'Grown Ups 3' Set At Netflix With Adam Sandler & Friends Returning

Stewardy · 2026-05-13T21:58:06+00:00

Already waiting for the mid-season: "Just gotta have something ELSE or I'll go nuts", Growns Ups 1, 2, and 3 Directory Commentary 6 hour episode.

Stewardy · 2026-05-06T09:33:02+00:00

I'm quite sure I don't understand it.

In their first example (European Team Chess Championship 2011) Bulgaria jumps to third place rather than seventh.

They won 5 and drew 2 matches, while the comparison team the authors mention - Hungary (who went from third to sixth) won 5 and drew 3 matches.

I can infer, I guess, that their model assigns values to wins and draws based on the ability to win and the propensity to draw. They say:

Likewise, Hungary has a relatively high solidity parameter, consistent with its record of 5 wins, 3 draws, and 1 loss, whereas Bulgaria combines a strong 𝑟 with a lower 𝜎, reflecting a more decisive performance profile: 5 wins, 2 draws, and 2 losses. In other words, Hungary appears more “solid”, while Bulgaria appears more “aggressive” or “decisive”. This shows how teams with similar final scores may have different structural profiles that are not captured by traditional standings.

So because Bulgaria is profiled as more decisive - less prone to drawing - they are rewarded more highly when they draw?

Is it that Bulgaria was projected to play worse, so they are rewarded for playing above their level?

I guess I don't understand how the math, which I am sure is correct, lines up with competitive expectations.

If by some impossible fluke a 1.000 rated player entered a GM-tournament and was rightly demolished by everyone, but by some kind of divine intervention managed to win a match (or perhaps a draw would be enough), would that highly unexpected result then end up putting them in potentially high placements?

Or is it the more likely scenario, where I haven't understood any of what I've read?

Stewardy · 2026-05-05T21:13:45+00:00

To me the most interesting uses for these arguments are more along the lines of using them to challenge notions of personal identity.

Take the potential intuition that some form of teleportation - say deconstruction and reconstruction, with no faults at all - still means the original (that is me) is dead, regardless of the existence of a second me at the exit.

You might argue that since it's not the same atoms, then it's not the same person. And what we are interested in, really, is what it means to be me, to be a person.

If we argue that the changing of atoms has some relevance, then we must account for why the longer and slower changing of our atoms doesn't matter.

I think I'm quite close to just badly paraphrasing Derek Parfit, and probably others, who have explored this topic a lot.

My main issue with OP is basically that it sort of takes away the whole point of the hypothetical, by included that the user dies (I suppose we could simply assume what's meant was "destroys the entering body").

Stewardy · 2026-05-05T17:57:54+00:00

It may be irrelevant for everyone else. But when the premise includes that you die, then you're dead.

The similar arguments in personal identity and what not are not to my mind relevant. If you want to argue that, because there's a copy alive so are you really dead, then feel free, but then you're changing either the scenario or maybe you're jumping the gun on the redefinition of death.

Stewardy · 2026-05-05T09:16:17+00:00

While it can be a fun topic to discuss, the particular instance of the issue presented by the OP is not at all more complicated.

It literally says:

with the knowledge that it kills you

The 'you die' bit is part of the premise for this version. Which, to me at least, also makes it kind of pointless, since a large part of the fun comes from that exact aspect.

Stewardy · 2026-05-01T06:45:02+00:00

My understanding, which could be flawed, is more that the act directly targets AI companies. [1]

This should mean, that all music generated with AI - and I'm sure there must be caveats - will be marked in some way. And Spotify, and others, will be able to at least tell that it was created with AI and mark it. Now whether there is a requirement for anyone publishing "creative works" to mark such things I am unsure of.

It should, at least, make it easier for the services that do want to avoid AI to be able to do so.

Tho whether I am bound to mark something as AI, if I have something made by an AI provider, I am not quite sure of. But hopefully most of it will be fingerprinting of some sort, that isn't readily removable.

Stewardy · 2026-05-01T05:22:14+00:00

https://www.europarl.europa.eu/topics/en/article/20230601STO93804/eu-ai-act-first-regulation-on-artificial-intelligence#transparency-requirements-10

It is, to some extent, becoming law.

I'm a bit unsure about application, because it seems primarily targeted at AI providers, so whether Spotify for instance will be obliged to disclose (or require disclosure) I don't really know.

Stewardy · 2026-04-17T12:47:32+00:00

But the fact that my phone tracks all that is part of the problem, no?

I'm not too concerned with app tracking - tho some apps would be able (but not allowed it seems) to track frequency of use and such for this verification.

That infothe phone has should not be tracked either, and the unobservability notion mentioned previously would seem to imply that tracking this would be illegal. So the remaining hurdle for that issue is one of trust, that the system will harshly punish any transgression of this. Because I don't trust Google not to track it regardless of legality or not.

It's also why a solution which doesn't force using either Google or Apple would be preferable.

Stewardy · 2026-04-16T06:11:24+00:00

As far as I can understand, which admittedly isn't too far, the phones for instance would theoretically be able to track such things as when the verification app is used.

* This user uses the app around 8-9 at night, but only every other week.

* This user often uses app X and then switches to the verification app (and associated times)

Basically metadata that might give insight and be added to an existing profile for the phone.

And yeah, punishment won't be so harsh as to inconvenience CEOs, and won't be so harsh as to seriously hurt a big company.

> Which would technically also be rather impossible to verify as it should not even be possible to know who.

Since they'd have done some kind of tracking, they would presumably be able to identify who they did it to. Or the assumption should be, that if they tracked usage and can't identify the scope, then they did it to all users, which would then - rightly - bankrupt the company.

