Marking (and enforcing) 10 yards of "no parking" before / after every intersection would work wonders. It's mostly the cars that block vision.

> and the blind turns are nerve-wracking.

Perhaps first we should fix these turns so that there are no blind turns...?

Most of the power goes into overcoming air resistance, not going over bumps. Smooth roads aren't going to reduce the power needed.

The cheap and good (subsidized) corporate cafeterias you are looking for are for employees only. They don't allow members of the public in. If it were public, they wouldn't subsidize it.

Looks like someone was told to repaint "SPEED LIMIT 25" onto a "TWO WAY TRAFFIC AHEAD" sign.

/r/NotMyJob

Even with no holidays, there are only ~250 work days per year. So it's not possible to have that much PTO unless they are counting weekends as PTO...which also doesn't make sense.

> And this is all because he didn’t want to negotiate with unionized workers?

No. They negotiated. They weren't able to come to a compromise, and Darwin's went out of business instead.

This means that the union was asking for enough that the store literally went out of business. Not that they weren't willing to negotiate.

tbf insta-pots are common casings for homemade pressure bombs to the point they were banned in parts of Europe in order to reduce terrorism.

Ahh. So you're just mad I'm criticizing the police. Got it.

Nowhere did I defend drug dealers.

It probably accurately describes the higher end of the street value, yea. But representing drugs by their street value is like representing a crate of apples as having a value of $1000, because they could be turned into apple pies and sold at Marie Calendars.

These guys had the apples and they had pie crust and they had ovens, so they were definitely planning on turning the apples into apple pies. But there's a lot of work that has to be done between having the raw materials and actually having that much in cash.

When police report the value of drugs, they report the street value, because it is higher. 100 lbs of pure fentanyl is worth over a billion in street value.

> They also didn't adhere to strict lab conditions to assure that each pilll contained the same dose.

Oh, absolutely. Fentanyl is dangerous and we should harshly punish those who intentionally peddle in it. But we don't have to misrepresent how bad this is by saying there was enough fent there to kill everyone in the state three times over when there wasn't.

Justice comes with accurately representing the facts.

If they had 100 lbs of pure fentanyl, the police would have reported that they seized drugs with a $1.3b street value. Yes, that's b, as in billion, as in $1,300,000,000.

They didn't seize 100 lbs of pure fentanyl.

> Are you suggesting they track down each granule? Nobody does pure fentanyl. It’s all cut.

Of course they shouldn't track down the grains. I'm saying that at minimum they should have said that they found 100 lbs of powder that contained fentanyl. Saying it's 100 lbs of fentanyl simply is not factually accurate and also intentionally misrepresenting what was seized.

>and the fact that you’re trying to minimize it is pretty disgusting.

Mmmm, yes, that's what I'm doing. Calling out lies means that I must be pro-murder, right? Cool. Got it.

> the entirety of any mixture containing a drug is counted as that drug

for sentencing purposes. Laws can't change the physical reality of the world. And the physical reality is that there weren't 100 lbs of fentanyl there, no matter what some law says about how long someone should be thrown in jail for. And the police are absolutely still lying (not misleading) about how much fent there is. It's both not the "legal definition" and not the truth.

>And really, less pure = more profit

lol.

They didn't actually capture 100 lbs of fentanyl though.

It's because they don't actually have 100 lbs of fentanyl. The police like to inflate the numbers so that they seem more impressive. They actually have 100 lbs of powder that has trace amounts of fentanyl in it, but it's common practice to just label the entire thing as the drug, ignoring purity.

> As per your other point though, my code does account for that already

You may try running it? It returns [3.0, 8.0, 12.0, 8.0]. The intended output is [False, False, True, False]. OP didn't ask for it to be split into groups of four, they asked for every fourth value to be taken.

Writing "short" code isn't a always good thing. Yes your suggestion has less lines, but:

• It takes ~6 times as long to run

• It does not return the correct output (split does not take every nth value, but rather groups it into n groups)

I'm absolutely not claiming my code was optimized, but it did clearly show the steps required to calculate the necessary output, so it was easy to understand. Writing "short" code is much more difficult to understand what is happening, and often leads to a bug (as seen here). Also, depending on how you are doing it, it often takes longer to run (the way it was implemented requires it to do extra steps which aren't necessary).

Why are you using a "model" / MLPs at all for this? This is a strictly data processing problem with no model creation required.

Just process your data by throwing away 75% of it, then take the max, then check if each value is equal to the maximum.

Something like (python):

import numpy as np

def process_data(input_array):
  every_fourth = []
  for i in range(len(input_array)):
    if (i+1)%4==0:
      every_fourth.append(input_array[i])
  max_value = max(every_fourth)
  matching_values = (np.array(every_fourth) == max_value)
  return matching_values

If I were to approach this, I'd train them at the same time. You have two models - one for each side - each with their own reward functions. Then you'd train them in parallel, playing against each other as they go.

It's a bit of a challenge because you can only train them relative to the strength of the other - so you need them both to get "smarter" in order to continue their training. But that's no different than a model that self-trains against itself.

> so it must understand both strategies about equally regardless of which side it's playing

What do you mean here by "understand"? My understanding is that the state-of-the-art AI has no concept of what the capabilities of its opponent are or even what its opponent might be thinking; it only understands how to react in order to maximize a score.

So while you could train it to react well no matter which side it is playing, how would it benefit from being able to play the other side better? It would need to spin up a duplicate of itself to play the other side and then analyze itself to understand what is happening, but then it would just get into an infinite loop as it's duplicate self spins up its own duplicate.

I guess what I'm getting at is that these AI algorithms have no theory of mind. They are simple stimulus-react models. Even the concept of an opposing player is beyond them - it'd be the same whether it was playing solitaire or chess.

> The concept that tax payers are coerced into paying for surveillance system to be used against themselves

"Taxation is theft!" -You, a libertarian

Don't know why you are bringing the law into this. It's not relevant to the point they are making. Yes, we get the law says to do one thing. That doesn't mean it wouldn't have been cool if it weren't that way.