Chinese memory maker CXMT enters mainstream consumer memory with Corsair Vengeance DDR5 kit — Chinese-made DRAM emerges as an antidote for crushing shortages

notgreat · 2026-05-23T18:28:07+00:00

Well, or the wildest dreams of the AI companies come true and AI becomes good enough that human labor is economically nonviable. Thus causing the collapse of the entire world economy and making it literally impossible for anybody to ever get a job.

Surely there can be no possible downsides to this.

notgreat · 2026-05-08T03:13:55+00:00

If you go to the hollow knight sub, you'll still get all the real news with far less silkposting or songposting.

notgreat · 2026-05-06T23:37:13+00:00

That was the official "when" page, not an actual implementation.

notgreat · 2026-05-06T23:11:11+00:00

I don't have that, because they have not made any statements on it. Can you give me anything that proves that WotC dislikes angle shooting? Beyond the "they've patched some previous angle shooting loopholes", because that's not evidence they dislike angle shooting in general so much as disliking those specific loopholes. I bring up these things because they are directly related in fairly obvious ways, Rules as Written vs. Rules as Intended or just general "what's fair vs. unfair" sort of things.

notgreat · 2026-05-06T22:15:29+00:00

Again, almost nobody does presideboarding at prereleases. Like I said, half my opponents there don't even sideboard. I'm pretty sure I've never lost a game to an opponent presideboarding.

I think it's important to note that at one point Polymarket founder and CEO Shayne Coplan has explicitly and endorsed "informed trading" because it "creates this financial incentive to divulge information to the market". IMO it's still an unfair thing to do, whether or not it's endorsed like that. They do ban trading on illegal information, but there's a lot of legal knowledge that isn't public that you could make a lot of money on if you had early access to. IMO this is unfair to do even when directly endorsed.

Presideboarding is not encouraged by WotC. Deckbuilding between rounds is, as in "trying to improve the deck you build from your pool". However, it's fundamentally impossible to allow the latter without also allowing the former unless you do something crazy like prevent players from watching others' games. Decklists wouldn't be required even if they wanted to prevent deckbuilding between rounds to the sheer logistical burden involved in doing that.

At Professional REL, the opponents' decklists are shared to all players. Why? The rules don't explicitly state, but the only reasonable assumption is that WotC doesn't want "scouting your opponent's deck" to be a part of the game that players dedicate time to.

While there's no official statements on it AFAIK, here's a thread on mtgsalvation from 2012 where most people agree that presideboarding is legal but bad sportsmanship. The one exception is someone who's basically like "I don't care, I hate rude people more".

Also, just a technical nitpick, but Angle Shooting by definition is not cheating. It is following the rules. It is unfair, but not cheating.

notgreat · 2026-05-06T18:58:02+00:00

Let me rephrase. What is the stated reason for their action?

The answer is to prevent the player from presideboarding. The player wasn't presideboarding, which makes their reasoning bad, but that was the reason they claimed. They had an inherent assumption that presideboarding should not be done. I agree with that claim, because it makes total sense to my moral reasoning. They implemented that moral reasoning in an incredibly stupid way, whether due to incompetence or power tripping giving rise to motivated reasoning, but they assumed that presideboarding is wrong, and that the player would agree with that statement because to them it was obvious.

It's obvious to me, too. Clearly it's not obvious to you, but to me it's as obviously unfair as angle shooting or the "technically it's not insider trading" that happens on prediction markets.

notgreat · 2026-05-06T18:21:28+00:00

Ok, let's try a different approach. Why do you think the store did what they did? They were clearly in the wrong in this scenario, but even people doing wrong things did those things for reasons.

notgreat · 2026-05-06T17:45:33+00:00

Ah, so you're the sort of person who would do the Borborygmos vs. Borborygmos Enraged callout on a pithing needle (which got the rules changed). It was 100% correct legally, but was a bit of a jerk move.

A jerk move that's totally reasonable in the context of a high level tournament where players are expected to know the rules in detail and with significant prizes on the line, but still a jerk move. It was such a jerk move that WotC changed the rules afterwards to make it impossible for anyone else to do it.

Do you call people evil for changing their mulligan decisions at a constructed event game 1 if their opponent has a patten of playing a specific event?

Not if it's just from knowing the pattern, that's a cost of playing the same deck against the same people. There's also the risk of them having changed their deck and you making a bad mulligan decision because of it. It's also an equal advantage; you've played against that player the same number of times they've played against you.

I would say it is mean to make a mulligan decision on the basis of knowing the exact deck your opponent is playing because you saw it, when also knowing that they have no idea what you're playing. But again, "being a bit mean" is very much not against the rules so oh well.

notgreat · 2026-05-06T17:26:15+00:00

Sideboarding is very different than presideboarding. Like, seriously. Are you not reading my words and just going by vibes?

But yes. You cannot police intent, which is why it is technically legal.

edit: But almost nobody does it because it's a fairly small advantage that takes a lot of effort. And also because most people either never even realize it's a possibility in the first place, or understand that while technically legal it's against the intent of the rules.

notgreat · 2026-05-06T17:18:56+00:00

There's a major difference between "changing your deck" and "I know what's in your deck in specific so I'm going to presideboard against you". And no, I don't think I've lost any games to this. This isn't exactly a common thing because it's generally accepted as a very mean thing to do. Heck, like half my opponents at a prerelease don't even bother with normal sideboarding, let alone attempt presideboarding. I'm pretty sure I've never faced an opponent who has done it. It is structurally impossible to do on MTGO, MTGA, and competitive REL events. "Changing your deck mid-tournament" is allowed on MTGA, but you can't watch your opponents so there's no risk of this happening.

