I get your frustration here, but keep in mind: your use of that word is not harming Stripe any more than alternatives you could use, but it does harm an unrelated and oppressed group.
People who are overweight should not be accused of being similar to corporations that misallocate and overspend (i.e. fat corporation, bloated spending, etc.).
Anemic, impotent, bald, and on and on.
Language is abstract. Some conditions are generally disfavored. Referencing that disfavor abstractly can be meaningful.
Come now. At the root of all of this is an ableist, patronizing assumption: People with mental disabilities must have the language used around them carefully policed because they can't handle the implied disfavor and emotional harm that language may communicate via their own agency, not like the rest of us.
How would you define adult humor? Surely we have some latitude to be a little off color without being straight up racist, (blank)phobic, and vile? We aren’t kids, we have somewhat of a sophisticated ability to be at another level of sarcasm, humor and dark humor.
It's not at all material to the point you're making, but to nitpick: Hans's first move was actually 1. d4 and thus the Wikipedia article you should be linking to is that of the Indian Defence [0], not Alekhine's Defence!
In their example, you're not giving S as an input to K — instead, you're using K to write another program P which iterates over all possible strings and returns the first whose complexity is some value ("2 million" in their example).
That program P will certainly be longer than K (as it contains K), but not much longer — it's adding to K only the instructions needed to iterate over strings and define the threshold complexity ("2 million"). P will then produce that "2 million"-complexity output, but it didn't need any input and thus the complexity of its output is truly just the length of P (which is smaller than "2 million"). It eventually stumbles upon S by going through all possible strings, and didn't need S to be provided.
The main idea of the proof is very similar to the interesting-number paradox [0] or the Berry paradox [1].
Slang started as an MIT research project on using AI and NLP to make learning a new language as efficient as possible, and has grown into an adaptive English-learning platform that offers an unprecedented variety of specialized English courses and proficiency tests in 50+ industries like Law, Oil & Gas, and Aviation. With just a small team, we’ve already created the largest professional-English offering in the world, and now we’re scaling up to release 1,000 more courses over the next three years.
Learners use our learning apps to submit millions of language activities per week, managers use our LMS to visualize the progress of their students or employees, and our Content team uses our internal tools to provide expert curation and refine the output of our models.
We just closed a round and are scaling up our 6-person Product team to grow those applications. We're looking for engineers, product managers, and product designers. Our backend combines a Ruby/Rails API with a data-intensive Java stack, and our frontends include a React/TypeScript/MobX web UI and Cordova-based hybrid mobile apps.
I'm Kamran, the CTO — email me directly at kamran+hn@slangapp.com!
Their free tier has a 100GB/month bandwidth cap — surely the most trafficked websites in the world would very quickly hit that limit, no?
Your point stands nonetheless — they could certainly be losing money on certain large users of their free tier. Serving relatively static content has gotten extremely cheap across the board, though, and like the parent said, they might be benefiting from the pricing by more indirect means.
They're streaming a single live game right now! They explained that the research build of the game being used doesn't have an "observer" mode so it's not quite suitable for streaming live games — and, in fact, the games that they were showing were played over a month ago. (The current live game is being shown from the human player's point of view, and as such is a bit… dizzying.)
Check out this chess programming wiki article [1] for a (still fairly hand-wavy) rationale for similar piece values, and the Wikipedia article on chess piece relative values [2] for a more in-depth look at various weightings. Some modern approaches use analysis of a huge corpus of master games to come up with piece values, but many of the systems are based on intuition and empirical evidence.
> To follow on though, shoukdn't it technically be the case that piece values should in theory fluctuate based on current situation.
Yes. One common example is knights and bishops. Both are worth about 3 pawns, but knights are generally more useful in closed positions due to their ability to jump over pieces, while bishops are better in open positions since they can more attack and move long distances.
So in some sense, and I'm just brain-farting here, the value of a piece is a weighted sum of all the possible squares it could occupy during move generation. Something like a rudimentary path trace.
Now trying my best not to get distracted building chess machines. :/
Right, although I didn't mean castling into check. I meant tempting a greedy algorithm by throwing away a high value piece (which was always a weakness of early chess machines), although I realize the tree search would spot that.
Also now that I'm awake, read the article fully now.
