[-] johnlawrenceaspden@thelemmy.club 23 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

A bit like the consensus that most gods don't exist.

I say unto you, that likewise joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety and nine just persons, which need no repentance.

Not that that particularly helps.....

This, and block the meme subs explicitly.

So kind! Thank you.

Forgive me, I am editing it in-place as more thoughts occur to me, so do make sure you still agree with it when I stop doing that, and edit your comment appropriately.

[-] johnlawrenceaspden@thelemmy.club 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I can't answer for America, but generally in democracies you get two and only two parties. Anyone taking a middle position cripples the side they're closest to.

Before Socialism was a thing, England had 'Liberals/Whigs' (what yanks would call libertarians, because they've somehow managed to repurpose the word liberal to mean the opposite of what it means) and 'Conservatives/Tories' (king and country and church and don't change things because you'll break them and hurt people).

And of course, like all political groups do, they hated each other.

The Church of England was once known as the Tory Party at Prayer. The Liberals were the radicals, the party of industry and progress and free markets and who cares who it hurts as long as it's the future.

With the rise of socialism/fascism/anarchism/progressivism, a truly radical program to rebuild society on utopian lines and use totalitarian terror to enable even more freedom and progress and human happiness, represented in England by the Labour Party, the 'conservatives' and 'liberals' were squeezed, and combined to oppose socialist thought, which hated them both and wanted to destroy everything they thought was worthwhile in the world.

So there came to pass an uneasy alliance in England between classical liberals and religious loonies, who'd naturally detest each other.

That's the modern Conservative party, who want to use radical social transformation and the power of the free market to go back to the glorious past, and are very much in favour of freedom of speech and thought as long as it's the sort of speech and thought that they approve of.

The Liberal Party effectively ceased to exist, because in its radicalism and desire for progress, it was more sympathetic to socialist thought, and so it got crushed.

Socialism has rather collapsed as an idea after an hundred years of practical experience with utopia, leaving Labour as the party of 'every problem can be solved by stealing more money and spending it on subsidies'. A position which is popular with those who benefit from subsidy, and unpopular with those who get their stuff stolen.

And of course, few of the people in either party actually believe in the causes they publicly espouse. They're not stupid. But public communications have to be simple-minded and rally tribal support.

Obviously this is a terrible system, but it's better than regular civil war, which is what you get in all other systems of government.

Seed oilz baaaad!

[-] johnlawrenceaspden@thelemmy.club 19 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Oh God, yes! I'm old enough to remember when people thought it was important to have quiet and privacy to think.

I used to love my job. All my life I've loved programming, and I used to love being able to solve other people's problems for them by doing the thing I love.

The open-plan curse killed it for me. For years I've done as little paid work as I can get away with because I hate trying to think in an open-plan horror so much. It's like having my brain in a blender.

I still program, and think, a lot, but I only do it for other people when I need the money.

It's wonderful! There was a terrific BBC TV series when I was a boy which inspired me to read the book, which is even better.

Clavell wrote several other books, all great, but Shogun is the masterpiece.

1
submitted 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) by johnlawrenceaspden@thelemmy.club to c/chess@lemmy.ml

For instance, I'd like to play black in this position:

8/p4p2/1p3pk1/8/P4PP1/1P1R1K2/7r/8 b - - 4 47

against the bot maia9

I don't care about the time so let's say 60mins a side which I know she accepts.

Is there a single URL for this?

[-] johnlawrenceaspden@thelemmy.club 9 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I hate the way Big Concrete Slab is always trying to put down independent film makers in favour of yet another Hollywood blockbuster. #SmashTheSystem #SmashTheSlab

Behold:

https://lichess.org/?user=maia9#friend

maia9 is a chess bot who plays in a human style. She keeps whacking me in positions where I can beat actual stockfish easily. Just what I wanted. Thank you iceman on reddit.

Nice, thank you! Also kudos to lemmy in general for providing a useful answer before reddit's r/chess did!! Maybe there is hope!

6
submitted 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) by johnlawrenceaspden@thelemmy.club to c/chess@lemmy.ml

In won endgame positions, computers are incredibly good and never miss a trick.

But in positions where they've lost, they tend to play really badly, often with the king running away from where the battle is, in order to delay the mate as long as possible, rather than duking it out and making it difficult to win.

Is there some way to get computers to try the sort of defensive strategies that a human would use against another human?

Where the game might finish more quickly, but the human will have had some thinking to do.

I personally like to use really really bright LED lights pointed straight into the eyes of oncoming traffic.

Occasionally an oncoming car will take a swipe, or a cyclist will stop and punch me, but it's well worth it for the widespread misery I can effortlessly cause.

It also makes it quite hard to see anything that isn't in my 'cone of death', which is good in the same way that peril-sensitive sunglasses are!

view more: next ›

johnlawrenceaspden

joined 1 year ago