I agree, the improved version is worse. At first glance, it looks better than the original, but then numerous artifacts become apparent. For example, check out the little girl's face. It's jumbled in the "improved" version, but very clear in the original.
It looks like most of the perceived improvement comes simply from the upgrade to 60fps, which is achieved trivially through interpolation.
I wonder if the video would have gotten as much attention had AI not been mentioned.
I did that, and then afterwords it told me that the article was being gifted to me buy a paying member. After that I just closed the tab. It is kind of a stroke of genius, encouraging me to sign up by showing me that I'm enjoying the largesse of a paying customer. On the other hand, if letting me read the article is such a huge imposition, I guess I don't want it.
im not here to engage in the debate about how much we hate online subscriptions. I'm just commenting on garbage UI trying to trick you to subscribe and pay for an article that isn't really paywalled
"Sire. Shall we hunt in the valley, in the forest, or in the mountains?"
We shall hunt in the forest.
"Sire! Our scouts have just returned from the mountain. They report that the herds are not there at the present time! Shall we try the valley, or continue on to the forest?"
A) Stick to the plan, and hunt in the forest
B) Hunt in the valley instead
The Monty Hall paradox hinges on the fact that the host knows in advance where the car is. If your scouts don't know where the herds are, but just picked an area at random to recon, then it is a different problem, and switching makes no difference.
And I think you stumbled upon the crux of the problem. I think we have a hard time grasping the fact that Monty not just picks one of the other two doors, but also specifically guarantees that it won't be the winning door.
Without that guarantee, it makes no difference.
Additionally, there are not many situations in real life that would replicate the conditions of that guarantee. So our "intuition" is simply geared towards situations where an actor can't read our thoughts (door pre-selection) before we act them out, and in such a scenario, pre-selecting/switching selection of doors doesn't matter.
But it doesn’t depend on Monty knowing ahead of time. Monty can learn after you pick, but before he reveals (to be sure he doesn’t reveal a car).
The scouts can depart after you’ve chosen the valley, find nothing in the mountain, give that information to you, and you should still switch, even if the scouts didn’t confirm where they are.
Monty(or the scouts), knowing if your original pick was right has no impact. The critical piece is that they are forced to reveal to you a bad choice. 2/3 times it’s the only bad choice to reveal because you’ve picked the other.
>> But it doesn’t depend on Monty knowing ahead of time. Monty can learn after you pick, but before he reveals (to be sure he doesn’t reveal a car).
Right, of course. I just meant he knows ahead of opening his door, it doesn't matter if he knows when you pick your door.
The scouts did not know that the herds are not in the mountain when they chose to scout the mountains.
Monty, on the other hand, does know that the car is not behind door C, when he chooses to open door C.
The difference is that Monty will never pick the door where the car is, whereas your scouts will sometime recon a region and find the herds there.
(Unless you assume that your scouts know where the herds are, and are purposefully not telling you and scouting empty areas, which would make them terrible scouts. We can expect this sort of crafty behaviour from a game show host, sure, but not from your own scouts.)
This results in different odds. With the scouts, switching makes no difference. You can run simulations or draw a full probability tree to convince yourself of it.
If the herds might have been in the valley and don't happen to be, you learn something. Your odds rise from 1/3 to 1/2. If the scouts know where the herds are and specifically checked the valley because the herds weren't there, you learn more - your odds rise to 2/3. But not as much as if they just told you where the herds are, so we're back to it being an unlikely scenario.
Knowing that Monty could not have revealed the car (vs happened not to) has an impact.
If you are objecting to how I described that, in terms of who knows what when, then you may be right and I probably could have been more precise.
But if you are disagreeing that scouts sent to investigate an area and return an answer (which this time happens to be negative) differs materially from the original question then you are wrong.
> Knowing that Monty could not have revealed the car (vs happened not to) has an impact.
Nope, it does not. The fact that he revealed a dud is what matters. The notion of him maybe revealing a car is senseless anyway because you would just then pick the car or the game would be over.
> Nope, it does not. The fact that he revealed a dud is what matters.
That's simply wrong. This has been discussed countless times on this forum. The most effective way to proceed is for you to spend 5 minutes writing the simulation that you think will prove you right. When I was on the other side of this, that experience is what convinced me.
> The notion of him maybe revealing a car is senseless anyway because you would just then pick the car or the game would be over.
That's not a very strong objection - game shows are weird sometimes and could often apparently be easily improved.
But more importantly, it's an objection to the wrong thing. My point was that the presented "find the herds" problem differed from the game show. "That would have been a bullshit game show" is just confused.
My 2011 MBP is still my primary. This is the case for a lot of people because the newer versions just don't compare. On to of that you can't even upgrade the components in them since everything is integrated into the board.
In my opinion the best user friendly mac was the unibody early 2009 15" MacBook Pro.
It was the last Mac with a removable battery.
Plenty of technological improvements have been made since then but I still love that model.
