This reminds me of the time I had my laptop open on the tilt-down tray and the very large man in the seat in front just repositioned his girth (not even reclining the seat) but it flexed the seat back enough that my laptop screen was momentarily caught between the tray below and recessed lip above and was almost crushed.
Though the ipad itself wasn't damaged, a couple of glasses didn't make it, and required the steward to try to brush up whatever fragments of glass they could.
I feel that airlines are a microcosm of "Do you care about who you actions might affect?" - similar to the "Do you return the cart to the corral" test at supermarkets - are you willing to put even the smallest bit of effort to significantly improve other people's experiences?
This one surprises me every time I fly. When I have the aisle seat I can be up and out in 10 seconds. It seems to make like everyone else will plop down , place down 3 different liquids on the tray and then take a nap. When I ask to use the bathroom I end up feeling like a nuisance
It's your right to ask to use the bathroom whenever you need. And others have the right to use that little tray for their stuff when they want. (while allowed by the airline, of course)
Just like smoking next to others (when allowed), or reclining your seat 100% in economy. Technically it's your right to just that.
Granted, I've only flown American and Delta, maybe other airlines are worse in this respect?
My legs are proportionately longer than my upper body which increases the negative effect.
Are your legs so long you have to sit with your knees pressed against the back of the seat in front of you or something? If so I suppose that's understandable.
When I can, I pay for extra leg room or get an aisle seat.
My opinion is strongly that seats should not be reclined. It is inconsiderate.
But maybe in the future I'll make a point of checking whether the person behind me is in the 95th percentile of adult male heights before reclining.
and there lies the rub.
Not to mention that when my wife was pregnant she could barely manage her back pain -with- the recline, never mind without.
The recline button is there for your use. You are welcome to avail of it yourself.
Ah, the exact opposite of the "pay it forward" principle...
Same flight with someone's seat resting on your knees is downright painful.
> when my wife was pregnant
Imagine if she was a bit taller and someone reclined the seat all the way over her.
> The recline button is there for your use
You're right, like any shared resource, "space" is there for you to use. It doesn't mean you have to use it, you could try to be aware of your surroundings and assess whether your small comfort should come at the cost of someone else's extreme discomfort. And if you use the button others are also free, and probably correct, to call you a dick. Like a guy who empties the bowl of complimentary candy someone offers to all customers.
You shouldn't need physical blocks or laws to define your own common sense and decency.
I never get these discussions. It's only ever online that I see complaints. Almost everyone reclines on long flights. It's normal. It's expected. If it makes you uncomfortable that's a you problem, everyone else seems fine with it. If it makes you physically uncomfortable, pay for extra leg room. Don't make your problem the problem of another passenger.
Nor I. TFA is about a chess bot, yet here we are discussing seat reclining etiquette.
That's a skewed conclusion you're drawing. Are you really surprised that people aren't willing to risk escalating the situation on a plane, arguing with what's likely the very inconsiderate person in front of them? Most people have an aversion to conflict. It doesn't mean "they're fine with it". You probably don’t advertise in real life how much you lean back and not care who’s behind you out of fear that people will change your opinion of you. Real life is a harsh mistress.
I've bumped into people and they said "sorry", do you think they wanted me to bump into them, liked it, and actually believed it was their mistake? No, I just tower at close to 2m so they didn't want to escalate the situation.
P.S. I always look at who sits behind me, if they're "space constrained" or not, and almost always ask if I can recline. Sometimes I don't bother, clearly the person will suffer. Sometimes they said "I'd rather not, thank you". Many times they said "fine". I used to fly a lot and my experience was very clearly not that "everyone is fine". I was never fine even if I didn't start arguing. So how would you have known?
But also because with any shared resource there's an expectation of decency involved. Some people just betray that expectation. They're the ones with the mentality that "they shouldn't have served alcohol if they didn't want me to get insufferably drunk", "they shouldn't have put the candy out if they didn't want me to take all of it", "why is the swing there in the park if not for my kids to use them continuously to the disappointment of other kids".
