Youtube comments of (@billionai4871).
-
453
-
115
-
@mrcsrkcrz That is a pretty easy way to blame the consumers for the problem. I think a better way to describe the goal of a consumer is "to enjoy life", to one really thinks that just surviving is enough when you have the option to do more than that. So:
1. Consumers want to enjoy life as much as possible. To do that they must survive and ensure that the planet can sustain life;
2. Governments want to be re-elected. To do that, they politician not only needs to survive (getting the clause above) but also needs their voters to survive as well, double reason to make sure that the planet survives
2.1 A politician's desire is to maximize their own money, and one way to do that is to continue to be elected
3. Companies want to maximize profit for shareholders. For that, the share holders need to survive, they need to ensure the politicians that give them tax benefits survive, and need the consumers who give them money to survive; triple reason to want the plant to be good.
Companies should be the the thing that tries the hardest to be green, but since that is not good for short-term profit, they tend not to. Governments in theory should be next, but what a politician really wants is more money, so if a company bribes them hard enough, they'll let that slide because once again, short term profits are king. That leaves the consumer, which needs to spend time they could be enjoying life to instead have to read up on and understand complex proceses of supply chain and networks of influences. And since the consumers do it for free, companies and politicians have even more reason to push that blame onto us and remove themselves from the equation by implying that "if you cared enough, you would spend the extra time researching/working a second job to afford the more expensive version". Don't fall for that propaganda BS
61
-
55
-
53
-
47
-
33
-
25
-
22
-
22
-
@nickwallette6201 the idea of using a phone to interface with smart appliances is a good one, better to adapt to the person's needs (brighter screen, bigger text, text-to-speech), adapting the keyboard and the idea of a database for cooking isn't that appalling to me if you search on your phone. What I hate is the idea of "turning on your microwave from a hundred miles away". No, I don't want that, and I don't want anyone doing that to my microwave!. Use BLE(bluetooth) as the communication protocol, have the phone download the recipes and send it to the microwave before starting, hell, keep a cache of favorite recipes with you wish, but don't open it to the internet. I know wifi has a bigger bandwidth, but do we REALLY need that?
17
-
17
-
16
-
12
-
I'm stopped at minute 10, but I wanna take a crack at solving this my way. I'm a computer scientist, so while closed formulas and proofs that they work are interesting, I'm usually more fond of finding an algorithm that can get to the answer instead, and the moment you mentioned that in the 6 case, removing finger number 3 gives you a 2 case and a 3 case, my brain instantly latched on to a Dynamic Programming (DP) algorithm.
DP works when solving a smaller version of the problem will inform the bigger version in a way that will reduce the amount of calculations that you need to do. A common way to show this strategy is with the fibbonacci sequence: If I want to calculate f(15), I will need f(14) and f(13); the catch with DP is that I will create a "memoization" vector that will remember previous solutions, so if I calculate f(13) first, when is time to look at f(14), I already know f(13) and it is just a lookup.
This problem is a little harder than a straight forward DP, but it is still solvable, but we need 2 memoization vectors: solutions_edge, solutions_other; For convenience, imagine that the first vector will always start with the number 1, and it will be apparent why it is important soon (if not yet). The second one has all other solutions for the N sized problem (including the ones starting the other edge). My idea is:
1. Solve the case starting in pin 1; when we do that, we have exactly the case N-1 except we can't pick pin 1 again, so we have solutions_other(N-1); Save this number in solutions_edge(N)
2. Iterate through all the possible pins from 2 up until N/2 (inclusive); by removing pin I, you get 2 groups of size A and B such that A + B + 1 = N. Then you have multiple ways of solving your new situation:
2.1 solve A and B separately; if you start with A, there are solutions_other(A) possibilities to do it, and moving on to be you have solutions_edge(B)+solutions_other(B); Similarly, you may start with B, for a total of 2 * (solutions_other(A) + solutions_other(B)) + solutions_edge(A) + solutions_edge(B);
2.2 for the other cases, you have to have enough legal moves in the B side to be able to interweave A moves in the illegal possibilities, so for every B permutation, follow it and if you find move than A illegal moves, that permutation is illegal, move on to the next. For every legal legal permutation of B that you find, you can calculate how many solutions it can have as follows:
2.2.1: If you have L illegal moves in the B permutation, you can space them my with A choose L options of moves on the A group; so far the permutation has A choose L moves
2.2.2: for the remainder A-L options, you can interweave them as you'd like in the B+L locations; which give you (B+L) choose (A-L) options
2.2.3: the final part is figuring out if for a given set of A-L choices, they can be side by side instead of neighboured by B moves. I haven't figured out how to do it yet.
