QMK, one of the keyboard configuration tools referenced by the article, has the "quick tap term" feature that handles this:
> When the user holds a key after tapping it, the tapping function is repeated by default, rather than activating the hold function. This allows keeping the ability to auto-repeat the tapping function of a dual-role key.
> 99.99999+% of newborns have 2 hands, 2 legs, and 1 head
This number is far too high. The rate of conjoined twins (violating "1 head") is about 1 in 50,000 [1], and the rate of "limb reduction defects" (violating "2 hands and 2 legs") is about 1 in 1,900 [2].
Those correspond to 99.998% and 99.94% respectively. 3-4 nines is still impressive for such a complex system, but let's not claim it's 7+ nines.
"The occurrence of conjoined twins is rare. Its actual prevalence is unknown, but it is estimated to range from 1:50,000 to 1:200,000" [1]. 1 in 200,000 would raise it to 99.9995%. But as pointed again and again in the other comments, the pointless, hyperbolic figure is irrelevant. When cutting the planarian worm head, the regeneration is always, 100% a head, if no change in the bioelectrical gradients. The argument was about the deterministic computation done by biology in the morphospace.
Then why not simply give the correct, still impressive, figure, as I suggested?
> the regeneration is always, 100% a head, if no change in the bioelectrical gradients
This is also a meaningless statement. It's correct 100% of the time, except when something goes wrong and it's not.
Can you quantify the likelihood of something going wrong with the "bioelectrical gradient"? I'm not familiar with this organism but I suspect it's several nines, but less than 7.
The figure you suggested is also wrong, as per the article I linked, and I can no longer edit the original comment.
The change in the bioelectrical gradient is a human intervention over the organism. Watch the video I linked above. There is 0% chance of "something going wrong with the bioelectrical gradients", it's at the experimenter's will. If you are not familiar then why do you suspect? Your statement is not even meaningless.
Okay, great, we're getting somewhere. So you concede that the true number of human birth defects is on the order of 4-5 nines.
We know this because we've observed a huge sample size of human births. Meanwhile, the experiment you reference only observed a small set of planarian worm amputations. So we can't conclude there are even 4-5 nines of reliability there, let alone "100%".
Otherwise, we could simply observe a few hundred human births, observe no defects, and conclude that human births are also "100%" reliable.
In our original debate, we were both slightly wrong about the number of nines of reliability in human births. However, you are now infinitely wrong by claiming an infinite number of nines of reliability in planarian worm amputations. I don't know whether the actual number of nines is 5, or 10, or 20, but I can be certain that it's not infinity, because that would violate the laws of probability.
Concede? Debate? Since you linked to pseudo-philosophical mindholes such as LessWrong I suppose it's only natural you would see it as a debate. I will no longer reply since your worldview is irreconcilable with learning and understanding beyond "I am right/less wrong, you are (infinitely) wrong".
Again, you have no idea what you are talking about, as you admitted you are not familiar with the planarian worm organism and regeneration research, and it's not a problem, we are all ignorant about various things, that's why we learn: too bad your learning appetite has been a casualty to the illusion of LessWrong "rationalism". Nevertheless, it is really funny to see you being "rational" and speculating upon things you have no understanding and no desire to learn about. I really laughed reading your now deleted comment starting with "Zero is not a probability."
Just to make it clear for anyone else who might read this: it is impossible to throw a ball in the air and see it flying in the air forever. There is 0% chance of that ever happening. There are no "laws of probability" to be violated in this "experiment". Just the same, when you amputate a planarian worm head, regardless if you did it once, never, or 100,000 times before, it will always 100% regenerate a head, if you, the experimenter, haven't altered the bioelectrical gradients of the worm [1]. The planarian worm regeneration is still being researched and it is revealing biology as a deterministic computation in the morphospace with abilities far exceeding what we currently can muster with our CPUs.
I'm not sure how the math works for 3D games, but I would think that for 2D games, a curved monitor actually reduces distortion.
In a flat monitor centered in front of your head, the distance between your eyes and different pixels on the screen varies depending on how close they are to the edge, thus distorting the sizes of the rendered sprites. Curving the edges reduces this effect (depending of course on the exact curvature and distance to the monitor).
I guess the key question for 3D is whether the rendering engine already attempts to compensate for this effect. It seems difficult for it to do so, since monitor sizes and distances vary so much, but I suppose that's what settings like field-of-view are for.
> In a flat monitor centered in front of your head, the distance between your eyes and different pixels on the screen varies depending on how close they are to the edge, thus distorting the sizes of the rendered sprites. Curving the edges reduces this effect (depending of course on the exact curvature and distance to the monitor).
That’s the same distortion that we encounter for all real-world objects all the time, and process automatically. We can’t turn that off, so I’m not sure it makes sense to try and compensate for it.