When your wife was pregnant someone probably let her go ahead in a queue, have her some priority for something, etc. That was a person with common sense and decency, not asking "why do queues exist", who doesn't do something only if there's a law about it.
Your "dysfunctional people pleasing" is someone else's "not being a total dick". As I said, there's no law against it. It's all about character and education (or lack thereof). Some people even think they must brag about it because why else would they have a mouth and keyboard.
the recline feature should be baked in to this as well
If anything can possibly slow down flight boarding, disembarking or cleanup, they'll first try to remove it completely, and only if people object too much will they reluctantly offer it with a fee.
Pocket on the seat back -> most people don't use on short flights -> get rid of them.
Luggage -> most people need this, but not everyone -> charge a fee.
Reclining seat -> most people don't use on short flights -> get rid of them.
They do sell drinks and duty free; that's an interesting one. I guess once the flight is airborne, the flight attendants aren't really doing anything else (from management's perspective) so they might as well sell stuff. Plus the trolley blocking the aisle stops passengers from moving around, which they probably see as a big advantage.
I think this even applies to the ridiculous penalty fees they charge for e.g. trying to check in at the airport rather than doing it beforehand on the app. It feels like they're just trying to rip you off, but I suspect they see it more as a "nudge" to make people check in online, because that streamlines their airport process.
I got a little bit less annoyed by them when I realised this. Sure, it's still uncomfortable and sometimes infuriating, but it's all with the aim of an efficient and reliable service, and they're way better than average at that.
Ryanair makes little to no money from passengers, nowadays it's mainly from selling airplanes. They were still profitable during COVID without even carrying passengers at some point, only thanks to their flying school, which thanks to social dumping and the UE, allow them to charge 40k€ per wannabe pilot without even guaranteeing them a hire.
They booked 2000 737max, with their own special version during COVID+MCAS disaster, they paid it dirt cheap.
Then they operate them marginally, and now that the traffic has gone up again and the delay between buying and receiving a Max is about 8 years, they sell them back for a huge profit.
It's been known for ages in the industry.
The thing about buying planes is also interesting, but sounds like a sneaky business move rather than the actual foundation of the business.
I've always heard that nobody really makes money from passengers, which is why airlines are always going bankrupt, and I'm sure Ryanair's margins are super skinny. But even so, it does seem like moving passengers around is the core of their business, rather than it just being a front for something else.
I believe the airline pays the airport for every check in and luggage handling transaction. They are just cutting costs.
I found that once I tack on luggage, a seat with more space, etc.. they become more expensive than traditional airlines with the same package.
In other words, their business model really seems to be to cater to the "least hassle" passengers who travel light and don't need any extras.
That's the root cause of the suffering here. The actions with the strongest ill effects.
Didn't blame him, lesson learned, and I move my own seat back very slowly now.
There's also something about those seats where you get back pain when you try to sleep with your own seat reclined.
As a reasonably tall person I have never reclined my seat and will forever consider anyone who does an asshole.
The very fact that you can but don’t do something is the precise space where assholeness is defined.
If an airline needs to force you to be a decent person, then you have no right to claim decency in the first place.
People who lean their seats back are assholes. Claiming “but this is permitted!” proves my point.
I can’t imagine what a nightmare world it would be if decency were only possible through the exercise of external authority.
That is also a decent and unselfish thing to do.
I don't lean back on flights, but I don't consider the person in front of me an asshole for doing it.
Are you talking about agency and not being an asshole, or are you just being selfish about your space?
No, being doormat that never judges assholes is not necessary in order to be a decent person.
In fact, there is special category of decent person heroes who do the uncomfortable thing, judge assholes and even protect and help others when assholery becomes too much. Both when talking about recliners and like, terrorizing thugs in streets.
