>What do you think is the most likely explanation for the Fermi paradox?

That advanced civilizations aren't complete morons...because that is the whole premise the Fermi paradox is based on: "Advanced civilizations can do all kinds of stuff but are mentally (and technologically) more incompetent than humans are now"

Not at all. Space is a pretty perfect application for nuclear because theres no environment to pollute.

Different Rolls Royce (not the one that makes cars)

The radiation is coming from above (i.e from the direction of Saturn...and also from the rest of space...not from material on Mimas). Put a meter or two of ice betwen you and that and you're good.

>, your bot doesn't need to always play perfectly to not be detected

I'm pretty sure that current detection methods use a closeness metric (you can't use a "perfect GTO" metric because that would mean your observation horizon would have to be infinitely long)

> What tools would a poker TO employ?

Well, the simplest tool to start with would be preflop charts. And then solver charts for the usual betting sizes. At least that's where I would start if I were to implement such a system.

Sure. They will get smarter with time. And the algos to detect them will take longer. That's the nature of evolution (pruning the stupid bots by banning them leaves the smarter bots)

So maybe they will have deviate so much eventually that they get beatable. In which case they don't fulfill their purpose anymore.

Sorta reminds me of this xkcd comic:

https://xkcd.com/810/

>Do you do this against a median of other players, against GTO, or what?

Against GTO. Against a median of other players would make no sense.

>'ve seen streamers playing 3-4 tables at once and playing pretty close to GTO

Since GTO doesn't even exist yet for many handed play...press 'x' to doubt. Human players are still pretty far from GTO. There were already challenges with best of the best heads-up players against GTO bots and they lost (mirror matches so it wasn't due to variance in hands). Someone playing 4 tables at the same time? No. Nowhere close to GTO. Maybe preflop with charts, but that's as good as it gets.

(It would also be super stupid as a human to try and play only GTO if you knowy ou play against other humans. While GTO guarantees that you - on average - don't lose it is by FAR inferior to looking for exploitative spots. Trying to play GTO-ish is the baseline you go back to when you don't know what to do - not the default strat as a player)

​

>What about making your own version of "spin the wheel" strategy where, depending on where you're at in the tournament ICM wise, you switch between strategies, adjust your opening hands, raising spots, etc. Sure you'd get away from Nash equilibrium, but you'd probably still rake in money.

Well then you have a bot that is going to be taken for a ride by other bots ;-)

If someone fields a bot he has to be aware that bots are a thing...implementing a losing strategy to another scammer is probably not something he'd put so much effort in.

Casino might just redistribute the money from the locked account once they detect such activity and deem it "bot beyond reasonable doubt". They have the hand histories so they could do that quite easily (talking about online casinos, obviously. If you manage to have bot info funneled to you at a live casino things will get tricky...but in that case you'll probably get sued for damages because they have all your personal info and your face on camera)

On the other hand: the casino got paid (the casino isn't playing poker. The casino is playing a different game called "rake") ...so they have no loss if someone cheats that way.

Their only incentive is to avoid bad PR if it were to become public that their site is overrun by bots.

But yes: As a player who was taken before the bot got caught you're probably SOL (if it was caught after your money was already withdrawn). Just like in most other crimes if the criminal already managed to spend your money.

I'm sure someone is hard at work writing a SciFi novel with that title already.

Well, you only need to dig for a very short time - and using humans to dig would be inefficient, anyways.

After the first meter or so radiation is no longer a relevant issue.

>The mere idea of detecting a poker playing bot seems much more complicated than detecting chess bots

It just takes more hands to detect but it's not that hard. You can look at extremely low frequency plays that hit exactly the right frequency where a human would use an always/never approach. If you see such plays in different spots then you can be fairly confident it's a bot

(Just like in chess. A human could make all perfect moves - but after some perfect moves it just becomes very unlikely)

Either you do game theory or machine learning for this...but using both at the same time is sorta dumb because you'll be making either approach less effective.

Oil companies engaging in greenwashing? No! Really? Do tell. /s

Life, as we know it, requires an energy gradient (i.e. a way to do usable work).

The currently most likely, theorized end-of-universe scenario doesn't have that ("Heat death").

The...erm...more 'exciting' end-of-universe scenarios (Big rip, Big crunch, Big bounce, False vacuum decay, ....) are even more certain to end any life that managed to hang around until then.

