Trying to get not just local law enforcement, but also international law enforcement involved for the loss of a few hundred or even a thousand dollars in an incident is hard to do. They usually want a larger monetary loss to get involved.

That's assuming that, depending on the country the calls are being made from, that there isn't an "arrangement" with their law enforcement already.

Implied pot odds.

Pot odds can normally have you stay in when you have less than a 50% chance to win, that's joe standard play. But there are times when you have a long shot to get the nuts where it's not just what's in the pot, but what more you expect you can get out of them. If they started then hand with 200 and only have 20 left, there's a lot less potential upside then if they started the hand with 1000 and have 820 left.

Not that you should call only if they go in for 820, but there are times that if you catch their card and they will have gone in for 120-150 more then it's worth it, but wouldn't be for 20 more then what's in the pot.

I love watching movies with poker, they are so funny. Or watching most of the poker shows on TV when that was big, since they just show the exciting hands and give casual players the wrong idea about how to play.

I don't have your claimed chops - I never supported myself via poker. But I think you're making some bad assumptions there. Let's check what I was saying that the /. summary was poor.

Libratus only played heads up. The summary implied it was playing five handed. These aren't the same.

It played 120K hands, and it never had to deal with the repercussions of a hand because it was reset. It's like if you, playing poker, never had a bad beat that put you at a disadvantage. And never had to worry about covering an all in - or if your opponent had enough to cover yours and make something worthwhile. This also isn't regular poker.

Basically, it was set up to minimize extraneous inputs (multiple players interacting with each other), minimize unknowns, and could exploit narrow margins over a long period of time (120K hands) without ever having to worry about making a bad play and losing their stake.

What I said is that the summary was bad in presenting it as a general poker playing savant, and I stand by that.

Sorry, but that's a misleading summary for technical news. Libratus did some pretty good playing, but saying it beat four top human opponents is extremely misleading.

What it did do was play thousands of rounds one on one. With exceedingly large bankrolls compared to the size of the big blind that were reset after every hand. In other words, it never had to play with short stack, never had to worry that the opponent couldn't cover it's own bets, and that really long shots (which are easier for a computer to calculate) can be made to pay off if hit because of the size of the bankrolls were much larger than usual for the size bets being made. And was only one on one, so it had a minimum of unknown information, betting and bluffing. Hold 'em, so 5 common cars and only two hold cards it doesn't know. And thousands of rounds each, so any small edge would have time to multiply.

Now, it did do this against four top players (each against their own copy of Libratus). It really was quite an accomplishment. But it's not nearing the general poker imperfect-information feint-analyzing multiple-unknowns that the summary makes it out to be. Come on /., be News for Nerds. Get the tech details right.

I won a Win10 Trekstor Primebook, little notebook with the specs of a wimpy chromebook or tablet. 32GB ssd, 4GB RAM. It don't want to have to invest more than the thing is worth to me in order to keep up with Windows updates.

Had to connect a USD drive to get the 2018 April update on. No way there's 7GB free space on it even after an aggressive cleaning.

Let me know when they've made the app part of the lock screen with a PIN or something so it's protected but I don't need to have unlocked my phone and offered it to someone in order to use it.

I'm fine with A La Carte - at A La Carte prices. But Netflix losing a bunch won't reduce their price - and we've already seen various newcomers coming in with the business model that they'll pull in $8.99/mo or whatever near-Netflix cost.

Giving me A La Carte and charging me full entree price for each is what I dislike. You give me a bunch in the $0.99 to $1.99 that have a reasonable but narrow selection and I'll pick out several.

It's like CBS All Access - they have a lot of the CBS back catalog - which I didn't bother to DVR when it was on for free the first time. Plus popular shows like Bing Bang Theory are missing 80%+ of their episodes because they are tied up in international licensing.

Amazon already tried carving of it's own bit - they put out Anime Strike on top of Prime Video. Failed fast - which is good, it didn't hemorrhage money that way.

I'm unsure how you can consider official numbers from CDC and FDA as opinions about collecting data about outbreaks or the such.

Can you provide examples, perhaps from the two I've detailed out? I've put a good amount of time and effort into showing this, and the earlier request for an example went unanswered. At this point I need some concrete examples to dive into. Generic "it's all just opinions" seem to tar sources from all sources as just opinion and that's not the case.