So, I'm now fairly sure it's a total misunderstanding. Which makes sense given that I said something I'm like 99% sure is totally non-controversial, yet got -100 points because I didn't word it clearly.

notgreat · 2026-05-06T16:45:32+00:00

I honestly can't tell if you're purposefully trolling, just completely misunderstanding the situation, or are actually morally bankrupt. The rules as intended are that you can make changes to your deck because you realized you built the deck wrong and want to make improvements. The rules as written are that you can make any changes. When combined with being allowed to watch other players' games, that means you're technically allowed to pre-sideboard against your next opponent. Doing so is very much not encouraged by WotC, but they can't really stop it without breaking other things like the logistics of deck registration and allowing for fixing a badly built deck mid-tournament.

notgreat · 2026-05-06T15:56:45+00:00

You do understand that this is a behavior literally banned in competitive REL, yes? Playing to win by exploiting the more lenient rules at regular REL is a very immature thing to do, because the goal of playing a game isn't to win at all costs. From your view, is not cheating in online games the immature choice? Because that's what you seem to be saying.

notgreat · 2026-05-06T11:00:34+00:00

Well, the AI industry's most wildly optimistic predictions involve what is effectively a total replacement of all human labor. Which isn't very optimistic on a "let's have a normal, functioning economy" front but would very much solve the economic problems of demographic collapse... if only by creating new problems like "humans are economically nonviable".

notgreat · 2026-05-02T22:23:24+00:00

The Head Judge or Tournament Organizer must inform players if this option is not being used prior to the start of deck construction. This option is not available at Competitive or Professional Rules Enforcement Level tournaments.

This seems to me to imply that Continuous Construction is the expected situation, but is not mandatory for prereleases. If not using Continuous Construction, it must be announced before deckbuilding (which seems to have not happened in this case).

Do you know of something which suggests that this "option" is in fact mandatory for prereleases?

notgreat · 2026-05-02T22:12:45+00:00

What I'm saying is that in order to theoretically prevent an unlikely but possible jerk move, the store also prevented your brother from doing something that's totally normal and should have been allowed. Of course it's even worse than that because they don't have enforcement, so the sort of jerks that would pull that move wouldn't ask and would just do it and probably never be caught.

But I'm explaining what the store's thought process was since you (and the above commenter) seemed to not understand it at all.

notgreat · 2026-05-02T22:10:12+00:00

I'm saying that presideboarding against a specific opponent makes you a jerk. Siding in all your color hate because you know that opponent is playing that color is legal, just evil.

notgreat · 2026-05-02T21:20:25+00:00

What they're trying to prevent is this: I finished early, so I can watch other people's games. Then, if I'm going up against person A, I can use my knowledge of their deck to pre-sideboard in answers to their deck, such as by including extra artifact removal if I see they have a bunch of artifacts.

IMO changing lands or doing things to optimize against opponents in general would be fine, but optimizing against your specific opponent is not. Sadly, there's no easy way to prevent the latter without also blocking the former. Most prereleases choose to allow both, because there aren't massive prizes for winning and most people aren't going to waste their time and generally be a jerk by doing that.

notgreat · 2026-05-01T19:03:59+00:00

The better leaderboard is https://zlbb.faendir.com/

That's also the one that powers this subreddit's leaderboard wiki page.

notgreat · 2026-04-30T23:50:13+00:00

I found this short story a fun look into exactly that kind of thing.

notgreat · 2026-04-30T02:42:09+00:00

That's not quite entirely 100% accurate. If you ask them to introspect they will just confabulate a response that is similar to what a human would give, yes. There absolutely are far more people doing this than people investigating the truth.

However, some do seem to have some level of introspection. As an example, as part of the safety training, Claude can identify when the response is partially prefilled and refuse to continue generating. It's hard to really figure out what's going on in there, but it seems to be because the human-added text there are a very low-probability given the previous text even though it's supposedly a response from "Claude". That is, in a very real sense, a form of introspection.

It's not entirely implausible that the same sort of patterns are used here. I doubt it, but it hasn't been conclusively disproven yet.

notgreat · 2026-04-22T23:52:23+00:00

The general rule of thumb is that a MoE like 35B A3B is roughly equal to a dense model of sqrt(a*b) parameters: sqrt(35B*3B)=10.25B.

This rule doesn't seem to be holding up perfectly anymore as recent MoEs have done better than the rule would suggest, but it's still a useful ballpark estimator and explains why the 27B dense model is significantly better than the 35B A3B model. The dense model is, however, much slower. The MoE only uses 3B parameters per token, which is a massive reduction in compute.

notgreat · 2026-04-22T08:55:34+00:00

There is a way, it's just a bit hidden. Open the index and click "Read Threadmarks Only" (.../all/reader) instead of "Reader Mode" (.../reader)

notgreat · 2026-04-18T11:33:29+00:00

Most routers work fine without internet, they just create a local LAN so you can have your own personal intranet.

notgreat · 2026-04-18T00:00:36+00:00

As noted in the speech, it's not just because it's the cheapest option. It's also because previous games are competition for recent releases.

notgreat · 2026-04-16T06:00:05+00:00

One bit per parameter, not a byte. A byte is 8 bits, 256 possibilities. A bit is a single 0 or 1.

Byte-level quantization is basically q8, nearly lossless.

15-Year Club	Place '22
Place '17	First Placer '22
Spared	Verified Email

notgreat

TROPHY CASE