While it's truly a great ongoing effort and I am grateful to all the contributors, it's not nearly complete. You may think you're using the correct type until, surprise, you are not.
Because people want strong typing, but also want other things. It's possible to want multiple things, and bemoan that whwat you use is still missing things you want.
Concretely, Django is way more usable than basically any web framework from the "strongly typed" space, especially for "dumb" CRUD stuff. And you're not hit with making decisions about how to do a bunch of things (though you can swap out mostly any part of Django for something else if you want to).
That makes sense! My personal feeling is that a web framework is not the right place in the stack to introduce typing.
There’s also probably an argument to be made that part of the reason for Django’s “batteries included” success and wide adoption is in part because it is built on an untyped language.
I get wanting both, though.
In my own work, I find most of the benefit of static types to be ensuring correctness at compile time, so I just don’t expect that in Python. I also have just not lost that many cycles to type errors. But I know some have strong preferences here.
The main benefit in the developer workflow is autocompletion and feature discovery in the IDE. Having to guess which methods and properties an object exposes, or jump to the documentation every time, is really frustrating. Compare that to e.g. Typescript, which excels in this area.
Python is a strongly typed language. But Python is not statically typed; Python is dynamically typed, with optional type declarations which enables static type checking (by third-party software).
" If the statistical database prepared by the team can not be rewarded the patent, can the team that configured the data that fed the vectorization of such database therefore also not be guilty of infringement ? "
There is no Johnny5, HAL, Skynet, etc. It is not expected that it will be seen in the coming decades, probably not even in this century at the very least.
My opinion is that insurance is vastly misunderstood, just as gambling is vastly misunderstood. In insurance, it's the low premiums on high valued assets that obscure peoples thinking and in gambling it's often small wagers offered in return for potentially large payoffs. I know of people who could afford to replace a phone if it was stolen, but still take insurance on it because the small premium on the insurance seems like a good deal. There is just no way that these type of insurance contracts have a positive expected value to the individual. However, if you're a single Mom making ends meet, who needs to drop her kids at school every morning, please insure your car. The utility of losing the car and not being able to get to work etc. is just too negative.
Yip, exactly this. The CFR algorithm they speak of is based on finding a nash equilibrium for each strategy-pair in the game tree. Something that I think can only be computed for 2 players, and no more.
There has been quite a bit of work (and several papers) on using CFR for games with >2 players. It is not theoretically guaranteed to converge to a Nash, and usually doesn't in practice either (there's one case in a toy game, in 3p Kuhn poker, where it does converge). However, even though it doesn't converge to Nash, the algorithm is still well defined, and the resulting strategies appear strong in competitions against other computer adversaries, as demonstrated in the Annual Computer Poker Competition.
Surely you can adapt it to compute an approximation of a mixed Nash equilibria. My game theory isnt at a high level, but there are similar computations you can perform, and when I used to play poker, you'd have common calculations based on it for more than 2 players when you are playing with a limited stack. I dont see how that wouldnt be adaptable (abeit more computationally expensive) for more players, but I might be missing something.
Nash equilibria are still guaranteed to exist. But it's only the 2p zero-sum perfect recall case where an equilibrium has useful properties, like being robust against any opponent strategy, including a worst-case opponent who knows your strategy. In a multiplayer (> 2 players) game, opponents can collude against you and playing your part of a Nash gives no useful guarantees on performance. Even if they aren't colluding, in poker games, the presence of a bad player just before you in turn order can hurt your EV worse than their own. And even if all players independently compute their own Nash equilibria (there can be many) and use the piece for their position, then that combination of strategies may not itself be a Nash equilibria.
According to Wikipedia, and my memory from school, Nash equilibrium doesn't exist unless all players are aware of the optimal strategy and are seeking it.
I don't know of a survey paper on CFR for multiplayer, but it's been showing up in conference papers and theses.
Here's a link to a shorter conference paper where CFR does converge to a Nash, in 3p Kuhn poker. It describes a family of equilibria, where one player (the second to act, IIRC) has a parameter that can't affect their own EV (...or else it wouldn't be a Nash), but does determine how much the other two players win/lose from each other. This illustrates the problem in equilibria for multiplayer games: if you're players 1 or 3, then even if you are playing a Nash, and everyone else does too (albeit different equilibria), then you can still lose.
https://webdocs.cs.ualberta.ca/~games/poker/publications/AAM...
For a longer read, the best I know of is probably Rich Gibson's PhD thesis. He focussed on CFR for multiplayer games.
Game theory is domain specific. Generic methods in AI tend to dominate domain knowledge over time. Although I agree that other game-theoretic techniques might help here.
Game theory is specific to the domain of agents optimizing outcome in adversarial, cooperative, or (rarely) solitary systems. That's a pretty big domain.
"There are no universal truths for human happiness and behaviour." That's pretty bold statement. We know that there are universal truths to human suffering, and the behavior that can lead to suffering. We see it all the time depicted on the news, or we all experience it at one point or another. Why do you say the same is not true of happiness?
As an exercise pitted against the anecdote you gave of A.J Jacobs trying to live an authentic life, try this: pretend to be everything you wish yourself to be. Wear those qualities with as much confidence you can muster and then go out into the world and build relationships; wear this new persona that you have created when you start you start a relationship with someone, pretend to show all the qualities you wish you possess the next time you get interviewed for a job, etc.. Then watch yourself and see how it feels to carry the burden of having to constantly pretend to be something that you only wish your self to be. Doesn't sound very enjoyable if you ask me.
The worst thing that can happen, is that it'll work.Because then you have to keep it up. Not to mention, all the friends you have, people you connect with don't like you, but like this person you think you have to be.
No one seems to be discussing this, but is Travis personally responsible for the loss of the drivers 97k? The driver sure thinks he is. Perhaps he played some roll in it. But the driver certainly made the decision to take out that loan. And I guess the driver had enough sense at the time to understand the risks involved with credit when he took out the loan. Well then you might say it's not the most compassionate thing to say to someone who clearly is suffering from financial loss. But I think it only seems like a mean thing to say because it's true. And it's really these truths that people don't want to accept about themselves. That they themselves are responsible for their own suffering.
Of the few success stories listed they mention Camden Brewery getting bought for double the amount that online investors put in.. So the online investors got double their money as a payout? If that is the case I don't even know how that count as a success. If investors knew at the time the potential payouts were something like 2:1 they should have stay well clear of that bet.
