theBarneyBus t1_je1unvu wrote

You’re completely correct that it could either be 9 or a 2 then a 1. The issue is that you’re assuming that the is no context.

In storage, there are conventions (e.g. ASCII) that say that basic text is 8 bits per letter. Similarly, other data is stored in fixed-length intervals.
In RAM, whoever is writing to it determines how it is used. It could be any length. The program (and programmer) using it needs to make sure they’re using it correctly.

There are also ways to compress things like text, where bit length is dynamic. But that’s a bit complex, so let me know if you want that explanation as well.


theBarneyBus t1_j26zwsv wrote

I don’t think I’m quite understanding.
The issue is thinking that one shuffle from an ordered deck is “as random” as one that has been shuffled 1000 times. They’re not. The first one is MUCH more likely to happen than the other (and thus is not truly random)


theBarneyBus t1_j26r1g9 wrote

The idea you’re talking about is true and accurate, for a fully randomly shuffled deck of cards.
A newly opened (and therefore ordered) deck that has only been riffled a few times is not fully random.


theBarneyBus t1_j1j0r2p wrote

The programmers don’t program question-answer pairs. Rather, they program a tool that “reads” millions of online articles, then tries to replicate responses that sound how the tool thinks an response about X would sound.
This often means that it gets things (surprisingly) correct, but can also lead to it sounding extremely confident, while having funky and/or misleading information.