Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re: Are you saying that criminals don't exist? (Score 2) 164

by fightermagethief (#49757071) Attached to: 'Prisonized' Neighborhoods Make Recidivism More Likely

As an occasional drug user, I would prefer this. Even if you are tough enough to avoid harassment, the worst thing about jail is the psychological torture. Sometimes its lockdown or isolation, or maybe just the threat of being charged with battery for defending yourself. You want to beat me up? Go for it, physical wounds heal. The human psyche has amazing adaptability, but it is really bad to adapt to jail life. And this is all over minor weed possession, not even sales. The war on drugs is this generation's civil rights.

Comment: Re:Rich Family Dies, World At Peril!!! (Score 2) 183

by fightermagethief (#49755775) Attached to: DNA On Pizza Crust Leads To Quadruple Murder Suspect

I would argue that it is a tautology, since you are saying that being poor is caused as a result of not doing things that make you rich. But regardless of how you interpret the sentence, what meaning is gleaned from that? Your argument seems to be that one can choose to not be in poverty. The relative wealth of the USA seems to rely on many relationships with the third-world to enjoy prosperity. What sort of choices do the sweatshop workers have who made your clothes? Just a guess that you are wearing sweatshop produced clothes, but prove me wrong.

...I'm pointing out that it's the lack of specific action that causes the lack of desired results.

It may seem so from the perspective of a person who enjoys prosperity. Whether one's own upbringing had a positive or negative influence only turns a personal narrative into one of redemption and triumph over adversity versus "the system working as it should to reward the talented". I bet you get a different story of hard work = good results from many different people who have probably worked harder than both of us. It's like a confirmation bias when your hard work and perseverance lead to good results, but that rarely happens for people coming from tough situations. Rare enough that we like to make it into an idol of pop culture.
And what about all of the prosperous people who do not work hard and have little to offer in the way of useful skills? What about the people who do much work that never succeed due to what we humans call 'bad luck'? In the right situation, working hard/smart can make one prosperous, but what is "hard" work? Is it work that you are unaccustomed to, unsuited for, don't want to do, the most profitable for your skill set? One person's hard work is another's waste of time.
Seems pretty random to me.

Comment: Re:Rich Family Dies, World At Peril!!! (Score 1) 183

by fightermagethief (#49754375) Attached to: DNA On Pizza Crust Leads To Quadruple Murder Suspect

Poverty is caused by not doing the things that make you prosperous.

This is just a tautology and is just as meaningless as "poverty is caused by lack of money".
Sometimes people are born with a lot of talent in good situations. For these people, avoiding poverty seems like just a personal choice. Sometimes they fail hardcore, despite having every advantage. Some people are born with no talent in good situations and become prosperous, sometimes they fail. The spectrum is similar all the way down. Some are this and become that...and so on. Your personal "choices" cannot even be reduced to a matter of free-will as opposed to just a biological response. You cannot choose to make yourself more successful. Everyone just does what comes naturally to them. I think the only question is what to do with those who suffer most.

Comment: Re:nature will breed it out (Score 1) 950

And yet heroin use remains just as strong as ever...despite the difficulties it would interpose in propagating one's genetic material.
Maybe there are just always plenty of people for which a severe character flaw, like heroin, video game, or porn addiction, makes a potential mate more attractive.

Comment: Re:Ownership and Appreciation (Score 1) 142

by fightermagethief (#49654261) Attached to: From Commune To Sharing Economy Startup

There are plenty of tool and equipment rental businesses already in operation. There are probably 3 competing with each other in your general area right now. I worked at one for two years where we rented out bobcats, backhoes, aerators, lawn mowers, chainsaws. The equipment was almost always well taken care of. I can't remember having to retire even one of the large pieces of equipment the entire time. It turns out that when you have to have a credit card on file and are responsible for any damage, the whole system works.

Comment: Re:Poker is a lot more complex... (Score 1) 93

by fightermagethief (#49601553) Attached to: Humans Dominating Poker Super Computer

Because everyone can count to seven and unless they are blind and deaf they don't even have to, the dealer will gladly tell you what cards you can see, and therefore count, at any time. What advantage do you hope to gain by counting (remembering) the cards that are currently visible to everyone?

