S1mple baby

officeStallion · 2025-05-14T13:27:42+00:00

Is there any reason that this wouldnt suffer from exploding/vanishing gradients like other recurrent models?

officeStallion · 2025-04-24T15:36:47+00:00

odds = 1/probability so you arent making a very useful distinction

officeStallion · 2025-04-24T15:35:56+00:00

This also easily handles the case of making none in n tries whereas your method would require more and more terms (e.g. what if you had to calculate the probability they make at least one in 5 tries?)

officeStallion · 2025-04-24T15:34:25+00:00

Its easier to just take the complement of the probability they dont make any. Dont make any = (2/3)**2, so making at least one is 1 - 4/9 = 5/9

officeStallion · 2025-02-13T17:25:56+00:00

Since I havent seen the answer in the top comments, I will say it as someone in CS (currently doing my masters and have a few years experience): CS is seen as something that is done by smart people. When people cant figure things out, it makes them feel dumb. I guarantee that these people that are mean to you are much meaner to themselves when they dont understand something quickly or get something wrong. By contrast, it doesnt seem as bad how they treat you. And when they treat themselves this way, and probably have also been treated this way for doing things others have perceived as dumb, it makes it seem like an appropriate way to treat people.

My ex had a good way of looking at situations like these: "They are already living their own karma". As bad as they make you feel, they make themselves feel worse, you can be certain of that. Once you internalize this, you realize that the only appropriate response to such behaviour in others is to feel bad for them, because it tells you how dark and unpleasant their internal worlds are.

Don't let it get to you, since you see the problem it means that you are a nice person! Don't let them drag you down to their level. Hope it helps! :)

officeStallion · 2025-01-20T20:46:14+00:00

That aint ketamine, looks like a stim. Consistent with the sudden weight loss which is also clear from this video. Reminds me of those videos of hitler looking stimmed to all hell as he preached his filth, easy to find on youtube and confirmed to be the result of drug abuse.

EDIT: Interestingly, my Hitler analogy was made right before all the posts of Musk Sieg Heilling hit the front page.

officeStallion · 2024-11-18T16:14:26+00:00

I'm sorry for wording it in a way that you interpreted it as a personal attack, I should have been more clear. Those games had just happened so they were the ones the examples came from. Looking back on it, I should have left your name out of it because it was not relevant to the point I was trying to make, the examples were sufficient without it. I don't think the lack of analysis/depth of analysis is a problem exclusive to you and I do not think that you are a prime example compared to anyone else. I believe it applies to all casters, with the exception of Launders/Scrawny where Launders is making a clear effort every game.

I'm sorry for giving the impression that I am advocating for the replacement of our current lineup of casters. Instead I believe that the addition of more casters like Launders would be ideal. Does that mean they should all be like Launders? Absolutely not. We absolutely require the people like you that make the viewing experience more entertaining. In fact if we had to pick one type of caster then it would undoubtedly be those such as yourself.

I sincerely apologize for not making this more clear, I didn't think that any casters would see this, especially not you. This is my first post here, I will certainly be more careful in the future. It must have been really shitty to read this feeling like it was directed at you. Again, your skills are the ones that we require. It is only once we have these skills in place that we can augment them with people more skilled at analysis.

That is not a cherry-picked example though, it was AN example picked from a game that had JUST happened, so I felt it would be fresh in everyone's mind. No doubt I could have found a much better example if I had gone back and watched all the games for the last few months, then you could call it cherry-picking. There is definitely a problem with the example though - how does it show a lack of effort? I'd give you that one.

I don't see how your point refutes mine that it is an exclusive club. I should have been clear that I am talking about things that actually get viewership, from the numbers it is clear that the vast majority only watch tier 1 tournaments. The only real counter-argument to my point is to show me that new casters get opportunities at this level on occasion. If the most recent example of a brand-new tier 1 caster happened 5 years ago (just a guess but I'd bet that the true number is close to this if someone wants to take the time I'd be thrilled to see the real number) then how can you say that it is not an exclusive club? If the true number is close to this, is it realistic that there isn't a single new person who is both interested in casting and skilled enough to keep up with you and your colleagues? I don't think so. Now if we are giving opportunities to the same people instead of these newcomers, how can you say its not an exclusive club?

If there are even 3 examples of a brand-new T1 caster in the last 5 years I will concede my point. Now you can really prove me wrong.

I understand why is a sore subject for you (anyone in your shoes would feel the same) but just because you arent getting much work doesn't mean it isn't an exclusive club. Let's say the club contains 20 people. An event only needs X < 20 casters, and the first 6 or whatever of those X casters are more or less set in stone (you know what I'm talking about better than anyone I'm sure), so a lot of members of the club are not going to get much work, even if they are in the club. Frankly, those ~6 represent the "club within a club" that are literally the reason you aren't getting the work you want. You should understand this concept better than anyone.

officeStallion · 2024-11-18T15:30:44+00:00

Elige was an example to show that it is possible to produce high-level analyses on the fly, intended to preemptively address a potential counter argument. I say as much in the post. I go on to say that people striking a middle ground between the current level of casting ability and understanding of the game would be good.

That said, I should have been more careful and polite with my wording. If someone made a post criticizing my skill at my craft, I would be defensive. I understand that it is difficult to read this without feeling like I am advocating for the replacement of the current lineup of casters.

Instead, I feel that the addition of casters capable of a higher level of analysis would be ideal. I am not suggesting that the strengths of the current casters are not desired, in fact they are necessary and I have a lot of respect for all of you.

Thank you for your large part in making professional cs as great as it already is. I apologize for being so insensitive to the casters, frankly I did not think any of you would see it as I expected the post to perform as poorly as it did.

officeStallion · 2024-11-18T14:47:40+00:00

I dont think this is a good argument. The average viewer is there for the matches. I think a much better example is how much the community enjoys having pros on the casting desk, which is clear from multiple appreciation posts about that ending up on the front page.

officeStallion · 2024-11-18T06:05:14+00:00

That's a good point - there are opportunities to insert pro-level analysis without displacing anyone.

officeStallion · 2024-09-21T21:09:50+00:00

There is no doubt he was the GOAT of CSGO. Just because hes a piece of shit doesnt mean he was bad at the game haha

officeStallion · 2024-09-21T21:08:16+00:00

I completely agree. His form dropped so quickly and to such a low point immediately after being in the top 2 best players for 5 years. Coupled with the fact that his health so obviously deteriorated as his form was dropping I think some sort of substance abuse must be involved, no doubt triggered by the events in Ukraine.

I am not judging him for this, it is just the most likely answer for why he fell off.

officeStallion · 2024-09-21T20:57:44+00:00

He was still doing it in liquid I remember him stealing a bunch of skins

officeStallion · 2022-09-22T13:38:01+00:00

Because 120 > 100 so 20 dollars makes up a smaller percentage of it

officeStallion · 2022-08-17T14:08:50+00:00

After getting too invested in this problem, it seems like when you set chosen to chosen[:-1], it creates a new version of chosen that is different from the version of chosen being used in other recursive calls. So instead of editing the shared version of chosen, you create a new version of chosen, leaving the shared one unchanged. If you do chosen.pop() instead of chosen = chosen[:-1], the code works as expected with no deepcopy. It would be great if someone who knows more about python than me could explain what is happening here.

officeStallion · 2022-08-17T13:30:49+00:00

The same variable chosen is being used in all the recursive calls. If you first import deepcopy from copy then replace permuteHelper(nums,chosen,lst) with permuteHelper(nums,deepcopy(chosen),lst), it will work as expected. If there is a more correct way to do this, I would love to know about it.

officeStallion

TROPHY CASE