tomerv (u/tomerv) - Readit News

tomerv commented on MAR1D: First-Person Mario mar1d.com/... · Posted by u/rendaw

ugh123 · 3 years ago

TBH I was hoping for something a little more "realistic". I just see a line of squares moving around and seems unplayable.

tomerv · 3 years ago

Something like this?

http://tom7.org/zelda/

tomerv commented on How fateful? chan.co.za/how-fateful... · Posted by u/parabyl

Dracophoenix · 3 years ago

A "good marriage" isn't guaranteed to be a desirable one past the wedding day. I am in no way suggesting GP's marriage is a ticking time bomb, but I've read enough stories on Reddit and elsewhere to know there's no such thing as a guaranteed marriage even if you do everything right. My expectation is that GP's or his spouse might possess insight.

People who's marriages I thought would go on till death (Bezos's, Gates's, Carmack's, and most recently Tom Brady's) can have the scales tipped into the direction of "leave for reason X and take what you can from him (and sometimes her) on the way out", whether out of vindictiveness or perceived entitlement, even if the money wasn't the primary cause or objective.

tomerv · 3 years ago

I think that's a common misunderstanding about who owns what in a marriage. I'll quote Matt Levine on this:

One thing that I find a little weird about the Bezos divorce is that there are a lot of claims that it will make MacKenzie Bezos “the world’s richest woman.” I suppose there is a technical sense in which that is right, but it assumes not only that she will have a right to half of Jeff Bezos’s assets in divorce, but also that she has no such right in marriage. That strikes me as a strange way to think about marriage, and about the “community property” laws that might give her half the assets in divorce. (Surely those laws imply that she is in a sense a joint owner now?) I would have thought the more straightforward analysis is that she is the world’s richest woman now, because she is a member of a married couple that has more money than any other single person or married couple on the planet, but I guess that is not how the scorekeeping works.

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-01-10/bezos-...

tomerv commented on How fateful? chan.co.za/how-fateful... · Posted by u/parabyl

Dracophoenix · 3 years ago

I'm guessing your wife is a divorce attorney? If so, knowing what she knows, what's stopping her dropping out of the marriage and taking half your stuff? Even in a perfect marriage, there's always the incentive.

tomerv · 3 years ago

The incentive to do what exactly? Break up a good marriage to get half of the common assets (minus many many expenses)? How is that better in any way?

tomerv commented on Everesting – Climb the Equivalent of Mt. Everest everesting.cc/... · Posted by u/keiferski

tomerv · 3 years ago

In Haifa (Israel) there was a staircase race a few years ago, from sea level to the top of the city going up more than 1000 stairs. One version of this was doing it over and over so that the total is the height of the Everest. I'm pretty sure there were several runners who finished that successfully.

https://haipo.co.il/item/9221

tomerv commented on Choose the smallest number not chosen yet amolas.dev/blog/choose-th... · Posted by u/alexmolas

jetrink · 3 years ago

I wonder what would happen to the two player game if the rewards were set up so that win=1, lose=0, tie=-1? It would be interesting to see how the strategy changed as the penalty for tying is increased.

tomerv · 3 years ago

All the other answers in the thread focus on maximizing head-to-head score. I'll try to answer the question for the goal of greedily maximizing your own score.

Using the same definitions from the article, we now have (for a 2 person game):

  Q_i = -P_i + (1 - sum_{j=1..i}(P_j))

Where the first term is for the case of choosing the same number as your opponent, and the second when it's larger than your opponent.

Now solve the same set of equations, but with our new Q_i. Solving Q_1 = Q_2 analytically is easy, then Q_2 = Q_3 and so on... You get P = (1/2, 1/4, 1/8, ...)

So that's the result for this specific 2-player game. You could also ask about the 2-player game with tie=t for any negative t (the above is for t=-1). Now we get

  Q_i = t*P_i + (1 - sum(P_j))

Again, solving Q_i=Q_{i+1} is easy and gives

  P_{i+1} = (t / (t-1)) * P_i

For example, if t=-2 then (using the fact that all P_i's sum to 1): P = (1/3, 2/9, 3/27, ...)

I did not try to tackle the 3-player game with tie=t.

tomerv commented on Show HN: I may have created a new type of puzzle dogbunnypuzzle.com/... · Posted by u/drcode

starkd · 3 years ago

Not sure what I am missing. But all the possible moves lead to dead states.

That being said, not sure what the transition labels mean. "Somebody at bone", "Somebody at carrot" or "nobody at bone" means nothing to me. I suspect there's another game that I don't know about that would provide the context.

tomerv · 3 years ago

The path with that label is blocked unless the condition is fulfilled. I don't think it relies on any prior knowledge (at least nothing specific I can think of)

tomerv commented on Integer Conversions and Safe Comparisons in C++20 cppstories.com/2022/safe-... · Posted by u/ibobev

nwellnhof · 3 years ago

Obviously, -Werror shouldn't be enabled by default, only for things like CI tests.

tomerv · 3 years ago

On the contrary, it should be on by default for every build configuration! If you move to a newer compiler version and the compilation breaks, then you just saved yourself valuable debugging time. The alternative is that the new compiler has a new optimization that causes your code to break in runtime. You can always disable specific warnings if you think they're not relevant for your code.

tomerv commented on Don't ignore the janitor happychasing.substack.com... · Posted by u/hagap

engineer_22 · 3 years ago

Using first name is patronizing unless you're already on a first-name basis.

tomerv · 3 years ago

That really depends on the local culture. Don't Assume all cultures are like yours.

tomerv commented on Brad Pitt’s housing dream for Hurricane Katrina survivors turned into nightmare theconversation.com/how-b... · Posted by u/cheesecake_luvr

YouWhy · 3 years ago

On the face of it, $27M/209 is approximately $130k and not $245k. Am I missing something?

tomerv · 3 years ago

GP had a typo, it's 109 houses.

tomerv commented on Twitter says Musk’s spam analysis used tool that called his own account a bot arstechnica.com/tech-poli... · Posted by u/hassanahmad

mrits · 3 years ago

Obviously. A wedding vow is a promise to stay with someone. A prenup is a contract that you will stay with someone but have a clear exit clause. Musk signed a contract with an exit clause. The contract is a complicated document. If it was a promise it could be written on a hallmark card.

tomerv · 3 years ago

> Musk signed a contract with an exit clause.

There are some exit clauses (like Musk not getting financing from his banks) but they don't apply here. Specifically, there's no exit clause for the bot percentage.

> If it was a promise it could be written on a hallmark card.

Are you just trying to change the meaning of the word promise? Most people would agree that if you break a promise you pay a price - it might be a social one in case of a promise between friends. Or it might be a financial price in case of a written & signed promise, a.k.a a contract.