to weigh in on something

[Yilaner]

What does "weigh in on" mean in the following two
cases? Thanks for your explanation!

Weighing in on the debate, the Consumers’ Foundation
said the proposed amendment was unfair and ...

Medical-marijuana stakeholders weigh in on possible
regulations.

[Marius Hancu]

----
# weigh in _Slang_: To make a forceful statement in a discussion: She
weighed in with some pertinent facts.

http://www.wordnik.com/words/weigh
---

Marius Hancu

[J. J. Lodder]

Yilaner <yil...@gmail.com> wrote:

A historical origin may be seen at
<http://historiek.net/images/stories/spotprent-maurits-gr.jpg>

Content:
Prince Maurice of Orange weighs in on a theological dispute
by throwing his sword in the balance.
(through a coup d'etat)

Jan

[tony cooper]

Not just a forceful statement, but to "weigh in" means to add your
opinion to the discussion. I don't think the opinion offered has to
be forceful at all. It doesn't even have to be factual or meaningful.
It means no more than that someone has entered the discussion with
some comment or opinion.

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

[Pat Durkin]

"Yilaner" <yil...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:037373c3-50ad-49d9...@c17g2000prm.googlegroups.com...

Take part in. Participation in some activities (sports) requires that
the person meet or establish a certain physical weight: Jockeys, to
ensure their mounts are given the appropriate handicap, (if the jockey
is too light, special weights are added to the saddle, too heavy and
he is replaced) so bettors can be guaranteed a fair game. Wrestlers
and boxers, for example, must meet the weight standards of the class,
whether it be heavyweight, welterweight, or fly-weight, etc.

One assumes admission or participation is qualified in some way.

[Peter Duncanson (BrE)]

I think I would hestitate to use "weighed in" of someone who has made a
lightweight or negligible contribution to a debate. YMMV.

OED:
weigh, v1.

9. a. intr. in Horse Racing. Of a jockey: To take his place in the
scales, in order that his declared weight may be verified by the
clerk. to weigh out (in), to do this before and after a race. (Cf.
7d) Similarly in Boxing, to weigh in: said of a boxer (turning the
scales at a particular weight) before a fight. Hence in general
colloq. use.

Quotations dated 1805—1979

b. Hence to weigh in with: to introduce or produce (something that
is additional or extra). colloq.

Quotations dated 1885—1921

c. fig. to weigh in: to bring one's weight or influence to bear; to
enter a forceful contribution to a discussion, etc. colloq.

Quotations dated 1909—1976

--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)

[tony cooper]

On Wed, 08 Dec 2010 16:12:37 +0000, "Peter Duncanson (BrE)"
<ma...@peterduncanson.net> wrote:

>On Wed, 08 Dec 2010 09:18:29 -0500, tony cooper
><tony_co...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 7 Dec 2010 23:00:41 -0800 (PST), Marius Hancu
>><marius...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>----
>>># weigh in _Slang_: To make a forceful statement in a discussion: She
>>>weighed in with some pertinent facts.
>>>
>>>http://www.wordnik.com/words/weigh
>>>---
>>>
>>>Marius Hancu
>>
>>Not just a forceful statement, but to "weigh in" means to add your
>>opinion to the discussion. I don't think the opinion offered has to
>>be forceful at all. It doesn't even have to be factual or meaningful.
>>It means no more than that someone has entered the discussion with
>>some comment or opinion.
>
>I think I would hestitate to use "weighed in" of someone who has made a
>lightweight or negligible contribution to a debate. YMMV.

MM does V. "Weighed in" simply means added an opinion or comment.
The value of the opinion or the comment is immaterial to the fact that
they added something to the discussion.

> b. Hence to weigh in with: to introduce or produce (something that
> is additional or extra). colloq.

But not necessarily significant or important.

An example...two people are discussing football team's season. A
third person weighs in by saying the star player is cute. The third
person has joined in and added something, but it is not a significant
point about the team's season.

[R H Draney]

tony cooper filted:

>
>MM does V. "Weighed in" simply means added an opinion or comment.
>The value of the opinion or the comment is immaterial to the fact that
>they added something to the discussion.
>
>> b. Hence to weigh in with: to introduce or produce (something that
>> is additional or extra). colloq.
>
>But not necessarily significant or important.
>
>An example...two people are discussing football team's season. A
>third person weighs in by saying the star player is cute. The third
>person has joined in and added something, but it is not a significant
>point about the team's season.

