It’s only from spells and only the player itself is immune from them. I don’t think this would even see play in YGO.
It’s only from spells and only the player itself is immune from them. I don’t think this would even see play in YGO.
From what I remember and what a quick search on the internet confirmed, B didn’t actually deny her anything. He actually went out of his way to do as much good for her as he could. He claims to have replied “Language.” because he knew other people at NASA with more say on her job would find her, which would get her into trouble (and they did find her even before his first Tweet).
I’m guessing they just take the correct prefix (the first 3 letters of the correct month) and append “tember”, no matter the month.
Sure. You have to solve it from inside out:
The huge coincidental part is that ඞ lies at a position that can be reached by a cumulative sum of integers between 0 and a given integer. From there on it’s only a question of finding a way to feed that integer into chr(sum(range(x)))
From experience with the beta and memory, your wife (and you) will be able to choose which version to play. Either yours with a ton of DLC or hers with none. You should both be able to use the version with all DLC, but not at the same time.
It’s been a while since we tested this though so things might have changed, including my memory…
If you wanna see a language model (almost) exclusively trained on 4chan, here you go.
Presumably. Wouldn’t take much to fake that though.
after leaving can’t join another for a year
Can you fix this? There was enough misinformation floating around about this already when this feature went into beta.
Adults can leave a family at any time, however, they will need to wait 1 year from when they joined the previous family to create or join a new family.
it should say something like: “After joining, can’t join another for a year”
Good intentions alone don’t guarantee good outcomes. I suggest not giving any single person or entity too much power, no matter who they are.
Assuming AI Overview does not cache results, they would be generated at search-time for each user and “search-event” independently. Even recreating the same prompt would not guarantee a similar AI Overview, so there’s no way to confirm.
Assuming we shrink all spacial dimensions equally: With Z, the diagonal will also shrink so that the two horizontal lines would be closer together and then you could not fit them into the original horizontal lines anymore. Only once you shrink the Z far enough that it would fit within the line-width could you fit it into itself again. X I and L all work at any arbitrary amount of shrinking though.
So is the example with the dogs/wolves and the example in the OP.
As to how hard to resolve, the dog/wolves one might be quite difficult, but for the example in the OP, it wouldn’t be hard to feed in all images (during training) with randomly chosen backgrounds to remove the model’s ability to draw any conclusions based on background.
However this would probably unearth the next issue. The one where the human graders, who were probably used to create the original training dataset, have their own biases based on race, gender, appearance, etc. This doesn’t even necessarily mean that they were racist/sexist/etc, just that they struggle to detect certain emotions in certain groups of people. The model would then replicate those issues.
Eh, nothing I did was “figuring out which loophole [they] use”. I’d think most people in this thread talking about the mathematics that could make it a true statement are fully aware that the companies are not using any loophole and just say “above average” to save face. It’s simply a nice brain teaser to some people (myself included) to figure out under which circumstances the statement could be always true.
Also if you wanna be really pedantic, the math is not about the companies, but a debunking of the original Tweet which confidently yet incorrectly says that this statement couldn’t be always true.
It’s even simpler. A strictly increasing series will always have element n be higher than the average between any element<n and element n.
Or in other words, if the number of calls is increasing every day, it will always be above average no matter the window used. If you use slightly larger windows you can even have some local decreases and have it still be true, as long as the overall trend is increasing (which you’ve demonstrated the extreme case of).
so the names of the ai characters HAVE to be stored in game…
Some games also generate names oh the fly based on rules. For example, KSP stitches names together based on a pre- and suffix and then rejects a few unfortunate possible combinations such as Dildo, prompting a reroll.
I suspect with your game, they just fed it a dictionary of common words though without properly vetting it.
I’d argue that with their definition of bots as “a software application that runs automated tasks over the internet” and later their definition of download bots as “Download bots are automated programs that can be used to automatically download software or mobile apps.”, automated software updates could absolutely be counted as bot activity by them.
Of course, if they count it as such, the traffic generated that way would fall into the 17.3% “good bot” traffic and not in the 30.2% “bad bot” traffic.
Looking at their report, without digging too deep into it, I also find it concerning that they seem to use “internet traffic” and “website traffic” interchangeably.
If House has taught me anything, it’s D, but then E.
Because it’s a cat.
It’s not a card game, it’s an async autobattler. As long as all the characters are roughly balanced against each other, there’s nothing to be gained other than cosmetics (at the current state of the game).