Could someone also write bad code and commit it using someone else's email address in the commit message, thus making the commit link to the other person's Github profile? (Sort of the reverse problem -- "giving blame" instead of "taking credit")
IIRC there was an infamous (at the time) user hostile commit made to a Google product (Android or Chrome perhaps) where the author was obfuscated to something like "Android Dev" instead of an actual individual.
Yes, simply change the email and author before commit and should work.
Note that git already provides a way to mark a commit with someone else authorship, but in that case you remain as the "original author" of the commit, usually shown as "X authored commit of Y".
I sometimes use that when I need to push other coworkers code for whatever reason, or when you start a codebase from an old project files that weren't versioned (so that you are not the author of all the atrocities of the old code ;)
Yes, but it isn't limited to non-verified emails, you can do it with verified emails as well. I assume it's already used to obscure deliberate security compromises in forks etc.
There are many practical impersonation vectors. I assume Github is gonna have to require signed commits for profile links in the medium term future.
Shadowed by another driver, who picks the first up, or brings an electric scooter with them (these are as common as Ubers around here now), or ... teleports?
"always sounds appealing" implies the same thing happens every year to parent comment. either you dont enjoy it or you do? its not like the type of exercises change year to year. theyre coding challenges everytime.
yes, i get tricked every year. at first it's 'ooh some neat challenges to help me improve or learn new skills'
then it's like, 'ugh this is annoying and i don't like it.'
No, you can’t. It only says the problem has a unique solution. It doesn’t even say an efficient algorithm for computing it exists, or even whether an algorithm exists. Neither of those are very hard to prove, but the theorem won’t help you there.
For comparison, let’s say the “sorting theorem” says “if you have n different numbers, you can place them in a sequence so that no number is larger than its predecessor”.
Now, you have two numbers. How do you apply that theorem to place them in a sequence so that no number is larger than its predecessor?
Doesn't gaining 600 points mean that you are able to beat the "old you" (or more precisely, people who you used to be even with) with 99% probability? (Or perhaps more meaningfully, you can now beat someone who could beat someone who could beat someone who could beat someone who can beat the old you, all with 80% probability?)
(I made up the exact numbers, but the idea is there.)
That seems like a meaningful interpretation of "600 points" that applies to anyone -- though the difficulty of actually making this improvement definitely varies with your starting rating.
> That seems like a meaningful interpretation of "600 points" that applies to anyone
It does apply to anyone, but it is more or less meaningful depending on where you start, so the meaningfulness isn't equivalent.
It's as if you say you can double your money, but it only works once and with a value < $1.
The idea that, say, Magnus could increase his chess playing abilities in 6 months (or even 6 years) to be able to beat the current version of himself 99% of the time would be insane.
I often wonder if chess players have a natural "peak"/"optimal" age range in the way that professional athletes do. Being a thinking game that requires strong brain functionality combined with accumulated experience, I wonder if there is an age range that is best for most players.
Trade offs may be something like in yours teens and early 20's your brain may have the most plasticity and ability to visualize (plan 10+ moves ahead) but you might not have accumulated enough experience.
I'm purely speculating here and just wondering aloud. (I bring it up in response to this comment because Magnus' prodigious talent is so noteworthy I wonder when Magnus will stop being able to "beat" Magnus of 1 year ago.
I think there are a lot of confounders to consider. Though GMs like Anand show a drop in standard rating (https://ratings.fide.com/profile/5000017/chart), his blitz rating is near his all-time-high (ie. is his standard rating drop due to decreased mental performance or a shift in interest/focus to blitz?). Similarly, I suspect a lot of strong players who fall in the `2000<FIDE rating<2300` realize they may not be the next magnus and shift focus when/if they make the decision to pursue a career outside of professional chess.
Then again with how ELO works it doesn’t necessary mean that it was Magnus’s peak only that that the point when the gap between him and the rest of the chess world was the largest. I think others became stronger and he had more competition. Still Magnus himself seems to think he is past his peak in interviews.
I mean, he himself wouldn't necessarily be able to tell the difference of him getting worse or the rest getting better. To him it's just getting harder to beat people. At his level how can you judge yourself unless you played against a fixed-version AI chess program?
I watched a YouTube video recently that talked about how difficult it is to go from 2350 FIDE to 2500. It seemed to imply if you don’t make 2500 by age 20, you will probably won’t ever get there or it will require years of study. The video was just an opinion, no data to support it was presented.
It's worth noting that chess grandmasters can burn up to 6000 calories per day while competing in tournaments. It's an absolutely exhausting endeavor, and I imagine sheer endurance can play a huge role.
So yes, performance does fall off with age, though not as intensely as something like hockey.
Is that true? I thought that the difference between deep thinking energy expenditure and rest expenditure of the brain was not a huge % of the rest energy expenditure. I couldn’t find any source to the 6000 calorie figure, and this article seems to support that the chess player’s calorie deficit was likely due to skipping meals and stress
https://www.livescience.com/burn-calories-brain.html
Someone who is just learning chess will likely be able to beat the old them with 99% probability after a few days of playing and learning.
Someone who is ranked at around 1200 and really commits to improving can likely beat the old them in a couple of months by memorizing a few common openings and practicing drills/working on fundamentals.
Someone who is a dedicated chess player and ranked above 1800 may never be able to beat the old them with 99% probability.
So if someone says they improved by 600 points, certainly that is meaningful to them as an individual and it means they can basically beat their old self, but it won't be very meaningful to me.
Doesn't gaining 600 points mean that you are able to beat the "old you" (or more precisely, people who you used to be even with) with 99% probability?
I don't know what it means in theory. In practice I win and then lose 200 points in lichess in a few days.
Some time ago I used to win and lose 100 around the day in a cycle. Maybe ratings aren't adjusted around the globe, so for the same points there are different skill levels as you go through time zones.
There's a fact that really annoys me: for my 2+1 bullet, it's harder to be at 1500 than at 1600. Once I'm at 1600, I can reach 1700 with a winning streak. If I fall into 1500, I tend to get stuck there.