Ditto. My 2011 MBP is a truck that just won't quit. Although I've replaced just about everything in it but the processor, the fact that I was able to do so makes me love the machine.
We currently have two 2018 MBPs on the shelf that were bought as 'upgrades' back then but they're sitting unused because people are sticking with their 2015 MBPs until they won't be maintainable anymore or Apple (or someone else) releases a version that's an improvement over 2015 MBP instead of a downgrade.
I'm also on a 2015 model, but it was manufactured in early 2017 so it's not that old. I and several people I know are holding out on the 2015s for as long as they can because of ports, no touch bar, and a better keyboard compared to the newer models.
> When intranet webapps came along everyone breathed a huge sigh of relief.
Not entirely. Sometimes they were replaced by applets, which are just native application wrapped in a thin layer of html. This causes its own set of problems. At one place I worked (a large government agency), a critical spreadsheet ran as an applet which was only compatible with IE9. They couldn't upgrade anyone's PC's because they risked an auto-update of IE, which would break the ability to run that app.
At another job, a certain time tracking application ran as an applet, requiring a specific version of the jvm to be installed.
Deploying an application that runs in the browser using the browser's native capabilties - js, html, css works great. Using it to embed an applet doubles the misery, as in the short term management thinks they've purchased a portable, always-compatible "web-app", while what they've done is bought a native binary they can no longer properly provision their workstations to run.
It could work where a large number of AI's are constructed. A small subset of these AI's--those that can only be used for good--are used as a training set. A number of AI's that can be used for bad are added to the training set. The AI builder is exposed to this training set for a period of time, and on each exposure he is rewarded if he correctly categorizes each AI by its ability to be used for good or bad. After the AI builder demonstrates an ability to properly differentiate the AI's that can only be used for good from those that can be used for good or for bad, he is set loose on constructing a new AI, after which he is compelled to render (and publicize) a judgement on its potential use for good or bad. Alternatively, the builder can also be tasked with choosing only-good AI's from larger mixed set of good/bad AI's.
Omitting automatic registry backups is a defensible policy. Telling the user that a backup was completed while a 0 byte file was saved is lying. Seems like a criminal act under the circumstances.
What are you talking about? I don't think this was ever even an announced feature. It's redundant with another type of backup which is the one they've been publicly promoting for a long time. (Restore points.) They finally got around to eliminating the unnecessary one. I don't remember there ever being a UI around this or a publicized best practice about using it.
I don't think it qualifies as "telling the user" if it involves the user poking around undocumented system tasks.
It's a very minor fraud, if a product you purchase says it will do backups, but doesn't do them, then you were defrauded. I think you could sue for actual damages if you had them and be successful if it's in the documentation anywhere, or the system actively informed you that a backup was made. I'm in the UK, fwiw; I'd expect most English law systems to be broadly similar but IANAL.
Fraud usually requires that the entity doing it gains something from it, especially if we are talking about a "criminal act" as the parent did. (IANAL)
The civil side might be different, but that is not what the parent insinuated. (And yes, my question to the parent was obviously meant to show that I disagree.)
>Fraud usually requires that the entity doing it gains something from it //
They got your money; so it's obtaining benefit by deception. If it says in the product specification that it does something that it doesn't do then it's fraud, which is criminal.
It's a de minimis form of selling you a product that they know to not include the features they sold.
But, police wouldn't pursue it (they don't even bother with burglary under O(£1000s) in UK); but you could sue for lost damages and you should in theory be successful.
A quick search for "RegBack" doesn't turn up any MSFT documentation on it. But it does turn up an article titled "How to restore Registry from its secret backup on Windows 10". This makes me think the feature is undocumented.
if i spent all day tweaking peoples registries, only to find that they are not backed up to be restored when you desire a sane configuration uuum, "pissed off" would not even begin to approach describing the emotional carnage evoked.
I get the hunch MS is set on controlling the users configuration at all times.
On the flipside i remember the hell of restore point trojans, and perhaps this is MS best go at mitigating a currently guesstimated threat that is coming?
> if i spent all day tweaking peoples registries, only to find that they are not backed up to be restored when you desire a sane configuration uuum, "pissed off" would not even begin to approach describing the emotional carnage evoked.
Step one to editing the Registry is _stop editing the Registry._
Hell, registry tweaking can be so dangerous that Windows keeps a copy of important keys for the last known good boot. That’s what “safe mode” is: it uses that key instead of the current one.
Not sure that's correct though. For banks, deposits are liabilities, while assets are loans and cash-on-hand, which they are required to hold fractionally against the total amount of their deposits. In this example, the bank is holding $200, has assets of $800, and liabilities of $1000. Adding it up, you have ($200 + $800) - $1000 == $0.
In reality the bank can take your $1,000 and write loans for $9,000 or more. It’ll have net assets of whatever capital was paid in plus loans minus deposits.
It looks like most of the perceived improvement comes simply from the upgrade to 60fps, which is achieved trivially through interpolation.
I wonder if the video would have gotten as much attention had AI not been mentioned.