If there is a 15 move sequence that leads to a guaranteed win, stockfish would not call it a 1 pawn advantage (given the sufficient calculation time) instead calling it a won position.

I think you may be mistaking your understanding of stockfish as shallow in that regard.

Where the big differences might emerge is in strategic mid game positions without any clear tactics or forcing moves. There lc0 can somehow "feel" that a position seems better.

Eh, this is the kind of pithy soundbite that sounds vaguely deep and intelligent but doesn't hold up.

In what domains have you had experience taking non programmers with domain knowledge and making them programmers?

OP did't like anthropomorphizing an LLM.

And you tried to explain the whole thing to him from the perspective of a duck.

I know, seems a bit silly right? But go with me for a moment. First, I'm assuming you get the duck reference? If not, it's probably a cultural difference, but in US English, "If it walks like a duck, and talks like a duck..." is basically saying "well, treat it like a duck". or "it's a duck". Usage varies, metaphors are fluid, so it goes. I figured even if this idiom wasn't shared, the meaning still wouldn't be lost.

That aside, why? Because the normal rhetorical sticks don't really work in conversation, and definitely not short bits like comments here on HN, when it comes to asking a person to consider a different point of view. So, I try to go in a little sideways, slightly different approach in terms of comparisons or metaphors-- okay, lots of time more than slightly different-- and lots of times? more meaningful conversation and exchanges come from it than the standard form because, to respond at all, its difficult to respond in quite the same pat formulaic dismissal that is the common reflex-- mine included-- I'm not claiming perfection, only attempts at doing better.

Results vary, but I've had more good discussions come of it than bad, and heard much better and more eye-opening-- for me-- explanations of peoples' points of view when engaging in a way that is both genuine and novel. And on the more analytical end of things, this general approach, when teaching logic & analysis? It's not my full time profession, and I haven't taught in a while, but I've forced a few hundred college students to sit through my style of speechifying and rhetoricalizing, and they seem to learn better and give better answers if I don't get too mechanical and use the same form and syntax, words and phrases and idioms they've always heard.

for what it's worth, it didn't seem odd to me. I guess the missing article and phrase indicate it's a verb.

"So AI can ... developers" is begging for a verb, there is no room for an adjective there.

I disliked the pedantic nature of stackoverflow like the next guy but this seems like a naive take.

SO solved a problem, that problem is now gone

It's almost as if it depends on the context and there isn't a simplistic bumper sticker approach.

> Maybe Carnegie’s relatives decided the book could appeal to a 2x audience?

So if a book uses male examples it only appeals to males, but if it uses female examples it appeals to both males and females?

Huh? The revised edition doesn’t use ONLY female examples. It uses both.

> Some days I just can’t get over how we’re just the dumbest ##^*ing species to ever visit space

I also think we are pretty dumb. But what reference point makes you think we are either smarter or dumber than other spacefaring species

There is none. I just need to believe intelligent life trends much higher than this.

Any species able to visit us would be definitionally smarter than us, since they somehow break the rules of physics as we know them, so they either have way better math and data, or are magic, which frankly I would treat as "smarter"

> *But what reference point makes you think we are either smarter or dumber than other spacefaring species"

Us being the dumbest spacefaring species does not necessarily imply the existence of spacefaring species other than us.

Sorry but as a southern Neighbor you are painting a picture of Europe 20 years ago.

Taxes these days keep up the ponzi scheme of european pensions and an influx of low skilled migrants that are not incentivized to work.

There is a a lot of budget between ur citizens not going bankrupt when they get sick and taking 50% of their salary.

> influx of low skilled migrants that are not incentivized to work

Aka a low wage labor pool to plug the youth demographic gap.

If European countries had sustainable fertility rate, then they could be choosy about immigration.

At 1.3-1.5, well, people have to come from somewhere...

Folks spend so much time talking about second+ order effects of immigration, but it's the economy that's primarily important.

I don't know too many nativists / nationalists who agree with the statement 'I am fine with my country being poorer and worse off economically in exchange for getting rid of immigrants.'

Their political champions bill is as though removing immigrant labor will somehow make the economy better.

Because, yes, when has a smaller, more expensive domestic labor pool ever helped a country's economic competitiveness? /s

Sure, but the parts you still enjoy wouldn't even exist otherwise. Even the crumbling western european healthcare system is miles ahead of the american one for the average citizen.

It's always been a ponzi scheme, even 20 years ago when you enjoyed it and thought everything was perfect.

> low skilled migrants that are not incentivized to work.

Including all the FIRE people and tech migrants who come to take freebies while not chipping in

OP's point (imo valid) relates to the private sphere, and how we as normal humans are more afraid of outing our sexual fears/desires because of the possibility of them being amplified on the internet.

And you somehow think that millions of men masturbating to a few onlyfans accounts is a counterargument to show everything is actually fine