And here we digress into the expression "another county heard from", often
incorrectly stated these days as "another *country* heard from"...the hosts of
"A Way With Words" were asked about this phrase on a recent show:

http://www.waywordradio.org/word-of-the-year/

If nobody has already done so, it might be interesting to have them look into
this sense of "weigh in"...does it come from prizefighting, where opponents are
weighed before the fight begins?...r

--
Me? Sarcastic?
Yeah, right.

[Donna Richoux]

R H Draney <dado...@spamcop.net> wrote:

> And here we digress into the expression "another county heard from", often
> incorrectly stated these days as "another *country* heard from"...the hosts of
> "A Way With Words" were asked about this phrase on a recent show:
>
> http://www.waywordradio.org/word-of-the-year/

This is news to me. I never heard that there was a form with "county,"
and certainly not that it was older. But it seems to be true. A book at
GB called "Common Phrases: And Where They Come from" by Myron Korach &
John Mordock says "Another county heard from" came from the close 1876
presidential race of Tilden vs. Hayes. I can't cut and paste the full
story, so you'll have to see here:
http://books.google.com/books?id=sm0TCk5fSpYC&pg=PA85

I began to get a little skeptical again when I couldn't find any mention
of either phrase that far back, not in Google Books or in Making of
America. Time Magazine had 1928 for "county" and 1956 for "country."
Were Mr. Korach and Mr. Mordock suckers for a good yarn?

But when I checked the New York Times, it had a facsimile of an 1879
article using "Another County Heard From" in a punning manner to refer
to a county's woes. So the phrase had been known enough then to do that.
I'm still a little surprised not to find mentions of the phrase in 1876
or 1877.

It is used in the 1935 play "Awake and Sing!" by Clifford Odets exactly
as I would expect (except for it being "county") -- two people are
talking, a third one chimes in, and a fourth says "Another county heard
from."

The first use of the "country" form I can find is another punning
headline, in a 1956 Time Magazine.

I see that Malvina Reynolds recorded an album in 1960 called "Another
County Heard From" and about 10% of web references spell it as
"Country."

--
Best -- Donna Richoux

[Roland Hutchinson]

On Tue, 07 Dec 2010 23:00:41 -0800, Marius Hancu wrote:

> ----
> # weigh in _Slang_: To make a forceful statement in a discussion: She
> weighed in with some pertinent facts.
>
> http://www.wordnik.com/words/weigh

Slang?

Perhaps slightly informal, I'd say. Not slang.

--
Roland Hutchinson

He calls himself "the Garden State's leading violist da gamba,"
... comparable to being ruler of an exceptionally small duchy.
--Newark (NJ) Star Ledger ( http://tinyurl.com/RolandIsNJ )

[Evan Kirshenbaum]

I've always assumed that it came from the notion of "weighing the
evidence" on a scale, with the idea being that you "added weight" to
one side or the another by your argument, with "weighing in" being
metaphorically measuring the weight of your contribution.

--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
Still with HP Labs |When you rewrite a compiler from
SF Bay Area (1982-) |scratch, you sometimes fix things
Chicago (1964-1982) |you didn't know were broken.
| Larry Wall
evan.kir...@gmail.com

http://www.kirshenbaum.net/

[rko...@rogers.com]

In the Hebrew Bible text at Proverbs 3:9 it talks about giving "honor" to God. The meaning of that word "honor" has the sense of heaviness or of substantial weight. When someone adds to a conversation, and those there listen to the words and thought with attention, and truly put stock in what is said, it can be said that the speaker has truly weighed into the conversation because of the attention given to his words. On the other hand if someone speaks and his thoughts are not truly valued he has no weight in the conversation, and thus no true honor is given to his thoughts.
So have I weighed in... well that's up to you 😊

[Peter T. Daniels]

Here's a revival -- a week short of five years -- that is not from gmail
and does quote what it replies to.

rko..., please tell us how you happened upon this old thread.

[jehch...@gmail.com]

While it's not incorrect to state that he "weighs in by saying the star player is cute", it's rather as if he WADED INTO the conversation, given the lack of substance or real relevance of his contribution. Just sayin'.

[Tony Cooper]

You are responding to a post made in 2010.