2.3: Save this number to solutions_other(N)
3. do solutions_other(N) <= 2 * solutions_other(N) + solutions_edge(N); this is because you can reflect all the solutions of step 2, and we want solutions starting with pin N to be in solutions_other;
4, The final value is obtained by adding solutions_other(N) + solutions_edge(N)
this isn't a total solution, but is what I could come up with before work hours started
11
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
@IWLDELJ The main reason that it is undisputed is the fact that we don't have a reliable way to quantify intelligence to begin with! How can you say that something is or isn't hereditary when you can't say if someone qualifies as such?
Next, even if we did, we wouldn't have had it until recently, which means that we can test 2 or 3 generations, at most, which is too short for any sort of certainty regarding genetics.
Finally, you haven't linked a reliable source, you linked a google search. Next time, try looking at scholar.google.com to find actual research papers, instead of random websites. Also, I searched "hereditary intelligence" there and found nothing, but since it was a quick search, I'll admit that a real research could be there and I didn't see it. However, most of the results were along the lines of "how can we actually quantify intelligence", so I think it's unlikely that it would be the case.
To add insult to injury: "it's classically been acknowledged that" is one of the worse, is not THE worst, arguments you can have when discussing science. It was also classically acknowledged that the earth was flat, that the sun went around the earth and that creationism was a thing. all of those were proven wrong. Some things might've been proven right, but until anything is indeed proven, that is not an argument to be taken seriously
5
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
@bbbf09 working with living things isn't really as easy as it seems, tho. like, sequencing a genome, all you need is some viral samples (easy enough to find) and cold, technological processing, where you prepare and analyze the data. But using that to work with organisms that all react differently and we still don't know why is tough af.
We still need to learn a lot about humans and stuff, but 4 centuries ago, that advice would be "stay away, because your humours will be unbalanced" whereas now we know why and we can work torwards a cure, even if not as fast as we wish. Back then they'd say that and wait for the wrath of god to be over. progress happened, but we're not in sci-fi territory yet, unfortunately
3
-
3
-
@tendigitnumber Less famous, but torchwood does it really well up until the fourth (and final) season, which is still greatand you should totally watch it. some spoilers ahead:
It's a Doctor Who spin off series, and if you've watched the first few seasons, you know that Jack harkness is unable to die. but in Torchwood is at first, kind of an open secret, but they get over it quickly and Jack uses death as a good way to stop suspicions quite a few times. *heavy spolers* In the fourth season, the unthinkable happens: Jack can die again (we think, everyone is too scared to test). Not just that, humans can't die anymore. basically, mortallity is fixed, no one knows why and they try to revert it back, with actual stakes since the one guy who forgot how to fear for his safety is now the only one who can die.
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
While the analysis is truly great, nothing short of what I'd expect of this channel, it is also apparent that you are a casual gamer reviewing it. It is not too difficult to find new games that are engaging and somewhat punishing. Using steam, GoG and other digital distributions you can search a little and find those gems that will require you to achieve skill mastering before letting you go to the next level. The only thing is that since most gamers are either older, thus have not as much time, get games from people who don't really understand what to look for (like kids) or people who have only seen the mainstream games recently, so it wouold seem that the old game style is dead. The new style is mainstream, but it coexists with old punishing style games.
A nice one, for example, is teleglitch. perma-death and other rogue like elements. Magika is another. Spec Ops, as you mentioned, is not riddled with save game, although it has many saves, to provide a chance for someone who has only 30 minutes to devote to the game to feel that they have made progress.
It is a little harder to find these games nowadays, but they can still be found, do not lose hope
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The highly elliptical orbit and the non-stabilizing moon scenario could work. If they happened together, and their periods were different, say relative primes, for example.
As an example: you could get a highly elliptical orbit that takes 13 years to complete, and a wobble period with a 70 year cycle (stupidly quick, but that makes this scenario less likely), and it takes 227.5 years for stuff to repeat.
Yeah, they could figure it out, but realistically, they'd have to be looking for it, or have enough data to support such a claim which would require a "couple" of full cycles. At least 555 years, probably twice or thrice as much for anyone to even begin thinking about that pattern. And given the current state of technology, I highly doubt they'd have records of that, given that everything needs to be hand copied to continue existing after a few decades, and even if it did, why would anyone look for any length pattern? Especially such a big one?
So the seasons wouldn't be random, they'd be regular but seem random.
One last thing: Geography is freaking amazing. if G R R Martin actually managed to create a semi-stable system where a current is every so often shut down and grows back to life, I'd kill to get my hands on his global map. How on earth would THAT work?
Anyways, awesome video, just found you, and I'm planning on staying
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1