Comment: Re:Don't know about the technology... (Score 1) 93

by fightermagethief (#49601521) Attached to: Humans Dominating Poker Super Computer

What about online play? IMO, reads are only reliable when one player is significantly outclassed or comes to the table dragging a huge amount of cognitive-dissonance between their actual and self-assessed level of emotional intelligence. Good players can wear sunglasses or not, more just an idiosyncrasy of the individual. They don't care if you can see the white's of their eyes or not, because they can be a brick wall if they want to or they can act happy or sad. And more importantly, they know that YOU can act happy or sad if you want and will only get a read if it has been a long weekend and one player's emotional facade cracks for half a second. If someone can get consistent reads on you, you probably shouldn't be playing poker.

Comment: Re:yeah, meaning toss 75% at a table of four (Score 1) 93

by fightermagethief (#49601499) Attached to: Humans Dominating Poker Super Computer

You are just going to get stacked when you have 95 percentile hand and someone has the nuts. Sometimes you just have to assume they have the nuts when you have the second nuts. Anyway, this is about heads-up poker. So you are thinking 50 percentile hands are playable, what do you do just jam any hand significantly better than that? It is really hard to exactly quantify, hence Claudico getting owned.

Comment: Re:I could do better against chess grandmasters (Score 1) 93

by fightermagethief (#49601469) Attached to: Humans Dominating Poker Super Computer

In chess, you CAN beat half the grandmasters while playing heads up against each of them. Simply copy the your first opponent's move against your second and vice versa. They end up playing each other, with you as the messenger.

This would assume simultaneous play and an equal distribution of white vs black where you could choose what order the games would be addressed in. What if you were playing 3 grandmasters and you got black against all of them? What if you were white? You would have to get the white move from another game before you could make your first move.

Comment: Re:They thought this would work? (Score 1) 93

by fightermagethief (#49601417) Attached to: Humans Dominating Poker Super Computer

AC is correct. This is head-up, meaning only 2 players. 2-7 is referred to as the worst hand in tournament poker with a large amount of players at the table. There are a few classes of hand situations in heads-up:
pair vs two lower unpaired,
pairs vs lower pairs,
pair vs unpaired one higher one lower,
two unpaired cards for each player where one of the cards is the same, 2-7 vs 2-3 falls here, 2-7 is said to dominate 2-3 because (barring a longshot straight or flush) the only way 2-3 wins is to pair the 3 and avoid any 7
two unpaired cards both higher than two unpaired cards,
unpaired cards for each player where the player without the highest card has two cards both higher than the others low,
same cards
This doesn't account for connectedness (helpfulness in making straights) or suit (helpfulness in making flushes) because both of those things are much less relevant than rank in heads-up.

Comment: Re:Is it too hard to list chip counts? (Score 2) 93

by fightermagethief (#49601321) Attached to: Humans Dominating Poker Super Computer

They are playing "Doyle's Game" or variant, I forget the exact name. Every hand resets the amount of chips to 1,000 for both of two, heads-up players. This eliminates the advantage of stack size. Also, with previous no-limit hold'em bot vs. bot games, they would switch the ownership of hands after a hand, wipe mem, and replay. Can't do that exactly with humans, but I am waiting for the whole thing to finish before I read it in greater detail.

Comment: Maybe user error (Score 1) 484

by fightermagethief (#49553075) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: What Are the Most Stable Smartphones These Days?

I have an lg-optimus-F with 4.1.2, have it rooted, have multiple buggy apps that I use all the time like QPython and various console emulators, and I don't get the majority of updates since the internal memory is so tiny. I don't know much about Android, including the salient differences between Android filesystem/operation and normal linux. I have used it every day for about 2 years and never been forced to reboot it or noticed a significant slowdown in responsiveness unless I am actively trying to do too many things at once.

All life evolves by the differential survival of replicating entities. -- Dawkins