The description is pretty abstract. What concrete problem does this package solve? Some example uses would be helpful.

You're right, I'm working on it.

The only thing that's more ridiculous than an antiquated dress code is an antiquated dress code that's selectively applied to some players and not to others. Other players had to change, so FIDE could hardly make an exception for Carlsen. If Carlsen cares so little about the tournament that he can't even be bothered to change his pants, he should probably not have participated in the first place.

> Though for law, I think some ambiguity is beneficial.

Ambiguity means that there are two or more possible interpretations and it's not clear which of them is intended. That's hardly useful. What's beneficial, and what you perhaps had in mind, is some amount of under-specification where the meaning is clear but leaves gaps to be filled in by judges.

Yes, this is what I mean. More focus on the intention. But I do also think we should give judges a lot of flexibility (technically they do). Because things are changing all the time.

The vast majority of accounts that followed me on Twitter over the last year are obvious bots.

Why not use temperature 0 for sampling? If the top-ranked move is not legal, it can’t play chess.

sometimes skilled chess players make illegal moves

Extremely rare. The only time this happened that I'm aware of was quite recent but the players only had a second or 2 remaining on the clock, so time pressure is definitely the reason there

It often happens when the players play blondfold chess, as in this case.

Is this really equivalent to blindfold chess? The LLM has access to the full move history, unlike blindfold chess where memorization is necessary

Even if memorization is not required, you still need to map every move on the board one by one under time pressure, an advance amateur would still make illegal moves.

Why has this been flagged? Great material, even Germans will be able to learn from this.

Very roughly 1/3 of the speed of light. One third is lost to the physical medium it seems. What accounts of the remaining third and how much could be plausibly shaved off of it?

Undersea cable routing. For example there are no undersea cables from Ireland to the European continent. All that traffic has to land in England first and go through a few routers to get sent on its way.

South America and Africa are even worse in that regard. Very few if any direct links.

I think the lines the data goes through are unfortunately not quite as straight as they appear in this visualization. Nor is it light all the way.

But AI!

AND China!

What is an open canvas? What problem does it solve?

An open canvas means you can see all the content in your website on one screen, like Figma. This is different from other website builders.

This makes editing your content and navigating your project easier.

How do you know it’s the right decision?

Acceptable loss of crew event is like 1 in 250 (can't remember the exact number). They can't quantify the probability of failure, so not putting them in Starliner is the right call.

Yep, 1-in-270. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commercial_Crew_Program#Spacec...

1-in-270 is overall probability threshold for a 210 day notional ISS stay.

For the journey home from ISS to Earth, the probability threshold is 1-in-1000. Likewise, it is 1-in-1000 for the journey from Earth to ISS.

The riskiest part, which increases the probability from 1-in-500 to 1-in-270, is the ISS stay – the extended stay in space is faced with a continuous risk of micrometeoroid damage.

Its kind of grim to think a trip to the ISS has a 1:270 chance of death just from the unavoidable roulette of getting zinged by a micrometeroid.

1/270 is the total risk from all causes. Just the risk from micrometeoroids would be (at most) 1/270 - 1/500, which is roughly 1/587 (0.17%).

Welcome to space, it's really fucking inhospitable and will always be.

Because every Starliner flight has had serious problems but the same cannot be said of the SpaceX vehicle, which is in addition more proven.