> Are you talking about agency and not being an asshole, or are you just being selfish about your space?
It is not being selfish to not want to give your space to an asshole who decided to take it. That person is still an asshole. And again, both when we are talking about recliner and when certain government sends violent thugs.
Edit: also, if the airline can't deal with a certain percentile of the population under their normal product, they should figure out how to make it happen. It's discrimination to not account for tall people
I understand why she wanted to lean back. And yet, when she did, it freaking hurt. I'm around the 80th percentile in height in the US, and while my doctor says I could lose a few pounds, I wear a men's large shirt so I'm not exactly enormous. Even though they seat can technically recline, you cannot convince me that they're actually meant to.
You get woken up at your destination after they've taken you off the plane. It would be the closest thing you can get to teleportation.
Then the airline wouldn't have to fuss with preparing shitty food and coffee or deal with annoying passengers. A win for everyone!
It’s kind of like a yoga studio with mats 3 feet apart when they use to be 6. You’re allowed, and encouraged, to spread your arms out wide, but now if you do you’re going to have a hand in your neighbor’s face. The yoga studio laughs at the visitors arguing about whether one’s an asshole for using their arm space, or for telling others to stop slapping them in the face, when the whole thing is their fault.
I can live with the person behind me thinking I’m an asshole.
The airline offers the facility and I won’t sacrifice my own needs for fear of upsetting a stranger.
I suspect they’re not the only person around you who thinks you’re an asshole.
But when you find yourself in an uncomfortable group situation, it’s good to ask how you can make it better for everyone, or at least not worsen it. “I paid so I’m doing whatever it takes to not inconvenience myself in the slightest” is the origin of “this is why we can’t have nice things”.
It’s different when there’s a compelling physical need here. If the person in front of me has a hurt back and can’t bear sitting upright, and I knew about it, I’d put up with it as best I can in the interest of we’ve all got to get along. But in the scheme of things, not that many people are unable to sit up and not crush their neighbors.
How would you know whether or not the person in front of you has a compelling physical need? Are they supposed to explain their health concerns to you in the hope that you deem it sufficiently acceptable for them to do what they can to be comfortable? It’s unreasonable to expect someone in physical pain to suffer the indignity of explaining themselves to someone they don’t know.
- the internet connection is excellent (even in most tunnels) so you can work, have video meetings, etc, not to mention play chess online
Also one way cost like $1,200.
However if you only compare the shorter distance rail in those places to what the US has some of the other trains are actually pretty good. Even then though Chicago's trains are a better comparison than anything Amtrak offers
The ICE trains in particular are magnificent, and a worthy alternative to air travel.
Just like how sometimes when you're flying over the rockies or into canada you just don't get internets. There's still middles of no where out there. Often not very far from the freeway.
Also starlink.
I mean, maybe you had a different experience. In my experience in the northeast , the internet service is about as reliable and consistent as the trains themselves (ie not consistent, garbage fire)
That sucks.
We do. United has just positioned their economy products a hair below Delta by, in part, pulling off crap like this.
I'm still sad the movie projectors are gone from the planes, also the little curtains for the windows, and the carve at your seat prime rib service.
Perhaps this is the real reason why they call themselves "Delta".
[0] https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Nyov4F7eWbT8uNoeclPY8uXVG6f...
[1] https://drive.google.com/file/d/1eEPBHqE5rpefE9gWflgS_hUwYGS...
That would be exceptionally sloppy development. Phones have had more than enough power for long enough. 4 core Skylake (Mac 2016) would be well beyond human capabilities, if it's just raw power.
The "thinking" (difficult) limit should be considered moves ahead, both depth and count. With a possible limit to time, if there is any time control.
IIRC it does just set a time limit on thinking
Not if the computer's time limit is set at 15 microseconds. It's not a question of whether the computers have "enough power"; just whether they are more powerful now than they were previously.
And yes, obviously that's a very sloppy and error-prone way to implement a difficulty control.
