I've taken the test multiple times, and ended up with my boundary being both greener than >70% of the population and bluer than >70% of the population in separate attempts. And I know my color perception to be good at distinguishing hue - it's just that I don't have strong opinions about categorizing it in this space.
I'm pretty sure there's some hysteresis going on - if we randomly end up in the ambiguous zone on the bluer side, we'll be pressing "blue" every time a small change happens, because it's basically the same color. Until the changes add up so much that we're out of the ambiguous zone on the green side - and now our "border" is far on the green side. But if we started on the other side, entering the ambiguous zone from the green side, it'd take a big cumulative change before we press "blue".
"but does it only make these because there already exist hundreds of examples and tutorials? fear not, there's an entire library of other projects it made all of which also have hundreds of examples and tutorials"
don't get me wrong, it's interesting, but the response here didn't answer the question
Fair enough. Still up to 50 board states that can influence the current one (the 50 move rule is coming to help here)
FEN doesn't store previous states, but EPD can. It just goes to show how meanings and requirements change depending on context, which is super interesting in and of itself :P
There are two more things that should be considered.
Both of them unlikely to influence a position, but they can matter - just like the en passant target.
The fifty move rule[0] is quite simple, just store a number, fits in five bits. But the threefold repetition rule[1] is quite a pickle - it basically means that to know everything about a position you need to know every position that occurred before it.
> Challenge accepted! Here's your humorous and sincere reply:
did this one just leak part of the prompt?
looking through the profiles of some of these they spam random subreddits with inane comments, often completely misreading the mood of the original post
I think it's pushback due to how AI is being sold as the ultimate tool that will replace artists/programmers/writers/whomever.
Because the technology has been making big leaps over the past couple of years, the comparisons are now being made not with what used to be before, but with what is being promised. And in that regard, things do fall short.
Basically the hype builders hyped things up so much they started hurting the hype.
I'm talking about WebXR, which is for some reason the name of the standard developed by W3C.
"As such it may seem like WebXR and OpenXR have a relationship like WebGL and OpenGL, where the web API is a near 1:1 mapping of the native API. This is not the case with WebXR and OpenXR, as they are distinct APIs being developed by different standards bodies."
Wonder what's the story behind this not being made by the Khronos Group. Especially since, at least according to Wikipedia, it's based on Vladimir Vukićević's work.
The name choice is interesting. If one of the first things in your FAQ is "the name probably made you think this is thing X. it's not", then maybe there was a flaw in your naming process.
i recommend trying the phrase "sphinx of black quartz, judge my vow!" on style 6, with legibility set to maximum. sometimes it looks roughly right, sometimes it opens with "sphnnneoooeoeoeoeoevorneroerof black quartz"
In both a universe with few "grabby" civilizations, and a universe with many non-grabby civilizations there would be countless lifeforms, just more or less diversely distributed among civilizations. In either of these universes us here being as early as we are is equally "suspect".
Should I assume humans will soon achieve immortality and stop breeding (or just go extinct) just because it makes me less of an outlier? Cause that seems to lead to the exact opposite conclusions, just by putting the delineation point at an individual rather than a civilization.
"Furthermore, we should believe that loud aliens exist, as that’s our most robust explanation for why humans have appeared so early in the history of the universe."
The most robust explanation for humans appearing so early is that yeah, it seems we did appear early, someone had to - since it doesn't assume an entire model of intergalactic civilizations.
Decommodification does not imply centralization, nor does it mean losing ownership of your housing.
Commons have been used by people for a long time before the idea of housing markets or central control came along.
Most often when I see the idea floated around w/ regards to housing it links ownership with use - if you live at your house, you have control over it. But noone can say "I control the home where someone else lives, because I have a paper that says so."
I'm pretty sure there's some hysteresis going on - if we randomly end up in the ambiguous zone on the bluer side, we'll be pressing "blue" every time a small change happens, because it's basically the same color. Until the changes add up so much that we're out of the ambiguous zone on the green side - and now our "border" is far on the green side. But if we started on the other side, entering the ambiguous zone from the green side, it'd take a big cumulative change before we press "blue".