1621

Arts & Entertainment / Re: World Cup 2018

« on: July 02, 2018, 09:37:28 PM »

I've changed and reduced my list

Colombia

1622

Arts & Entertainment / Re: World Cup 2018

« on: July 02, 2018, 09:03:15 PM »

I have to say I felt sorry for the Japanese, I thought they had it for a while but Belgium are through.

I was sad for them. 2-0 up and the stadium was full of happy Jappys. The Belgians are a miserable race of people. I thought the Japanese played very well, but it was just a matter of time before the Belgians figured out they are about a foot taller and started pinging crosses in box for Lukaku and Fellani. I thought Japan's nippy little striker was good. Held the ball up well. Shame, I'd have liked to see them play more.

1623

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Bi-Polar Model: YouTube movement catching on

« on: July 02, 2018, 01:36:51 PM »

Measured distances do not work.

A model has to have dimensions.

Give Tom a break. How is this low content whining of any interest to anyone? Where are your sources, where are your examples, where is your counter argument? Stop vampiring Tom's attention and make some effort in return. Tom wants to discuss the content. Either discuss it or leave his post last, so someone who does can respond. 

1624

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Roles Reversed - seismology

« on: July 02, 2018, 11:44:45 AM »

I find it really strange that you are able to research seismology and come up with a reasonable looking argument for the round earth theory, when I haven't seen you do the same thing for flat earth theories. You've insisted that there are no power lines on Lake Pontchartrain, and never came back to that thread to acknowledge you were wrong. You've claimed that pictures of Mt. Rainier casting shadows on clouds is explained by the ocean near Mt. Rainier ("case closed"), and never came back after it was pointed out that many of these views are at SUNRISE, eliminating the "reflection off the ocean" idea.  You insist the sun doesn't move across the sky at 15 degrees per hour, and walk away from the discussion.

What do you want from us here at TFES? Lets take an example. You post a bunch of photos showing Mt Rainier. Its pretty simple isn't it? Why did you pick those 3 thread examples? Because they're examples where you didn't get a hiding in the upper fora. Because you picked the absolute easiest examples because you have been getting so roundly beaten in more complex debates ... despite still having all the advantages. Yeah, its a photo ... how would you object to it?

I have two choices. I can ignore your facile post, or I can think ... well in an effort to encourage you to start venturing towards something actually worth debating, I'll give an answer and see where you want to take the conversation. I'll quite literally sink down to your level. Look, a shadow on a cloud! Look, its near the sea!

When you start losing debates, you become reductionist. You go to the simplest possible explanation of earth's shape. For fear of losing again. If you are going to post a photo and say hah! look at that, and my response humouring you is met with something equally trivial ... where do you think I should go with that? I'm already bored. There is nothing in that thread for me. No one is going to learn anything, no one is challenged, there is nothing I can enjoy in it. This isn't a forum for the Mickey Mouse club. Its for people who like science and want to explore it, and you do that by meeting challenges and having to understand things thoroughly to 'explain to the alien', how that thing works. If you are interested in geology, make a thread about sedimentary layering, and how that proves earth round. Trust me, you'll learn a lot about geology as the flat earthers put you through your paces. But if you find straight lines and shadows interesting ... .Hey look powerlines ... so what? What do you want me to discuss about a bunch of stupid power lines in a row? Where is the science in looking at a straight or curved line? I can talk about photography and lenses, but you shut that down, no interest. I can talk about google's mapping techniques but no on wanted to let me go down that route. Just 'look at the picture'. I saw it. I left the thread. You aren't discussing anything of interest. Contrary to popular belief, I'm not a bot. I'm a person and I come here with needs of my own. Mental stimulation, human interaction, humour, friendship.

I can't be a round earther on this forum. This thread shows why. There is zero opposition for me in that. It becomes intimidating to the point no one wants to engage with me. How are you going to beat me in a debate about maps if I take the round earth side? I'm a qualified commercial pilot. I got 100% in my flight school navigation exams. That's the hardest exam in flight school. 100% is practically unheard of.

How would you beat me in a debate about air travel? a) I'm a qualified pilot, b) I have a degree in Aerospace engineering and used to design aircraft wings for Airbus. I worked in the Flight Physics department. I enjoy talking about aircraft, but I'm going to have to take the flat side and hint at things you should look at to make any kind of a debate out of it. Me just slamming proofs on Tom Bishop is unenjoyable for both him and me and just leaves the rest of you cheer leading.

