> Since they provide player movement data, you can train a transformer to predict which player will win the BR given movement patterns.
You didn't consider the main factor for CoD - cheating. Which clearly seems to be an inside thing.
Not sure if anything meaningful can be obtained by analyzing anything that has player data on it considering every video game out there is prone to this.
They are implying player teleporting, which is a common hack in BRs.
Player movement data that is too fast for normal players could be seen as cheating. An AI isn't strictly needed for that, just check displacement over time.
Is it really a common hack? I would have guessed teleportation is the easiest to detect server-side, or impossible from the start as the server is authoritative (clients sends inputs, the server computes the positions and any important change, sends them back to clients, clients cannot hack their movement).
I found this yesterday, as I exceeded the 1GB monthly free traffic of ngrok. I use it only for testing some bookmarklet in development for work, so I won't pay for that, unless my employer does (which doesn't). So tunnelmole works pretty well.
Tried zrok.io but couldn't figure out what to do, wanted the easiest route.
> That's great, but kind of obvious that if you build out dedicated bike lanes, cyclists are more likely to prefer them to alternate routes.
Not really, here in Poland there are new bike lanes, but they go far from the city, so if you need to commute you end up going around the city to finish in a bottleneck when you are approaching the center. So, want it or not, you end up using the alternate routes.
Not every place on Earth has the same weather through the year as those countries you mention. Dogs aren't really animals born to live in the wild, if a dog has to go through really extreme temperatures, has no food or water, isn't that pain and suffering as well?
Yes, life is pain and suffering. You feed and shelter them, you don't mutilate their bodies. If you were hungry and starving, would you want your balls chopped off so you don't make babies? Or would you want shelter and food? Neutering isn't free. You can create dog parks/sanctuaries and collect leftover food from people and restaurants (tons of it) in exchange for tax relief or just breed animals they can hunt and ear in the park.
Wouldn't sheltering and gathering dogs which aren't neutered in the same space an occasion for them to reproduce themselves and increase in number?
"You can create dog parks/sanctuaries and collect leftover food from people and restaurants", is this in practice somewhere?
I ask not to sound annoying or pedantic, just from the deepest curiosity. Animals' care has been always a problem I want to help with, so I'm open to any ideas.
If you let them hunt prey for food and don't treat them when they're sick the population should be regulatable. Starving animals don't make a lot of babies and when population is normal starvation becomes rare. Animals exist in an ecosystem, having to fight with other prey and hunt/search for food means much less time making babies. The issue people have with this is tolerating the natural suffering (not intervening) , and allowing smaller animals to be hunted.
Think of it as a "dog conservation" area where dogs are allowed but predators that kill dog are not and prey dogs can hunt is introduced but not heavily regulated.
The part humans have a hard time with is allowing animals to suffer naturally. But out in nature, natural animal suffering is very common. That's how animal populations self regulate. They say dogs can't survive in the wild, that's partly true because most natural ecosystems have predators that will hunt them and prey that are hard to catch for dogs. But there are prey dogs can catch easily like rabbits that are in many areas (like farms) considered pests. Now imagine a dog conseravation area near rabbit infestes areas instead of pesticides! And imagine adapting dogs from these areas instead of kill shelters.
We humans have the power to craft ecosystems and plenty of unused and unfarmable and hard to develop wild land our pets would love (e.g.: much of oregon).
But even if that wasn't possible, my view is that allowing city dogs to starve is natural, you can feed them excess foods and they will reproduce then, but at some point there won't be enough food for the little ones to sustain them so that would be nature's way of regulating them.
And if you step back a bit for perspective. Humans have the same problem. Not that we humans should let each other starve but people who can't feed their children can avoid prefnancy at will and avert that suffering while animals aren't smart enough to do that.
Humans in the end are not in charge of regulating the natural fate of animals.
This is a very good question because it touches many grounds. What's the humanist position on this? What's the (many) religion's position on this? And I'd also say, economically speaking, what's more viable? To euthanize them or to sterilize them?
I'm totally biased in that euthanizing animals isn't a decision humans are meant to take unless you do have a responsibility for the animal (it's your pet, and it's ill, for instance). But in this specific case, no single human or humans have a direct responsibility for hundreds or thousands of dogs.
The proposition on euthanizing stray animals looks just like a temporal, quick and dirty solution that teaches nothing to humans more than hiding the dirty under the carpet. Nothing after this will prevent stray animals to grow in number after some are reintroduced.
Moreover, it isn't surprising that such points of view like yours are shared as of today, if we stop to think how all those animals ended sick, malnourished, and unprotected. There are people that still think that animals shouldn't be sterilized because of their "will" to reproduce themselves, or are just too lazy to do so.
