Peer Reviewed article/s regarding concept, theory, and operation of tracks inside Foldit client,
|Opened on:||Wednesday, April 11, 2018 - 17:39|
|Last modified:||Wednesday, April 18, 2018 - 16:04|
Someone please point me toward peer reviewed articles with source material and commentary by peer scientists. If tracks worked as well as apparently believed by some devs, then there would be licensed one arm bandit gambling machines using said technology. The main, most sought after, goal of science is reproducibility, something I believe to be unattainable with current computer hardware. A quantum computer might do it. Analogous to running a one armed bandit with 3 separate games running simultaneously and expecting the house to pay. What I used to do in Korea was play 3 different machines using the same or varied games at the same time. that is how I paid for my existence for the 5 years I was there. I have yet to see a tracked solution be worthy of note and, in fact, have many gigabytes of HD space devoted to track experimentation on all my computers as fossilized remnants of bygone days when I was trying every blessed method available to try to create better scores for myself. I also constantly wonder why when someone gets one of those fantastic scores, they seem to either quit further play or if they do continue playing, they seem stuckk. Further info, my fossilized track experimentation folders have 16 executables in them as an indicator that at one time it was possible to run 16 clients of 90-100 segment puzzles on an i7 at least. Why cant I do that now?