I don't agree with "waded in" in place of "weighed in" in this case.
When you say a person "wades in", there's an implication that the
person is interrupting the other people in the conversation. There's
an implication that the person "wading in" is making comments that are
not appreciated by the others.

I don't see the need for substance of a comment for it to be "weighing
in". It's just their contribution to the subject. It's a false
conclusion that "weighing", in this context, signifies that it is a
weighty comment.

[rameshr...@gmail.com]

to weigh in on something means to reflect on something

[rameshr...@gmail.com]

To my mind,the phrase 'To weigh in on something'implies 'To reflect on' or 'to study or examine' something. This is illustrated by means of the following example:
In the new year 2018,if you want to put the rift to rest,you can offer the olive branch and make amends with your co-equals.But,when it comes to a high profile rift, everyone wants to weigh in on it.

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

We seem to be having a new influx of Gougle Groupers resuscitating
long-forgotten threads.

(For anyone who wants to pretend that it has nothing to do with Google
Groups, note this in the full headers:

glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com;
posting-host=2405:204:f29c:346:dda3:895d:bd5a:9bf9;
posting-account=0YNTMQoAAACIEXnKl4zPnoIj5gTQTRkZ)


--
athel

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

On Sun, 14 Jan 2018 01:42:50 -0800 (PST), rameshr...@gmail.com
wrote:

>to weigh in on something means to reflect on something

That seems to be a misunderstanding.

The dictionary definition which matches my understanding of the phrase
is:

OED:

fig. to weigh in: to bring one's weight or influence to bear;
to enter a forceful contribution to a discussion, etc. colloq.

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/weigh_in

informal Make a forceful contribution to a competition or argument.

‘the dispute turned nastier when Steward weighed in’
‘the paper's editor weighed in with criticism of the president’

https://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/american/weigh-in_1

to become involved in something
weigh in with: I just wanted to weigh in with some comments.
To take part, or to become involved:join in, participate, involve...

[Janet]

In article <5a93d71f-a199-4a42...@googlegroups.com>,
rameshr...@gmail.com says...

>
> to weigh in on something means to reflect on something

No, it doesn't.

You seem to be confusing it with "weigh up"

Janet.

[J. J. Lodder]

<rameshr...@gmail.com> wrote:

Original posting restored [jjl]
========================================================================
From: Yilaner <yil...@gmail.com>
Subject: to weigh in on something
Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2010 22:29:08 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID:
<037373c3-50ad-49d9...@c17g2000prm.googlegroups.com>

========================================================================

[J. J. Lodder]

Or more directly, there is a header saying:

User-Agent: G2/1.0

Jan

[Richard Tobin]

In article <5a93d71f-a199-4a42...@googlegroups.com>,

<rameshr...@gmail.com> wrote:

>to weigh in on something means to reflect on something

No, it means to express your view in a discussion.

-- Richard

[Peter T. Daniels]

Apparently the superannuated former scientist has remained oblivious to the years of discussion
of how users of gmail become aware of the founding message of a Usenet thread.

[Dingbat]

On Sunday, January 14, 2018 at 4:53:39 PM UTC+5:30, PeterWD wrote:
> On Sun, 14 Jan 2018 01:42:50 -0800 (PST), rameshr...@gmail.com
> wrote:
>
> >to weigh in on something means to reflect on something
>
> That seems to be a misunderstanding.
>
> The dictionary definition which matches my understanding of the phrase
> is:
>
> OED:
>
> fig. to weigh in: to bring one's weight or influence to bear;
> to enter a forceful contribution to a discussion, etc. colloq.
>
> https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/weigh_in
>
> informal Make a forceful contribution to a competition or argument.
>
> ‘the dispute turned nastier when Steward weighed in’
> ‘the paper's editor weighed in with criticism of the president’
>
> https://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/american/weigh-in_1

Could "inveigh" be used in this context?

[Madrigal Gurneyhalt]

No!

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

Yes, but the person who claims that these posts are nothing to do with
Google Groups probably doesn't know what a User-Agent is, and even if
he does he wouldn't be able to decipher G2/1.0. He should be able to
figure out what "googlegroups" in the middle of a string means, however.


--
athel

[David Kleinecke]

If one is not already a Usenet user Google Groups is by
far the easiest way to access the Usenet.

