Tootfinder

I think you just have to watch the game and then you’ll know what I mean by "Messi things".
He can decide the game on his own, as we saw today.
Messi did indeed decide the game on his own on Tuesday, scoring a trio of clinically taken goals to bury Algeria and push Argentina to the brink of the knockout round.
He did so 20 years to the day after scoring his first World Cup goal for Argentina.
It feels sometimes like Messi is ageless, but rolling the tape on …

Que jogo maluco, nunca na vida eu tinha visto um jogo de #copa com tantos gols assim. O que, ališs, me deixou ainda mais inconformado com a covardia da #Inglaterra de ter se fechado na retranca após fazer o gol contra a

Should Demand Models Incorporate Competitor Prices? Oblivious Learning and Algorithmic Collusion
Yuhang Wu, Assaf Zeevi
https://arxiv.org/abs/2606.05363 https://arxiv.org/pdf/2606.05363 https://arxiv.org/html/2606.05363
arXiv:2606.05363v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: On a platform with many sellers, should a pricing algorithm explicitly model competitors' prices when learning demand? Classical learning arguments suggest an affirmative answer: ignoring competitors induces model misspecification and inefficiency. In contrast, recent work on algorithmic collusion suggests that strategic obliviousness -- deliberately ignoring competitor prices -- may facilitate collusive outcomes and improve profits. We study this modeling choice in a stylized competitive market with unknown noisy demand, in which multiple sellers repeatedly set prices and estimate demand via iterated least squares, and either incorporate competitors' prices into their demand models (informed) or ignore them (oblivious). We first show that, relative to a monopolist, an oblivious seller in a competitive market must explore more aggressively to compensate for the loss of dynamic competitor information. Building on this insight, we characterize market dynamics when all sellers are oblivious and show that prices converge to the competitive outcome under sufficient exploration, while a continuum of pseudo-equilibria arises when exploration decays. Analyzing the resulting price trajectories, we uncover an excursion phenomenon that gives rise to transient collusive patterns that dissipate as learning progresses. In markets with both oblivious and informed sellers, the informed strictly out-earn the oblivious. Read as a strategy game, the modeling choice has a unique Nash equilibrium: the all-informed market, in which prices converge to the competitive outcome efficiently. Overall, our results indicate that collusive patterns are not robust and are not sustained by oblivious modeling; therefore, incorporating competitor information, together with sufficient price exploration, remains a reliable strategy for sellers in competitive markets.
toXiv_bot_toot

One thing I'm seeing more of is someone arguing that "Artificial Intelligence" only refers to Large Language Models such as ChatGPT and Gemini, and not anything else.
I grant that in 2026, maybe that is how laypeople use the term.
However, AI is a broad umbrella. Example: many include supervised machine learning models such as linear regression and decision trees, even though those are deterministic algorithms to produce a result.

Das geschriebene Wort schafft Verantwortung — Albrecht von Lucke auf der re:publica, zitiert von Steffen Voß (@…). Die Blogosphäre war kein Idyll, aber ein Raum, in dem Argumente zählten. Heutige Algorithmen steuern Diskussionen, Podcasts bieten oft nur Bestätigung. Was wir verloren haben: Präzision, Verlinkung, Widerlegbarkeit.

Cardinals' Jeremiyah Love setting no 'personal goals': 'It's all about the team at the end of the day' https://www.nfl.com/news/cardinals-jeremiyah-love-setting-no-personal-goals-it-s-all-about-the-te…

James O'Brien is on the radio asking if the government ought to leave Twitter.
He seems to have finally understood that there is no level playing field there, that the algorithm can't be used for good. That if it started to do good, the owners would just change it.
He left when he understood that the place is overrun with trolls and moderated only to keep the woke in check.
James blocked me ages ago, and I'd not ring in, but the key thing he's missing is this:
Elon musk has his own shitposting troll site that he owns.
Trump has his own shtposting troll site that he owns.
Mark Zuckerberg has his own shitposting troll site that he owns. He's got like four.
The blockchain people have their own shitposting troll site that they own (that's the one O'Brian uses).
If the government wants to use a shitposting troll site, they should also use one that they own.
Likewise LBC radio presenters really. If they want to use a shitposting troll site, they should probably use one that they own and moderate themselves.
And then, consensually, with no obligation, if they want, each of the shitposting troll sites can federate together with the others in a mesh, so that they can talk to each other and the conversation can flow between them but ownership and control is distributed to individual organisations.
Then we could decentralize ownership of the means of communication and avoid this argument about whether the government should be on twitter so we can instead argue whether UK Social should block or federate with Musk's Nazi Troll site or not.
And this system exists of course. LBC could have their own shitposting troll site by the end of next week and moderate it as they see fit.
#fediverse #mastodon #twitter #socialMedia