Other decentralised, open source alternatives include:

– Nextcloud, file hosting/sharing/groupware/etc. (https://nextcloud.com/)

– Mastodon, a federated Twitter-like social network (https://joinmastodon.org/)

– Matrix, a decentralised communication protocol (https://matrix.org/docs/projects/try-matrix-now.html)

– LBRY, a decentralised content sharing protocol based on a blockchain (https://lbry.io/faq/what-is-lbry)

Moreover, ‘evidence’ for astrology tends to be nebulous and doesn’t exclude other possibilities, while ‘Lots of people do sexist things’ (almost tautologously) supports the statement that ‘Sexism exists in our society’. Therefore, according to Bayes’ law, the posterior probability for astrology isn’t updated much by that evidence, while the posterior probability for sexism is. It’s therefore not inconsistent to label astrological success stories as being merely ‘confirmation bias’, while not doing the same for the testimonials on Everyday Sexism.

]]>— Privacy Badger (https://www.eff.org/privacybadger), which is designed to block domains that are determined, over time, to be tracking the user

— HTTPS Everywhere (https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere), which, where possible, enforces the encrypted https

Furthermore, one might prefer to use a Virtual Private Network (VPN), rather than the Tor browser.

]]>http://jftsang.com/facebook-outlink-demangler.php ]]>

It would appear that this is not the first case of the sort amongst my friends and acquaintances. One reported having his video–of an original composition–taken down entirely. On the other side of things, another had her videos reuploaded by another user, against her consent; she was unable to do anything to get them taken down, without hiring a lawyer.

]]>Equally, if a gammon or backgammon is likely then they probably shouldn’t offer it.

This applies if we’re not playing the Jacoby rule. It’s been pointed out to me that everything is different if we are playing a match (best to 15 or 17) rather than for money. If you’re very behind with the score at 13-4, say, then doubling is more advantageous for you than it is for them, because you’re likely to lose the match anyway.

I thought about this solution: Suppose you both can calculate the probabilities. Then you can both calculate the expected outcome for the round, if you don’t double. Call it . Your opponent will take the double if , and drop if . Thus, both players stand to gain from an offer if — you double, your opponent will take, and you can now expect to win .

But you’re right: This solution doesn’t take volatility or skew into account. You might have a situation with , with a small chance of you winning by a backgammon and a large chance of you losing by a point, but a very small chance of winning by just a point or a gammon. (I can’t think of any such situation at the moment.) I’m not sure whether the expectations argument still holds.

]]>I think that one should only offer a double when they are more likely to win but only marginally. It all depends on how risk averse the players are.

Equally, if a gammon or backgammon is likely then they probably shouldn’t offer it.

In terms of being offered the double, one has to analyse the volatility of the probabilities over the next couple of throws and assess whether the entire game could turn in the next few goes. I think the big reason of not accepting if if the opponent if 60%+ chance of winning.

It is an interesting situation. One should only really offer the doubling cube if they look set to win but one should not accept if it’s unlikely they’ll win. So by that logic, it’ll never be used.

]]>