A $1000 one-time cost is quite different than the 1600+ every month average cost of rent, or the $2000 every month (median mortgage payment in usa not including property taxes, maintenance, utilities etc).

Add transportation costs, food costs, and other need-to-survive costs, and it becomes clear how a person could both afford a toy like this while living barely above paycheck-to-paycheck. And equally clear the need for entertainment to help cope.

Apparently it's also called perfect randomness.

The numbers are just symbols. You can use anything, even A,B,C,D,E,F

It's really hard to take you seriously when both of your definitions are circular. Get a better dictionary.

That has not been ruled on by the high court yet. Only regulators have, aka bureaucrats. They enforce law, they don't make it.

This is only insider trading if these are commodities, and their not. And I have no doubt this guy's lawyers are taking that to the Supreme Court.

The court's pretty corrupt though so it'll be fun to see how it plays out, in a "our civilization is collapsing" kinda way

Humans have a hard time accepting true randomness as even being possible. A famous example being Einstein's criticism of the emerging claims about random behavior at the quantum level "God does not play dice with the universe." Many people really, really want the universe to be this ordered, deterministic, machine. It sounds like the same goes for whatever old Buddhists cooked up this doctrine that everything is dependent on conditions.

I observe that this statement is true, at a practical level, most of the time. In our ordinary day-to-day lives, it is accurate. The conditions into which a person (or animal) are born will have tremendous impact on how they turn out. The conditions under which one undertakes any task will similarly have tremendous impact. So, that's probably the focus of the observation here (though I am not a Buddhist and don't actually know what they were getting at).

There have been some serious attempts at injecting determinism back into quantum mechanics (such as the "pilot wave theory") but they bring their own problematic side-effects and are not in mainstream scientific acceptance. Be that as it may, legit challenges could be made against this claim of "true randomness" from this interpretation (or other rival interpretations that give us our determinism back). The Copenhagen Interpretation has the highest level of scientific consensus, and it would predict true randomness, but this isn't something that has been definitively proven (especially in the case of serious rival interpretations). So, it may turn out that the Buddhists are right, here, though they don't have any proven scientific basis for making that claim at the quantum level (yet).

Sounds like an interesting device. However, ALL dice are imperfect, no matter how much is spent on their quality. They will always be biased in favor of some faces and against others (though it is different what gets favored from one die to the next). Humans don't have the technological capacity to machine a perfectly balanced die, and even if we did, after a little use the natural wear and tear would bias it.

So this machine may have generated "pretty good" random numbers, they were not truly random.

To be operating systems. They want them to be software platforms rather than document displays. And to do that you can brute force a lot of things but it is certain point to get the performance you want at the level of programming skill you want to pay for you need to start doing shit like that. Otherwise the apps get too slow.

Web apps are so much easier to monetize and so much cheaper to support that companies are all over them. I remember back in the days supporting a desktop app and needed three guys with decent tech skills and a small team of level 1 for a few thousand users. Switching that over to a web app got rid of all the tech guys with decent skills and the level one are now just password resetters.

They claim each outcome has precisely the same probability. For contrast, a die has small imperfections making some outcomes more likely than the others, or a coin is not perfectly weighted making very small imbalances in the probability.

I don't understand how they did it, but that is what they are claiming.

Even in a truly random sequence, you could flip a coin 50 times and land on heads each time. You can also calculate the probability of that happening.

In a truly random sequence, every number has the same probability of being next.

In a less random sequence, some numbers are more likely than others. For example, in a binary sequence the next number could have a 10% chance of being 1, and 90% chance of being 0.

In a random sequence, there is a higher probability of getting a 1, and a lower probability of getting a zero. But that is only in comparison with a non-random sequence. Compared to the other numbers in the random sequence, each has the same probability of being next.

A lot of people consider Buddhism as a training method or philosophy, because it Buddha is not considered a god.

Even anciently, some Buddhists believed in the supernatural and others didn't.

If there were a zero (plus 1-6), then you'd need to use base 7. The base is the number of digits.

I don't know.

I'm not even sure you can program.

Moreover, this is what I think of you: https://www.youtube.com/shorts...

I think that of you, because you've put tremendous effort into justifying why you shouldn't reduce your bug count.