But, hey, we don't know everything about the universe yet. So there may be ways of sidestepping the problem.

Since these settlements will be way underground, anyhow, theres no point in synchronizing from 'solar noon to solar noon'...Just sync to GMT. Makes any kind of concerted effort with Earth way easier, too.

I mean...do a kickstarter. Get it done. I just don't see the point when we have better instruments for cheaper.

But then again I don't much care for pretty pictures...i'm more into the science of it.

You do that just fine from Earth. For a lot less money.

>The demand is going to be high at night when ev adoption is high

Which is good. Better utilization of assets. You can do the calcs quite easily how much the total power draw over night would be with a 100% EV fleet (hint: it isn't nearly enough to stress the grid in any way)

>You gain some wind at night (unreliable) but you lose all solar

Offshore wind is pretty reliable. Yes, we'll need storage (we'll need that anyways)...but if we didn't have those additional consumers at night we'd need a lot more storage or curtail wind production (both of which would drive up the price of power).

>People will want their car charged in the morning.

Sure, but even so: Most people know what kind of mileage they will require the next day. Having 100% (or even 80%) SOC isn't required. EVs are exceptionally suited to level out such short term variability because for the overwhelming majority of the time they carry around a lot of unneeded battery capacity.

>Batteries degrade with each charge and discharge cycle.

Sorta. Really depends on how much you stress the battery. Charging/discharging at 0.1C is different than going in at 3C.

In a V2G (or V2H) mode you're dealing with such low C rates that there's no real stress there. Batteries are also far longer lived than the life expectancy of cars. From an LFP battery you can expect 1 million miles service life. From an NMC/NMA about 500k miles. The average car sees the scrap yard after 150k miles. If you consider yourself even close to 'average' then you have plenty of cycles to spare.

...and, of course, you're making a buck while serving the grid.

​

>EV adoption guarantees that peak demand will drift towards the times when people charge their time.

If you think about just plugging in? Maybe. But if you do it via smart meters/smart chargers (which is e.g. what they are subsidizing where I live - not the dumb ones) then that use pattern can be shifted without any impact on user comfort. If everyone charges from 18:00 to 24:00 then that's an issue because there's a lot of demand in the 18:00-20:00 slot. But if everyone charges from 23:00 to 5:00 it's no biggie.

And if you don't feel like mandating V2G/V2H you can always regulate it via time of use metering and offer low power prices at night.

Almost no one will care which slot the car charges in as long as there's adequate SOC in the morning.

>Kinda failing to consider that charging the EV is expected to create the peak demand.

Not really. Most EVs charge at night when demand is very low and wind energy is, relative to that, overabundant. It's win-win. Alternatively you plug in at work and shave off the peak PV production at midday.

>Whats the benefit for the ev owner to see his car battery discharged when plugged?

He gets paid for the energy. The point with V2G is to plug in even on days where you don't need to charge (i.e. when you have either spare energy you won't need that day or spare empty capacity to soak up excess production). With V2G you can always override to say "I need to be charged to x% by time y". You don't open up your entire battery for V2G but only the capacity you do not need. E.g. if your daily drive is 50 miles but you have a 300 mile battery then you can open up the top 100 miles for V2G and still have more than enough buffer to feel safe.

No one is in danger of being stranded just because they participate in V2G.

What would be the point? Data collection and image processing takes a loooooooong time. Scientific telescopes aren't "tape a camera to one end and take a snapshot".

...or...you could just get the youtube adblock/sponsorblock skip extension (dunno exactly what it's called SkipAdTrigger or something? I cannot check my home machine at the moment...but it's available for Firefox and I'm pretty sure something similar must exist for other browsers as well).

Works well in my experience. It automatically skips sponsorblocks and marks them as green on the time bar (so you can manually watch them if you're into that kinda thing. Hey, there's all kinds of kinks out there. Don't judge.)

*Genetic algorithms

(Algorithms are always generic. That's the point ;-) )

Investing in carbon capture and storage (or use) is just a way to throw money at extending a problem instead of using the same funds to replace it with something that doesn't cause the problem in the first place.

Invest in a cure instead of trying to nurse the symptoms.

So now we need a concentrated CO2 waste stream...which is exactly what we're trying to get rid off.

Technology like this is nifty and all - but if it were to actually be applied it'd just be a justification for letting coal and gas powerplants run longer. That's counterproductive.

Finally some good news. There hasn't been much of that the past decade or two.