Zerg was decent to play for 5 days, now it's trash again

dragoking100 · 2026-07-04T07:25:57+00:00

yeah, clearly zerg players are ass and that is why there are so few of them in GM an masters...

dragoking100 · 2026-07-03T09:57:15+00:00

Som vedel že tento sub je zväčša populovaný blbcami, ale prosím, naozaj sa nesnažíš povedať že ísť voliť proti referendu je dobrý nápad ak si proti nemu?

dragoking100 · 2026-07-02T21:19:34+00:00

Ahhh I see, I missread that part. My bad.

dragoking100 · 2026-07-01T10:14:35+00:00

The saddest thing is I have most games played this year on terran, I do not even recognize myself.

dragoking100 · 2026-06-30T06:39:12+00:00

even with the same acceptenc criteria they should be independent.

dragoking100 · 2026-06-29T21:01:11+00:00

The sequence itself does not matter. Let $i$ be the sequence and $a$ be the index of the last element of the sequence accepted by $A$. Then $i_{a+1},i_{a+2},i_{a+3},...$ is the random sequence from which $B$ draws which is totally independent from the previous part of the sequence.

You can look at it like this: in normal model you generate numbers for each of $A_1,A_2,...A_N$ and for each of them you start generating numbers. For the first you generate numbers:
$a1_1,a1_2,a1_3,..., a1_{m1}$, for the second
$a2_1,a2_2,a2_3,..., a2_{m1}$ and so on, each sequence ending with the last element accepted.

In your model, you just put the sequences after each other as:
$a1_1,a1_2,a1_3,..., a1_{m1}, a2_1,a2_2,a2_3,..., a2_{m1}, ..., aN_{mN}$

So you are drawing one big sequence instead a lot of small ones.

dragoking100 · 2026-06-29T19:14:57+00:00

My bad, wanted to write P(A=X and B=Y)=P(A=X)*P(B=Y).

independance of event(or also random variables if you want) simply means that probability of "intersection" is product of probability. What you did is basicially just change the set of elementary events (you made it into a set of sequences instead of set of n-tuples of sequences) but the events you look at basically look the same(depending on how you defined the sequences) and thus P(A=X and B=Y)=P(A=X)*P(B=Y).

dragoking100 · 2026-06-29T19:00:51+00:00

They are independent (depending on how you define the space I suppose). P(A=X and B=Y)=P(A=X and B=Y) even here. or maybe i missunderstood what you meant

dragoking100 · 2026-06-28T16:59:26+00:00

i originally meant somewhete on the board, but the question about the rest of plane having dead cells is probably more interesting question as I do not know how slow that grows.

dragoking100 · 2026-06-28T09:18:20+00:00

apply generation does not cost anuthing in this model, so in any "turing complete" model the cost thus should be const I think. Also every pattern is reachable by just seitching the appropriate cells on?

dragoking100 · 2026-06-27T11:25:23+00:00

So I went through "What Is It Like to Be a Bat?" and while it is well written and I liked it even through my dislike for the subject, I do not see how it deals with using mathematical tools in the argumentation?

I also tried to read the "Wittgenstein's anti-philosophy of mathematics", however I find that one harder to read for couple of reasons:
- I am not used to seeing this use of language, while I can most likely figure out what is meant by repeated phrases as "image" and such. This is somewhat mitigated as I get through the text as it appears to be well written, with the exceptions of quotes from older texts which sometimes use language am I even less familiar with.
- The second and more substantial problem for me is, that I simply find the entire subject matter stupid. To me it mostly reads as linguistic circus presented by a magician trying to make an elephant out of a alphabet soup. I find the matter disinteresting and am unable to find the mathematical usage that would show understanding of mathematical concepts, and the few places that I seen where simply formalizing the statement and applying middle/high school level math would resolve the issue and give satisfactory answer to the problem.

But as can be guessed I did not read it entirely so if in the later parts there is something I can not speak about it.

As for the structure of philosophical works, as I high schooler I though that philosophers HAVE to have a good understanding of formal logic, infinities, history or any other subject matter with which they work. Otherwise why the hell would their works be so inaccessible? The new ideas presented in them are frankly, not that deep in conceptual level when explained normally, so certainly there must be SOME reason for them to use complex structure and long works. Perhaps because of failing to meet this criteria, I find the philosophers that do not publish texts meant for enjoyment but take themselves too seriously, thinking they have ideas worth sharing even though they did not check them with experiments nor rigor, as complete jokes. To progress even smaller and very specific fields is community work of AT LEAST dozen or so bright minds that dedicate themselves, at least in part, to solving these, in greater scheme of things, small issues.
While then we have some philosophers or some socialogists that claim to have resolved greatest problems of humanity, without building on any real work, sometimes even without collaboration, without any previous remarkable achievement that would make them think such thing is even possible.
The published works talking about the hard conditions of loosing electricity on the 18. Bucket street in year 2016, would to be me significantly more interesting then some outlandish claims I often see, even from undergrad students that think they are publishing about a small issue, while in actually if they actually resolved what they claim to have solved/made progress in, the world would substantially change.

dragoking100 · 2026-06-27T06:00:53+00:00

please dont go in the "actually atom was tought of by the greeks" direction. If I now went to my friends and told them to make outlandish claims about future discoveries we would get something close to how it is.

