A rich person engineering their own RNA modifications for their dog? Yeah, I don't want that and bureaucracy is how we voice that.

It is "to survive floods" not to "survive drowning."

Really worth watching. This is something one can complain about, and therefore maybe something one can try to fix.

So many tech companies have the "high values" screed that it really just seems like a standard step in the money plan.

Practically the entire tech industry, including many of the higher ups currently camping out on the right, used to be firmly in a sort of centrist-with-social-justice-characteristics camp. Then many of those same people enthusiastically stood with Trump at his inauguration. It's completely reasonable that people have their doubts now.

It's also completely reasonable to expect that if Anthropic is the real deal and opposed to where the current agenda setters want to take things, they'll be destroyed for it.

Destroyed? No. But a new sharif is gonna show up while the existing exit stage left with big bags of nuts.

> enthusiastically stood with Trump

I think "enthusiastically" looks different. They had to choose between kissing Trumps butt to make good business for 4 years or see their companies at a severe disadvantage. I'm not saying what they did was good, nor do I support it. But from a business angle it's not hard to see why they chose to do that. If you'd ask them privately off the record then I'm sure most of them would tell you that Trump is an idiot and dangerous.

Mark Zuckerberg was in a big hurry to call Trump a "badass" in the wake of the Butler hoax, and is clearly trying to appeal to the right with his cultivated jiu jitsu Chad image. It doesn't mean a damn thing what these CEOs are willing to say behind closed doors when their public decisions are to remain in lockstep with the agenda and fire anyone who asks questions about whether it's the right one.

That is a neat variation.

This is an important point. Thank you.

Games like backgammon (that have betting and the doubling cube to continue), Go (which is calculated in stones), and bridge (again having points) have more natural intermediate scoring systems than chess.

In my opinion the "winner takes all" aspect of chess is similar to what makes analyzing voting systems difficult. In a non game context: Aspnes, Beigel, Furst, and Rudich had some amazing work on how all or nothing calculation really changes things: https://www.cs.yale.edu/homes/aspnes/papers/stoc91voting.pdf .

For a while I really dug in to multiple player (and teams-of-players) ELO calculations. I got into an argument with my friend about whether second place was any better than last place... specifically in poker, but applicable to multiple games (imagine chinese checkers [race to finish], or carcassonne/ticket-to-ride [semi-hidden scoring until the end]).

His POV was that "if you don't win, you lose" and my POV was "second place is better than last place". His response was: "if I play poker to get first place it's wildly different than playing for second or third place [and I may end up in last place wildly more often due to risk % or bad beats]"

I've been more used to "climbing" type performance games (ie: last place => mid-field => second place => first place) and in my gut I wanted my ELO to reflect that (top-half players are better than bottom-half players), however his very valid point was that different games have different payout matrices (eg: poker is often "top-3 payout", and first may be 10x second or third).

I think in my mind I've settled on EV-payout for multiplayer games should match the "game payout", and that maybe my gut is telling me the difference between "Casual ELO" (aka: top-half > bottom-half), and "Competitive ELO" (aka: only the winner gets paid).

Go is also winner take all. It's psychologically satisfying to have a big win, in the same way that it's psychologically satisfying to achieve a brilliant checkmate, but in any ordinary game or tournament (outside of certain gambling setups), a win by 1/2 point is the same as a win by 20+ points.

Not necessarily. In go you often calculate the score and come up with a conclusion that by playing proper moves you will lose by a small margin.

So instead you launch a desperate maneuver in a hope to either turn the game around or lose by 30 points.

I see what you're saying; this is true for any game scored win/loss. Even gridiron football if you're down by 4 points with time almost out you won't kick a field goal (worth 3 points).

The GNU stuff becomes more and more relevant. Thanks for posting that.

I wonder off and on if in good fiction of "when we meet aliens and start communicating using math"- should the aliens be okay with complex residue theorems? I used to feel the same about "would they have analytic functions as a separate class" until I realized how many properties of polynomials analytic functions imitate (such as no nontrivial bounded ones).

I just updated the article. I did use Python's insufficient material detection, in addition to the ability to call for a draw (3-fold repetition, and 50 move rule). I think the "75 move rule" that doesn't require a player to call is one of the more recent rule changes.