Did it?

The executive branch has the authority to delay implementation of laws in order to make those laws work better. This has been done THOUSANDS of times in the past, and has been upheld by the courts whenever challenged. It is absolutely a routine part of how the American government works.

Republicans are strategically howling about this, just like they did when he appointed "czars" to manage certain departments (a practice started by Nixon). It's just a tactic. A trick, to make the uneducated masses think Obama is doing something bad. You fell for it, because you're gullible.

How would the opponent overguess you? You can delay your strategy switch for as little or as much time as you like, since their best strategy only breaks even.

If they don't know what you're doing, you could rack up more wins by exploiting flaws in their strategy, and rack up even more wins when they "wise up" and try to counter you. I guess the difference between our answers is that I'm treating this as an actual game against another person, whereas you're looking for more a game theoretical optimum.

Now, if your opponent does have perfect knowledge of your strategy, then randomly alternating between the strategies would be the best approach, which is effectively the same as your 1/3 rock, 2/3 paper idea. By the way, I ran some sims in matlab just now, and I'm getting the optimum to be bang on 1/3-2/3, so the math might not be so interesting after all :-(

There are only two degrees of freedom: the probability that we pick paper (assume we pick rock the rest of the time -- picking scissors should never make sense); and the probability that our opponent picks scissors when they have the choice. I'm assuming that our opponent never intentionally chooses rock. That seems fair since our plan involves throwing paper more often than not.

Making a meshgrid of those two probabilities in 1% increments, running 100k games at each point, and then taking the minimum along the axis of our opponent's choice (i.e. assuming they always pick the best strategy), I find a peak at 68% with us having a 16% advantage, which is about 1-in-6. So it looks like your initial guess in the other post was correct.

I think you have an error in there. His best strategy in your example would be to always use paper, in which case he's doing the exact same thing as you are, and so the odds are even.

I think your best strategy would have to involve reacting to his. Start with 100% paper until you see what he's throwing when he's not throwing rock. This gives you at least even odds regardless of what he does.

He'll probably start throwing scissors, at which point you switch to you switch to 50% rock 50% paper. This will have you win 2/4, lose 1/4, draw 1/4.

He should respond by starting to throw paper. so you just go back to 100% paper and win half the time. If he switches back to scissors, you start throwing rock again.

The goal is to use long stretches of paper to for him into 50R:50S (which only breaks even at best), and then switch to 50R:50P to pick up some wins until he switches back 50R:50P (again, he'll only be able to break even). So when he's properly countering you, he can only break even, and every time you switch strategies you should pick up some extra wins. If he tries to go for a midpoint (50:25:25) he'll lose to either of your two strategies.

You're so close to the truth, you even tripped over it and didn't notice.

Where are they getting that money? It ain't coming from the church collection dish.

This isn't about religion. This is about the robber barons trying to squeeze the last few drops of life blood out of this country before they retire to their private paradise. The country, even when it was at its most religious, was not anti-science in the past. People loved science in the 50s. They only became anti-science when certain very rich individuals realized they could become richer by spreading anti-intellectual propaganda.

No, see, that's the problem. You're aiming at the wrong group. These congressmen aren't ignorant because they're religious. They're ignorant because certain entrenched interests pay them ENORMOUS SUMS OF MONEY to remain ignorant. You can never, ever compete with that. No education, no promotion of science, will ever make a dent.

If you want it to get better, you need to get serious campaign finance reform. And that can't happen until you get rid of the current SCOTUS. Which means that our one and only chance to fix this is in the next presidential election, since the winner might, maybe get to replace a conservative justice. If we get a Republican president, Scalia and Kennedy will retire, and we will be damned to another 20 years of oligarchy.

If we manage to get a Democratic president, Scalia and Kennedy will try to hold on as long as they can.

Absolute best case scenario (barring a miracle heart attack), we might be able to start fixing this around 2025.

It will probably be too late by then.

My hands are busy when I'm driving, as are my feet. So how am I going to move these cameras, and how is it going to be easier than slightly tilting my head? 'Cause tilting my head is really, really easy. I mastered that shit when I was like, six months old.

Which exactly matches with what I said, that "the engineers will need to find a way to cover all of the necessary angles without taking up too much space on the dashboard". (Seriously, did you read past the first sentence of my post? It wasn't that long!) A 180 degree view could work, but they need to find a way to make it fit into the dashboard without taking up too much space, and without making the display too small, and without making it ruin people's night vision. As I said, it's a solvable problem. But it's not a trivial one.

If I think there might be something just out of my field of view in a mirror, I can lean slightly to change the angle. That doesn't work with cameras. Not necessarily a problem, but the engineers will need to find a way to cover all of the necessary angles without taking up too much space on the dashboard. I absolutely do not want to hit any buttons to pan the camera while driving.

That's not the same thing. Not knowing a law doesn't excuse you from breaking it, but not knowing a law is not in-and-of-itself a crime.

Unfortunately, there are cases in the United States where a person cannot opt out of medical knowledge. Several anti-abortion measures spring to mind.

Wish I had mod points. This was the first thing I noticed as well. Lots of mentions of "harsh treatment" or "excruciating interrogation methods" and yet they can never bring themselves to admit that it was torture. The closest they come is in saying "methods that Obama and others later labeled torture."

So we give up something we've had for years, and in exchange we get to keep something we've had for years? And what happens when they come back in five years saying Net Neutrality is just too much of a burden? What do we give up in ransom next?

"Left wing party"? Since when does America have one of those?

We've got the right-wing party, and the even-more-right-wing party.

According to page 43 of this study, men drive about 50% more miles per year than women.

The GP's link shows that men account for 2.5x as many traffic fatalities.

So men are clearly still worse according to these statistics. But why trust these numbers? Insurance companies make their money by having teams of extremely smart, highly trained statisticians pore over more data than you'll see in a lifetime, and they charge women less. I don't see how anyone could rationally argue that women are worse drivers while knowing that fact.

I am a white Christian man, and no, I don't see any significant hatred towards me. A few obnoxious atheists who are either passing through, or never grew out of, the I've-got-it-all-figured-out phase, but that's really about it. And even those are pretty much only on the internet.

Also, your copy-pasted science is talking about discriminating against people based on their political stance, not because they are white or Christian or male. If someone starts ranting about how Obama is gonna set up death panels, which was not at all uncommon among Republicans just a few years ago, then yeah, I'm gonna think they're an idiot and treat them accordingly. But that's on the basis of their personal actions, not because of a group that they belong to.

Hahaha, holy shit, you can't possibly be that blind. Rush Limbaugh himself is an addict that rails against drug users. And how many homophobic Republicans have been caught in gay sex scandals? How many complain about wasteful spending, while throwing away trillions on pointless wars?

Yet somehow you didn't think of any of that. They really have got you, haven't they? It's amazing what a steady diet of propaganda can do to a man.