What I mean: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionarily_stable_strategy
The reason why we had such a calamity over plasma bombers in the pit was that any deviation from being a bomber results in being hit by huge amounts of plasma. Even interceptors would get pummeled when the world was 60% bombers.
This leads me to wonder, are there other evolutionarily stable strategies? Strategies where once many start using them, they reinforce themselves to the point that they're more difficult to defeat? Note I'm not simply saying OP strategies, otherwise we would just say SMG hover landship. They need to be strategies which don't simply get countered once they fill the roster.
For my master's thesis in economics I am investigating the three-player infinitely repeated minority game. Specifically, I want to find an evolutionarily stable strategy (ESS), or I want to proof formally that none such strategy exists.
The repeated minority game is a simultaneous game with three players, where each player chooses an action out of {L,R}. If a player is the minority player in a round, she receives a utility of one for that round. Thus for outcomes LRR or RLL, where outcomes are denoted as a=(a_1 a_2 a_3), player 1 receives one util. All other payoffs are zero. Future rounds are discounted with a discount factor, and mixed strategies are allowed for.
Does anyone have an intuition as to what might be an ESS? Does anyone have an intuition of why there should not exist an ESS? I've been working on this problem for a few months now, with several enlightening moments but no definitive answer. Any suggestions or thoughts are highly appreciated.
PS. For those unaware of the ESS concept, I'd be happy to elaborate!
I won't waste any time. This season ended as a wet fart. I've had time to relax, and calmly think about where this team stands in my opinion. We had the epitome of a rollercoaster year. We joked about the losing streak in Jacksonville, but now we know it's basically a curse like the curse of the Bambino or the curse of watching Scott Tolzien be our quarterback. Our record reflects this season pretty well. Not good enough to make it, but not bad enough to quit trying. I think this team was definitely better than last years team although every season is different, and so are circumstances that prevent higher success.
It's hard to see teams we beat pretty easily, and teams that aren't as good as us in both the AFC/NFC now make the playoffs instead of this team. But we got hot late, and burned out fast. If this is the best we could do at the end of the season then we got saved the embarrassment of playing in the playoffs. I hate how this ended, and there are no moral victories. I just hate seeing doomers only post in this sub when we lose, and basically root for our guys to fail so they can justify showing up to say "I told you so." So here is my thoughts on where this franchise stands going forward.
Front office/Coaching staff: Ballard is still the guy, so please let's not start with "fire Ballard" or mocking the "Binder". Remember how happy everyone was after the Arizona game? Ballard has built up a good team with solid depth. He took a risk trading away his precious draft picks, so to me this offseason he can't afford to play it safe. He's not going anywhere, and he shouldn't. Same thing with Reich. He's the right coach for this team. Yes, he has some awful days just like today that make us go crazy, but who do you guys want to replace him? Name me a coach that's out there on the open market, or a coordinator you truly believe is an upgrade on Reich right now? He deserves his criticism right now since he got the QB he wanted. and they failed to finish the season strong. His seat is definitely warm now, but I'll believe in him until the players stop. If anyone should lose their job it's Matt Eberflus. Hopefully he gets a head coaching job this offseason rather than fired since I like him as a man. I think this defense can be much better, and is held back by his philosophy.
QB: Probably the most hated person in Indiana right now is Wentz. I get that. He had the chance two weeks in a row to send us to the playoffs with his arm, and he failed to do
... keep reading on reddit ➡It should actually be written the opposite way. In more words:
To be evolutionarily stable (mutate to create variation enough that life can evolve to match the changing challenges, but not mutate too quickly as to make organisms unstable) there has to be an inherent amount of infidelity in reproduction to make change. So maybe some DNA polymerases were "too good" and they never produced mutations, but their organisms never evolved and eventually became extinct because they couldn't adapt. And some polymerases were too unstable and produced too many mutations, and their organisms were very short lived.
So there was a point of life's timeline where the DNA polymerase was evolving to be a perfect amount of imperfect; good enough to keep organisms stable, but "bad" enough to allow for slow changes with the climate and challenges the organisms faced.
