I would guess that they trained AlphaGo from many thousands of hours of match footage. Writing a computer vision script to segment / extract the data may cost cycles as you say, but would save many human hours by eliminating the need to re-watch the footage and literally type out state information for each move.
Alphago was actually trained directly on game state (plus some extra computed state like "how many liberties will I have if I play this move" or "will I win this ladder"). A huge number of pro games (and countless amateur games) are available on servers like KGS in a nice computer-digestible format.
Again, that doesn't make sense because the moves have almost certainly already been typed out by somebody. It's the same in chess. There are databases containing millions of games.
If 90% of startups fail, 25% success is 2.5x above average. I'll listen to someone who's advice improves my odds. I'll also listen to someone who's tried and failed and admits it honestly and takes responsibility for their failure and knows how to avoid the same mistake next time. Someone who hasn't failed probably hasn't tried. Someone who hasn't failed may have nothing of value to teach me. If you do have or know of better methodologies though, please share, I'd love to get more pointers!
Ehh. Hilary Clinton is far more powerful than the people that invite her to give speeches. More than likely this is a way for a business interest to pay tribute in the hopes that someday she might remember their fealty.
One interpretation of this interview: If Machiavelli had had a prince for a disciple, the first thing he would have recommended him to do would have been to write a book against Machiavellism. --Voltaire
Another interpretation of this interview: P.T. for POTUS.
I realize that this is besides the point but going on the title alone we could write a script that could generate an 'infinite' (max out available memory) sized image.
Whenever I've heard a suggestion that I should just live as a feminine guy, it just makes me feel sick. Even in a world where no gender stereotypes existed, I wouldn't want to be male. I'd rather not live the rest of my life with a masculine face, body hair, a flat chest, male fat distribution, etc. My transition has nothing to do with social roles and everything to do with my body.
Before I transitioned, I actually had problems recognizing myself in the mirror. It wasn't until I'd been on hormones for half a year that I could actually remember my face.
Also, my own hobbies and interests are more androgynous than anything else, but I probably lean towards being more gender non-conforming as a girl than as a guy.
It is unclear to me as why it contradicts the social construct part of the gender.
Maybe some people negates the physical difference between women and men, but I doubt that it is the majority of people that believe that the social part of the gender is socially constructed.
I don't understand that the fact that you couldn't stand being in a man body (I'm sorry for that BTW and glad you "escaped") does not invalidate the belief that the gender side associated with pink and blue, or which kind of job is socially constructed.
In a downturn, I wouldn't necessarily assume that someone has sufficient gains to offset their losses. They could just be losing money.
Also, there are restrictions on how you carry forward losses and how much you can deduct in later years.
edit: I think the issue is you're being nuanced about the connotations of "accounting games" (I mention this downthread and argee that some tactics are straightforward.) the user [tiler] above, responded as if the recession explains how 35K people with $200K+ income had 0 tax liability, which is silly.
I reject the premise that anyone can move to a foreign country, select tax exempt bonds and gross at least $200K/year. Maybe you as someone who appears smart and ambitious could pull it off consistently, but that's tough to do.
You seem to be getting hung up on whether there's anything "novel" about a subset of tax avoidance schemes and not mentioning trusts or other tax schemes disproportionately used by wealthy individuals such as offsetting income with high medical costs or moving assets to lower-tax jurisdictions.
FWIW, the IRS study in the article referenced breaks down these expenses for folks without worldwide income.
I certainly agree that moving to a foreign country and getting a good job there is hard. Further I agree that buying bonds that gross 200K a year in interest is expensive (though it's not hard to select them). However neither of those things constitute "accounting games." They are extremely straightforward aspects of the tax code available to anyone.
They also won't actually save you any money. With the former you'll just be paying taxes to a foreign government instead. With the latter you'll get a lower rate of return than you would for buying other bonds.
I didn't mention "trusts or other tax schemes" because the Forbes article you linked to didn't mention them. It didn't mention them because those aren't actually ways to get out of paying taxes. That is, as I said upthread, largely a myth.
You bring up medical costs so I'll touch on those as well. People don't get sick or injured and pay lots of money for medical treatment to avoid paying taxes. Certainly one can debate whether such expenses should result in a tax reduction but we, as a country, have currently decided that they have in most cases. Again this doesn't constitute "accounting games." They are, again, very straightforward deductions available to all. Keep in mind though that you do have to spend the money on medical care instead of taxes though. So you won't have saved any actual money to spend out a house or a new iPad or whatever.
OK. I didn't realize you were being nuanced about the definition of "accounting games" and its connotations. I agree that these tactics are straight forward.
It's not nuance. it's just being straightforward. A lot of people (including the person that started this thread) seem to think that the "super-wealthy" can play "accounting games" to avoid paying taxes in a way that is somehow mysterious, nefarious or unavailable to everyone.
In reality, things are actually fairly straight forward when it comes to our taxes and most of the time if you're earning money you're paying taxes. If you aren't, it's generally for a pretty good reason.