For 3D games, we’re trying to trick ourselves that we’re looking into a window. Curving the screen gives us a bigger window without a bigger monitor.
But 2D games are usually representing a flat surface intentionally.
EG: Mario runs to the right. Rendering it to a curved screen without correction suggests that he’s instead running clockwise around the viewer. For big enough stages, it brings into question why he doesn’t loop back on himself.
Correcting for that would mean shrinking things on the sides of the screen – effectively rendering to a flat surface behind the curved monitor.
In general yes, but I think Prop 13 complicates matters, because it's not just a lower tax rate, but rather applies unequally to different properties based on their transaction history. (e.g. a property built or sold recently gets high taxes, while one that's been unchanged remains low)
So we can divide the rental market into high-tax and low-tax properties. The landlords of high-tax properties must incorporate the tax into the rent. Meanwhile, the landlords of low-tax properties can set their rents just as high, since they compete in the same market, and pocket the tax difference.
In contrast, a flat property tax reduction would increase the profit margins of all landlords equally, and any one of them could start undercutting the others and be undercut in return, which over time in an efficient market will tend to lower prices back to a similar margin before the tax reduction.
> Well, that puts regex compilation in the same category as array indexing in my mind, and means that the default regex compilation function should panic on the user’s behalf
I like the Go stdlib idiom for this: many functions have a version with a "Must" prefix that has the behavior of panicking rather than returning an error.
> An incoming train that any human (with normal sight) would have no problems to detect?
To be fair, failing to yield to oncoming traffic when turning left is an extremely common mistake for human drivers to make as well.
In fact, earlier in the video, the car correctly yielded to an oncoming car, the human driver overrode it, then complained that the oncoming car "cut him off"! https://youtu.be/yxX4tDkSc_g?t=494
Transcript: "Signing this message can have dangerous side effects. Only sign messages from sites you fully trust with your entire account. This dangerous method will be removed in a future version."
Presumably part of the issue is that a legitimate "NFT mint" transaction might also carry the same warning.
There is a difference between signing a transaction and signing a string. The warning you have linked pops up when a signing of a string occurs and warns that if the person embeds a transaction in that string you are signing whatever transaction they have made.
There is a new method they have for signing strings that does not allow a transaction to be signed so its safer.
The crypto drainer seems to directly be sending the NFTs and assuming that the user cant understand the transaction and what its actually doing.
This goes far beyond a "working definition" in that it encompasses literally every game that unlocks content in any way. /Some/ distinction is needed to differentiate a "loot box" from every other game mechanic.
It would be like using "a metal object that can harm people" as a working definition of an assault weapon. If the definition also includes ladders, cars, and push-pins, it's far too broad to be useful in any discussion.
It's formulated as, "Carrying an article with a blade or point or an offensive weapon in a public place".
Which of course covers everything from legitimate things to non-legitimate. Which is why the law also allows for a "reasonable excuse" to be carrying such an article.
By the time any regulation is made into legislation it'll iron out the difference or define things in such a way that a reasonable person can tell the difference between an actual game mechanic and a problematic "loot box".
Even worse, the definition doesn't even say anything about an element of chance!
If when my character levels up through gameplay they unlock a new ability, that would also seem to meet this absurdly overbroad definition of a "loot box".
Even if we added the requirement of real money purchase, offering some features of a game only as part of a paid expansion also has nothing to do with "loot boxes".
There may be thousands of banks, but all but a few manage their funds at one of the big few, essentially acting as resellers of the big banks' services. For example, I my bank is "Ally Bank", but if I ask them for instructions on how to receive a wire transfer, they instruct me to direct it to "JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A.", the largest bank in the U.S. I previously used the brand "Simple Bank", which provided accounts via "The Bancorp Bank", the 5th largest.
It's a similar case to cell phone providers: although there are hundreds in the U.S., all but four do not operate their own network, but rather resell the network of one of the big four.
It's an interesting question, though, how much this consolidation is due to regulation versus being a result of a natural monopoly, i.e. high barrier to entry for the type of business.
> It's a similar case to cell phone providers: although there are hundreds in the U.S., all but four do not operate their own network, but rather resell the network of one of the big four.
Three mobile networks, since Sprint was merged into T-Mobile. It was also inevitable since it does not make much sense to have many different organizations install cell towers and run all that wiring all over a country the size of the US, and split a limited resource like wireless spectrum conducive to data transfer.
> When the user holds a key after tapping it, the tapping function is repeated by default, rather than activating the hold function. This allows keeping the ability to auto-repeat the tapping function of a dual-role key.
ref. https://github.com/qmk/qmk_firmware/blob/master/docs/tap_hol...
I use both space and backspace (in the caps lock position) as dual-function keys and find it very usable when I occasionally want to repeat-tap them.