I first discovered TFES over 10 years ago. I made a thread and engaged a forum moderator called 'The Engineer'. Hah, I thought, we'll see what kind of an engineer you are. In the words of Starwars, negotiations were short. After a few of posts I thought ... mmm. Why is this seemingly intelligent person arguing these things and letting me beat him up so badly on here? And I saw how vociferously he defended his community, how he didn't care about being humiliated and how he'd selflessly debate something he must of seen 100 times before with me and entertain me. For free. And I felt sorry for him. I thought he could use a hand. I thought I could do better in certain debates on his behalf. In about 3 posts, I understood TFES and how the bloody game works. I didn't need hints. I certainly didn't need someone so fed up with it all that they have to explain it in terms like these. New people read these threads. It breaks the mystery and solves the puzzle. Posting that ruddy mountain again and asking over and over for someone to debate it with you is no show of intellect. It is the exact opposite.

I find it really strange that you are able to research seismology and come up with a reasonable looking argument for the round earth theory, when I haven't seen you do the same thing for flat earth theories.

Yeah, its meant to be strange. Its a clue. A hint. Why can't you take a hint?

1625

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Roles Reversed - seismology

« on: July 02, 2018, 10:07:05 AM »

*** Turning the tables ***

When I was a small boy, I used to play my father at chess. He was far better than me because I was 8 and he was an Oxford educated business professional. The reality was he was actually very good even for an adult. He could play 8 club players at once and consistently win the majority of games. He could also play a single game against a club player completely blindfolded and would beat an average club player. My mother once remarked she knew he wasn't a normal man having watched him do an exhibition like this (It was a slight, she hated him after he became an alcoholic and left the family home). I'm not a bad chess player to this day, but if I could go back in time ... I still wouldn't come close to beating my dad. When I was a younger man and played more often, I had an elo rating of between 1605 and 1630. So me at my best as an adult

United States Chess Federation ratings
The United States Chess Federation (USCF) uses its own classification of players:[9]

2400 and above: Senior Master
2200–2399: National Master
2200–2399 plus 300 games above 2200: Original Life Master[10]
2000–2199: Expert
1800–1999: Class A
1600–1799: Class B
1400–1599: Class C
1200–1399: Class D
1000–1199: Class E
800–999: Class F
600–799: Class G
400–599: Class H
200–399: Class I
0–199: Class J

My father's rating when he played a lot was well over 2000. As an 8 year old, I'd have had to be the next Gary Kasparov to stand a chance.

But we'd play, and at some point the writing would be on the wall. I'd see things weren't going well and the tears would well up. As soon as he saw checkmate was unavoidable ... say check mate in 5 and nothing I could do about it, he'd make me an offer. "Would you like to swap the board around?". I'd agree and now with the odds pushed back we'd have a tight game where depending on how dominant his position when he made the offer, I might win the game ... but I could still lose and in those games in my head, at least I gave my dad a good game and wasn't annihilated.

I've told you round earthers many times ... arguing the earth is round is no challenge. You are already starting with the board set up 5 moves from checkmate. Its not hard to argue the earth is round. Any idiot can do that. What is hard, is making a fight of it the other way around. Within about 3 posts from me, you guys resigned. The tears were in your eyes, it was over.

I made this thread in response to Tom's plans for a debate club. To encourage you to improve your skills. To look at problems and make your best fist of trying to argue the hard side. To get you used to arguing the earth is flat, without feeling embarrassed about it. Honestly, I'd be embarrassed to come here and argue the earth was round. We wanted those of you who are better at debating, to become flat earthers, to engage those with weaker skills visiting for the first time and to take the load off me and Tom and Pete and all the other same old faces, using your experience. We wanted you to play each other, not always rely on us for a game.

*** So, lets swap the board around ... ***

Being a flat earther is an exercise in mastery. You have to absolutely understand the topic, learn other people's misconceptions about it, and also spot things that others might struggle to explain or better yet, find a way to explain something 'incorrectly' in a way that makes sense at first glance.

So that is what I'm going to do. I'm going to pick something from my OP that could muddy the water or if the science is bad (Spoiler: there are some pretty shitty scientists about), I'm going to utterly discredit the evidence removing your queen and making the game more even. This technique will make you a better scientist, because looking at your own work through 'flat earth eyes' encourages you to spot misconceptions others might have about your own work, or spot errors in your methodology and the data you present. How would a flat earther rip your thesis apart?

The premise of the OP, is that these waves travel through a molten core and can't be on a flat earth because they'd have to break the speed of sound to do it. And I kept using the same graph to beat you into submission.



