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).
This seems kind of weird. As the article says he was on the phone with his wife and left a suicide note. His son by a previous marriage was in the house with him when he died, which makes me think this is some sort of inheritance dispute between his widow and son.
I checked out the Pitkin County Assessors site, big notice to all residents IN RED A 80% raise in property taxes for 2025. I looked up the Thompson house-its listed under the Owl Farm Trust with her name- roughly from $3,400.00 per year to $35,000. But they have 42 acres 10 minutes from Aspen....so its not going to be cheap! But I don't know anything...maybe he was miserable. He was working on the Lisl Auman case helping her get an appeal, why would he just kill himself, she got her appeal in 2005. He would have seen it happen but he off himself while his grandson at the house???? Now property taxes go up? oki.....
It does make sense with a wider context. In short, he was miserable, and he always planned to go out on his own terms when he felt he'd reached the end of the path (I imagine influenced by seeing his father die painfully through disease as a young man). He documented both well. Having his family in the house at the time, and to be on the phone to his wife, was likely to let them know the nature of it, a kind of act of transparency and trust. It makes sense in the context of his beliefs and nature. Also, he would have always been in the middle of something, work wise.
Yeah they did a lot of weird things. Like Keira Knightly's character Joan Clarke gets her job in the film when Turing does his weird crossword puzzle test. In real life she got it because one of her professors from school recommended her for the job. In the movie Turing works closely with Cairncross and realizes he is a Soviet spy. In real life while they worked at Bletchley park there is no evidence they ever met. It also really downplays the role Polish intelligence and cryptanalysts had in breaking Enigma from before the war even started.
It also generally portrays almost everyone around him at Bletchley as some level of ignorant, stupid or maliciously obstructive, despite the fact that most of them were brilliant mathematicians and engineers whose contribution equalled his. But the real story of an incredible collaborative effort is sacrificed for a facile Hollywood narrative of a single, misunderstood genius single-handedly saving the day. It’s honestly one of the worst films ever made.
I don't know where to even begin with the imitation game. It is shocking that they put a real person's name to such fiction. Everyone involved should be a bit ashamed of themselves.
Accuracy is a poor measure for cheating since better chess players will put you in a more complicated position. I'm not especially good but I've played some games with high accuracy just because I just did some book moves and the opponent makes a mistake. Accuracy was high but the correct moves were never especially hard to see.
This ad was purposefully playing off the fact that it was AI though, it was a large amount of short bizarre things like two old women selling Fresh Manatee out of the back of a truck. You couldn't replace a regular ad with this.
Is there any example of an AI generated film like this that is actually coherent? I've seen a couple short ones that are basically just vibe based non-linear things.
Some of the festival winners purposely stay away from talking since AI voices and lipsync are terrible, eg. "Poof" by the infamous "Pizza Later" (who is responsible for "Pepperoni Hug Spot") :
Without commenting on the overall conclusion, these parts not correct:
"it can distinguish testosterone from any other molecule based on its exact molecular weight and fragmentation pattern. This means that does NOT fall for the bait that immunoassays like RIA do, where similar looking things are potentially tallied because antibodies are, as we call it in the business, promiscuous."
--and--
"There's no indirect measurement, no antibody binding, no relative comparison to a standard that might be off. If the machine counts 1000 testosterone molecules in your sample, that's exactly what was there."
In reality, the there are several fudge factors you need to apply to the MS to get absolute counts (starting from the back):
1. The ion detector (a pulse-counting electron multiplier) efficiency depends on the discriminator's threshold voltage, the multiplier's bias voltage, and the age of the multiplier. As the multiplier wears out from ion & electron impacts (they have a special low work-function coating on the inside of the multiplier channel), the multiplication ratio degrades. There's a precision/recall or sensitivity/specificity trade-off with respect to the bias and threshold voltages. Since these tradeoffs impact recall/sensitivity, they affect absolute counts that the detector produces for a given ion flux coming out of the mass filter.
2. The mass filter (the link shows a quadrupole mass filter, but the same applies to time-of-flight setups) may have some losses when the incoming ion fragments are not perfectly focused. This impacts absolute count rate.
3. The ionizer at the front of the MS produces ions from neutral species by hitting them with (usually) electrons (but you can use photons too). The energy of those electrons affects both the fragmentation pattern of the ions and the ionization efficiency (absolute counts, again). ("Fragmentation pattern" in this context means the mass distribution of the resulting fragments) Ionizer current also especially affects ionization efficiency (number of ions produced from a given incoming flux of neutrals). Most ionizers also have a set of ion lenses to guide the resulting fragments into the mass filter, and the potentials of these lenses are important both for focusing the ion fragments (so the mass filter has high Q) and for capture efficiency (again, absolute count rate).
Most of the things that affect absolute counts are fairly stable in a well-designed MS, but the multiplier is effectively a wear component. So you do have to compensate for that as it ages.
All this is to say:
1. Getting an absolute count from a MS requires calibration using a source with some known flux. It doesn't just come intrinsically from using a MS. I don't know enough about the older method to say if calibration is easier with a MS (almost certainly it is), but the author is hand-waving away a lot of calibration in a MS.
2. I don't know anything about the fragmentation patterns of T specifically, but I do know that organic molecules have complex fragmentation patterns, and that back-fitting to get the distribution of original species (when the incoming flux is not one pure species) can be very challenging. A MS is still sensitive (at some level) to contamination by other species.
All of this could be addressed by a self-calibration setup using a consumable (and probably only available from the original manufacturer for $$$) reference standard, but you don't get to claim that there's "no relative comparison to a standard" nor "it can distinguish testosterone from any other molecule". Both of those are false statements.
The story is pretty clearly meant to indicate that the Babylonians were worshiping an animal though. The theology of the book of Daniel emphasises that the Gods of the Babylonians don't exist, this story happens around the same time Daniel proves the priests had a secret passage they were using to get the food offered to Bel and eat it at night while pretending that Bel was eating it. Or when Daniel talks to King Belshazzar and says "You have praised the gods of silver and gold, of bronze, iron, wood, and stone, which do not see or hear or know, but the God in whose power is your very breath and to whom belong all your ways, you have not honored". This is not to argue for the historical accuracy of the stories, just that the point is that Daniel is acting as a debunker of the Babylonian beliefs in these stories while asserting the supremacy of the Israelite beliefs.
reply