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

On Sun, 14 Jan 2018 07:05:30 -0800 (PST), Dingbat
<ranjit_...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Sunday, January 14, 2018 at 4:53:39 PM UTC+5:30, PeterWD wrote:
>> On Sun, 14 Jan 2018 01:42:50 -0800 (PST), rameshr...@gmail.com
>> wrote:
>>
>> >to weigh in on something means to reflect on something
>>
>> That seems to be a misunderstanding.
>>
>> The dictionary definition which matches my understanding of the phrase
>> is:
>>
>> OED:
>>
>> fig. to weigh in: to bring one's weight or influence to bear;
>> to enter a forceful contribution to a discussion, etc. colloq.
>>
>> https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/weigh_in
>>
>> informal Make a forceful contribution to a competition or argument.
>>
>> ‘the dispute turned nastier when Steward weighed in’
>> ‘the paper's editor weighed in with criticism of the president’
>>
>> https://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/american/weigh-in_1
>
>Could "inveigh" be used in this context?

"inveighing" could a subset of "weighing in".
However, to inveigh is [OED]:

To speak vehemently.
5. intr. To give vent to violent denunciation, reproach, or censure;
to rail loudly. Const. against (†at, of, on, upon). The current
sense.

"a forceful contribution" need not be vehement. It can be calmly,
quietly and politely, even modestly delivered. Its force can come from
the reasoning involved.

[RH Draney]

On 1/14/2018 11:41 AM, David Kleinecke wrote:
>
> If one is not already a Usenet user Google Groups is by
> far the easiest way to access the Usenet.

The easiest way to use a typewriter is to peck away at the keys with one
finger, but methods requiring a bit more initial effort yield far more
rewarding results in the long run....r

[David Kleinecke]

I find Google Groups meets all my needs.

[Madrigal Gurneyhalt]

ALL of them?

[Peter T. Daniels]

None of that has anything to do with the fact that the people who make such
posts have no knowledge of Google Groups, or that they are contributing to
a thread, or that said thread may be decades old.

Does this mean that the usual slander that "Google Groupers" are doing
"drive-by postings" will be omitted?

[David Kleinecke]

All of my Usenet needs.

[Peter Moylan]

Non sequitur. It remains true that Google Groups encourages drive-by
posters to inject articles without understanding that they have ignored
the rest of the thread. All that would be required would be a pop-up
saying "Are you aware that you are responding to a long-dead thread?"
Google has chosen to encourage drive-by posters. Should we forgive it?

In the majority of such posts, we have clear evidence that the drive-by
poster has ignored the rest of the thread. Shouldn't Google provide a
prompt saying "the point you are making was made by several people years
ago"?

> Does this mean that the usual slander that "Google Groupers" are doing
> "drive-by postings" will be omitted?

As usual, you are leaving it ambiguous as to whether you mean "all", or
"some", or "New Jersey drive-by posters". Nobody has suggested that all
Google Gropers are drive-by posters. They have, instead, claimed that
all drive-by posters are posting via Google Groups. The latter claim is
undeniable.

--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Monday, January 15, 2018 at 8:58:49 AM UTC-5, Peter Moylan wrote:
> On 15/01/18 15:07, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > On Sunday, January 14, 2018 at 11:47:59 AM UTC-5, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>
> >> Yes, but the person who claims that these posts are nothing to do with
> >> Google Groups probably doesn't know what a User-Agent is, and even if
> >> he does he wouldn't be able to decipher G2/1.0. He should be able to
> >> figure out what "googlegroups" in the middle of a string means, however.
> >
> > None of that has anything to do with the fact that the people who make such
> > posts have no knowledge of Google Groups, or that they are contributing to
> > a thread, or that said thread may be decades old.
>
> Non sequitur. It remains true that Google Groups encourages drive-by
> posters to inject articles without understanding that they have ignored
> the rest of the thread. All that would be required would be a pop-up
> saying "Are you aware that you are responding to a long-dead thread?"
> Google has chosen to encourage drive-by posters. Should we forgive it?

It seems odd that a computer engineer would reify a computer program into a thing that
"encourages" and "chooses."

> In the majority of such posts, we have clear evidence that the drive-by
> poster has ignored the rest of the thread. Shouldn't Google provide a
> prompt saying "the point you are making was made by several people years
> ago"?

How can someone "ignore" something of which they have no awareness?

