I think the author is very myopic in understanding that other people care - just not about the same things he cares for. Most people don't care about publicly available dog poop bags or fixing a random bike lane that's sort of wrong. In fact you could argue that the things he cares about are not the most important things. Other people might care more about family than work, or about animal activism than petitioning for green space. It's not that others don't care, they just care about different things - sometimes more important and sometimes less.
Agreed. The analyses based solely on a comparison of average centipawn loss is so so flawed. It only takes using an engine move once or twice to completely demolish a much better opponent in a game. These types of analyses don't find this type of cheating.
A much better analysis imo would be trying to find the probability of someone at his ELO finding surprising moves. EG I played a 1900 online recently who happened to completely turn around a game by setting up a forced mate in 6, with several branching moves a few moves down which all happened to result in mate because of incredibly lucky piece positions. I can't calculate the probability of someone at a relatively low level like that finding such a move, but I bet it's very low. This is the type of analysis which I'm guessing Magnus is using to assess Niemann as a cheater.
>It only takes using an engine move once or twice to completely demolish a much better opponent in a game.
That's not true. Pick an engine, set to a few hundred points above your strength, then try to beat it using only one or two moves from an engine. You will lose nearly every game, because so many of your other moves will be so below the other player that the 1-2 good moves cannot make it up.
This is demonstrated quite often by the games where GMs are "helped" by others in multi-player games, and it shows that help against a much better opponent takes far more than 1-2 moves.
Among really close players it helps. But not once you get a few 100 ELO points apart.
Regan's analysis works, in part, the way you suggest is better. He looks for tricky moves with non-obvious consequences and looks at one's success rate in those. For the Niemann-Carlsen game, he identified two such moves and Niemann chose suboptimally for both of them. For one is those, Niemann played a nice that could have cost him a tempo. Definitely an inaccuracy.
Because if it's that central to the economy, representing half of all outstanding dollars, it needs to be managed centrally or bad things are gonna happen?
I mean who watch the watcher, we have democracy for the government right. Even that's an oversimplification, we have the 3 branches and check and balance so that everyone watches everyone else.
Its pretty frustrating that people are using these shady stablecoins where you can't see the code or assets backing them (eg USDT), when there are stablecoins that are fully open source and you can see the backing in real time (eg DAI)
Dai is an ERC20 token on top of Ethereum. It might be more accurate to say Dai is a stablecoin coupled to MKR (MakerDAO), a governance token. Dai is over-collaterlized.
Terra is a coin with ticker LUNA, and is coupled to a stablecoin UST. As I understand, LUNA/UST was under-collateralized and could not handle what was essentially a virtual bank run.
Tether is a centralized stablecoin that is also reported to be under-collateralized, but it has bridges and industry connections to the wider crypto market which has kept it from crashing and burning so far.
Your analogy doesn't make sense for a multitude of reasons. Terra is the blockchain that Luna and UST ran on, not the stablecoin on the ecosystem.
More importantly, DAI is overcollateralized using ETH and other coins. UST was algorithmically pegged to the USD with an implicit backing by Luna. DAI still technically has a depeg risk (e.g. if ETH has a flash crash of > 50% that it doesn't recover from) but the risks are much lower. It's _probably_ safe in the long term although my stablecoin of choice is USDC.
There are intelligent people though that don't do well on standardized tests (or at least don't get top tier results). I agree that standardized testing is a good metric to get a general idea of aptitude, but I think it hugely fails in appreciating people who are able to solve 'non-standardized' problems. And those are actually the people who should be placed in top institutions
> And those are actually the people who should be placed in top institutions
Do you really think there's this untapped group of "non-standardized" thinkers out there who belong in the to institutions but for standardized tests?
This sounds a lot like something I'd tell myself when I was 16 instead of dealing with the reality that I was just a lazy, underachieving high school student and would have made a lazy, underachieving college student.
In reality, those unconventional thinkers you're talking about find a way to achieve anyway by unconventional means.