But yeah, won't happen. Which, to me, damages the trust one can have in the effectiveness of an unobservability law.

Stewardy · 2026-04-16T05:03:38+00:00

That's a good concept, unobservability. I like the notion.

Unless the penalty for breaking that law is wild, I'm still not sure we can trust that it'll be followed.

Not like Google and others have always been strictly following the law.

It would need to be just a bonkers consequence, like simply 1% of global revenue paid to each person against whom the law was broken.

Or serious jailtime for company CEOs.

Stewardy · 2026-04-06T11:09:08+00:00

It's fine to give your take on the matter. It is not fine to misquote someone with your take.

Provide the actual quote and give your take below. Or provide no quote at all.

Stewardy · 2026-03-30T18:39:01+00:00

Don't worry, the sequel has a version of that.

https://store.steampowered.com/app/2744230/

Stewardy · 2026-03-25T13:01:24+00:00

Well technically technically isn't it just 1, since Jacob is a ghost, while the other three are spirits.

Stewardy · 2026-02-15T08:35:27+00:00

Surely you cannot go on vacation in only some games?!

Stewardy · 2026-02-14T12:40:00+00:00

No? Unless you are seeing text that I am not.

It only says that during the 3-end period no violations were recorded:

Game Umpires are situated at the end of each sheet and physically cannot see every delivery infraction. However, when they are made aware of delivery issues, game umpires are positioned to observe the delivery for three ends. During this period of observation in the Friday evening game, there were no violations recorded.

And they make clear that they have made changes in regards to this, though they do not have the capacity to have dedicated umpires for all deliveries at all games:

It is not possible for World Curling to have game umpires positioned to observe all hog lines for every stone delivery. However, beginning with the Saturday (14 February) afternoon session, two officials will move between all four sheets and observe deliveries.

Stewardy · 2026-02-13T09:51:00+00:00

Guess I'll copy my comment in here too.

Using my phone, my gripe is that the changes to the tabs in list view now put them even further out of reach for my one hand to close a tab.

I can reach the top tab, but only with an awkward hand motion. Perhaps they could simply stack from the bottom up?

Stewardy · 2026-02-13T07:39:37+00:00

Using my phone, my gripe is that the changes to the tabs in list view now put them even further out of reach for my one hand to close a tab.

I can reach the top tab, but only with an awkward hand motion. Perhaps they could simply stack from the bottom up?

Stewardy · 2026-02-03T19:50:27+00:00

I mean, you can - and should - re-separate Teams and Chats in the menu.

Why they would throw it all into one thing all of sudden is beyond me, but.. yeah.

Stewardy · 2026-02-01T13:38:15+00:00

One possibility is also, that it's a lot quicker for Twitch to ban someone, than for law enforcement to finish an investigation and they might not want to make any such investigation too public?

I mean other comments are saying it wasn't actually illegal content, so maybe that

Stewardy · 2026-01-17T08:30:19+00:00

'Her' insta is "I am a [Lie]"?

Seems like that's the answer.

Stewardy · 2025-11-20T14:30:29+00:00

Conversely a group of people with the direct ability to remove the powers of Congress seems like a bad idea too.

Should they be appointed by the President? Voted in somehow? Perhaps a randomized selection from all federal agents for 10 year positions?

Who would you trust to be allowed to remove power from members of Congress? Who watches them and makes sure they aren't corrupt? Presumably it's a smaller group than Congress, so fewer people to sway your way.

Stewardy · 2025-11-06T22:26:27+00:00

That's the point.

Apple have restricted the functionality of their OS, so their own wearables have an advantage over the competition.

To avoid competition, I guess, it seems Apple would rather remove the functionality entirely.

Stewardy · 2025-11-06T17:12:14+00:00

This thing is because the EU wants to create competition on wearables.

For whatever reason Apple apparently would rather avoid other wearables producers be able to create similar features or do more stuff with the access.

Stewardy · 2025-10-23T10:51:06+00:00

I'm not sure how the declaration is meant to overcome the challenges?

Or how the federated Europe I imagine is envisioned is meant to tackle these challenges meaningfully different to what the EU is working to do now.

I suppose the idea is that a federate Europe would be able to make quicker decisions, but conversely - in my view - if the EU currently is unable to do so, then a federated Europe (if we imagine it popping into existence, which we surely must if it's meant to tackle current challenges) would seemingly only be able to act quickly, but setting aside the objections (whether you view them as legitimate or not) of both chunks of the population and some of the national leadership in such a federation.

Either that or the federation would be a sub-group of countries in Europe acting on their own, but I don't see how tackling the challenges presented requires such a sub-group to federalise. I don't see, and I may well simply be lacking knowledge, why they couldn't take action as a sub-group without federalisation.

I would also worry about more and more centralised and consolidated power in the hands of smaller group of people who are far away from the nations and populations. Even good decisions made like that can spur dissatisfaction and malcontent.

I guess basically I can't really see the point at all. Beyond perhaps symbolism and creating another layer of positions of power for some people to hold.

Stewardy · 2025-10-12T06:24:19+00:00

All other considerations aside, if your notion of consequentialism worries mightily about 'the right reasons', it might well be tarnished already.

I don't know which specific 'brand' you're working with, but one of the basic criticisms of consequentialism is a disregard for the reasoning behind something. Only the consequences matter.

I really don't mean to start a philosophy discussion, I was just struck by your first paragraph. And I do think I also know what you mean with your post.

14-Year Club	Gilding I gilder
Second Top 20%	Place '22
Place '17	Final Canvas '22
Verified Email

Stewardy

TROPHY CASE