So that graph is my problem. But it has a lot of data ... if you are using it against me, do you actually understand it, or are you just copy pasting something without understanding? If that's the case, I'm not going to let you win this debate.

So, *clears throat ... *

The OP mentions the use of shadow zones for s and p waves. And the OP showed the yellow line reading in the graph proves the s waves can only travel 103 degrees and come to a dead stop .... using this graphic to explain why.


But you also gave me this diagram.



In it, the p waves also have a shadow zone from 103 degrees to 150 degrees.

The yellow line perfectly demonstrates the shadow zone for s waves, with no readings after 103 degrees, but I'm expecting a gap in the p-waves - the red line on the graph. Why is it no less than 8 stations are reporting p-wave values between 103 degrees and 150 degrees on the graph? Where is the shadow zone for p-waves that the theory predicts and why are scientists making up data they can't possibly have? (now I'm going to bait you into a response ... a challenge) Your own data doesn't fit your model. You've only succeeded in proving the earth is not round. This is a fine example of round earthers ignoring evidence against their own theories and blindly championing rotundity. The very fact a p-wave travels unencumbered across the earth shows it must be of a uniform density like the surface of a flat earth.

(my father only ever swapped the board around once in a game. I'm not going to argue against my self for 40 pages).

I'm going to add two further points. There is a reason flat earthers get bored of gravity and sunset threads. Its like you are using the same opening on us every game. You come at me with the Ruy Lopez and I'm going to respond with a standard defense myself.  I already know your objections, I know my responses, I've played that gravity game 14 moves deep a hundred times. Its why we moan at your to find innovative proofs ... like this OP. A new challenge.

I'm also sick of established members like Junker constantly telling me I'm stupid. That I'm Thorkish and have retarded ideas. No, I'm making a retarded OP full of holes so you might actually engage me on it because if I make my OPs harder, none of you respond.  If I just make a post about my new computer, you'll ignore it. If I tell you my heatpipes have magical properties, you'll engage and talk about my computer which I wanted to do because I was excited about it, and you'll respond because someone was wrong about something on the internet. If everyone agrees, there is no debate. What kind of forum would this be if we all decided to just agree earth was round? A busy one? That is not how TES works.

protip: you're not trying to put the fire out.  you can't.  you're just trying to contain it until it burns out on its own.

You’re a better man than me, gg. I started to make a post earlier agreeing with your previous post and then explaining to thork what containment is. I closed my browser and went and had a drink instead.

Thork, I don’t know if you’re memeing or not, but just read gary’s post. This thread is heavily bordering on CN material. I’ll give it a few posts before I punt it down there for its sheer stupidity.

Was just meant to be a fun thread in the lounge where people could make silly suggestions. Not my fault everyone has a broom up their arse. Move it where you like.

That is the thing, Thork. You aren't fun. No one goes into a Thork thread thinking "oh hey, this is a light-hearted and fun thread." They think "wow what did he post this time?" <- that is a nice way of putting it

Maybe just preface it to let everyone know, because you are the definition of Poe's law.

Thanks for that. Appreciated. ... oh have a  in case I fall foul of Poe's law. 

1626

Arts & Entertainment / Re: World Cup 2018

« on: July 01, 2018, 09:41:11 AM »

Still stoked?

Messi and Ronaldo, going home.

Sad, but very stoked. Great matches today.

New fave 5:

Argentina  Mexico
Switzerland
Portugal England
Belgium
Brazil (if they beat Mexico)

Good grief. Neutrals liking England. This is unprecedented.

1627

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Google AI

« on: June 30, 2018, 01:21:13 AM »

How do you know they aren't drawing the rest of the moon and leaving a little dark patch?



Again you are also crying at me like a 4 year old. Use google, investigate the possibilities yourself. Stop asking me but what about this, then what about this, then what about this. This forum board is not for me to answer flat earth questions. And this thread was supposed to be a discourse on AI before it got perverted by people complaining about earth's shape again.

1628

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Google AI

« on: June 29, 2018, 09:42:56 PM »

Very possible.

I was reminded of this ten years ago when articles started coming out about how a Coca-Cola executive named Steve Koonin had conceived a plan to use NASA laser technology to shoot colored beams into space in order to form the Coke logo on the lunar surface just in time for the Times Square Ball to drop. Shot down by the FAA, who pointed out that the lasers just might cut airplanes in half, Koonin reluctantly shelved the idea.

It is called moonvertising and it is illegal. But look who has the technology .... Not just any old laser company.


