But I don't think you are playing enough hands to really get any useful data. How many hands do you think you need to get data from in order to be able to draw any strong conculsions about the bot's hand based on their bets? And you get no useful data when it folds as I assume you don't get to see their hand then.

And it doesn't really matter anyway - you could know exactly what the bot would do in any situation (by getting a copy of the 11TB of lookup tables), and it doesn't give you any advantage without knowing the hidden cards.

If the authors are correct and they have an optimal playing strategy, the opponent can play any way they want and it doesn't make the robot's job any more difficult - in the long run the optimal strategy will not be beaten by any other strategy.

Of course I could be wrong in my understanding. Do you think your playing is good enough to beat it? Are you planning on giving it a go when the website it not crushed under the weight of everyone else trying to test it out? http://poker.srv.ualberta.ca/

Having brute forced all possible combinations, you still only know what cards have been revealed - so the betting strategy comes out in terms of odds to follow when betting: in this situation do X 5% of the time and Y 35% of the time and Z 60% of the time. Knowing what the the robot does does not really give you a lot of info about what the robot's hand is.

I suspect that the rules the robot follows (without reading the article - where's the fun in that?) are not of the form "In situation S(1234) do response R(456)" but rather are "In situation S(1234), 22% of the time do R(456) and 78% of the time do R(678)". Even if you know exactly what the algorithm is, you wil not be able to tell much about the robot's hand by seeing what its bets are.

Game theory types of strategies quite often have this "Do X 20% of the time and Y 80% of the time" nature, especially for games where there is incomplete knowledge.

I've enjoyed Gladwell's books. It is a shame he does seem to have some significant conflicts of interest in much of what he has written.

The engineering needed to mount big pannels on a solid framework at a set angle is much less complicated than one that is able to be moved, particularly if you desire those large panels to be safe in expected high winds. The timing system is probably only a miniscule fraction of the cost.

80/80? Sometimes it can be as high as 120/120, but it can also drop to 30/30 if you factor in all the potential benifits of having someone looking out for your interests in addition to their own.

You can't make everyone happy every time, so you are supposed to negotiate so that both people feel that they are better off together than they are separate. In a healthy relationship ometimes that means you choose to do things their way, and sometimes it means that they do it your way, and sometimes it means that you both do it some third way.

A key to "making it work" to noticing when things are sliding towards unfairness and resentment. If one partner is bothered by dirty dishes just a bit more than the other one, it can easily degenerate to one person washing the dishes the vast majority of the time. Similar for sweeping or picking up the untidy stuff laying around. Possible options are negotiated chore lists, alternating cleaning duties or other such things (make a big list of everything that people do, one person divide it into two lists, and the other person choses which one they will do - don't forget things like servicing the car, doing the taxes, and anything else you can think of that you want to share responsibilty over, and revisit on a regular basis)

If you are not working on this type of thing early in a partnership, it could prove to be very difficult to "fix" things once one or both of you get tired of the current situation. Like anything important in your life, to do it well require active engagement.

A full trial could have ruled him "not guilty" (which is not the same as "innocent"). The grand jury decided that there was not enough evidence to justify a trial, which is arguably a stronger statement than being found "not guilty" at trial, but still is not the same as being ruled "innocent".

This could actually work in your favour, as the resulting news coverage could increase your legitimate business, and put pressure on the enablers upstream to do something about it.

There have been a lot of references to various devices that do not actually follow that ATA command in a way that results in data integrety. There have also been a few references to refute the claim that TRIM support is essential to good SSD performance. Good "garbage collection" code in the SSD and sufficient overprovisioning can match system performance compared to systems with TRIM support.

I think your thoughts on the use of firearms by the general public are likely to create so strong of a gut-level response (both in support of and against) that your point about mental health issues is likely to be missed. Approaching these problems from the point of view of mental health rather than an exercise in policing tactics response times seems more likley to result in longer term improvements. Regarless of one's position on public use of firearms, I suspect that most people would like to see a society where fewer people were "unstable, unbalanced, and unloved" - it is unfortunate that it is so difficult to get everyone to agree how to address those issues.

School shootings are bad. They are also rare on a per-school basis. Chicago for example has about 613 elementary and high schools - is it a wise use of resources to spend up to 61 million dollars for this type of system? I bet we would save more lives by hiring an extra crossing guard per school, or putting in traffic speed bumps around the school.

Actually, it looks like this is driven by a Mac OS X application the at was spread by being delivered along with legitimate software from a software collection site (like the info-mac archives once was in those halcion days of yore. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... Or maybe it was cracked/stolen/pirated software that contained the malware.

Once installed on the Mac OS X computer, making use of legittimage Apple developer credentials, the software seems to have been able to infect non-jailbroken iOS devices when those devices were attached to the machine via USB.

If that was the only argument, how would the following be different?

The reason you can refrain from [unlocking with your finger] is because the 5th Amendment protects you against self-incrimination, and the very act of [unlocking with your finger] may in itself be incriminating, since it demonstrates that you have an awareness and knowledge of the device and the means to unlock it. Which is to say, while the police may have the authority (when authorized by a proper warrant) to search your phone, they do not have the authority to compel you to give up your own rights by [unlocking with your finger].

You had me believing your first paragraph. Then I got to the second. Richilieu was never demoted to bishop!