Cloudy is my all time favorite animated movie. Absolutely nothing comes close.
The flidsfdfr, the reporter girl, the character development and interaction, all great.
Cloudy with a Chance of Bullshit (2018)
21–25 of 25 posts
Re: Cloudy with a Chance of Bullshit (2018)
#22Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It's certainly true that having a human in the loop leads to worse outcomes in chess (unless the human has enough modesty to just not do anything). No, this is actually totally false. There is a world championship in computer-aided correspondence chess [1], and you won't get anywhere near the top ranks by having "enough modesty to just not do anything." [1] https://www.iccf.com/
Does deep blue participate? If not your assertion is false.
Deep blue is 25 years out of date and far far weaker than modern chess engines.
Re: Cloudy with a Chance of Bullshit (2018)
#23This seems to imply that there isn't any high-resolution precipitation data available that could provide these "minute-by-minute" forecasts, but that isn't true. The National Weather Service provides several radar products that give data with resolutions in the range of 500 m using their NEXRAD technology[0]. This allows for some pretty good estimates of when precipitation will start and end over the next hour or so.…
Any chance of this working in Canada? Even just right across the border?
I hadn't tested it before, but yes, it looks like there's coverage for some major Canadian cities near the border, including Montreal, Ottawa, Toronto, and Vancouver. You can check your locations of interest on this map[0] (requires JS). Just click "Maximum Radar Ranges" on the left and see if you fall within the coverage circles.
As I write this, there's some light precipitation just north of Toronto, and threecast seems to give reasonable output there. Note that the radar coverage areas aren't always perfect circles because terrain can block the radar beam.
Canada may have a similar system with better coverage, but I'm not sure.
Re: Cloudy with a Chance of Bullshit (2018)
#24Earlier quoted context omitted.
Does deep blue participate? If not your assertion is false.
Deep blue is 25 years out of date and far far weaker than modern chess engines.
I think that strengthens the point, don't you? Deep blue could beat humans a long time ago, and it's still the case that computers don't need humans to play chess, and play it better than humans do.
Re: Cloudy with a Chance of Bullshit (2018)
#25Earlier quoted context omitted.
Deep blue is 25 years out of date and far far weaker than modern chess engines.
I think that strengthens the point, don't you? Deep blue could beat humans a long time ago, and it's still the case that computers don't need humans to play chess, and play it better than humans do.
> Deep blue could beat humans a long time ago
Yes
> and it's still the case that computers don't need humans to play chess,
Sure, I guess
> and play it better than humans do.
In the sense that they can beat humans in a 1v1, yes.
But none of that is relevant to the original claim, which is that a human in the loop makes a computer play worse--i.e., that human+computer is worse than computer alone. This claim is false, as the ICCF championship demonstrates each year.