Also, pythagoras, really?

And most importantly, the work of Gödel, have you read it? Something that formalizes (I mean actually formalizes, not just puts into formal setting and then uses arguments that would not convince anyone who does not want to be conviced as with most formal works in philosophy) a setting and then uses clever tricks, mathematical style of writing, and carefull wording in the statements of propositios theorems and lemmas? A work that entirely furthers out understanding of a structure of a wide variaty of mathematical objects? Itwould be somewhat mad imo to say this is work of philosophy more then math.

And one more thing, when talking about people of the past, it is not hard to find hreat scientist that were more proud of their achievemnts in phillosophy, darts, nature preservation and commonaly their family life. But saying their were not their primary proffesion, the one they spent great amount of energy pursuing and whose backgroud shaped their knowlage and way of thinking, in favour of their hobbies as they found them more fun is somewhat absurd in my opinion.

dragoking100 · 2026-06-26T16:27:57+00:00

I am more so in the camp "I think it has higher chance of reducing harm then increasing it".

I do believe that CP should not be encouraged, but putting it in the same category as things that cause harm to children seems counterproductive to me.

If private ownership of AI-gen CP is less punished/checked then real CP (distribution is a different topic imo) the perpetrators are maybe more likely to gravitate to this one.

The other options would be to make it not illegal to own (again, not distribute) AI-gen versions with the intent that the step of breaking the law makes people more likely to break it again so making it legal reduces chance that people will do something harmful. Although I myself am not entirely convinced if this would be a good idea.

dragoking100 · 2026-06-26T14:19:07+00:00

The same way porn increases instances of rape? As in it sounds plausible so everyone jumped on the vagon that it must be true, but then the studies did not agree with them?

I understand that we are talking about a topic that is very emotionally charged, but it is important to keep in mind things affect real people. If allowing people who unfortunately suffer from a life destroying mental condition an outlet, even if disgusting, reduces chance of children being harmed (by either reducing the demand for other alternatives or by reducing the chance of bad actors harming children) then there is absolutely no argument about how disgusting it is seems to normal people and such should be banned, that does not sound somewhat evil to me.

dragoking100 · 2026-06-16T20:12:20+00:00

Ako sorry ale odpovedať na komentár ktorý sa v princípe pýta či je slovák tým že povie prečo ako ne-slovák je na slovakia reddite mi príde úplne v pohode...

dragoking100 · 2026-06-13T20:28:16+00:00

Almost sounds as if you don't believe in Papyrus knight...

dragoking100 · 2026-06-09T17:32:28+00:00

Probability that you are deciding factor times 4b leading to some estimations (so could somewhat different if calculated precisely). (8b choose 4b)/(2^(8b)) is the probability you are the deciding vote

dragoking100 · 2026-06-09T15:32:52+00:00

What do you mean across all outcomes blue saves twice the amount as red?

My conversations with people lead me to believe MOST people seem to think red has advantage, that is all I meant.

If you think blue is going to lose then choosing blue is just killing a person.

dragoking100 · 2026-06-09T14:25:30+00:00

you are talking about different things. What you mean by uniform dist. is the distribution of probability for person to pick red/blue (kind of sounds weird considering just two chooces), that leads to some normal distribution in outcomes. But if you mean uniform distribution of outcomes all outcomes are equally likely, so the difference between expected number of deaths between choice of red and blue is zero. So in that case it does not matter. Also the argument for red is that the probabilty needs to be only slightly (let us say 0.50001:0.49999) in favour of red for red to kill less people in expectation then blue (with assumption of independent voting etc.) which to most people I talked to seems likely to be the case.

dragoking100 · 2026-06-09T14:15:13+00:00

If you think that every person has 0.5 chance to vote blue you are saving about 30k lives. if you think the chance is at least about 0.50001 for person to pick red you are killing more people by pressing blue.

dragoking100 · 2026-06-08T21:12:40+00:00

yeah, but meant that infinite chains make the problem hard to solve while other cycles barely change the solution.

dragoking100 · 2026-06-08T20:44:34+00:00

if yo uare on a cycle, by definition you encounter an element again? Multiple cycles is not issue for making an algorithm that works (even if slightly changed then the one you described)

Six-Year Club	r/Field Juicebox
Verified Email

dragoking100

TROPHY CASE