I don't believe in planning when to stare at the wall. I just do it when I feel like it - whenever - sometimes family members are around. Be reasonably spontaneous - you'll calibrate on you're own. Don't be afraid. Breathe, baby!

Unfortunately the big game is opaque it's close to impossible to understand for the common folk. So many questions, so tough to grasp answers. Sickening. The enemy is hiding. One could say that paying the taxes in some form is a path toward a destruction. Phrases like "war economy" are lunatic. It all starts in your mind, and that's why it's the most important to protect your children from the propaganda. Take care!

Honestly there might be truth to it, I don't get the downvotes - why?

The correlation between brain volume and intelligence is fairly weak. Neanderthals had larger brains than humans, for example. Looking outside the hominids, we have fairly smart corvids with relatively tiny brains.

That means the chain of thought “brains volume decreased, so individuals must have gotten less intelligent. Yet, societies grew smarter, so there must be herd intelligence” breaks at “so individuals must have gotten less intelligent”.

I think/guess that argument may have merit when replacing brain volume by number of neurons (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_by_number_of_n...)

Even if we grant your argument that brain volume between species isn’t good proxy for intelligence, It doesn’t immediately hold for comparisons within a specie.

No, but correlations there aren’t large, either, if they exist.

Einstein’s brain reportedly was below average size.

That’s a n = 1 example, but there also is a 50/50 example: man vs women. on average, the brains of males are about 10% larger than those of women (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience_of_sex_difference...). That doesn’t show up in intelligence differences (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_differences_in_intelligenc...)

Even only looking at males or females, I don’t think larger (fe)males tend to be more intelligent.

I personally think null is useless. I write TS not JS btw.

It might be like that. Everyone should strive to make the best decisions and not go with the mainstream. Always question the mainstream, it's dangerous. Make a change for the better. Everything starts with you. Then your family, friends, neighbors... Do you have the opportunity to grow something yourself? Do that.

There's some value in that line of thinking, as the mainstream often (okay, euphemism there) pushes bad choices, like in the past smoking being mainstream to the point of doctors being paid to promote the "health benefits" of cigarettes.

But at the same time I don't think its healthy to _always_ question everything in the mainstream. Its mainstream for a reason (sometimes an angle pushed by economic groups like big cig in the example above), and sometimes the reason is reasonable. Be critical and keep an open mind, but don't assume its fake because its mainstream.

My company tried it but reverted the changes. The biggest reasons - it's not compatible with mobx and we didn't notice any perf gains on an existing codebase.

Do you find anything "bad" about this code solving the problem?

    use std::rc::Rc;
    use std::cell::RefCell;
    
    struct Button {
        text: String,
        on_click: Option<Rc<dyn Fn()>>,
    }
    
    impl Button {
        fn new(text: &str) -> Self {
            Button { text: text.to_string(), on_click: None }
        }
        fn draw(&self) { println!("[Button: \"{}\"]", self.text); }
        fn fire_click(button: &Rc<RefCell<Button>>) {
            let cb = button.borrow().on_click.clone();
            if let Some(cb) = cb {
                cb();
            }
        }
    }
    
    fn main() {
        let button = Rc::new(RefCell::new(Button::new("Click me")));
        let cb_handle = Rc::clone(&button);
    
        button.borrow_mut().on_click = Some(Rc::new(move || {
            cb_handle.borrow_mut().text = "Clicked!".to_string();
        }));
    
        button.borrow().draw();
        Button::fire_click(&button);
        button.borrow().draw();
    }

Prints:

  [Button: "Click me"]
  [Button: "Clicked!"]

You world view is very one-sided, it borders with total naiveness.

No, I have principles. I wish to see people live the best possible lives for themselves, out from under tyranny and oppression, without the threat of death and violence and mayhem from those who have power over them, to the greatest degree of liberty and human rights that they can accommodate reasonably.

Because of my principles, I do not pretend cultural or moral relativism has legitimacy, and that somehow religious or cultural rationalizations of murder and oppression and mayhem can't be assessed as such because I'm halfway across the other side of the planet living a good life of riches nearly unimaginable to previous generations, arguing with people on the internet that I want things to be this good, or better, for everyone, especially the ones currently under the thumbs of tyrants.

I don't want the US to invade and try to build some sort of mythical liberal Iran, I want to see them rise up and get all the support they need to get their best and brightest to rebuild something awe inspiring and new for themselves.

The odds aren't great, but they're not as bad as recent American and Western driven nation building exercises. The Iranian people will have to walk a tightrope, and I'm cheering for them.

The US also are by law not allowed to start a war without the approval of Congress, right? But they did anyway in Venezuela.

+ 3 bits for piece type?

You only need the piece type for pawns (that can be upgraded), and a bit on the king to track if castling is possible; otherwise a single bit for on-board/captured is sufficient, since the types of the other pieces are implicit in the array index. (You can shave single bits in a few places -- if the state represents a game in progress the king-captured bit isn't needed; natural bishops only need 5 bits for position on board, etc. This doesn't really add up though.)

On the other hand, there are 32 pieces (max) on a chess board, not 16, so grandparent is off by a factor of more than two.

Two bits on the king for castling, queenside and kingside.

Why not just one bit "castled"?

You can only castle if neither the king nor the rook have been moved (and none of the three squares the king uses may be under attack, and all the squares between the rook and the king must be empty).

Since you could move either rook somewhere and then back to their starting squares, you have to track their eligibility separately. If the king moves, both rooks lose eligibility.