Saying there were no pins or razors in halloween candy and it was just opinion when there are documented cases is just false. Saying that all the sources are just biased opinions, since we can already show some are not, is equally false.

With respect, to go from that they didn't list sources at all, to now an exhaustive knowledge that all of the sources are biased, seems that you are pre-judging the sources. Let's pick some of them and approach them with an open mind to investigate them.

I am unfamiliar with Church Militant and Lifesite, let's address the other two.

Snopes
At the end of each Snopes article is an infromation box, including name fo the fact checker, date published, date last updated, and a black button marked Sources. Clicking that will list all of the original sources.

To pick a non-political one, there was an article about Pins and Needles in Halloween candy.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-ch...

Clicking the sources button brings up:

All of their articles list this. Many of the others with more specific information go to various governmental sites directly, this one is a bit of a soft topic in that public documentation is mostly available in the news, as health care reports are personal.

Politifact
Politifact it's hard to find a non-political example, so I apologize for picking one that you may have strong feeling about. It was about "Bloggers poison truth in claim about flu shot dangers".

https://www.politifact.com/fac...

Politifact embeds it's links within the article. This article contains the following links:

A link to the claim.
A link to the CDC website about children's flu deaths being 80% un-vaccinated last flu season.
Two links to the FDA about Thimerosal.
Two links about how vehicular antifreeze is not in flu vaccine.
A link to the FDA how Phenol is not in flu vaccines.
A link to the CDC about eg proteins for those with egg allergies.
Three links about formaldehyde, two to the CDC and one to the FDA.

If you look, those are original sources.

Conclusion
Snopes and Politifact both show all of their original sources so that you can double check their findings yourself. This doesn't mean what they post is 100% correct - merely that they provide the information so you can check yourself and that does greatly reduce speculative information and helps provide a check for mis-understandings of the source information.

Can you give an example? I'm finding that as long as they link to source documentation where their conclusions can be verified that they are doing okay. Another news outlet isn't source documentation.

I hypothesize that the AI is only good at spotting current and historic types of loopholes.

Here's my proposed test. A theoretical bad-actor NDA creator gets services of both a lawyer and the AI to review their document. They craft different ways to build in issues, with several cycles of submitting to both for feedback and modifications. (Since both of these would be available to someone trying t make a bad one.)

Final document is reviewed and scored.

My guess is that the human lawyers will be more adept at finding innovative issues in the NDA. But who knows until we test it.

It might be that the best path is a first pass by an AI to catch issues, then a lawyer-pass that can be significantly quicker since it doesn't have to look for the same issues the AI would.

Listen up, back in NT days Minesweeper /was/ essential.

The actual quote from TFA is:

That seems very clear that his contract was still good. 8 months into a 3 year contract, and the manager had not renewed the contract in the new system from after the acquisition.

We have employee engagement surveys every years to show things like this. And invariably the make serious noises about problem areas, but no follow-up ever happens on them if they involve compensation (including costs of health care and other perks in addition salary), or lack of faith in senior management.

Where the numbers are good they wave them like a flag and give pats on the back (but nothing more tangible).

Now where it gets interesting is when you don't look at it monolithically. We would use an outside company to do this, and even though I am sure many employees didn't believe this, they would only deliver results in aggregate, with a minimum number of respondents to make it hard to determine any one employee's answer. But those are still interesting. When you have one team with vastly different scores then related teams, good or bad, you can take a look at what is different.

You didn't post an an anonymous coward, I'm going to assume that you're saying this in good faith.

Let's take a look at your two assertions.

Not an "automated co-pilot". Well, it does steer the car, navigates, attempts to avoid pedestrians, vehicles and other hazards, stays in lane and controls speed. Can you elaborate why that does not qualify as driving the vehicle? (The co- part is because it does require the human to stay ready and keep their hands on the wheel - it's not doing it all by itself. I didn't think that was the bone of your contention.)

As for the track record, I was going off the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's findings. Here's one article about it:
http://bgr.com/2017/01/19/tesl...

However, I see that there are articles out there that look at other statistics and don't have the same conclusion, so I'll agree that's debatable.

Would you be satisfied if I changed that part to just "better than an uncontrolled car in motion" and cut out the part about a better safety record?