If you play game theory optimal (GTO) then you by definition can not be exploited. For poker a GTO strategy is extremely complex where each decision you make depends on the exact situation and includes varying your decisions over time. Like bluff raising 60% of the time and folding 40% of the time you’re in some very specific situation. It’s basically putting your opponent into a situation that they can’t make a profitable decision in the long term.
It’s not really practically possible to do. But if two people did they would have 0 expected value over time against each other. If one player slightly differed from game theory optimal strategy that would give the other one positive expected value. There is no way they can change from GTO strategy to exploit you.
However, this isn’t necessarily the most profitable way to play against real people. When your opponents aren’t playing GTO, there will be some non-GTO strategy that exploits them most effectively. Like if they call too much then you should raise for value more often than against a GTO opponent and bluff less.
Veritasium did a great video on the opposite direction turning. They even show a bike that prevents you from turning the wheel one way to show that its essential.
When I took control theory at university, in the last lecture, the lecturer took out a bike with rear wheel steering and challenged us to ride it in the hallway outside the lecture hall in the break. No one could get it to roll more than a couple of meters. The second half of the lecture was spent proving that a rear wheel steered bike is in fact (almost) impossible to control.
But it turns out that it doesn't matter whether you place the thrusters high or low, stability-wise. What matters is that the center of mass is in front of the center of the center of pressure.
Aren't they just as stable as regular rockets, but it's very inconvenient to put the thrusters on top?
It's called pendulum rocket fallacy and from what I can tell that's the case.
Yes, it was pretty much a reverse bike with the saddle on the frame and a handle bar just behind where the seat post should be, connected to the steering axle. The details is a little bit fuzzy since it was a couple of years ago but iirc it is actually possible bike backwards at slow speeds but require a lot more active balancing from the rider, and at some point it becomes impossible as the speed increases. Also it concerned the case where the bike is riding straight ahead, it is possible that it is easier to control if riding in a curve.
The term used in motorcycling is countersteering. A lot of people think they are using their body to change direction but that would not be sufficient. Also it helps to be deliberate about the handlebar pushing motion for safety and performance.
A fair bit of the stability of a bicycle (especially at low speeds) is due to the fact that you have a human holding onto a bar that behaves exactly like a thing that a human would grab onto to steady themselves. If you grab this bar and rotate it clockwise, then you yourself will rotate anticlockwise - and that is true whether the bar is the handlebars on a bike or a random bar fixed on a wall. Holding ourselves steady by grabbing onto something is something that humans have a remarkably effective and quick feedback loop for, which is why bicycle riding comes naturally once you get over the fear of falling off and just do what feels right.
Rigging the handlebars to turn the wheel the other way cancels out that automatic feedback loop.
> They didn’t really acknowledge that the majority of cancels are just normal people who post stupid Tweets that then lose their jobs and get radicalized.
Can you provide any examples of this? I found myself agreeing with the against side because I really don’t see this happening.
A little late here, but here's a list I keep. These aren't strictly normal people, but I do consider all of their "cancellations" terribly wrongheaded:
Usually its not easy to tell. There are often less ports and other obvious features, but who knows whats inside. I dont think anyone has ever done a component level breakdown like they do for storage.
>These derivative models are toned down versions of standard ones, perhaps offering a reduced number of HDMI ports or lower quality components. However, it's hard to say -- it can even be hard to tell which specific TVs are derivatives, requiring a careful scan of a model number which could total eight or nine digits.
While this happens on TVs (and other consumer goods, mattresses is another example of different SKUs for different retailers), this is not common at all for performance sensitive components in PC hardware industry.
Making different SKUs (with same generic marketing name) can happen (which WD did NOT do here) for good reasons, but most of the time you get better performance out of it.
What WD did is really shameful and very much not the norm in this industry.
The newest ipad Air has touch id in the power/lock button on the side. I know production timelines probably made it impossible to do in reaction to COVID, but can you imagine if they had put this on iphone 12 late last year? So many iphone users would have bought one just to fix face ID with masks.
I'm not a car enthusiast, but the supra is the first car that came to my mind when I read the parent comment because I saw a lot of youtube videos with supras from the 90s (modified and) producing a lot of power.
Like this one [1], I think the car in the video is a 1999 model and stock it produces at most 325hp (info from wikipedia).
If you meant the older supra then that makes more sense.
The Supra wasn't produced for many years and was recently re-released with this BMW partnership. Many old school Supra fans feel its strayed pretty far from its past and don't regard it well.
The car industry is full of comparisons like this. Luxury is a different scale than performance. You can have either or both. Macs exist higher on the luxury scale than most windows laptops and they offer models across the performance scale. Quite like BMW.
You cant buy kindle books via the amazon app for exactly this reason. You can only download a sample. If you open the website in a browser though, you can.
This a bit silly since there are no in-app purchases to circumvent. It's more of Apple forbidding you to say in app "oh yeah, I'm also selling stuff, not here though". I think such restriction should be illegal clause because of customer or competition laws or sth. They aren't since Apple has them, but should be. Regulators should descend on platform owners and force them to share. Like they are forcing telecoms to sell services in bulk to virtual operators.
As a counterpoint, if Apple relaxed this rule, then app store revenue would plummet. Everyone would make their app free and virtually non-functional, then sell subscriptions via in-app links that direct the purchase to their own fulfillment service. Nobody's entitled to a business model, but I think it's useful to take this devil's advocate view.
Regulators know exactly what Apple is doing here, and have so far declined to take action. That's an explicit decision, not an oversight.
ahh it all makes sense now...so that's why I have to go to the web to buy stuff in Fandango/Vudu.
How come these companies don't do something similar for subscriptions? ex: HBO Now (or whatever the fuck it's called these days) could have a subscribe button that takes you out of the app to their site - completely circumventing the in-app subscription purchase. Right?
Apple will ban them if they do that. You're not allowed to link to or even mention alternative payment methods. You can't even point out that the price is 43% higher to cover Apple's cut.
Because apps can’t link to purchase outside the App Store. Let alone link, they can’t even mention they can purchase the content elsewhere either with images, text or any form.
I think this is so silly on Apple side as they try to have a name on raising the bar for user experience. And the worse is that before I realized what was going on I thought it was Amazon fault for some reason, which is even better for Apple as people would normally blame the developers rather than the platform for this design decision.
Its more about the somewhat likely probability that a single launch provider will have a failure that necessitates a lengthy investigation during which they are grounded. Its nice in that situation to have another launch provider who can pick up essential missions.
That's certainly a risk, but "we're the only launch provider in the US, and we just raised prices from $250M to $2.5B, and any potential competition will take 5-10 years to get up to capability" is a big risk too. The DOD isn't gonna launch GPS satellites on a Progress.
It’s not really practically possible to do. But if two people did they would have 0 expected value over time against each other. If one player slightly differed from game theory optimal strategy that would give the other one positive expected value. There is no way they can change from GTO strategy to exploit you.
However, this isn’t necessarily the most profitable way to play against real people. When your opponents aren’t playing GTO, there will be some non-GTO strategy that exploits them most effectively. Like if they call too much then you should raise for value more often than against a GTO opponent and bluff less.
reply