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
Didn't blame him, lesson learned, and I move my own seat back very slowly now.
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.
Airline fares are very cheap. Just the other day they compared the cost of flying from London to Calcutta decades ago vs now - much cheaper now. You'll see the same when you compare domestic flights.
Yes, it's true that you had more leg room back then. Now you have the option to pay the same high fares and get similar leg room, or be cheap and get less leg room.
Classic example of "more choice leads to more dissatisfaction".
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.
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
Neat. Now what do I do?
Typed from a 17 hour flight to New Zealand.
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.
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
I fired up Chess shortly after getting an M1 and got destroyed a bunch of times. I thought that I was just extremely out of practice and quit playing for years. I guess it's better to find out late rather than never.
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.
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.
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?
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.
We should coordinate flights
What a world where we have to put significant extra work into making the computer bad enough that a human can compete.
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.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tzar%3A_The_Burden_of_the_Crow...
