I think in this case these comments are really important to show people what is really happening, or you prefer full negationism like most countries are doing?
Air quality is the lowest in all Italy in Lombardy, as it is a plain with the most industries of the countries, so if anything there would be an anticorrelation because of that.
especially true for Dota.
Esport Dota is like McD add for burger, perfectly enticing.
Then you play it with random people and well... Those who play know exactly what i am talking about.
I've always wondered why someone may like to watch people playing videogames when you can play said videogames yourself.
It's not like the case of football, where you need friends and you need to go out to play. Thanks to matchmaking systems in games, you don't even need friends to play. You just click a button.
>It's not like the case of football, where you need friends and you need to go out to play
In fact this is part of the problem. the Dota-like/MOBA genre indeed has decent match making for the major games, but having a team you know, are communicative with and have a long/deep experience with one-another's playstyles helps immensely. I only really played League, so I can speak mostly towards that, but it's a different game queuing with friends than it is queuing with randoms. A lot of the excess communication required for a smooth match is removed when you have established a "sense" of how your teammates will react to situations, and it changes your judgement a lot when you no longer have as many random variables to consider during team fights, ganks, etc.
Watching pros play does a few things as well; you see not just good strategies, but mathematically sound and consistent strategies, which make the times you do play much more fun since a lot of your guesswork is removed. Pros also tend to have the skill for higher performance, and you get a chance to see pretty unique situations and plays that just never happen in ranked/normal queues. Plus, the pros have a huge audience typically, and you respond with the audience; being excited about an awesome play is amplified when you and thousands of other fans are collectively "losing your shit" over a play.
So yeah, you can go solo in such games, but the experience is always better with a team of people you know and can trust, and you end up in the same situation as football where you need to find others.
The pros are substantially better than you'll ever be. It's fun to see the crazy shit they can pull off, or root for a team, or the tension of the underdog, etc just like normal sports.
Just imagine all those people who still waste money on concert tickets... Don't they know they can just look up the music online and sing themselves?
Sorry for being snarky. The point is people are going to be drawn to those that are experts in just about anything they care about or are interested in.
> I've always wondered why someone may like to watch people playing videogames when you can play said videogames yourself.
I don't like it myself. But a number of my coworkers, and cousins, are of this cohort.
In general, it seems like they want an internet personality to follow. They like watching someone who gets angry and frustrated as they lose, or gets excited when they win. Its no different than following the personal lives of celebrities, except these "Twitch Celebrities" or "Youtube Celebrities" are more personalized and tailored for your specific interests.
When you want to play football you can go out into the street to play as well. The experience won't be top sports level and may in some cases differ significantly, but that's not hugely different from what it is like to play an e-sport with a team full of randoms.
Watching pros play it quickly becomes clear they are playing a different game than what your typical random pick-up-group is going to be playing from matchmaking. Their coordination is on another level.
I'm curious - how do you know it's used for most industries? I'm sure there are lots of industries that use ML, and lots that don't. Is there a report on this somewhere? I just get a lot of worthless hype articles when I google it.
FAANG isn't "most industries" by any stretch. This ignores healthcare, automotive, pharmaceutical, agricultural, and so many more industries.
All you've done is point out that there are a lot of ML papers coming from tech companies. Nobody is disputing that. Why do you assume this generalizes to most industries?
Go to Google Scholar, type your favorite company and "deep learning". If you find no paper from that company, chances are high their stock price is not beating S&P 500 over the last 5 years.
Also, top S&P 500 companies by market cap are "AAPL","MSFT","GOOG","AMZN","FB","BABA".
This is a No True Scotsman argument. Who said anything about beating the S&P 500? I said most industries, and every comment you are redefining what that means.
"1) I ask why this applies to most industries
2) You point out it applies to FAANG"
That is a lie because I said "often" in "You see that from papers published at top ML conferences. Top contributors are often from FAANG. Some papers are clearly applications." without saying that FAANG = most industries. Instead, I said you can see that from these conferences. Thus, you made it up.
"4) You say most industries must only include those better than the S&P 500"
That is a lie. I didn't say that. I said "If you find no paper from that company, chances are high their stock price is not beating S&P 500 over the last 5 years." I only mentioned a correlation and said nothing about your "most industries".
You misinterpret the text. Fortunately, the text is written so it was easy to prove you are liar, boy.
