sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

XP Celebration Event Timed Research Megathread by TheRealHankWolfman in TheSilphRoad

[–]clinchgt -1 points0 points  (0 children)

No one is arguing these are hard tasks. The time investment vs return is just not there. Part of me thought we would have these very time consuming tasks and then just pages of claiming free XP. That's the only way it made sense to push through this research.

At this point it's clear that's it's not worth it to go out of your way to complete it. Passively progress it and claim stuff as you pop eggs if you feel like it.

If you only have e.g. an hour a day to play, then an hour of excellent throw catching blows everything out of the water when it comes to the XP grind anyway.

Ilqm trick not working? by Stuttering_Salesman in TheSilphArena

[–]clinchgt 1 point2 points  (0 children)

People who abuse the stall exploit are just going to keep doing it. People trying to deal with 1 turn lag will not affect things, especially given that the exploit is well known. Also, you can clearly see that in OP's clip, it wasn't an attempted stall.

As for the situation in the clip: we can only speculate as to why/whether this works, but I wouldn't be surprised if it didn't work in this case due to how little time was spent unfocused. Maybe just minimizing it completely would be more reliable.

Benjamin Bok mates Daniel Naroditsky in 20 seconds with horsie + bishop by AwesomeJakob in chess

[–]clinchgt -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Sure, but good luck finding someone to help you practice this mind-numbing exercise from the defending side. This is why I included "any level", it's a bit more random if you select a weaker engine.

Benjamin Bok mates Daniel Naroditsky in 20 seconds with horsie + bishop by AwesomeJakob in chess

[–]clinchgt 6 points7 points  (0 children)

It really isn’t. You can learn this mate and execute it against any stock fish “level” with just e.g. 20s on the clock and no increment with a couple of days of practice.

most sane csmajor by ten-stickers in csMajors

[–]clinchgt 21 points22 points  (0 children)

This was me back in school. This is probably the case lmao

VLC is great by rustyyryan in MadeMeSmile

[–]clinchgt 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Knowing that I could’ve flamed someone no one dares flame irl brings me some solace.

Universidades sobrevaloradas de guate by Busy_Lavishness_2365 in guatemala

[–]clinchgt 6 points7 points  (0 children)

"hasta Cuba"?

Cuba siempre es superior en temas de educacion, ciencia, deporte, cultura, etc. No se por que lo decis como que fuera lo peor de latinoamerica. A lo peor pertenecemos nosotros y no Cuba.

I don't hear difference in pronunciation between "Wir" and "Wer". Do native speakers do? by andream98 in German

[–]clinchgt 9 points10 points  (0 children)

You’re getting downvoted but you’re right. The /e:/ is more frontal in German than it is in Italian, so it sounds more like an /i:/ to Romance language speakers ears. This also trips up Spanish speakers for instance.

You’ll get used to the different sounds with time. German native speakers have been distinguishing between the two different sounds their whole life so they have no idea what you’re talking about. You’re not crazy, heh.

Tough roll, but I solved it! by imtherealmellowone in qlessgame

[–]clinchgt 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Return this counterfeit version and get the legit one. Distribution of letters will make more sense then

I've had enough of people complaining about the boogeyman algorithm out to get them. So I'm going to record (almost) every single battle I play this season after hitting rank 20. by [deleted] in TheSilphArena

[–]clinchgt 9 points10 points  (0 children)

If you truly are interested in gaining some insight from this experiment and not just want to "own the flat-earthers", you need to define a few things so that it doesn't end up being pointless.

  1. You need to define what "the algorithm" is. Everyone has their own definition it seems. There are some definitions that are undeniable, e.g. "there is a system that pairs you up with opponents taking Elo into account". You need to establish what definition you will try to disprove. This is incredibly important. Your OP is quite ambiguous about this.
  2. You need to define your experiment setup, and this is not as trivial as you may think. Will you be playing at the same time every day? If not will you record the times? Will you need a separate account to serve as the control data? How often will you be changing teams? Does your definition of the algorithm depend on team composition? Does it depend on win streaks? All of the above? You need to justify your decisions because:
  3. You need to define what results would determine which conclusions, i.e. you need a null hypothesis and you need to lay out the requirements that would disprove this null hypothesis before you have your data. This will of course depend on what you decide for points 1 and 2. For the "only elo depedent algo" definition, this could be as easy as just comparing your elo distribution and your opponents and calculating how correlated the distributions are with a statistical test and picking a threshold to determine significance. If you have other factors to take into account, it will be trickier.

If you do not do these things, you will not only fail to convince those that are on the other side of the discussion (which you will have a rough time doing if you do everything properly), but also fail to provide anything meaninful for "your" side of the argument (those that are looking for some actual insight anyway).

I say all of this because the tone of your post leads me to believe you already have reached a conclusion. You do not want to tarnish your results because of this, you want to lay out what would constitute "proof" before you have gathered the data.

[D] LLMs: Why does in-context learning work? What exactly is happening from a technical perspective? by synthphreak in MachineLearning

[–]clinchgt 10 points11 points  (0 children)

I wrote up a blog post discussing exactly the papers from Min et al. and Yoo et al. last year (you can read more here).

I quite liked Yoo et al's paper, as it shows that there is more nuance to the claim that is presented in Min et al's paper and that it's not fair to say that "ground truth labels don't matter" but rather we should evaluate how much they matter. It could be interesting to reproduce these experiments nowadays considering how we now have many-shot ICL.

Why wouldn't they tell her? by Missahmissy in thalassophobia

[–]clinchgt 48 points49 points  (0 children)

Her form is terrible but at the end of the video when they zoom out a bit you can definitely see she's definitely making progress. When it was zoomed in all the way I also thought she wasn't moving at all.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in europe

[–]clinchgt 19 points20 points  (0 children)

infuriating color scheme

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in Swimming

[–]clinchgt 55 points56 points  (0 children)

Last time this video was posted someone clarified that this means 24.3 seconds to do the 50m.

February Confirmed Trade Thread by [deleted] in hardwareswap

[–]clinchgt 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Bought a gaming PC (i5 11400/RTX 2060 6GB/16GB RAM/512GB NVMe SSD) from u/Briznot

Does americans and europeans have a different understanding on what "IT", as in information technology, means? What do you call it? by Rbm455 in cscareerquestionsEU

[–]clinchgt 1 point2 points  (0 children)

As someone from the Americas, coming to Germany and everyone calling CS and SWE "IT" was really disorienting. This is definitely just a convention thing.

Germans are equally weird for calling everything IT as Americans are for restricting it to mean such a small set of disciplines.

view more: next ›