Readit NewsIf you don't like other tourists, don't travel to tourist destinations. It's that simple. You don't travel to France and get annoyed that there are french people, well guess what, tourist destinations have tourists, that's a given, and it's a given everywhere, and it has nothing to do with instagram, Facebook or "this generation" it's just basic dumb fact.
Even if Hans really did cheat, if there is no credible evidence you can’t fault him. And IMO it’s not enough that he cheated many years ago. Right now all the criticism he’s getting is unfair because it’s based on speculation.
Lets assume just for the sake of argument that Magnus has insider information from chess.com making him 98% certain that Niemann is cheating.
Why would he hand him a game that's going to be watched worldwide, where Magnus has nothing to win. Since if he wins we really still don't know anything one way or the other. But he also has everything to lose. If Hans is cheating and manages to pull off something again, then Magnus is cripeling his own reputation.
Magnus seems to be doing the right thing here, which is voicing his concerns, refusing to play him, and asking Niemann for permission to speak on the matter fully. Niemann is doing what you'd expect of a cheater, which is to stay quiet, dismiss the discussions, having difficulty explaining his plays, and pretty much just holding back from letting chess.com or Magnus divulge what information they have from the inside of his bans.
The first mistake was still choosing to play when he had reservations once Hans was invited. The second mistake was quitting the tournament and messing up the standings once he lost. The third mistake was making an insinuation through a tweet. The fourth mistake was resigning in two moves his next game with Hans.
Even though Hans is suspicious and untrustworthy, Magnus is taking on himself the authority to be judge, jury and executioner. If he is concerned about cheating being an issue, proactively bring up the issue, don't do it re-actively.
I think the unspoken truth but also the thing both chess.com and Magnus are hinting at is that Niemann has cheated a lot more than he lets on, perhaps his entire stream was built on cheating, who knows. But chess.com can't just start sharing information like that, and they are walking a fine line just with their public statement where they affirmatively assert that Niemann is underplaying the reality of his cheating. Magnus probably has insider information from chess.com but is bound by NDA and this is also why he's now challenging Niemann to give him permission to speak on the matter.
That is not entirely true. It comes from the relationship between those functions and the complex numbers via the Euler formula.
ix
e = cos x + i sin x
Let's define ncos and nsin ("nice cos, nice sin") as follows:
nsin x = sin 2πx
ncos x = cos 2πx
ncos x + i nsin x
cos 2πx + i sin 2πx
2πix ( 2π) ix ix
e = ( e ) = f
2π d x x
- f /= f
dx
0.25i
f = i
I'm all for having parallel trig functions in libraries that work with turns, though.
The annoying 2π factor shows up in lots of places though. Should way, say, in electronics, redefine a new version of capacitive reactance which doesn't have 2πf in the denominator, but only f?
(-1)^(2x) = ncos(x) + i nsin(x)
And yes, -1 is a very weird number. If you take it to the power of something divisible by 2 you get itself raised to zero. What's up with this spooky periodicity? Also if you have x=1/4, then we get weird numbers like sqrt(-1) what on earth is that all about? No way that will fly, no way. No I'll take my 2.718^((-1)^(1/2)) and multiply through with 6.28318 that way I don't have to bother understanding what I'm doing I can sleep comfortable at night knowing that someone else has done all the thinking that needs to be done on the matter, and that turns or rotations are a blasphemous concept that breaks the very concept of math through scaling of an axis. You'd think math was strong enough to withstand such a minor change, but the textbooks do not mention it thus it must not be contemplated!
How many meters did Usain Bolt have to run in training before he ran his 100 meter record winning run.
How much of the time is a factor of the cubes randomisation, or the speed at which you pick up and drop the cube.
For the world's shortest river, how do you define river?
I think lay people would be surprised by the effectively arbitrary legal minutiae of most sports and competitions.
That's not really an accurate comparison. The current setup is more akin to a 100m running challenge where he was allowed to run 50m before starting the actual 100m to get up to speed.
The inspection time is not training, it's literally the time spent solving the cube.
I don't have any evidence to back up the claim that they are faking views, but I know for a fact that the hundreds of followers I have gained making almost no content are not real. And it seems extremely suspicious that they've engineered their whole "creator fund" around trying to not pay creators based just on views/likes and subs, if they where real that would be the most accurate measure to target. But feels like they've decided to completely ignore them and to "sort" creators, likely because they know there's some creators with majorly fake followers that they don't want to pay, but still want to keep on the platform so they keep their fake engagement metrics high, and then there's the "real" popular names that they know they need to pay, but still underpay compared to other platforms. But creators still stick to tiktok because "they have a much larger following". It smells.
and folks wonder why banks are so strictly regulated... no, banks are never sitting on too much cash unless they've made a marketing and/or an operational error. most banks are highly levered, meaning they're lending out, say, 10× the cash they hold, so they never "have too much cash on hand". quite the opposite. banks continually lobby regulatory agencies to raise their leverage thresholds so they can lever up even more and rake in more of that sweet, nearly risk-free[0] cash flow.
that they don't raise savings rates is purely out of greed, not necessity. they're also under no competitive pressure to do so, which indicates a malfunctioning market (functioning markets are by definition competitive). and more galling, they charge you hidden fees out the wazoo for the "privilege" of banking in a mine field.
banks are core infrastructure, much like roads and housing. i'd rather go back to a simpler form where banks were only allowed to make money on the spread between lending and savings rates, making them boring and having to compete (with higher savings rates, for example) for your business. all the risk-taking extensions to banking can still exist, just in a separate, firewalled entity with no access to that (nearly) risk-free cash flow.
[0]: risk-free in the finance sense of being free of idiosyncratic risk, not systemic risk.
Reconsider what your stating here. If I have 10$, and I can therefore lend out 100$, but I only have requests to borrow 50$, then I have "too much cash". If I however had requests to borrow 200$, the I would need to find another 10$, for instance by promising someone a higher interest rate on their accounts. The fact that banks do fractional reserve does in no way guarantee that they do not end up having more cash on hand than they need to cover the demand for loans.
apparently, there is a separate drama about hacking at SD and accusations of ownership of code.