Nit: KataGo does train on handicap games up to 5 handicap stones. In the KataGo write-up "Accelerating Self-Play Learning in Go" from 2020, Appendix D says that KataGo trains on handicap games with up to 3 handicap stones. Looking at the current version of the KataGo code, nowadays it trains with handicap up to 5.
For those who don't see the cryptocurrency question, it's section "Digital Assets": "At any time during 2022, did you: (a) receive (as a reward, award, or payment for property or services); or (b) sell, exchange, gift, or otherwise dispose of a digital asset (or a financial interest in a digital asset)? (See instructions.)"
a few years ago the New York Times made a weird editorial decision with its tech coverage. Instead of covering the industry with a business press lens or a consumer lens they started covering it with a very tough investigative lens — highly oppositional at all times and occasionally unfair. Almost never curious about technology or in awe of progress and potential. This was a very deliberate top-down decision. They decided tech was a major power center that needed scrutiny and needed to be taken down a peg, and this style of coverage became very widespread and prominent in the industry.
From journalist Kelsey Piper on Twitter in response:
People might think Matt is overstating this but I literally heard it from NYT reporters at the time. There was a top-down decision that tech could not be covered positively, even when there was a true, newsworthy and positive story. I'd never heard anything like it.
It's shocking to me that the NYTimes would make such an editorial decision, and it's disappointing to hear this about one of the newspapers that I trust the most. Certainly there are many aspects of the tech sector that ought to be criticized and exposed to the public, but I don't think it's good for truth-seeking to take an editorial stance that tech should generally be covered negatively.
Unfortunately the NYT editorial board has become quite political in a way that I don't think journalists should. I finally stopped reading them after their highly biased coverage and openly stated support of the Canadian alt-right occupation of our capital.
They had statements in their articles such as "the majority of the funding for the protests came from Canada" when the actual number was 54% came from Canadian sources. Maybe from a strict mathematical definition that is still a "majority" but it's certainly not what anyone imagines when they hear the word. There were many other biases in the form of omissions or wording like this in their reporting too.
Interestingly, a few years ago I did notice that the NYT and also other newspapers started attacking tech companies relentlessly. At the time it really seemed like there was a coordinated intentional effort. Interesting to see that at least in the case of the NYT that is true.
In any case, I no longer trust the NYT as an accurate source that strives to be unbiased. They clearly have an agenda that is more to the right than I'm comfortable with.
The NYT is the mouthpiece of the centrist establishment. If the NYT is too "right" for you then you probably want WashPo or HuffPo. And if those are still too right, you're an ultra-progressive and I don't knwo what they read.
I do like WashPo, though HuffPo is far too left. I generally prefer places that are as neutral as possible. As a Canadian I find CTV news to actually be very good, despite not being a very large news outlet. They are down the middle and avoid inflammatory headlines.
edit: Interestingly I also like the Globe and Mail, and people debate whether that is slightly right or slightly left.
It’s hilarious that your critique of them is that they are far right. They might be doing something right if they have somehow managed to piss off both the left and right.
I never said they are far right. I said that they are more right than I am comfortable with. I now consider them to have right-center bias, with some instances where they go a bit further. Also, it's a fallacy to think that pissing off both sides somehow mean they are doing something right. It can also just mean that they are not good at any particular thing.
> I finally stopped reading them after their highly biased coverage and openly stated support of the Canadian alt-right occupation of our capital.
It certainly seems like you wouldn't have any bias when discussing this topic as well.
> They had statements in their articles such as "the majority of the funding for the protests came from Canada" when the actual number was 54% came from Canadian sources. Maybe from a strict mathematical definition that is still a "majority" but it's certainly not what anyone imagines when they hear the word.
What non-strict, non-mathematical definition of the word majority do you propose?
I'm not a journalist and my comments are not an attempt to be. On what word to use, I would use "54%" or maybe "roughly half." Either paint an accurate picture to the reader of the reality.
What did anyone expect? Everyone's been getting smoke blown up their ass for years now by 'revolutionary' app makers that did very little except skate around regulations and make speculators money. The entire industry looks sleazy no matter which way you cut it. My only surprise is that the editors felt the need to say anything.
It is not shocking to me, and like I commented in a separate comment here you see it in NYT's coverage of international politics. That is harder for people from US to notice as they don't have the ground truth to tell apart the nuances.
This is very easily disproven if you just go read the news they write. They are appropriately critical of things that deserve skepticism but they still write fun stories about cool internet stuff when they want. Consider this love letter to the Roku screensaver
One of the newspapers that I ... might possibly occasionally distrust a tiny bit less than some other inaccurate, biased and misrepresentation-laden newspapers and media sources.
I frequently notice major errors and misrepresentations in the NYT and elsewhere, so I can only assume that it's a general property - even in stories where I lack the background information or expertise to identify them immediately.
I think it's a not-so-rude awakening to follow individuals rather than organizations. For example, Matt Levine could be the one you trust for finance, or Jason Schreier for news on video games.
It's potentially easier to understand an individual's biases on a per-article basis than something like the NYT, especially if you follow them and their perspectives over time.
I've thought it was one of the most overt editorial decisions by most media companies. Vast numbers of people survived a pandemic due to big pharma's vaccines, big tech's business tools, Amazon's logistics, businesses built on cloud tech, and using cars instead of public transport. There has been nowhere near enough credit given to those life saving services, and it seems obvious why.
> They decided tech was a major power center that needed scrutiny
I mean, that is for sure true.
The tech has been enormous force against freedom, democracy, human rights and science. If it wasn't for Facebook and Twitter, we wouldn't have had Brexit, Trump wouldn't have been elected, antivaxx wouldn't become mainstream stance and millions more people would have survived the pandemic, oh and women in US would still have access to abortions.
Then there's Google and their mission to end privacy. Then there's Uber and Amazon and their mission to end labor rights. Then there's Airbnb and their mission to make cities unliveable. Then there's ... you get the point.
Even for a site like YouTube that has built-in speed control settings, it's still useful since (1) you can make the speed exceed 2x and (2) you can use keyboard shortcuts to tune the speed easily.
Wow thanks! This is exactly what I need thanks to constant phone notifications which have reduced my attention span to.... that of something with a small attention span!
Good to see you can adjust by intervals like 0.10, YouTube's default increments of strictly 0.25 make it impossible to watch most videos at a reasonable pace.
Alistarh et al. (https://arxiv.org/abs/1311.3200) show that assuming we have a kinder, non-malicious scheduler, the situation looks even better: lock-free (some process can make progress) algorithms have a stronger progress property of being wait-free (every process can make progress).
As omazurov mentioned as a top-level comment, threads can also die, which is rather like never being scheduled. In practice, I suspect that you're right that it's often too extreme of a model—many programs use locks and don't worry too much about this issue.
If you get surrounded by four people, a textbox appears saying that you can press <space> to teleport out. A larger group of people could form a ring to entrap people, but that's harder to coordinate.
