I think I improved a lot when I stopped 3-3ing (it opened up different style of game for me)

Noobies love 3-3 (I definitely did), because it’s kind of simple and familiar move. (Especially at the start of the game, when board is empty, there is gadzilion of possibilities and most of them unknown and possibly risky)

If not discouraging 3-3, I would still recommend starting without it, to learn that way of play (if for nothing else, to deal with 3-3 invasions)

But I doubt that it’s majority.

Whatever policy you implement, end result must be that stuff costs more and people live with less: virtually no personal cars, no for-fun-flights (vacation), force people to wear same pants for years and repair them when they get damaged.

That is hard pill to swallow for many, even for somewhat environmentally-aware beings.

Assuming no free energy is invented.

Related: exponential growth (x % each year) is not sustainable (approx 2500 years to consume whole universe converted to energy on 5% yearly growth); effectivity increases only multiply exponential function by a constant.

The scenario above, describes the dynamics of how incentives work.

As long as consumers expect stuff to be cheap, somebody will step up to provide that (reaping profits). Only highly conscious society or totally authoritarian one can make these changes (though probability of dictator caring about environmental effects is low, and probably not sustainable).

Edit: guilt/innocence are irrelevant in the sense that they do not change the outcome. If human gets into a tigers cage and gets eaten (or seriously injured), outcome was predictable without the need to know who is at fault (tiger or human).

To reduce pollution, factory owners would need to use less polluting means (i.e. less profit) and produce less (again less profit).

What happens if 999 factory owners do adhere to pollution-reduction, while 1 of them is polluting a bit more than others? (Answer: The polluter increases his share of the market, as more profits can be reinvested; and with more market share the profit will grow even more)

The point: consumers incentivize factory owners to polute, if consumers buy stuff despite polution.

This exercise ignores legislation, but law will not change until enough of consumers/voters start to care of the topic and will be ready to pay more for less and demand for it.

Should there be double blind clinical trials for it’s health impact when caried daily on a tool belt?

For most people, answer will differ depending on what the hammer is made of (iron vs uranium vs radium).

My point here would be that a) we must choose appropriate set of tests as they cost in money/time/opportunities, b) the choice of tests must be influenced by what we know and/or suspect.

If unknown is unknown, then we don’t know that we need a test for it.

20 years ago that was trying to pick good ratios of bass, haircut, and marketing to get into mtv top ten.

I think:

- It is subjective.

- if you enjoy it, then it is art.

Doing music for profit is not a new concept, just look at pop music (and especially “boy bands”)

But if end result sounds good to a lot of people, how is that not an art?

- Each artist has different royalties, some are more expensive than others.

- appearantly people do listen to ”cheaper” artists, in right circumstances

- consumers prefer that cost of subscription would be lower

- I assume scenario in the article saves money for spotify, and in turn allows to remain profitable without increasing subscription prices.

Seems it aligns well with interest of consumers in the long run.

Are these numbers the same: “0.5 in base10” and “0.1 in base2”?

Wording like “game is more complex” overal seems incorrect. Game is not complex by itself (for example go rules are extreemly simple), all the difficulty and challenge depends on the skill of your oponent. Game only allows the opponent to demonstrate the skill.

What about same number expressed in base 3? (I think in base 3 that would be written as 1/31)

And what about number 0.1 in base 3? (Which is equivalent to 1/3 in base 10)

Important to note: When ggp asked for a recursive procedure to generate real numbers, they wanted that exactly same proceedure would generate all reals (not special procedure for each number)

If we have special procedure for each number, then procedure to generate 1/3 is just 1/3. …of course naively assuming notation of 1/3 is as valid as 0.33333…, and that base 10 is not the only possible base.

What about 1/3, 1/7, …? Previously outlines recursive procedure doesn’t generate those.

But yeah, if you deny existance of irrational numbers, and redefine Real:=Rational, then you can generate these “real” numbers recursively and it does follow that all infinities have same cardinality here.

Btw. what is the diagonal of a unit square formed by 4 objects at the corners? I assume it is a rational number. Btw2. If you take that answer and multiply by itself, what do you get?

When will this reach PI or e or sqrt(2)?

(There are infinitely many numbers that will not be reached by this procedure)

This will never reach 2, so it will not generate all real numbers. (Which was what parent was asking for, to recusively generate all R)