Do you "ignore" the colors of flowers that happen to be shades of ultraviolet that can be
perceived by their specific pollinators but not by humans?

> > Does this mean that the usual slander that "Google Groupers" are doing
> > "drive-by postings" will be omitted?
>
> As usual, you are leaving it ambiguous as to whether you mean "all", or
> "some", or "New Jersey drive-by posters". Nobody has suggested that all
> Google Gropers are drive-by posters. They have, instead, claimed that
> all drive-by posters are posting via Google Groups. The latter claim is
> undeniable.

It is false. Posting is a conscious act. If the posters are not conscious that gmail gives them,
unannounced, a window onto Google Group thread-initiating messages, and are not aware that
their messages are being seen by the tens of readers of this particular newsgroup, then they
cannot be said to be "posting via Google Groups." David, Ross, and I (and others) are posting
via GG. The gmail users are not. (I don't know where they think their messages are going.
I know one place where they don't think they're going, because they don't know it exists.)

[Richard Tobin]

In article <e086e6b6-08a5-478f...@googlegroups.com>,

Peter T. Daniels <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:

>It seems odd that a computer engineer would reify a computer program
>into a thing that "encourages" and "chooses."

Is this the same PTD who the other day said "If the computer wants to
put contour lines and, say, street lines so that they coincide, it
will do so"?

-- Richard

[Ken Blake]

On Tue, 16 Jan 2018 00:58:45 +1100, Peter Moylan
<pe...@pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:


>Non sequitur. It remains true that Google Groups encourages drive-by
>posters to inject articles without understanding that they have ignored
>the rest of the thread. All that would be required would be a pop-up
>saying "Are you aware that you are responding to a long-dead thread?"

OK, but as far as I'm concerned, it would be still better to allow
someone to read old threads, but not to reply to any thread older than
x days. Different people might have different ideas about what x
should be, but I would be happy if it were anywhere between 7 and 30.

And I feel exactly the same way about other web-based forums, for
example, answers.microsoft.com.

[snide...@gmail.com]

Since the user reviving this thread seems to have a posting history of
2 posts (both in this thread)
I, for one, feel comfortable saying said user "doesn't know what Google Groups is"

/dps "or at least, evidence of knowing is absent"

[snide...@gmail.com]

But it's okay when I go home and use MesNews (a newsreader out France)
to answer a post from last January (2017), because I forgot which end
of the list I was reading?

[Examples of my doing so are easily found]

/dps

[Ken Blake]

No, of course not. That should not be permitted either.

But I'll mention that that never happens to me, since I have my
newsreader (Agent) set to remove all messages as soon as I read them.
I have no interest in keeping old messages around. Since many people
use their newsreader the same way I do, the problem is much less
severe in newsgroups (except for Google Groups users) than in
web-based forums.

[Peter T. Daniels]

PTD is not a computer engineer. He does not impute consciousness to languages
or writing systems.

[Peter T. Daniels]

This is so bizarre. GG users don't "remove" anything, because postings are never
stored in their computers. (It has been claimed that when I read them I do in
fact download them, but I prefer to use "download" for things I copy off of
Out There and save for consulting when not on line.)

[Will Parsons]

Perhaps you don't realise that Usenet is *not* a "web-based forum"?
(Although Google might like to fool you into thinking so.)

--
Will

[snide...@gmail.com]

I would expect that as a Forte user, he does so realize.

/dps

[Snidely]

Ken Blake formulated the question :

> On Mon, 15 Jan 2018 12:57:47 -0800 (PST), snide...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> On Monday, January 15, 2018 at 11:49:12 AM UTC-8, Ken Blake wrote:
>>> On Tue, 16 Jan 2018 00:58:45 +1100, Peter Moylan
>>> <pe...@pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Non sequitur. It remains true that Google Groups encourages drive-by
>>>> posters to inject articles without understanding that they have ignored
>>>> the rest of the thread. All that would be required would be a pop-up
>>>> saying "Are you aware that you are responding to a long-dead thread?"
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> OK, but as far as I'm concerned, it would be still better to allow
>>> someone to read old threads, but not to reply to any thread older than
>>> x days. Different people might have different ideas about what x
>>> should be, but I would be happy if it were anywhere between 7 and 30.
>>>
>>> And I feel exactly the same way about other web-based forums, for
>>> example, answers.microsoft.com.
>>
>> But it's okay when I go home and use MesNews (a newsreader out France)
>> to answer a post from last January (2017), because I forgot which end
>> of the list I was reading?
>
>
> No, of course not. That should not be permitted either.