Carlsen knows how to play anti-bot chess where some engines may struggle, but that only applies to amateurish engines.
Heck; even Nanochess was rough for a novice like me, and that on an n270 CPU.
In that case you'll hit issues on any device that performs significantly differently from that which it was tuned in.
Though I am slightly amused by people using the apple chip as an example of "high performance" in a problem that scales very well with threading.
The way you set difficulty for turn based game ai is that you limit how far ahead the algorithm searches. If you set the lookahead based on compute time your difficulties will be way out of line if someone upgrades the CPU.
When Big Sur rolled out around 2020, Apple introduced a bug which disabled the difficulty slider: no matter what it was set to, it was hard or impossible to beat. In macOS Sequoia, the Chess app got updated again, and supposedly they fixed the difficulty slider, but in the interval silicon improved so much that the old restraints (like think for only a second) mean little. The lowest levels play like a grand master.
or whatever makes sense if “iterations” isn’t a thing, I know nothing about chess algorithms
The search is by depth of further moves, and “better” is a function of heuristics (explicit or learned) on the resulting board positions, because most of the time you can’t be sure a move will inevitably result in a win or a loss.
So any particular move evaluation might take more or less time before the algorithm gives up on it—or chooses it as the new winner. To throw a consistent amount of compute at each move, the simple thing to do is give the engine consistent amounts of time per move.
The simple thing to do is give it a limit on the total number of states it can explore in its search.
If your goal is consistency, wall-clock time makes no sense. If I run 'make -j20', should the chess computer become vastly easier because the CPU is being used to compile, not search? Should 'nice -n 20 <chess app pid>' make the chess computer worse?
Should my computer thermal-throttling because it's a hot day make the chess computer worse, so chess is harder in winter?
If the goal is consistency, then wall-clock isn't the simple way to do it.
It’s simpler than doing a limit on number of states, and for some applications consistency isn’t super important.
Doing a time limit also enforces bot moving in a reasonable time. It puts a nice limit to set up a compromise between speed and difficulty.
Doing state limit with a time limit might be better way to do it, but is harder.
According to who?
A counter that you ++ each move sounds a lot easier to me than throwing off a separate thread/callback to handle a timer.
> Doing a time limit also enforces bot moving in a reasonable time.
It's designed for specific hardware, and will never have to run on anything significantly slower, but might have to run on things significantly faster. It doesn't need a time cutoff that would only matter in weird circumstances and make it do a weirdly bad move. It needs to be ready for the future.
> It puts a nice limit to set up a compromise between speed and difficulty.
Both methods have that compromise, but using time is way more volatile.
Limiting the search depth is much more deterministic. At lower levels, it has hilarious results, and is pretty good at emulating beginning players (who know the rules, but have a limited skill of calculating moves ahead).
One problem with fixed search depth is that I think most good engines prefer to use dynamic search depth (where they sense that some positions need to be searched a bit deeper to reach a quiescent point), so they will be handicapped with a fix depth.
Okay, but I want to point out nobody was suggesting a depth limit.
For a time-limited algorithm to work properly, it has to have some kind of sensible ordering of how it evaluates moves, looking deeper as time passes in a dynamic way.
Switch to an iteration limit, and the algorithm will still have those features.
Elo gains for engines tend to come from better evaluation, better pruning, and better search heuristics. That's not to say that longer search time or a stronger CPU doesn't help, it just doesn't magically make a weak engine into a strong engine.
Blizzard did a similar thing in World of Warcraft during the beta. After playing for a while, your character would get "exhausted" and start earning half experience for killing mobs. The only way to stop being exhausted would be to log off or spend a LONG time in an inn. At some point, they flipped the script. They made the "exhausted" state the default, and while offline or in an inn, you would gain a "rested" experience buffer, where you would earn double experience.
