Interesting how the post doesn't mention the word "side effect" once.
To me, all of this could be summarized by "no side effect".
618 karma · joined January 16, 2022
Socials: - github.com/leoffx - linkedin.com/in/leoffx
---
To me, all of this could be summarized by "no side effect".
- Why are you restricting the product only for education? From your demo it seems like it could be used for anything? E.g finding animations, certain video styles Your real product seems to be a semantic search for Youtube
- You should return a list of videos, instead of a single one. Allow people to choose the one they like most
Otherwise, cool project, it's also not something I would pay for, but maybe some people would
isn't this also about the firms loving it? If it's a win/win for both sides, what's the problem?
I would be curious to know what is the big challenge here.
could it be that someone from sales/marketing say that these things are only 20% of the work for them, and building the app is the 80%?
- Response time
- Strength consistency within current game
- Strength consistency across all of user's games
- Is user switching windows
I bet these are already integrated in current cheat detection.
Response time and strength consistency could be detected regardless of having another computer.
If a person is always playing fast moves, or playing very consistently or very inconsistently good moves, they could be detected.
why would this be the only way? I can think of many different things you can do to detect cheaters
funny how people that say this are often the ones bombing the interview.
usually the ones who score well, are the ones that see how the simplicity of the given problem gives them room to show how well they understand the domain, and they appreciate it.
I don't quite recall where from, but I had some price data, where I filtered the top X products that made the most volume (price * amount sold).
I then simply did something like "if the price is lower than Y% of the average, buy it. Don't sell the product for less than you bought it for."
Surprisingly this simple formula works very well and I made more gold than I've ever had. It was more than enough to pay for the monthly subscription and I even bought Overwatch using the I credits I got from it.
So it got better and better, until it became myopia? Was there a point in the middle where you had normal vision?
If you are trying to optimize for this goal, does it really matter if your software is as effective as it's physically possible?
There's a certain threshold for performance your customers implicitly expect you to reach. If you're within this boundary, is it really worth to spend days coming up with a new inverse square root optimization instead of bringing more value to your customer with new features?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s8QBSK-kRRQ
It's the one linked in the section "In November 2021, Gameroom owner Chris Thompson visited the Odorisios’ storage unit and recorded a video of the stash"
``` import type {foo} from ... ```
How would you go to prove that this is the perfect game of chess, if you didn't explore all of it's possible sequences? If they did solve the game, there's no way around knowing all possible outcomes - starting from a fixed given position.
If someone is telling something making grammar mistakes, it's likely that the next word will also contain a mistake, so the LLM reproduces it.
And to be fair, I also think that most humans also have this same sensitivity in chess. I've seen even super GMs needing extra effort to realize something like "oh, this opening is just like the Sicilian defense, but with an extra tempo for white", and then instantly "loading" mentally the top strategies for Sicilian defense, that they weren't considering before.