I first used XBMC back when it was XBMP and I was looking around for better dashes than evoX on my xbox. Good times getting those t3ch builds and pushing them to the xbox, occasionally messing it up and needing to drop back to the bootloader to fix it :)
It is incredible how this project has kept on pushing out great features and support for new platforms. I talk to people at work who have discovered this and now use it on their mac mini/htpc, and are completely disconnected from the whole Xbox aspect of it.
This team has a great idea when they initially tried getting builds working and usable on windows and linux. I wouldn't have imagined at the time how far this project would come.
That shows the current DOM state, not the source that created it. There's a distinction, especially if you use a lot of JavaScript to fiddle with the DOM.
Agree. I never understand these dichotomies people set up. Why can't we just have both? The US system is a good balance, at least at the moment- you have an option to do either, with cards widely accepted except for a few ma and pa bars and restaurants.
This is an interesting article, but The Tragedy of the Commons is only 1 of 7 Nash Equilibrium possible. It was cherry picked for a funny thought experiment where Joker is the good guy. Now let's try the Volunteer's Dilemma.
In the Volunteer's Dilemma a group is faced with an inevitable negative, and the only way prevent it is for one member to assume the negative unto himself. The classic example is jumping on the grenade. Nobody wants to do it, but somebody has to or everyone dies.
1) Assume Cooperators and Defectors only. Cooperators will eventually volunteer, Defectors never will. There can be a balance where Cooperators significantly outnumber Defectors, but if this balance is disturbed the population will eventually end.
2) Add Jokers. Jokers in this case would be like Defectors and never volunteer. Worse, however, is that Jokers would probably be so interested in the destruction that they would actively prevent volunteering. There can be no balance in a group with even one Joker still alive, and the population will end.
3) Add Batmen. Batmen neutralize the Jokers' ability to prevent volunteers, and are willing to volunteer themselves. The balance is restored as long as there are enough of these individuals to restore moral and put the group first.
So now in my thought experiment, Jokers are harbingers of the end while Batmen are necessary for survival.
There is also the possibility of a Joker pushing somebody (possibly multiple to be sure) else onto the grenade, thus saving their life and causing destruction. Which has 2 possible out comes in itself:
1) Joker pushed another Joker or Cooperator. Which might be uncomfortable for a time, but would pass.
2) Joker pushed a Defectors, in which case some Defectors would want some form justice.
I have no numbers to prove this, just my feeling for the archetypes.
it's funny, because, I think Batman would be considered a "joker" as well, he regulates defectors in his own trying to rationalize it while the joker creates chaos. Obviously, the batman prefers no loss of life.
Each of the scenarios 1 through 3 builds upon each other. The outcomes of 1 and 3 are similar, but in scenario 2 jokers are introduced into the mix, and in scenario 3 batmans are introduced to counteract the jokers.
...I believe the author is saying that if you have jokers, you need batmans to neutralize their effect.