Oh, of course not, but there is nothing in usenet (other than local
custom) that allows it to be not permitted.

> But I'll mention that that never happens to me, since I have my
> newsreader (Agent) set to remove all messages as soon as I read them.

That trick doesn't work for me, since I'm not replying to already-read
messages. I currently show a backlog of 21271 *unread* messages (that
will dip by a handful in a few minutes). Many of those are messages
that I have no intention of reading but haven't marked as read, but
there are threads that get away from me because of the pate de foie
gras effect but that I do want to get through.

Of course, usenet would be nothing if we all had the same opinions.

/dps

--
Killing a mouse was hardly a Nobel Prize-worthy exercise, and Lawrence
went apopleptic when he learned a lousy rodent had peed away all his
precious heavy water.
_The Disappearing Spoon_, Sam Kean

[Snidely]

Snidely blurted out:

There is a reason, you see, that I didn't reply to your reply until I
got home.

[Richard Tobin]

In article <7f6844f4-8f5b-4c4c...@googlegroups.com>,

Peter T. Daniels <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:

>> >It seems odd that a computer engineer would reify a computer program
>> >into a thing that "encourages" and "chooses."

>> Is this the same PTD who the other day said "If the computer wants to
>> put contour lines and, say, street lines so that they coincide, it
>> will do so"?

>PTD is not a computer engineer. He does not impute consciousness to languages
>or writing systems.

It's a metaphor, stupid.

-- Richard

[Peter T. Daniels]

An old and clichéd "metaphor" that gave rise to an immense genre of science fiction --
the one that Asimov tried to fix with the Three Laws, and then spent his career working on
ways of getting around them.

And these days, when compsci has made achievements unimagined back in the day (remember, as
recently as 1968 Clarke/Kubrick failed to imagine miniaturization), we again hear fears
of the computers "taking over." The latest is GM's prediction that not too far in the future,
automobiles will justify their name and have no steering wheel, no gas/brake pedals.

[David Kleinecke]

Has any computer yet passed the Turing Test - roughly,
convinced anyone they were really a human being?

[Madrigal Gurneyhalt]

Depends who you ask!

[David Kleinecke]

If you are a computer you win!

[Peter T. Daniels]

Jokes about Alexa, Siri, and their friends suggest there's quite a way to go yet.

I wonder why "OK Google" doesn't have a girl's name.

[Sam Plusnet]

It depends.
Do you accept or reject the suggestion that Russian bots had a
significant impact on US voting in 2016?

--
Sam Plusnet

[Paul Wolff]

On Tue, 16 Jan 2018, Peter T. Daniels <gram...@verizon.net> posted:

I can't lay my hands on the links to the game I want to highlight, but
Alpha Zero played a remarkable bishop sacrifice against Stockfish
recently. It was the sort of move that a human player might make, in the
expectation of grabbing an initiative at the expense of lost material,
but didn't fit with the traditional computer approach of deeply
analysing every outcome. A stroke of brilliance, in a way.
--
Paul

[Ken Blake]

On Tue, 16 Jan 2018 20:49:12 +0000, Paul Wolff
<boun...@thiswontwork.wolff.co.uk> wrote:


>I can't lay my hands on the links to the game I want to highlight, but
>Alpha Zero played a remarkable bishop sacrifice against Stockfish
>recently. It was the sort of move that a human player might make, in the
>expectation of grabbing an initiative at the expense of lost material,
>but didn't fit with the traditional computer approach of deeply
>analysing every outcome. A stroke of brilliance, in a way.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b3lWlHycjec

[Madrigal Gurneyhalt]

Because feminists laid into MS and Amazon for portraying females as the
natural choice for being ordered about and doing the fetching and
carrying (albeit metaphorically). Google had more sense than to give them
a further opportunity.

[Tony Cooper]

And, as should have been expected, the not-a-female "OK Google" is not
as effective at getting things done as are the females known as Alexa
and Siri.

