|laziness, impatience, and hubris|
Quite ruthless really. First time I have tried this approach, seems very powerful.
You mustn't be too ruthless though. You have to allow some of the less good candidates to evolve otherwise the algorithm will lock into a local minima and never explore further.
For example, there are at least 8 better solutions than the 86850:
But these will never be discovered by minor evolution from the 86850 solution.
You have to allow some radical variations (with significantly less good scores) to evolve for a while to discover these better ones.
With the rise and rise of 'Social' network sites: 'Computers are making people easier to use everyday'
Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
"Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".
In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.