The mechanic worked exactly the same, but by giving it different terms, players felt rewarded for stepping away from the game occasionally, rather than punished for playing too long. They also marketed it as a way of giving players a way to "catch up" after spending a day or two offline.
For some reason this feature persisted in PC compatibles long past having any useful purpose, e.g. toggling a 386 between 33 MHz and 25 MHz. Perhaps manufacturers feared any PC without such a button would be perceived as slower, even though as you say, it's really a slow-down button not a turbo button.
Yes of course you'll keep it on the fast speed as much as you can, not the slow speed. But it's still presented as fast being a bonus rather than slow being a malus.
It's one of those old programs where 95% of the moves are pretty strong. But if you just do nothing and sit back it will occasionally make a random blunder and then you grind it out. I figured it's how they were able to weaken a chess engine back in the day; can't adjust the overall strength, so add random blunders.
I'm only about 2000 on lichess but I beat it pretty much every time, especially once I realized there is no reason to try anything sharp.
As a result, if you tried this on older planes, it might have been “easier”
When the iPhone 5S came out, I tried it on a whim to check the UI scaling etc... the beginner difficulty on a 9x9 board deleted me. It was grabbing something like 64x more samples per go, the lowest difficulty on the 5S (instant responses) never lost a single game vs the highest difficulty 3GS (15 second turns)
iPhones had a lot of moments like that. Silly bullshit like "what if every pixel was a cell in a collection view" would go from "oh it can barely do 128" to "more responsive than that was, with 2 million" in a few gens.
I was maintainer of the Chess app from the early 2000s to about 2015. We first noticed in 2004 that level 1 (which was then "Computer thinks for 1 second per move) was getting stronger with each hardware generation (and in fact stronger than myself).
So we introduced 3 new levels, with the Computer thinking 1, 2, or 3 moves ahead. This solved the problem of the engine getting stronger (though the jump from "3 moves ahead" to "1 second" got worse and worse).
A few years after I had handed off the project, somebody decided to meddle with the level setting code (I was not privy to that decision). The time based levels were entirely replaced with depth based levels (which eliminates the strength inflation problem, but unfortunately was not accompanied by UI changes). But for some reason, parsing of the depth setting was broken as well, so the engine now always plays at depth 40 (stronger than ever).
This should be an easy fix, if Apple gets around to make it (Chess was always a side project for the maintainers). I filed feedback report 21609379.
It seems that somebody else had already discovered this and fixed it in a fork of the open source project: https://github.com/aglee/Chess/commit/dfb16b3f32e5a6633d2119...
Unfortunately they never released a remastered version of it. They seem to have made some clone of it called “reforged” whatever the fuck that means.
There is a thriving community with a couple different choices for servers to play on. So I'm sure there's a fix for your mouse speed issue.
Check Twitch for people streaming it: https://www.twitch.tv/directory/category/warcraft-iii
Grubby, one of the early esports stars, still streams it regularly and hosts his own for fun tournaments with other streamers.
You probably knew this, but wanted to make sure others knew that the reason they ended the franchise is not because there was no market, but instead it was pure unadulterated greed that led to that situation. In an alternate reality they would have actually done the remake justice and there would be a lively competitive scene
> SOLAR_FIELDS
Panoramic Greetings!
The Dolphin emulator has run into similar things; usually doing things "too fast" just gets you more FPS but sometimes it causes the game to go insane.
I suppose, technically, that's one way to make the Scimitar feel more responsive...
These days I cannot stand games with cliched storyline and tend to skip the cutscenes, but back then it all seemed so amazing... like a cross between a movie and a game.
I remember playing it later and running into speed issues too, but usually there was a way to tweak the emulator in order to fix this.
Wow.
1984 (!!!) IBM PC (DOS) port of the game Alley Cat had timings built it. They actually used the system clock if I remember correctly, so it would always run at the correct pace no matter how fast the computer. Last I checked it, decades later, it still ran at the correct speed!
I guess some lessons don't get passed on?