How is this

harder than


That tech is 20 years old. Coke were trying in 1999 to ping lasers off the moon.

1629

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Google AI

« on: June 29, 2018, 04:53:34 PM »

Yet you're missing an important piece of this one that you CAN personally experience/test (or not experience as the case may be). Presents appearing under the tree with no one having purchased them, labeled as 'From: Santa'.

And this happens. Ask any 4 year old. That's the point of the Santa thought experiment.

Assume you are 4 years old. You know only what other 4 year olds know. You aren't privy to adult information (analogous to government info). There are people who want to lie to you. In fact, your own parents are doing it. And they do it for two reasons.

1) Their own perverse pleasure because they think your ignorance is adorable ... I'm guessing governments can empathise with this
2) Because they think it makes your life more enjoyable not to know the truth and they know better than you ... I'm guessing governments can empathise with this too.

Now, what happens when you learn the truth? Do you get as many xmas presents as you get older? Do you get taken to get free gifts in the mall? Do your parents continue to make as much effort for xmas? Do you benefit from knowing the truth, or are you actually punished for it? What does a government do when you find out the truth about something ... do they reward you?

The Santa thought experiment is perfect because you've been red-pilled. You are the other side of the conspiracy. You've seen both sides. Do you go around telling small children that Santa doesn't exist ... or do you become complicit in the lie? And would you prefer to be 40 years old and still believe in Santa? It means more presents. There is no upside to knowing. The mentally handicapped still get trips to sit on Santa's knee. They still get those presents. It only stops once you know the truth.

So, how did you break free of the Santa delusion? Maybe an older sibling told you? Maybe a friend at school? And did you believe the first person who told you? It is doubtful. But after a while you became suspicious. You dug more and more ... and eventually, despite almost everyone telling you Santa exists ... those little voices of doubt ate away until you put enough of the pieces together and chose to no longer believe the fantastical stories you grew up with. Welcome to TFES. We're your older sibling. A man delivering presents all over the world on a sleigh is every bit as ridiculous as a man in a tin foil space ship walking on the moon, or a machine travelling at 22,000 mph full of scientists.

Or just poorly crafted attempts to make my reasoning look 'bad' for some reason instead of answering the question?

There is no point in me whispering "Santa doesn't exist" if you are 4 years old. It will only make you cry. But as you become more sceptical, say aged maybe 7 or 8 ... then you are ready to listen. Right now you are behaving like a 4 year old. Stop crying and start investigating.

1630

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Google AI

« on: June 29, 2018, 03:18:00 PM »

About 6 months ago, I went to the mall. You'll never guess who was there. Santa!
Let's examine the evidence presented.

I saw him with my own eyes.
He was giving out presents.
The mall was advertising meetings with Santa.
He had a sleigh.
There were elves.

Are you trying to tell me Santa was in on it, all the elves were in on it, the parents of all the children were in on it, the mall owners were in on it and Santa's sponsor Vodaphone was in on it too? All just to fool me and the children? What possible motivation could there be for this?

Let's follow your line of thinking ...

The information given concurs with the information seen/experienced personally.

Saw him with my own eyes. Red suit, beard, giving out presents. Check.

So either A. They're executing the deception so perfectly, that one can't find a flaw in it. Or B. They're actually doing it.

Agreed. A or B.

Granted, whichever side you choose to go with one can certainly state/claim it's entirely speculation.

Erm, ok. I can only speculate it isn't Santa. You're losing me here, but OK.

But at least my personal experience agrees with the information presented. At that point, what reason is there to be seriously in favor of option A?

You tell me. Why do parents lie to children, mall workers lie to children, sponsors lie to children, and people dressed up like idiots lie to children? More interesting question, if you didn't know their exact motivation for doing this ... does it make it any more probable that I met Santa? And are the motivations of all the actors (parents and vodaphone for example) the same? Why would they collude against me and the children?

Other than deciding that they can't be trusted for any reason whatsoever, or similar ideology I suppose.

So children should trust their parents, trust the mall, trust the sponsors and trust the idiots in the green and red suits ... just like you trust the government.

Actually curious here. Disregarding anything else, if all of a persons experiences with said object exactly reflect as much of the publicly given information as can be personally verified then what logical reason is there to be in serious doubt of the rest?

Children across the world get to meet Santa in a mall ... they all experience it ... it has huge publicity ... talk of Santa happens on TV, radio, books, its part of the zeitgiest.

What logical reason should I doubt the existence of Santa? Or am I just another conspiracy theory nut?

