....you can just not participate and keep to yourself and I guarantee you'll have a 5 star rating from every driver in america

You might find it easier to understand if you had lost a friend or loved-one in a car accident.

Society will have to adapt to the advancements in AI and robotics.

The status quo is not a good option because (globally) cars cause over a million fatalities each year and over 20 million injuries. Driving, riding, or walking near vehicles is one of the most dangerous activities in modern life.

An extremely high percentage of deaths and injuries will be prevented as self-driving cars are deployed, since almost all accidents are due to human error.

A car that can drive itself will always be the better option to the companies that can afford the market share. Nobody cares about how automation will remove jobs for folks. These things are important to note. Your opinion as a customer is secondary to the cost to the provider.

>Nobody cares about how automation will remove jobs for folks.

no one cares until it happens to them. I guess that attitude is part of the reason why this will succeed in the end.

This seems like such a pointless semantic flex to me...

In this case has the game not become Game A + Game B ?

It's just a larger game with a distinct winning strategy because the ruleset is expanded right?

What's the significance?

I think the HN relevant use case would be looking at this from the opposite side. You've designed 2 games (or algorithms) and both result in a winning state. But when they are used alternately, they lead to worse outcomes. A made up, possibly bad example that's using similar 'rules':

Start with: 1 large fixed size data structure and 1 cache Algorithm A: Checks as it is iterating whether the cache is full. If not, it generates the cache data (SLOW) but can then iterate over the entire data structure quickly. First time it does this is a loss, but 2nd pass through the data structure leads to an overall win. Algorithm B: Prefers an empty cache. If cache is full it will delete it. It can iterate over the entire data structure fairly quickly. Each time is considered a win.

Now you have a program with many different features and everyone knows that it doesn't really matter if you use Algorithm A or B because they are both programmed to work safely together and if you test a feature using one of the algorithms it will be fast either way, so it's left up to personal preference. The fun begins when the full program starts alternating from algorithm A to B.

It's a mathematician discovering why we have integration tests.

Or, from a much more charitable angle:

> It's a physicist¹ proving that we need integration tests.

    ¹ Juan Parrondo is a physicist by training, not a mathematician.

Yeah, this seems pointless. Here's an example of the paradox:

1) Hitting both nails and screws with a hammer is a losing game.

2) Screwing both nails and screws with a screwdriver is a losing game.

Paradox alert! If you hammer the nails and screw the screws you've transformed two losing games into a winning game!

Or:

1) Wearing shorts and sandals all year round is a losing game (in this part of the world); you will freeze to death in the winter.

2) Wearing your warmest clothing all year round is a losing game; you will overheat in the summer.

This is a paradox, because the population of Canada should be zero. But wait! What if you just dress appropriately for the season?

And know imagine you didn't know you can switch the tools.

I think a closer-to-real example is the problem of playing a collection of blackjack tables. All the games are the same, but sometimes the state of the decks (ie, which cards have been discarded) will lead to better odds of winning. If you know the state of the decks at each table, you can always choose to play the table with the best odds of winning. This type of strategy has been used to win piles of money in Vegas, FWIW, though it leads to ejection if you're caught.

This is similar to the 'ratchet' examples in the wikipedia page - you play the game with the best odds, and use one game to 'cool off' until you're in the right state to win the second game again. The games in the wikipedia article are kinda unsatisfying, though - there's too much dependence on player state.

Market timing in the stock market (if you have a little insider info), and card counting in lotteries, are historical examples.

Sure but I want to imagine that some people are only playing Game A and others are only playing Game B, unaware of the relation between them that creates positive outcomes by sometimes losing in one game or the other.

Indeed, there's no way this is the product of actual game theory because it is using a pathologically incompatible definition of "game" where the player is allowed to change the rules.

Probability - and how you need to reason about independent vs dependent events - is poorly understood generally.

Let's try to make it HN-relevant by asking:

can two things that both AB tested positively in independent one-at-a-time testing possibly backfire if you launch both of them?

Only if you realize that the game could be looked at as Game + Game B

Agree completely

gold

Template literals... helllsss yesss, been waiting a long time for those suckers.

readability? who needs it when i can now say `this, but camel case and no nulls`

  export type Camel<T> = { [K in keyof T as K extends string ? `${Uncapitalize<string & K>}` : K]: T[K] extends Record<any, any> ? Camel<Exclude<T[K], null>> : Exclude<T[K], null> }

I find these graphs from Vanderbilt to be particularly compelling (page 2) evidence of the effectiveness of mask mandates on general public wellbeing. What do you think? Anything I should be reconsidering?

https://www.vumc.org/health-policy/sites/default/files/publi...

while the report is clearly written to support masking mandates, they do provide the (counter-)explanation on page 3:

> "As in our August report, we stress that areas with masking requirements also have seen greater changes in other community behavior (e.g., lower mobility to higher-risk points of interest) and may also have other virus mitigation strategies in place, so the observed relationship is likely not just about masking."

the mitigative effects of the masking order is drowned out by concurrent, confounding mitigations, which aren't detailed unfortunately. i'd contend that the concurrent effects of a masking order is likely very minor (<10% of the overall effect), because distancing and reduced social interaction does the overwhelming bulk of the work, but that data is left out of the report.

that's not to say masks are always useless; they have a critical role in (health-)care settings and for essential workers who interact closely with many other people daily. but that's a tiny slice of daily interactions and a nuance that gets drowned out by the mediopolitical machine incentivized by conspicous credit, not solution (biden is already doubling-down, talking about a national mask mandate as his first order of business).

the report includes some other interesting (counter-)information (like the counter-effectiveness of "Safer At Home" orders as exhibited in figure 2), but i'll leave it there for now.

This news is not news. The pentagon? Preparing?

Thank you very much for sharing that comic.

It does; it stems from Portugal meaning black people according to the article. If I understood it correctly, it's some mashup of colony and black people. It's an artifact of early modern colonialism and zenophobia.

I can't access the article but it sounds bullshit to me; although the portuguese didn't mind at all being super racist towards their colonies. Guinea comes from portuguese Guiné, which has (so far) an unknown origin but historically described a long portion of sub-saharan costal land in Africa. In the region there used to be local powers called that because it would mean "warrior chiefs" or something in a local language. It's not exactly known if they were from Mali (whose city of Djenné traded with portuguese folks) or from Gana (another name related to the story and with uncertain origin).