If things keep going the way they are someday JavaScript is gonna be optimized enough to get pretty close to C; specially functional scripts/parts (those with no side effects).
This link[0] has an example; so basically almost anything in a game where it has to lookup massive amounts of data (e.g. logs), the example in the article is to quickly check if the user has already seen an item (in a game with thousands of items [e.g because those were pseudo-randomly generated, think RPGs]). But it's easy to think further applications: quickly check if the player already played this chess game before (all pieces where in the same position) to make sure the enemy does something smarter this time (because that time the enemy lost), and such.
That is not a good usecase for bloomfilters. With a bloomfilter you can tell if something has not been added/done. But you cannot tell if the opposite is true. In technical terms, false negatives are not possible, but false positives absolutely are, and should be expected. It can tell you: "This is not in the set", or "This is possibly in the set".
With that in mind, bloomfilters should be used for things where you are only interested to know if it is not in the set, or when you can tolerate a given false positive rate and size it accordingly.
For the first example will give false positives and be hostile to players that have not attacked. That might be okay, but not what you expect, and you might as well use probability for that. The second example I suppose you can use it to only try things you haven't tried before, but it seems weird.
That said, the link you provided is actually a good post about the topic, and include some good insight. It's not trying to hide that bloom filters are No or Maybe.
It's not clear to me that the added complexity aka risk of bugs is worth it in your case for any reasonable game design.
In the chess example, knowing it's possible to lose from X positions is almost meaningless most of the time. The issue is search space sizes are either to large to be useful or small enough for brute force.
You can always use it things that are not critical for the game to work; and a good coder would make it in a separate class/container so most possible bugs are isolated as well.
In the chess example the most importan thing its not for the machine to win (or lose); is so the user feels its not the same game they already played; or -dare I say- think that the enemy is "learning"
Even cellphones can run chess programs powerful enough to beat any human. The normal way to tone them down is to make them more random which prevents games from repeating in the first place. Making this a non issue.
Even ignoring that and assuming you wanted to do a lookup vs all games played with someone that's a tiny dataset so looking it up has no real downside.
DNA should be the only fully trusted proof of identity. To apply for a credit of any important amount (or any other important procedure) you should be required to be pinched to extract a drop of blood and determine if you are who you say you are according to the DNA database.
I think the argument would be that it's easy to get a sample of a person's DNA, but you can't fake it when the person authorizing you takes a fresh sample.
Of course, they take a hair from your head; and it was exactly the fake hair they had prepared, and then they take a drop of blood from your finger; and its the fake finger you prepared; then they check your iris and its the eye transplantation from the victim just like you prepared.
"real time" PCR and other such techniques could make (will/is) something like this feasible... but you wouldn't need to get pinched or poked.
It could probably extract DNA in real time from your sweat or breath.
But then DNA will become just another identifier, because we'll be able to synthesize it too, and then amplify it again, use it to trick the machine, and so forth.
EDIT: leaving the error, but real time PCR is actually a lab technique. I meant basically super fast sequencing
Synthesize it? You can change your DNA in the future? Like they are looking at the blood going out from your body and they can fake that too? Future is amazing.
I think it's actually could be a pretty good system. It's a piece of information that uniquely identifies you and even if it's totally public it doesn't help someone impersonate you. Sure someone could easily produce a sample of your DNA but they couldn't fake a fresh blood sample taken by the person authorizing you.
Your points 2 and 3 are actually integrated part of human nature and ending ads is not gonna help a bit; looking for a common enemy in order to start a mob by yourself (and therefore polarizing people) has always been a thing; it's just that now Internet allows absolutely anyone to do it, which includes anti-vaxxers flat earthists and millions of other intellectually decadent views.
Exactly; they are the gatekeepers of their iOS ecosystem but got no backslash like Microsoft did with Windows (circa 2001); so now they know they have a free pass and are trying to be the gatekeepers of the Web [for their users] as well.
The backlash against MS began in the 90s with the start of the anti-trust trial. It was preceded by MS achieving a greater than 90% [0] market share. Apple has nowhere near that and so will not see that sort of legal backlash for them for a while.
Microsoft used their position to do things like:
Spend over $1 billion to advertise a free web browser to compete with Netscape (fear of cross-platform applications that Netscape could support).
Embraced a fucked up version of web standards where they literally did the exact opposite of what the specs said in order to make sites compatible for their users break (without serious dev effort) for everyone else.
Convinced Compaq (memory fuzzy, I get them and HP mixed up now) to not release computers with BeOS. If they had, MS was going to eliminate their favorable Windows licensing costs. This would have driven them out of business as they could not achieve competitive PC prices with reasonable margins (PCs already being a low margin business at that point). They tried similar, though less aggressive, pushes against companies that later wanted to release Linux workstations.
There's a whole litany of MS's abuses of its monopoly position in the anti-trust suit, it was actually fascinating reading if you care about economics, business, politics.
[0] Precise numbers failing me, I believe they got close to 97% at some point.
Being good looking also helps coders, though to a lesser degree than Instagram models. Better looking job candidates tend to get hired more and get more promotions.
Personally, it doesn't amaze me at all how important good looks are for a model. I know I'd prefer to look at a lithe college coed bounce around in Ibiza rather than a frumpy mother of three work in a textile factory. It's programmed into my animal brain.
It helps to keep in mind that "influencers" are a product of a lot more than good genes. It takes a large investment into beauty products, hair stylists, clothes, camera equipment, travel, etc. These people are constructed using their fit bodies as a foundation to build upon. Taylor Swift is a product, not merely a person. Her development costs surely tally into the millions.
You could say the same thing for intelligence, which is arguably more valuable. Intelligence allows you to have a comfy 9-5 job and long-term stable career making 6 figures a year writing software and doing something you love.
Not really, it says: "Conocimiento efectivo por la demandada del contenido de los comentarios alojados por terceras personas en su web. Remisión de fax en el que se advierte de la existencia de estas comunicaciones lesivas al honor del demandante: Al rehusar este fax la demandada incumple su deber de diligencia."
Which translates: "Effective knowledge by the plaintiff of the stored messages by third-parties on his website. Fax receiving in which [the admin] was informed of the lascivious messages to the plaintiff. By refusing the FAX the defendant breaches his duty of diligence"
So this case was about sexual comments against a specific person for which the owner of the site refused to delete such comments; so little to nothing to do with censoring messages against the state.
