I next need a phone. I am hoping the new GNU Phone or Linux Phone get to be "thing".
This would make it no longer free software as per the FSF's definition. We could turn many more things into GPLv3, which would prevent this, however. Then, Android and iOS can use them if and only if they go under GPLv3 too, which includes provisions against bootloader locking.
Actually, how does that work? In my non-lawyer understanding, GPLv3 already says the end user must be allowed to actually run the code, to the point where the iOS app store can't have GPLv3 apps in it. So... does this change mean that GPLv3 apps can't legally be shipped for Android?
I think we need something in between. Permissive for individuals and small companies, but restrictive for mega corporations who impose their will on the populace.
The closest that I know of to this is GPLv3 with sold proprietary licenses. Then, when selling proprietary licenses, you can adjust the price to what you think that the customer can afford. There's debate on how ethical such adjustment is, and many companies (recently Slack and often Cloudflare) are criticized for it.
You can certainly say it is ethical depending on your political views. Large companies have many things working in their favor, and they even use that power to the disadvantage of less fortunate groups of people (or people who made different life choices).
Anyway, "it is my FOSS project so I can charge people whatever I want." sounds reasonable.
The bigger factor is whether or not Linux phones that are reasonably nice to use (everything works, isn’t flaky, battery life is decent-ish) come to market or not. Developers aren’t going to be interested in a platform that for practical purposes is at best a curiosity or something to tinker with, no matter how many idealist checkboxes they tick.
Good North America market availability sure would help too. There’s been stuff like Sailfish that seemed interesting in the past but didn’t have easily purchasable devices available in the US, completely precluding development for the platform for a significant number of devs.
Usage restrictions are not allowed to be considered an OSI-approved Open-Source license. Plenty of people think that the OSI "Open Source Definition" is the only valid definition of "open source", and will thus reject calling such licenses "open source".
I've been happily using "GNU/Linux phones" since 2008, with only 2-3 years around 2017 of using an Android device as a backup, so there's no need to "hope"; you can just act.
From 2008 to about 2011: Neo Freerunner, first on Om2007.2, then on SHR.
Then Nokia N900 with Maemo 5, in 2017-2019 augmented by Samsung Galaxy S3 with LineageOS as a secondary device since N900 was getting unusable for the Web by then.
And finally since 2020 up to now, Librem 5 with PureOS, which removed the need to carry an Android device again.
If so, I might be able invert my plan: use the Linux phone with phone/5G/useful software most of the time, and a cheap android phone in my bag that only comes out for things that need the monopoly apps and tethers to the useful one occasionally when necessary.
Depends on your definition of "lasting an entire day", but for me it lasts just long enough to usually not bother carrying a power bank with me. Usage patterns vary though.
I'll probably have an android phone in my bag for emergencies and use some kind of offline Linux phone for my mobile computing needs. or even give up on the mobile form factor for general use.
Simple, the US Fossil Fuel Industry + Political Contributions, or as all other countries call these contributions, bribes.
Also, I heard today the last remaining law that restricts these bribes is up before the US Supreme Court. We all know how they will rule, soon anything goes. Soon in the US, getting elected to a Federal Office will be much better than winning a lottery. Free Dinner, Free Vacations, Free Housing and a padded bank account can be fully legally had by any US Congress Person.
Edit: forgot, getting elected as President pretty can much makes you a billionaire.
Curious if this is similar to capabilities FreeBSD has had for ages ?
But I wish they would have chosen pledge(2)/unveil(2) from OpenBSD instead. Added that to your programs is so easy even I can do it.
I know that someone in Linux tried to add that to Linux. But IIRC it was in user space and harder to use. I think pledge/unveil really should be in the Linux kernel.
Only shows the slow road to turning colleges and universities into Trade Schools is proceeding as planed by the US oligarchs.
In the past people would be expected to take and pass many humanity courses. Seems now schools are interested in training only, not real education. Now they want people to be automatons, unable to think for themselves.
Do the humanities output graduates who are better at thinking for themselves? I've read far too many accounts of people plainly stating that they just pretended to spouse an ideology in order to pass a class for me to take such thing as granted.
Anecdotally, yes. The best colleagues I've worked with in the tech industry have been people who quit their history or philosophy PhD programs. In most cases, I would hire classics majors who taught themselves to code over CS majors.
The fact of the matter is that most jobs in most industries do not require virtuoso technical ability, but they do benefit from close reading, attention to detail, a willingness to look at the bigger picture and challenge mistaken assumptions baked into bad specifications.
As a history major turned engineer another thing I noticed is that while pure engineers tend to solve for x really well, people with humanities degrees tend to ask is what we are solving for useful? Definitely need both sides.
That just sounds like being smart. I can't see any relation to any of that to studying humanities in school. In fact from my experience in school the humanities classes were much more memorize and repeat back than the STEM ones.
There's a correlation that smart people study things they find interesting. As soon as it became clear that computer science was a money maker, you had a lot of students taking doing CS majors who weren't really interested in anything except making money.
Majoring in anything other than CS, engineering, finance, business, or biology (premed) is a signal for intellectual curiosity. Obviously there are plenty of students with real curiosity in those majors too, but there's also many incurious mercenaries.
It's debatable whether critical thinking can be taught sucessfully. In my opinion, the more important question is whether people can think about anything other than work and making money. There's much more to life than that, and as a society we should value much more than just going to work and cashing paychecks.
The fact that the humanities are not profitable is precisely their point.
Because of some LLM editing and the help of "AI policies," some people call this book "AI slop." I admit that I used an LLM for editing, and this book still needs heavy editing and a thorough review to fix all the bugs in the code. But I wanted to share it early to see if anyone is still interested in C before I move on to reviewing the list of exercises and preparing for several upcoming projects: building a search engine, a vector database, and a columnar database from scratch in C.
This book is open source, open for contributions, and completely free of charge, and anyone with a GitHub account can contribute.
I hope no one is surprised by what Google and Apple did on their Locked Down devices, all the care about is their bottom line. Trump and his people have no qualms about destroying a companies' revenue.
These locked down devices seems to be future tech is being pushed to. I suspect the TPM 2.0 requirement for Windows is a first step in Locking Down Laptops and Desktops.
Luckily Linux is not heading in this direction, yet. But I fear it will and baby steps may have already been taken. From what I have heard about OpenBSD and NetBSD, they will probably never lock down anything. FreeBSD, I am not sure about, but so far they are not going in that direction.
There was a story by FSF or maybe GNU detailing a possible future with using these devices. The story was you needed to get a license to use certain software. Debugging and Development tools required a specific license and permission.
I lost the link, but I think that is the future we are heading directly too :(
>These locked down devices seems to be future tech is being pushed to. I suspect the TPM 2.0 requirement for Windows is a first step in Locking Down Laptops and Desktops.
You mean the boogeyman that's been around for over a decade and precisely nothing has come of it? Moreover given the declining use of desktops/laptops, and the widespread prevalence of locked-down devices like smartphones, tablets, and streaming boxes, the battle over "locking down" has already been lost. If a company wants their app to run in a trusted environment, they can simply not offer a web version and enforce attestation (so you can't run it in an emulator or whatever).
But they really loves multi-screens :) For me, multi-screens are a big waste, I find virtual screens for more useful. The only real use multi-screens have for me is debugging a program with some kind of user interface. And the 2nd screen only needs to be a text terminal.
But, I have not used Windows for decades, so I wonder if these multi-screen setups and popular due to how the Windows GUI work and are really needed.
reply