You want AI that's capable of making good decisions even when the information is incomplete.
People struggle at memorizing chances, taking shortcuts, computers have exact picture talking into account every single bit.
Memorizing chances isn't very important in no-limit. A rough estimate is all you need because other factors will completely dominate whatever error exists in your estimate. When the implied odds can vary between ~1:1 and 100:1, the second or third digit of your estimate of the chances of making a winning hand (for instance, ~2.5:1 against making a flush) is drowned out.
In car analogy terms, its like worrying about if insurance will cover the broken taillight after your car has been t-boned at an intersection by another car going 60 mph. Yeah, it would be nice if the insurance will replace that taillight... but its more important that they will cover the hospital bills
I think he's wrong on this. A computer would still need to consider what his opponent thinks he holds and raise accordingly.
Isn't necessary for chess... the top competitive chess programs (like the foss stockfish...) are not the best suited to beating humans... they still beat humans repeatedly, without mercy, game after game after game. Even the world (human) chess champion (Magnus Carlsen) admits that playing one of these engines is like repeatedly ramming your head into a wall.
The guy that you linked to thinks that knowing how many outs you have is "card counting" -- no. you also apparently think so, which means that you cannot possibly have anything to add on this subject (and your ignorance on this subject is not a secret to you, so why are you pretending?)
We've got more gadgets, but energy, healthy food, and property, the most "real" things you can get, have not gotten cheaper in line with the reduction in incomes.
None of the things that you listed are more expensive because of income equality, and they also don't make your point for you.
Energy? Televisions use far less power now. Light bulbs use far less power now. Even transportation uses far less power now. What does not use far less power now? People, because they enjoy more goods and services now.
"Healthy" food? There is no objective squeeze on food in America, only in your mind. Americans eat more than anyone else on earth. We are #1 on the list of countries in food consumption per capita.
Property? The people in government are making sure that you pay more for a home than its actually worth. Keep inflating the bubble, baby!
You are really trying to pretend that there are no racists in the country who hate Obama for his skin tone?
Nope. I am pointing out that you people greatly over-state things. For instance, when I pointed out that it wasn't "a lot of racists" you went all the way to "no racists,"
Have fun in the fantasy land of full blown intellectual dishonesty.
The fact that some people have more choices doesn't mean that you have less. It's not a zero-sum game. Why only complain about rich people?
Because who doesnt want to think that they deserve more?
Its easy to convince people that they deserve more. It doesnt require a good argument, only a lazy and selfish listener. Once convinced, they will ignore the good arguments on their own.
Sure, *IF* everyone were winning. But they're not. Real wages have been falling for the lower 90% of the population for ~50 years
sigh... only if you measure "real wages" is a non-meaningful way.
The only meaningful way is to count not the currency but instead the goods and services that the population enjoys. However everything else that you said indicate that thats the last way that you think that it should be measured. You want to count dollars which have arbitrary useless meaning rather than something important.
No, I understood your point, and my second point was a direct response to it.
No it wasn't. Your second point just hopes that only a few, and I quote, "dinky nukes" will be built and that the the rest of the world will strike down this country before any more are built because the only countries that can build them post-disarmament are, and I quote, "rogue states."
(A) No country that has built nukes has ever built "just a few dinky nukes" - so you are imagining a world that doesnt even fit objective reality.
(B) Every country has friends, even "rogue states", and its always a good idea to be friendly with the nuke holders. This is again an objective reality. Its the reality right now.
Your argument is based on the idea that reality is somehow so completely different to the objective reality we can see that it doesnt even pass first muster. Its just the pure wishful thinking of a naive person.
Exhibit A: A freshly minted climate denier talking point.
Exhibit A++: The smug bullshit of people that immediately claim "denier" when faced with an argument that they dont want to be true, and that they cant even do such a trivial web search to make sure that they arent so obviously putting their foot in it (like one of the people that replied to him did) isnt surprising at all. They have always been this way. This is what they do.
Hint: The grandparent is not only right, he is very right. The parent doesnt want him to be right, so calls him names.
While Republican lawmakers...
California has Republican lawmakers?
But there's also a lot of criticism of Obama that's either openly racist or wailing on dog whistles
Every time you make these bullshit claims, another white person hates Democrats.
I envy your simplistic view of the world.
its not simplistic. its just that you don't see or understand the complexity, for instance everything else you wrote had nothing to do with what I said. You didnt understand what I said at all, obviously. So since you require simplicity, let me lay it straight:
If everyone dis-arms, then players will eventually re-arm because its the right strategy. Its the right strategy because its inevitable that someone will and there are advantages to being the first ones to do it (if you don't believe this, ask Iran what it thinks)
The only sane option is mutual disarmament
Even if this were an option, the end result is still that more nukes will be built.
If nobody in the world has nukes, an obvious good strategy is for your side to start building them. This is just a high stakes multi-way prisoners dilemma. In multi--way prisoners dilemma there are too many players for there to be a reasonable expectation of full cooperation.
The best result is if all of the nuke owners don't use them, because there being nuke owners are inevitable. Thats what we've got right now, No sense shaking it up in defiance of the inevitable.