Both O-O and O-O-O castles move the king by two squares.
It gets more interesting if you want to also store fisher random chess, because the casting can involve a king move by any number of swuares or not moving at all. But even in this case the casting could be unambiguously recorded as a move by 2 squares(even if the king doesn't move at all)
> otherwise right now wed still be looking at gas vehicles
But is it really true?
It feels to me that Tesla might have only sped up the EV market emergence by a couple of years and given the growth of battery's capacity/price/density over the years it was inevitable.
Sheer force of will did Tesla manage to bring around the EV market. Noone else had any interest in doing it and theres no way any of the incumbent car companies would have pursued it even if it was more viable from a battery perspective.
Any other reading of that era of industry would be re-writing a narrative to diminish what Tesla really did. It is too bad he has earned so many detractors (through his own mistakes) because many of his accomplishments are exceptional.
But in case you're not. The main blocker to production and adoption of electric personal vehicles has been battery capacity and charging infrastructure.
Electric vehicles where already the norm where the battery was not necessary (trains). And in many cities there were electric buses for decades even though they were very impractical because they needed to be connected to the electric grid while driving.
The moment the car industry would realize that the battery is big enough to cover decent range and would charge reasonably fast the switch to EV would be inevitable. Tesla was was simply the first to make a bet that the get future is now.
In my city we have now a fleet of electric buses, electric trash collecting trucks (live quality improvement due to how quiet they are and how loud those huge diesel engines were). I really don't think the trash collection truck manufacturers decided to go electric because of Tesla.
Im not being sarcastic. That is absolutely not true - there is no way any of the major car companies in North America had any intention of changing up their operations and product offering. They have all been dragged in unwillingly and dragging their feet to the party (except in China where they were directed to by the governing party).
You are rewriting history to make it sound like it was an inevitability which it absolutely was not and still is not an inevitability. I am not sure if you were alive and in industry at the time but it sounds like you are much younger and are relying on reading as opposed to experiencing the world.
Heavy duty municipal vehicles are a completely different market not comparable. Cities have mandates that aren't always cost such as quality of life - that and they can draw from their tax base + these vehicles always return to base. Again not comparable.
So is the solution to have two thresholds?
Notify me urgently if the traffic exceeds 100$, giving me a chance to evaluate what's going on but shut it down at 1000$ if I don't act.
playing good theoretical poker is very complicated.
People spend thousands of hours trying to grasp it.
In a 100BB 6-max game in a single raised pot BTN vs loose player on Bb, who called your raise: is the J83r a good flop for a small bet? Maybe a bigger bet is the proper size?
This is a simple question that has often a correct answer and the question is different for each flop, for each preflop spot and potentially for different opponents.
Now once you have figured out betsizes on the flop - go figure out which actual hands you are supposed to bet. Hmm, you should play most hands with mixed strategy of check and bet, but with different probability distribution so that your distribution of good hands / bad hands on the future streets after called is right on a variety of turn cards.
You can spend all life mastering that part alone and we are talking only about the first decision on the flop in single raised pot.
Tldr; poker theory is not something easy and quick to master.
Definitely. And this isn't even bringing in what can be perceived as the "fuzzy math" of who has the range advantage, combinatorics, and consideration on how to proceed down the game tree on different streets (when the board changes texture).
There's certainly a part of me that wants to go thru this curriculum just to say that there's no way it could help someone to be better than an 'average player'.
Perhaps if the population on which the average is based is...the world?
Imagine we create an ai box and say that the box decides the results. It has been trained to judge those gymnastic acrobatics and is decision is final.
What will inevitably happen is a guy will come to the competition with a weird pattern on his t-shirt and get a perfect score without preforming any of the exercise.
There are some filters in lichess, but you can't easily combine them in lichess.
So you can filter problems for queen sacrifice or mate in 3 but not the combination of the two.
The second quote means that the puzzle rating is dynamic and changes every time someone tries to solve it (the puzzle gets points for losing / winning the same way the player wins/ loses rating for solving the puzzle. )
If you read the article thoroughly it explains exactly why your reasoning is incorrect.
Tldr; comparing control group to acceptors group is not right because who accepts and who doesn't isn't random.
We don't know the exact bias introduced but the author theorizes that people who are at higher risk are more likely to accept the invitation(e.g. someone with a colon cancer in family, someone having weird feeling about her tubed as the article calls it., etc.)
You are both right. The study at only 10 years didn't run long enough for us to expect to see much. That is one reason medical studies are hard, we are often interested in changes we could make today that won't matter for decades.
There's a difference between a TM/algorithm/etc. that computes a function, like BB(n) (for all Natural numbers n); versus computing a particular value, like BB(748).
For comparison, there is no TM which computes the halting function halts(p) (for all programs p); but it's easy to compute particular values like halts("exit") or halts("while(true){}")
BB(n) for any particular n is always computable, no exceptions. There simply is no single computable function that can compute BB(n) for every n, but for any particular n there absolutely is a TM that computes it.
Indeed, the value of BB(n) for each n is just a number; and it's easy to construct a TM which outputs some particular number. However, we don't know what those TMs are, for the same reason we don't know what those BB(n) numbers are.
The same applies to more limited settings too, e.g. boolean questions like whether the Collatz conjecture holds: I know that one of the following programs calculates the right answer, but I don't know which:
- PRINT "true"; HALT
- PRINT "false"; HALT
(Perhaps we should also allow `PRINT "independent of the given axioms"; HALT` as well!)
