As an evolutionary cousin of a rat, the half-second delay after firing my weapon and the response would make me want to eat my whiskers.
This would completely kill any potential reward (and replace it with the opposite, frustration) you're trying to train me with, please fix immediately.
Lol you are correct! At least training them becomes smoother the faster you administer reward. Learning happens at different timescales in the brain, and immediate feedback (about <300 ms) yields the most reliable neural updates.
One of the most important traits of intelligence is understanding and appreciating delayed reward.
I saw a gambler win the jackpot. He was really excited and started gathering up all the chips he'd won. Why he was so excited to win a bunch of plastic chips, I'll never know. What's so great about plastic chips? Why was his brain so excited when all he was doing was gathering plastic chips? ...
A half-second delay doesn't mean your brain can't learn to make the precursor feel good.
I think that’s the same idea behind clicker training for dogs. There’s a delay in giving them the actual treat, but the instantaneous click sound lets them now they did the thing that results in a treat
not pavlov conditioning -- in Skinner's three term contingency, the stimulus context acquires meaning/significance related to the consequences of a response. a neutral or even negative stimulus (context) can become it's own reward through this process. this conditioned stimulus explains most animal and human experience. Humans are especially prone to constructing meaning based on the primal.
Think of the senses: sound becomes talking, music, etc. food become cuisine, obesity, and anorexia. eyes becomes art, movies, etc. desire becomes porn, s@m, etc.
meaning is constructed, socially constructed, or what skinner call "learning." His masterwork, long forgotten, is the "generic nature of stimulus and response." Generic as it open to near total manipulation
Is it not? The style of block letters I learned (in 90s Germany) has the capital I as a straight line, the digit 1 as a straight line with an angular downward hook at the top, and the lowercase l as a line with a smooth 45-90° right hook at the bottom. I always perceived that style as quite common in handwriting, just uncommon in print (just like close to nobody does the fancy a in handwriting but it's common in print)
And of course in cursive I and l look nothing alike, no matter which cursive you write
Yes, but even with my worst handwriting, in situations where I and l matters, I can always choose to do an especially I I or particularly l l even if most are indistinguishable which a font can not do
I can see how you'd do an especially I I. You just need to include the serifs, which I always do in handwriting anyway.
But how do you emphasize a lowercase 'l'? The only method I know is to make it cursive, which looks terrible.
(I don't really need to distinguish l from I, because I put serifs on I. But I do sometimes need to distinguish it from 1; in natural writing, 1 and l are identical.)
On the flip side, it can be good for the environment.
Instead of spending tons of resources burning a car or doing a bunch of setup to get a shot, we can prompt it using relatively fewer energy resources.
I'm confused– you wrote as if you didn't have competitors and had a new category, but it seems like you did have competitors, and just changed the pricing from variable to flat-rate pricing.
Wouldn't that mean that you did enter a validated market with competitors? So there must be some other reason you didn't get revenue?
It never claimed that pairing the board helps with straights, only that some straights were potentially completed.
Ironically, the example you gave in your point was based on a fundamental misinterpretation error, which itself was about basing things on fundamental errors.
??
It says that "Turn card pairs the board" (correct!) which means that there already was a ten(T), and now there is a 2nd ten(T) on the board aka in the community cards.
Obviously, a card that pairs the board does not introduce a new value to the community cards and therefore can not complete or even help with any straight.
Glorify? This seems way too serious a take on a game that young males play because of a common, innate fascination with guns and soldiers. 99.9999% of them do not turn into manic killers who just love to kill and glorify it.
> because of a common, innate fascination with guns
Your brain after 200+ years of american propaganda... it's innate in the sense that you're bathed in it from birth through movies and games, and that a good chunk of your economy relies on producing weapons and using them.
Yet most computer games employ firearms and the targets are other humans, rarely (but of course not never) you hunt and gather food for survival. Don't get me wrong, I played my fair share of games from the earliest 8bit machines in the eighties to modern day shooters but in my opinion glorification comes unintended and killing is a cheap game mechanic, and has always been: here, in backwater European country, middle of nowhere, we have zero domestic gun violence, maybe even 0.0001% is just too much.
And yet the US does have a serious problem with (mostly) young males turning into manic killers.
I'm reminded of that scene in Michael Moore's Bowling for Columbine where he's asking a concerned adult where the violence comes from, and the concerned adult looks sad and confused and says he doesn't know, even though he's standing in front of a nuclear-tipped missile being assembled at the local nuclear-tipped missile plant.
Financialisation is indirect personal violence instead of physical violence. The US doesn't have a problem with that at any scale, as long as the right kinds of people are doing it.
Just watched his last stream that people were talking about on reddit, and his behavior was definitely strange. Saying random stuff then nodding off halfway, and being aggravated to put it simply.
You are so brave. I get like 8 spammers calling me daily about loans like I owe them money, and that's without blasting my phone number out to the internet.
If you're not using it yet, then I recommend enabling the call screening feature on your phone, it has basically reduced my number of spam calls down to zero. It's available on iPhones and pixels and Samsung phones(and probably others?)
I started receiving spam calls lately again but I was just denying the calls. It was with a predictable frequency few times a week.
weeks ago I decided to use screening call, and maybe it was a coincidence, after the first usage I've not no more calls from them
This would completely kill any potential reward (and replace it with the opposite, frustration) you're trying to train me with, please fix immediately.
reply