Reflecting back on my own attitude and performance in schools, I was just an underachiever who wanted more but refusing to put in the work. Now that I am an adult I can tell you what got me into this thinking and it was because of ego and unrealistic expectations that I built for myself based on what I was told.
"You have a high IQ, you are smart, you are intelligent, you don't study and you do well etc"
I let it get to my head and instead of growing, instead of recognizing what I didn't know, I focused on what I knew. Pride and ego. For a while it worked so I had no reason to doubt it. But when the sheer work load got to a point where effective time management, strong and consistent work ethic were required I couldn't pull it off.
its a downward spiral, you are not used to putting in effort and seeing good results. that is setting you up for failure.
now? people who do well on tests, who do well in school, are completely deserving because they put in the work and patience.
same with success, its not a matter of rolling dice but focus and it requires:
- knowing what i dont know
- effort & work
Yes there are really smart people out there who could really benefit from the above but many do not like to admit it. I do and now I take the time and effort to know what I don't know. This has nothing to do with race or equity but more to do with your attitude. Yes it can be influenced by our surroundings and events but everyday we get up and make the choice to believe or not believe what we don't know and know.
Having said that if you realize you are unconventional, realize why that is, because an unconventional path is riddled with false paths, pain and require faith. If you are conventional you need to rely less on faith and it is why many try to get others to follow it because it is less risky.
I know at least one of these people. When you give her an opportunity she hits the ball out of the park. Wherever you put her she quickly rises to the top, but she has been denied many opportunities because she doesn’t test well on standardized tests.
The SAT measures the two skills colleges care most about: reading and math.
Reading is the most important part. Your score on this section is determined by how much time you spend reading. A student who reads for an hour a day will get a top score, while a student who doesn't read at home will get a low score. Colleges require students to be capable of reading for long periods of time, and the SAT is a great way of filtering out people who are not active readers.
A student with a low reading score might be otherwise intelligent, but intelligence does not make a scholar. A college education involves consuming copious amounts of information; it is no place for someone who struggles with reading comprehension.
Is it the literal act of reading or being exposed to language?
What if kids watch shows on TV and it exposes them as much to stories, communications, language?
Both observers are just seeing what already happened millions of miles away. Though they see the alien fleet arriving at different times, it's not possible that the aliens are doing different things in different reference frames. They made one decision and then the two people see the results of that decision at different times
One thing that isn't central at all, but it stood out to me.
"The amygdala appears to do something similar for emotional learning. For example infants are born with a simple versions of a fear response, with is later refined through reinforcement learning."
Positive and negative emotions can be seen as a reward/punishment mechanism - the goal of a reinforcement learning policy. Our brain is able to change this policy (what defines a positive or negative emotion) over time as our emotional intelligence matures. For example, when we are babies, we cry at anything that scares us. As we get older, we mature and change the emotional reaction automatically. In the example, we learn that not everything should scare us. I never realized that the brain (or ULM) can modify everything, including it's own policies, in response to external stimulus.
> I never realized that the brain (or ULM) can modify everything, including it's own policies, in response to external stimulus.
This statement does not make sense. For the brain, learning is the process of modifying policies. It is possible nothing else happens when brain is learning.
I’ve been practicing off an on for about ten years. I’m definitely not an expert. I like your explanation, but I think there’s more to it. Mindfulness doesn’t necessarily have to be about focusing on a particular thought. You can focus on nothingness and receive similar results. You can focus on a certain feeling for different results. Your focus object has a lot to do with what you get out of the experience. Additionally, the habit of recognizing what it feels like to not let your thoughts race can be powerful when your thoughts start racing at a later time.
I interpreted breathoften’s comment differently. As someone who’s played chess at a very high level, I feel like I understand people who play these games for the art behind it. It’s difficult to describe, but chess for me is beautiful because to win you must be patient, careful, understand what is and isn’t important, etc. playing chess is like learning virtues. An algorithm playing chess doesn’t care about any of that. I wonder if it’s similar to the difference between meditation and acid. One gives you time to understand and the other just gets you there without explanation.