It would also be of limited use, as the engine is purely CPU based; it is single threaded and does not even use SIMD AFAIK, let alone GPU features or the neural engines.
That puts you in the top 7% of players on the site. I have a hard time believing you could get to that rating without knowing that.
In tom7’s Elo World, he does this (“dilutes” strong Chess AIs with a certain percentage of random moves) to smooth the gradient since otherwise it would be impossible to evaluate his terrible chess bots against something like Stockfish since they’d just lose every time. https://youtu.be/DpXy041BIlA?si=z7g1a_TX_QoPYN9b
2. I played a chess bot on Delta on easy and it was really bad, felt like random moves. I beat it trivially and I am actually bad at chess, ~1000 on chess.com. I wonder if this one is different?
I'm in a similar boat as the other posters (2050-2100 lichess, 1400 USCF). The median active rating for USCF is around 1200 and likely much higher if you don't include scholastic players, so if we compare against the OTB pool, "2000 lichess" is probably closer to top 50% than 2%
Put another way, looking at chess.com users, there are ~6 million people who would count as the top 3 percent. Difficult to achieve, yes, but if 6 million people can achieve it, it’s not really a “humble brag,” it’s just a statement.
* who don’t have strong numeracy and time to think
If everything else was the same, and people play enough games they will average out to the same elo.
The difference is caused by many factors. People don’t play enough games to sink to their real elo, the player pool is different, and you gain/lose fewer points per game with Lichess’s elo algorithm.
Also I can't really prove it mathematically but I guess average ELO would also hover on the starting ELO. Because I can't see why it would hover anywhere else and any ELO gained would be lost by someone else.
When I started playing I believe chess.com let you select whether you’re beginner, intermediate or advanced and your start elo was based on that. Could be wrong, and it could’ve changed since.
What a world where we have to put significant extra work into making the computer bad enough that a human can compete.
We should coordinate flights
Years ago I remember flying with Delta and wondering why the delta bot could beat me in a handful of moves on EASY. Absolutely insane.
I'm running games through stockfish/lc0/Maia and doing some analysis of patterns across multiple games, then feeding that to an agent who can replay through positions and some other fun stuff. Really keen to find out if it's helpful for anyone else!
From what I've seen in the video I'd give the bot around 2100 FIDE equivalent. Granted you don't play bots like you play people. This bot essentially plays top engine moves and every now and then it introduces suboptimal moves. This technique can be played against choosing appropriate openings and being patient with calculation.
That was a joke about the Mechanical Turk (as a response to "I used to fly a lot of Turkish, and their one's laughably bad. If anyone here works for Turkish Airlines, get yourself a better Chess bot"), which is why I said that's what it sounds like and provided the link. "Amazon Mechanical Turk" does not involve hidden people moving the pieces with the help of levers and magnets and has nothing to do with chess bots on Turkish airlines. I posted the link because most people aren't familiar with the Mechanical Turk and would not know what @tomjakubowski's joke referred to.
I'm sorry if you still can't follow, but your failure to comprehend isn't my fault and I'd rather not be insulted for simply posting an informative link because of someone else's misunderstanding so I'm not going to comment further.
tomjakubowski joked about the mechanical turk. anematode recognized the reference, you recognized the reference, and I recognized the reference.
But you didn't reply to tomjakubowski as a general explainer to the audience. You replied to anematode. You replied to anematode in a way that suggested they needed the joke explained, even though they not only understood it, they expanded on it.
That's what I didn't comprehend. Why did you reply there and phrase it like that. And you still haven't explained.
Your claim that [["Amazon Mechanical Turk" does not involve hidden people moving the pieces with the help of levers and magnets and has nothing to do with chess bots on Turkish airlines.]] makes it sound like you still don't understand anematode's joke. Amazon's mechanical turk is named after the original mechanical turk. It has very much to do with turkish chess bots.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tzar%3A_The_Burden_of_the_Crow...