AeroHorn

hmmm, names? Wordle 239 4/6* ⬛⬛⬛🟨⬛ ⬛🟨🟨🟨🟨 ⬛🟨🟨🟩🟩 🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩

Well, besides the obvious miss that gave the TD to Bengals, LA TD was also called back due to holding. Doesn't look like the refs favored LA, either in the middle or the end.

A math version sounds more unstructured and hence more difficult. Need to do a few to confirm. nerdlegame 24 3/6 🟪⬛⬛⬛🟩🟩🟪⬛ ⬛🟩⬛🟩⬛⬛🟪⬛ 🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩 https://nerdlegame.com #nerdle

I think it is just a biological copy. The actual personality is anyone's guess. You just have make sure to set the dial accordingly.

this took way too long Wordle 237 5/6 ⬛🟨⬛⬛⬛ ⬛🟨⬛🟨🟨 ⬛🟨🟨🟨⬛ 🟨⬛⬛🟩🟩 🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩

This one is not for your team Wordle 236 3/6* ⬛⬛🟨⬛⬛ 🟩🟩⬛⬛🟨 🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩

One "secret" he reveals is that the list of Wordle words is visible in the website.

SIAP. People who like math (and associated physics/computer science) may already know about 3blue1brown on youtube, one of my favorite channels. Here, he tackles the best strategy for Wordle using information theory.

easy word with multiple possibilities Wordle 234 5/6* ⬛🟩🟩⬛⬛ ⬛🟩🟩⬛⬛ ⬛🟩🟩🟩⬛ ⬛🟩🟩🟩⬛ 🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩

I thought of this too but realized that in such extreme weather and north latitude, probably they are not practical. With sun absent for 6 months and low over the horizon the rest of the time, batteries requiring heating to be functional, and probably wind turbine also requiring winterization to work, gas generators may be the only feasible year-around solution.

He lives about 80 miles from Fairbanks. There is a Costco in Fairbanks.

Another case of multiple possibilities. I got it at the 3rd option. Wordle 229 4/6* ⬛🟨🟩⬛⬛ 🟩🟩🟩🟩⬛ 🟩🟩🟩🟩⬛ 🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩

easier word Wordle 228 3/6* 🟨⬛⬛🟨⬛ 🟨⬛🟩⬛🟩 🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩

good guess Wordle 227 2/6* 🟩⬛⬛⬛⬛ 🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩

Rams are favored. Being a bay area resident, I am supporting 49ers, but they are a 6th seed for a reason.

Don't let the WRs/TE get a free release and make Mahomes dink and dunk. Be the opposite of last week's opponent.

Why let them score? It's not as if the score is tied. Holding for FG is possible.

🙂 His life history sounds lot more interesting than mine. There are 3 groups of companies: - pure IP play ones such as Intellectual Ventures. They treat patents purely as a financial asset with legal team as operations and engineering serving the legal team. The engineers are there to see what is in the market and explain the tech to lawyers. Lawyers then read that into the patents and go after those companies. There are some pure trolls that patent whatever comes into their mind and see if it flies in court. The others actually buy patents from companies, bundle them into different portfolios and license/litigate them. This makes sense to sellers of patents too because of the nature of their business, they can't or don't want to monetize their patents. - R&D companies such as IBM, Bell Labs, etc with substantial R&D budgets where hundreds of Ph.D.s work on future stuff not tied to shipping products. For these companies, patents are an aggressive asset to carve out future roadmaps, leverage through standards, grow licensing revenue, etc. This is a legitimate business that benefits from the patent office and drives innovation. There are quite a few small companies too that follow this model. - Other companies that file patents as non-core activity to encourage innovation during their product development. For them, these are largely defensive assets so that others dissuaded from filing patent infringement claims against their products. It's usually these companies that sell their patents to the first group because they keep a license to use/modify for themselves when they sell. There is a lot behind patent filing process. The goal of a patent lawyer is to guarantee the company as much domain as possible for as long as possible with the strongest boundaries and most general claims. Once the patent is filed, the patent office responds after 1-2 years (there are ways to pay more to get earlier response) saying that this idea is already invented, the claims are too general, some claims are too different from others and should be filed separately, the method claims are too many, etc. The lawyers will delete, say, 15 of the original 50 claims, take out another 20 because they are different to submit as separate patent, etc. Now, the engineers are also working and they come up with more ideas on the same topic. The lawyers try to see if they can add these new ideas with the original filing date to get earlier invention date compared to what competitors could be doing. They find common language with the first patent and file continuations and divisionals. So, if the original idea is strong and the company is putting resources into that activity, it is easy to see it grow into a portfolio of patents through combined engineering and lawyering. Stanford is great at that, with Silicon Valley being the proof. It is not easy to go from a patent to payoff. Patents cost money to file and maintain. An entity generating 100 patents/year probably has 1000-3000 live patents that cost 1M-3M/year to maintain. That is just paper patents. Actual R&D behind it probably cost multiple times that. And taking that R&D to products/revenue will cost multiple times more. To license, the licensee should see value in it because they have to invest R&D and engineering knowing that only a minority of ideas actually succeed. The people who know best are the students that worked on it, and the universities should enable them by starting incubators, etc. and being very generous with how "tightly" they hold onto the IP. This is the easiest way to see IP turn into products and whatever they lose by being generous in terms, they gain by these students living the startup lives and attracting venture funding.

easy word with multiple possibilities Wordle 222 4/6 🟨⬛⬛⬛🟨 ⬛🟩🟩⬛⬛ ⬛🟩🟩🟩🟩 🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩

<not so humble brag> I am on this list List of prolific inventors - Wikipedia

Or we can treat OT as an extension and continue with the team that had the ball at the end of the regulation. Edit: It will make for an interesting decision near the end whether to play slow, go for OT and give the other team a chance to get the ball or score now and end the game.

If it is certain that teams will score easily in overtime due to fatigue, etc., then all the more reason to (i) ensure each team gets at least one possession and (ii) face an extended field to not make the scoring as "certain". A simplistic approach would be to have an extra quarter but there is a chance of tie too. If scoring is still easy with an extended field too, then giving equal possessions takes away the incentive to stop a TD from being scored. If team A scores FG/TD, team B scores the same FG/TD, and team A scores TD, giving the ball to team B again may seem "fair" but it takes away from the football aspect of trying to keep the ball away from the opponent, clock management, etc. that happens at the end of each halves.

All fair points, but in a tie game, this point applies to both teams; so why favor one team with the coin toss? Agreed that defense is a big part of the game, so why is the coin-toss-winning team's defense not tested? Both teams played to a tie and both teams' offense and defense should be made to play. I prefer NFL's OT to college football's version with the only addition that both teams get at least one possession, with the rest of the rules including sudden death with a TD or more points with equal possessions be the same. College football's OT is cute but not really a football game but more to reduce extra playing time through quick scores that doesn't always work.

good word Wordle 219 4/6 ⬛⬛⬛⬛🟨 🟨🟨⬛⬛⬛ ⬛🟨🟩🟨🟨 🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩

It is like there are two Vinces playing