Yeah, this is why in English we use disambiguating terms like "some" and "all". No soldier speaking english would ever say "I've eliminated enemy combatants", they'd say, "I've eliminated SOME enemy combatants". And I agree with your assertion that the "the" in my example was disambiguating.

However, we all know that article titles generally do not use articles in the same way, for brevity's sake, which is why choosing an ambiguous wording as the article did, is a bad idea, and why it leads to confusion where some people interpret it one way and some the other way.

My main beef was with you calling people 'idiot' because they were misled by an ambiguous title and then pointed out what was ambiguous about it, as if your personal interpretation of ambiguity was somehow the "correct" interpretation and anyone who reads it a different way is an "idiot".

Really alot of it comes down to hating to read people immediately start out with name-calling, and it seemed ironic since the person you are responding to had a valid point, which I have just elucidated.

But whatever, have a good day.

You completely misunderstood everything apparently, brainiac.

But I see you did not miss an opportunity to show your envy of those with Slashdot ids lower than yours, by jumping into an argument that you don't even understand just to insult me.

Hilarious that you are calling ME pedantic when you're the one who initiated this nonsense by berating someone else in a pedantic manner!

I think I'm going to start using your logic at work though. Should be fun.

Me: "Hey boss, I eliminated the bugs that were preventing our product from shipping!"

Boss: "Awesome! Finally we can ship because there are no bugs! I just uploaded the new build to the server and users are downloading it as we speak!"

Me: "What?!? But the bug that wipes users' hard drives is still in the product! We're ruined!"

Boss: "But you said you eliminated all of the bugs ..."

Me: "No, I said I eliminated the bugs. But clearly that only means some of them! In fact, I only fixed one bug, but ... since 'eliminate the bugs' really means 'eliminate some of the bugs', and 'some' in this context really meant 'one' ... I was just being accurate! Ask fisted, he knows."

But correspondingly, if someone says "your chicken tastes worse than other people's chicken", you don't then compare your chicken against someone else's steak to see if they're right.

Are you serious?

"eliminate: completely remove or get rid of (something)"

Saying 'partially eliminate' is an oxymoron although it's commonly used enough to mean "eliminating part of" that its meaning is well understood.

A sentence that is otherwise unqualified that says:

"How UPS Trucks Saved Millions of Dollars By Eliminating Left Turns"

VERY clearly means that "all left turns were eliminated".

But I think you understood all of this already and were just looking for a way to be salty. Mission accomplished!

Well to be honest this story is kind of a snoozer for me. Like, it's already known for this sort of thing to be possible. The fact that it was actually observed hardly seems that interesting to me personally. But for those of you for whom this sort of thing is exciting, please do post, maybe your posts will be interesting to read.

This is more "news for gossipers who love salacious stories that don't actually matter."

Come on Slashdot. Curating the content so that it's relevant reading for tech enthusiasts is WHAT YOU DO. So DO IT.

Bullshit. I don't believe it. I just simply cannot believe that another person can TALK to you in a certain way and completely change your state of consciousness. I refuse, absolutely refuse, to believe that it's any more than quackery that people will believe because they really, really want to believe it.

Close minded I may be, but I'm not easily fooled either.

I would imagine that with enough data you could calculate how long to wait before actually looking at your real cards to decide what to do next. At that point you could probably calculate your odds of winning if you keep playing your "fake hand" versus the odds of winning if you play your "actual hand" and then choose the best option.

What if you could somehow invert the problem of poker, and have, through enough mined data, a table of, given the current game situation, i.e. the best of prior players, etc, what hands you *could* have and what hands they *could* have, and then you could just choose the hand that you want to be playing as if you have at any moment.

Like, if, given the current game state, it's equally likely that you have hand A, B, or C, and if having A is most likely to win you the most money, then play like you have A, until that option is either not possible anymore, or is worse than having B or C (assuming they're still possible). Then switch to B or C when it's the best strategy.

I can't be the first person to have thought of this. Is there software out there that will do this for you?

Further to this, I've never played online poker but I've often wondered what it would be like to join up, and then play games pretending like I have completely different hands than I do have. Like what if I could actually hide the cards I actually have on the screen and just choose what cards I want to pretend actually appeared. Then I could play from my pretend hand without any uncertainty due to knowing what I actually have.

There's the problem that I haven't played enough poker to actually make smart bets and plays based on even made-up cards ... but if you are an online poker expert, would it help you in any way to have a system like I describe, where you don't even see your actual cards, but only see the cards of the hand that you want to "pretend" to have?

I don't play poker but I've often thought that the ability to play with perfect conviction like you have a hand that you do not have must be a tremendous asset. I think your point that the actual cards don't matter until they are revealed at the end is a great point. If you can play such that except in rare circumstances you always convince your opponents that your hand is better than theirs, then you'll win more often, or at least, you'll be able to use those skills to eke out incremental advantage over time.

Of course, having the luck where you actually *have* the better hand more often must be an important component too ... but over the long run, since everyone will on average have the best cards roughly an equal number of times, it's gotta come down to the skill of manhandling other players into doing what you want through perfectly executed charades.

I don't really have any interest in poker at all, it bores me to tears, but it must be very satisfying to have that skill and to exercise it in games.

Claiming that color images will incite the public to demand more funding for NASA is a stretch about as far as from here to Saturn's rings.

Weird that these teams would be backed by an airplane company, given that hyperloops, if they were ever built, would just take customers away from flying.

I find that VR headsets don't quite have a feeling of "reality" to them, and I'm not sure exactly how much low FOV, low resolution, screen door, and accomodation/vergence issues contribute to this. After all, you're always focusing at a fixed distance no matter how distant the object you're looking at is "supposed" to appear, and maybe this difference is perceptible as "not real".

But would instantly refocusable lenses help here? A sensor could detect how the user's eyes were focused and then use the refocusable lens to implement a corresponding change to the focal plane of the LCD panel. If that makes any sense. Like, if a sensor could tell that my eyes are focused at an object X meters away (by examining where both my eyes are pointing), then the headset lenses could change shape so that they make the screens appear to be projected at that same distance.

My guess would be that the Dutch and German teams outspent the American teams. Sometimes universities find a claim to fame and they dedicate quite a bit of resources to maintaining that.

Of course, I have no actual idea who spent what so this is purely conjecture, to be clear.