If you have unpaid slaves doing all of the work, where is the paid work? How would farmers and contractors make money if slaves are working on farms and construction? Getting slaves to do it would have been more favourable to paying somebody to do it.
My friend is upset with me because I declined to be in her wedding. I am just not stable enough to make that commitment because I am constantly moving to different states and starting new jobs. I don’t want to be unreliable. Am I being unreasonable?
The scenario I'm imagining is the United States focuses on settlement of Eastern Canada, which they take during the war of 1812. This results in the US being more tall rather than wide. They might still have an interest in the West, but not enough now that they have these new swathes of land in Canada to Manifest their Destiny all over. They are also disincentivised as relative to OTL Mexico is a lot more stable.
Also Gran Colombia stays together. Maybe they federalise, and Bolivar stops being a tit about centralisation. In general, Latin America is a lot more stable, with larger nations emerging from the ashes of Spanish America. The US can, of course, still claim and settle Western Canada, but it's up to you.
Not necessarily the best to live in for the average civilian, but just the most likely to move into the 21st century strong and stable
I want to upgrade to windows 11, but not before it is stable. How long have previous windows version taken to get to a stable state?
Hey All,
Been playing around with core settings the past day or so, and this is bugging me lol. So essentially, I make separate .opt files for all my PS2 games and, following the wikis, I enabled different speed hacks as needed, as well as 16:9 patches and x16 Antistropic filtering (read this usually has no adverse effects on Series X). Everything seems to work great until the minute i try to push above 3x 1080p. At that point, every game I’ve tried from God of War 2 to Silent Hill experiences noticeable lag (I can usually see it coming by the time the PS2 boot logo first pops). I’ve tried every fix i can think of from setting an Aggressive speed hack to manually enabling my LG’s VRR in dev mode and disabling VSync within RA. I’ve also tried things with the offset hacks which work awesome for eliminating ghosting on certain titles in 1080p, however 4K just seems to have stutters on the games i’m trying. I also read somewhere that a couple months ago, the core commits removed 4K detection so we should opt for 1080p. Anyone else find a solid solution or decent setting hacks for consistent 4K on console emulation? Is it even working?
EDIT: I just did a backup of my S: drive folders and then reverted to RA version 1.9.11 (I was on the newest 1.9.14). This unfortunately made no difference to my 4K lags, but did solve an issue I was having where displaying database entries did not work. So small victory lol
Maybe because from my observation, our e-commerce climate is quite respectable, and we've reached the mastery in technology that we might thought to be impossible just a little over a decade ago (y'know, the "Japanese kids making robot, Indonesian kids making kids" joke).We seems to be embracing this industrial revolution just fine
Sorry if this sounds incredibly based. Maybe economist / sociologist komodos among you have something better to say about this.
So as far as I understand, both start out as eggs, transform into larva, then pupa, and then have a final form of butterfly or beetle. It just brings up so many questions...
Did larva (caterpillars/worms) first evolve and at some point got zapped by a gamma ray and decided to differentiate into other weird creatures?
Are there other extinct species that started as worms and transformed into weird shit?
Before rightoids tell me I'm just a degenerate who contributed nothing to the gene pool, I'll have them know I'm currently hitting 3/4 on the species survival checklist for chranshekthuals for a solid C average 😤
For my master's thesis in economics I am investigating the three-player infinitely repeated minority game. Specifically, I want to find an evolutionarily stable strategy (ESS), or I want to proof formally that none such strategy exists.
The repeated minority game is a simultaneous game with three players, where each player chooses an action out of {L,R}. If a player is the minority player in a round, she receives a utility of one for that round. Thus for outcomes LRR or RLL, where outcomes are denoted as a=(a_1 a_2 a_3), player 1 receives one util. All other payoffs are zero. Future rounds are discounted with a discount factor, and mixed strategies are allowed for.
Does anyone have an intuition as to what might be an ESS? Does anyone have an intuition of why there should not exist an ESS? I've been working on this problem for a few months now, with several enlightening moments but no definitive answer. Any suggestions or thoughts are highly appreciated.
PS. For those unaware of the ESS concept, I'd be happy to elaborate!