1631

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Google AI

« on: June 29, 2018, 02:10:57 PM »

I've seen the ISS, on more than one occasion, cross my sky twice in the same evening.

Who says you saw the same vehicle? You saw TWO instances of a machine pass overhead. Why do you make the immediate inference they must be the same machine? If I saw a train go past me on the platform at my local train station, and then another identical one go past 10 mins later in the same direction, I wouldn't leap to the conclusion it was the same train. I'd assume it was two trains run by the same company with the same paint job on them.

It did so exactly as predicted for me by in-the-sky.org,

My regional train company does that with trains.

it went into Earth's shadow as predicted by the app, and went in the same direction each time. It shows no deviation from wind, weather or such, it shows no vapour, propellant or other trail behind it.

Again, how do you know what type of propulsion secret military aircraft use?

I know that planes cannot cross my sky at one time, then cross my sky again in the same direction, 90 mins later, without doing one of two things
A- going around our planet in 90mins at approx 17k mph (Mach 16+), or
B- changing direction to go back to the starting point in my sky.

Or C, its not the exact same aircraft.

They're not putting on a display specifically for me, they don't know where I am when observing, so we have to rule out option B.   Else, how would they know when to turn?

Why would they turn? Fly straight, get from edge to edge. Fly a different route home, pretending to be any other 'satellite' on a different 'orbit' (route) going a different direction.

Also, other observers are seeing the ISS go in the same direction, nobody sees it change direction, nobody sees it go East - West, so we can further rule out B from that.

How do you even know what you are seeing? If I projected a hologram onto a glass-like firmament, you'd see whatever shape I decided to put there. This is even easier than multiple vehicles. I just point a powerful light source at the firmament and you'll see whatever I show you. And I can turn the light off whenever I want a 'shadow of the earth'.

Again, how would the pilot know when to turn, such that they were out of sight for the observer / all observers, and able to turn back to the starting point?

Pilot? We live in an age of UAVs. Why the hell would I want a pilot? He needs life support, oxygen, warmth, pressurisation, instrumentation, knobs and dials, ejection facilities ... he's a pain in the backside. I'm going to replace him with a pentium processor.

The only sensible option is A.

Or C ... multiple UAVs ... or better yet, D ... holographic projection.

You're just speculating - maybe a plane could do this, maybe that. Have you any proof that a plane is actually doing this?

You're just speculating that you are being told the truth.

1632

Arts & Entertainment / Re: World Cup 2018

« on: June 28, 2018, 09:28:21 PM »

Well it went to shit. Arsehole Belgians. They didn't need that game. But no, they could cut us a break. I had to watch England lose agin. ffs. We've done our share of losing. Its our turn.

I heard being an entitled brat is the best way to win a football match 

You're confused. This thread is about 'soccer'. It isn't for you.

1633

Arts & Entertainment / Re: World Cup 2018

« on: June 28, 2018, 09:09:13 PM »

Well it went to shit. Arsehole Belgians. They didn't need that game. But no, they could cut us a break. I had to watch England lose agin. ffs. We've done our share of losing. Its our turn.

Germany probably still wins even though Brazil is the favorite.

lol.

1634

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Google AI

« on: June 27, 2018, 08:01:04 PM »

When you have some proof that the ISS is any kind of military plane, then come back to me.

From my personal observations, it cannot be a plane. Planes don't behave like that.

How do you know how secret military planes behave? No one knew how the SR71 behaved until AFTER it had been decommissioned. Same with the hope diamond.

1635

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Google AI

« on: June 27, 2018, 06:49:48 PM »

... aircraft don't fly direct. They go via way points, beacons, they go round in circles in holding patterns, wind effects them, temp, pressure, number of passengers and fuel also effects cruising speed, as does the centre of gravity which is load dependant (Where the passengers sit).

(slightly off-topic, I know, but ...)

.... why don't you present this argument to anyone who claims the ISS is really a high-altitude plane? For all of this is sure proof that the ISS, with its regular flight path, absolutely-perfect orbit timing, etc. CANNOT be a plane.

It cant be a passenger plane like a 737. But high altitude military planes don't take off from commercial airports, they don't follow departure routes or arrivals plates, they aren't made to wait in holds. When you see a jumbojet full of passengers leave an airport like this ...



then come back to me.

1636

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Google AI

« on: June 26, 2018, 08:15:38 PM »

You'd just need to agree on a dataset. Something everyone knows to be true and can prove themselves. Then let the computer iterate away, extrapolate and turn into a defined shape.

should be possible to input all know flights into this system and it could then draw a true map based on all the triangulation based on the data set??

