In both questions there is intrinsic knowledge of the original situation of the subject. It is that “average basis” and the sudden and inexplicable rise to exemplary prominence that even makes the question even remotely interesting.
In the original question we have as an “original condition” a person whose rank has been recorded and been constant for years.
In the second question we have “your next door neighbour, who is just an average middle-class citizen like you are”.
If you live in a place were people do not know their neighbours, let alone their jobs, that is all fine and dandy, however for this question it is clear that you supposedly know your neighbour and his general financial situation. I am not talking about your real neighbours. Maybe your neighbours already have a helicopter and a Lamborghini , I wouldn’t know. I am inquiring about an “example neighbour”.
I guess that’s why the “it is smart to look poor” advice is very valid, eh?
I will not go into the importance and relevance of symptoms and indications and their relations to the actual problems that cause said symptoms and indications. It is out of the scope of the poll/question that I posed.
Not just to myself it seems. A couple of years ago I had an operation and the nurses told me that I have been speaking in English while waking up. I must still have been largely under anesthesia, because I myself had no recollection whatsoever about it.
Yes, I know that they move once the game begins, but it is as close as it gets, as far as I know.
I now wonder if there is a Go variant where you can have “extra-strong” stones that have double the liberties or apply double in the liberty count in a capturing race. That would totally jumble up the game.
I don’t get the “progression”. The categories yes (and do get the missing game). If introducing different pieces was a progress then introducing movement should come after, not before?
The goal is to fit the most pieces on the board. The game ends when no more pieces can be placed down, and the player with the lowest number remaining wins!
(this post does not includes full official rules, search somewhere else for them, correctness of images is unknown)
You are waiting for a lift on the 3rd floor, wanting to go up to the 10th floor. You see that all the lifts going up are full and you can’t get in. You notice that the lifts going down are very empty.
Assume that due to some reasons you can only go up by the lift, what would you do?
Take the empty lift down first, stay in the lift at the first floor and continue going up
In some cases, it is just the same, or maybe even faster, to get on a elevator moving down, even when you want to go up.
For example, suppose there is only one elevator in service, and it has just stopped at the 3rd floor, going down, and there is enough room to get on. You might as well get on, since otherwise, you’d just be waiting for that same elevator come back and pick you up on its way back up.
Further, if you hadn’t yet pushed the up button (say, if the elevator just arrived and stopped, before you got the chance to push that button), then on the way back up, that elevator might not even need to stop at the 3rd floor, which shortens the overall delay to reach the 10th floor.
It’s not about the speed, it’s about whether it’s morally correct or not. People are queuing for the lift on the 1st floor as well. By taking the lift down from upstairs and staying inside, you are essentially cutting the queue of those waiting on the 1st floor. If too many people do that, then the 1st floor guys won’t get to take the lift at all.
Well, if you are concerned about that, then ride down, get off, and join the queue at the first floor to go back up.
Another way to think of it is that the people on the first floor are overloading the elevators, preventing the queues from other floors from being serviced.
The same could be said about the people getting on the first floor preventing other floors from taking the elevators.
But you are also waiting (so you are in the queue), but on a different place, that just happens to be “served first”. Depending on how the lifts are programmed, there can be various problems that can lead to “starvation”.
For example, the lift could have been programmed to not stop on the floors in between. So, if the caller was on the ground floor it would just pass you by. That way a “first come, first served” notion can be employed, but now the people in the middle floors might never get access to the lifts, since the can conceivably get full as they go up.
Now the lift goes up, it arrives at your floor and you might have been waiting for more time than some of the people that were on the ground floor, but you are not getting in that elevator since there is no room. Now you are the one in the “starvation” scenario.
At the end of the day, I am not sure that we can ascribe ethics to following the design of a poorly programmed elevator.
Based on the previous games being obviously better and better as you go down the list, it seems like the missing last one should be the best game of all
Yes, we own this and it’s a lot of fun. However, my completely subjective sense is that it has too many different pieces - you can’t remember them all so how can you think deeply about your moves?
Can we design a game where you take turns placing the standard chess pieces but not moving them?
There was a “game” like that in “Machine Learning” courses where we had to implement the simulated annealing algorithm to solve the problem of moving chess pieces on the board until they were in a state where none of them could capture another in the next move (using standard chess rules).
You could create a game like that where you placed chess pieces on a board with the express purpose of not being able to capture a piece in the next move. The last person that is able to do so, wins.
You could play it with many people and the first person to fail to place such a piece, loses (Jenga style, the last person is the only one that loses).
I see that you’ve never had to program elevator logic and paused to consider the implications of whether its emergent behavior would choose to sacrifice the life of one passenger in order to save the lives of five others.
, I wouldn’t know. I am inquiring about an “example neighbour”.
I see an unexplored niche there…