Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think all kinds of UTF, including 16 and 32, support arbitrary length for a single effective character.
This would be because you can stack modifications as long as you like.
The first comment was kind of iffy when it was also talking about buffers and characters, and focusing on code points is mostly a bad focus. It's worth bringing up so nobody thinks fixed width at a single layer is particularly useful, because other layers will still be variable.
Just one example: Facebook is mandatory for school/university in large parts of Asia. You cannot trivially block them. They should be considered an utility.
By being the first to offer a convenient solution, and pushing it heavily with ads and subsidies, I suppose. Then economy of scale kicks in and you're set.
Do you have any evidence of this? The video expose that kicked off this firestorm said that if you don't actively connect to the internet, then the system is largely inert.
You'll be delighted to learn that this exact reasoning had, in fact, been used by the copyright industry against (illegal) movie streaming websites. If I remember correctly, this was in Germany and was, after a relatively short time, no longer accepted by the courts.
It is simply unethical, period. Knowing that a solution exists is a gigantic advantage when working on a solution. Normally, noone can abuse the knowledge fast enough to gain an advantage, but here, they could. This is fraud and as a journal, I would reject it.
Depends on where you put the perfect play ceiling. I think each side has good points in their respective favor. There have been strong pushes by both humans and computers in improving their best play in the past few years.
A 2 stone handicap, however, does not scale linearly with strength. It becomes relatively more impactful at higher levels. For pro players, 2 stones are gigantic, and for beginner players, they make zero difference. Same for a point advantage (komi adjustment). So there might come a point where it is physically impossible for a computer to beat a top human under some handicap.
I'm not sure if I'm allowed to name the source on this here, but someone very familiar with the top Go program scene explained that there is a fair chance that a perfect game has been played already. This is based on the probability of a mistake per move in relation to the number of games there were played by top programs. Hard to believe at first, but perchance it is true. The problem is, of course, that we don't know which games are perfect.
reply