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

[Peter Moylan]

On 16/01/18 02:45, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> On Monday, January 15, 2018 at 8:58:49 AM UTC-5, Peter Moylan wrote:

>> Non sequitur. It remains true that Google Groups encourages
>> drive-by posters to inject articles without understanding that they
>> have ignored the rest of the thread. All that would be required
>> would be a pop-up saying "Are you aware that you are responding to
>> a long-dead thread?" Google has chosen to encourage drive-by
>> posters. Should we forgive it?
>
> It seems odd that a computer engineer would reify a computer program
> into a thing that "encourages" and "chooses."

OK, that's an English usage point. I said that
(a) Google Groups encourages posters to do certain things;
(b) Google, the company, has chosen to encourage something.

In both cases, that's a standard shortcut for which I've forgotten the
label. I could have said in case (a) "Google Groups is designed to
encourage ...", thereby putting the responsibility onto the designers.
(But it's more complicated than that, because the designers are carrying
out policies that are handed down from above.) In case (b), I used
"Google" to mean "the management and employees of Google", without going
into detail over which part of the company makes those choices.

I also skipped over the question of whether the software features arise
by conscious design or by accident and sloppy programming, because I
don't know which of these is true.

No doubt I could have spelt that out in tedious detail, but it's
customary in this newsgroup to assume that the readers are intelligent
enough, and fluent enough in English, to be able to fill in the details.
This is something we do all the time. It's not the same as saying "the
computer wants to do something". The latter really is a case of
anthropomorphising a machine.

[Peter Moylan]

On 17/01/18 04:27, David Kleinecke wrote:

> Has any computer yet passed the Turing Test - roughly, convinced
> anyone they were really a human being?

I've met humans who would have failed the Turing Test. The boundary is
getting fuzzier.

[Peter Moylan]

Usenet isn't a web-based forum, but Google Groups is. That's the spanner
in the works.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Bots?

Significant effect?

What we know is that a very large number of anti-Clinton statements ("ads,"
maybe) were placed on social media by Russians. Did they have any effect?

Bots didn't create the content.

[Paul Wolff]

On Tue, 16 Jan 2018, Ken Blake <K...@invalid.news.com> posted:

>On Tue, 16 Jan 2018 20:49:12 +0000, Paul Wolff
>

>>I can't lay my hands on the links to the game I want to highlight, but
>>Alpha Zero played a remarkable bishop sacrifice against Stockfish
>>recently. It was the sort of move that a human player might make, in the
>>expectation of grabbing an initiative at the expense of lost material,
>>but didn't fit with the traditional computer approach of deeply
>>analysing every outcome. A stroke of brilliance, in a way.
>
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b3lWlHycjec

Yup, that's the one, thanks.
--
Paul

[J. J. Lodder]

Tony Cooper <tonyco...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Jan 2018 13:24:56 -0800 (PST), Madrigal Gurneyhalt
> <purpl...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> >On Tuesday, 16 January 2018 19:18:54 UTC, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> >> On Tuesday, January 16, 2018 at 12:27:09 PM UTC-5, David Kleinecke wrote:

[snip]

> >> > Has any computer yet passed the Turing Test - roughly,
> >> > convinced anyone they were really a human being?
> >>
> >> Jokes about Alexa, Siri, and their friends suggest there's quite a way
> >> to go yet.
> >>
> >> I wonder why "OK Google" doesn't have a girl's name.
> >
> >Because feminists laid into MS and Amazon for portraying females as the
> >natural choice for being ordered about and doing the fetching and
> >carrying (albeit metaphorically). Google had more sense than to give them
> >a further opportunity.
>
> And, as should have been expected, the not-a-female "OK Google" is not
> as effective at getting things done as are the females known as Alexa
> and Siri.

Female voices carry better, in noisy environments,
or on poor speakers. Ask Mrs. Tomtom,

Jan

[J. J. Lodder]

Peter Moylan <pe...@pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:

> On 17/01/18 04:27, David Kleinecke wrote:
>
> > Has any computer yet passed the Turing Test - roughly, convinced
> > anyone they were really a human being?
>
> I've met humans who would have failed the Turing Test. The boundary is
> getting fuzzier.

That's failed on predictability, which is another thing,

Jan

[weighbridgema...@gmail.com]

good blog. Very informative post . Please provide few more information.<a href="https://social.wtguru.com/2020/07/30/weighbridge-manufacturers-weighbridge-suppliers-in-india-delhi/"> Weighbridge Manufacturers</a>