No, aircraft don't fly direct. They go via way points, beacons, they go round in circles in holding patterns, wind effects them, temp, pressure, number of passengers and fuel also effects cruising speed, as does the centre of gravity which is load dependant (Where the passengers sit). This would be a horrible way to work it out.

1637

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Google AI

« on: June 26, 2018, 01:38:31 PM »

You'd just need to agree on a dataset. Something everyone knows to be true and can prove themselves. Then let the computer iterate away, extrapolate and turn into a defined shape.

1638

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: HAARP

« on: June 25, 2018, 01:29:28 PM »

And this is exactly the kind of thread we envisaged when we made the change.

I only wish I had something to add on HAARP. Ill read up and maybe come back to you later. :-)

1639

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Google AI

« on: June 25, 2018, 01:06:17 PM »

There recently was a formal debate between an AI and humans, and the AI provided substantive data to back up its conclusions.  If you borrowed elements from this you could also get data on how the AI came to the conclusion.

I hadn't seen that. Its an obvious thing to want to know how the answer is what it is. It needs building into all AI.

I'll bet that is how they'll make money. ML programs like tensorflow are free. So you can find the answer to anything you want. But if you want to know how the machine arrived at that answer so you can understand it too, that's the premium module. That's what I'd do. 

I don't look forward to the first AI bot joining this forum to debate earth's shape. 

1640

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Google AI

« on: June 25, 2018, 12:38:38 PM »

Yeah my bad. I thought that it still had to be FE related.

I don’t think the Google AI dominated go, but it certainly won against the world’s top player. Another AI, not developed by Google, defeated a bunch of human’s in a poker game.  What made this interesting is that unlike chess or go, poker has a component of hidden information and theory of mind components in betting. The AI adapted to both of these elements and learned to call bluffs.

I've actually written poker algorithms before. I wrote one for texas holdem based on the probability of winning any hand based on what's in my hand, whats on the table and what others could conceivably be holding by probability, what I might draw on the river, what they might get etc (odds for each stage). The problem is, whilst it worked and could say "you have a 45% chance of winning this hand over the other 4 people left in", I could never wrap my head around the maths of how much to bid to lure maximum money from people, to stop them folding because my algoritmn was predicting say 97% chance of winning so it went all in etc. I could get it to work out if the pot money vs the next stake was worth it to 'see' my opponent cards, but should my algorithm raise by $4, $6, $7? I had no idea how to sort that. And it seemed how much you bid, is actually more important than the cards you hold ... you hold average cards, you need to stay in but not lose too much.

I have recently been looking at tensor flow (from a hobbiest point of view), and it might be able to solve these problems for me, and as you say, be able to call a bluff ... which I wasn't even close to getting the maths right for. I could only say, odds in my favour, bet, not in my favour, don't bet ... binary ... and that won't beat a top player even if I know the odds. I did have 'the gun' in my probability, and the algorithm I wrote would know where on the table it was and calculate the odds dependant on its seat when asked to bid ... an instantaneous set of odds.

But I won't be using tensorflow for this ... gambling sites are already onto this and now actively hunt down signs of machine learning. That window has passed. 


Machine learning would be the ultimate answer to earth's shape. Not even Tom Bishop would argue because it is based on observable science. You don't give ML any assumptions. You just feed it data and it iterates repeatedly until it finds the answer. The problem with ML in today's format, is that whilst we'd end up knowing what shape the earth is, we'd have no idea how the machine came to that conclusion, we'd only know it is right. Much like we have no idea how Google's AI plays chess. It just does it.

I have a theory that ML will actually cause a 'great ignorance'. Lets say you got ML to start predicting the weather. Now if would just look at all the data from ocean buoys, airport reports, temp, pressure, visibility, dew point etc etc. And it would work out the weather ... and it would be far more accurate than anything we have today. Maybe we'd end up with a 30 day forecast. People at the weather service would abandon trying to predict the weather, the machine does it better, but no one knows how it does it. So, you'd have a meteorological office filled with people that could write machine learning, and no one who actually knew how to predict weather themselves from data as no one is employed to do that. The science would grind to a halt. There is no point learning a solved problem, as it is useless, weather isn't predicted that way any more.
Span this through multiple industries such as medical cures, accountancy, logistics, etc ... no one would have any knowledge or skill whatsoever. But I guess this is why people think AI will kill jobs for billions of people. We'll all be dumb, unskilled and unneeded.