Computers are better than humans at poker (DeepStack) and backgammon (eXtreme Gammon). XG for example is commonly used by expert backgammon players to analyse play, much like how engines are used in chess.
There is no reason why computers wouldn't eventually beat a human in the others, if someone writes a narrow AI for them. Consider for example, AlphaStar for StarCraft.
Exactly. The code is adjusting for responsiveness. With less cpus you need a smaller minimum slice. As you have more cpus you can increase the slice and still schedule the same number of processes per second.
E.g. 1 ms slice with 1 core = 1000 process switches per second. With 2 cores you can increase the slice to 2 ms and still maintain the same number of switches per second for the system, but reducing the switches per second on each core to 500. This reduces the overhead for the scheduler.
It seems like at around 8 times the slice efficiency starts to go the other way, so they’ve limited it. Seems reasonable, but scheduler math is crazy.
Note, that this has nothing to do with the scheduler assignments per core which have clearly been working or people would’ve noticed!
Vitamin D is fat soluble, and thus you can overdose on it. High dose frequently is not recommended, and most high dose supplements will have warning labels about vitaminosis.
I've also been told to be careful with any vitamin supplements while on chemo, and to consult a cancer dietician before conducting you're own science... the reason, as I understand it as a patient, is that high oxidation can actually keep cancer cells strong and healthy enough to create chemoresistance.
"Communication in the human cortex" seems pretty clear. The abstract is there for an extended summary if one doesn't wish to read the whole article.
One cannot possibly understand the nuances of something without reading it; I do not feel knowledge gained through reading titles of articles is usable knowledge. Perhaps one should consider changing the habits of the reader rather than the author?
Federated/Decentralised identity/authentication is a solved problem.
For example, this is essentially OpenID.
Unfortunately this entire concept failed to gain traction.
There is no reason why computers wouldn't eventually beat a human in the others, if someone writes a narrow AI for them. Consider for example, AlphaStar for StarCraft.