HN user
There's an Austrian site with a massive variety of puzzles like these, all playable online for free: https://www.janko.at/Raetsel/Uebersicht.htm
It's mostly in German, but each game page usually has a rules section in English and links to other sites with the same puzzle type.
Their money is mostly stored in regulated and insured banks and investments. Even if you get their bank password, you can't just move all their money at once to an untraceable account in an irreversible transaction leaving them with absolutely no recourse.
the ones making nests near urban areas were incorporating a lot of colorful man-made trinkets they scavenged from the big city to woo the ladies (which I think suggests some level of flexibility).
If they avoided man-made objects, that would indicate that they're smart enough to tell the difference. They're just grabbing any object they find that stands out. If anything, that implies less intelligence.
By these rules, you just committed an attack and violated the rights of others by saying "88". If you were banned to prevent this attack, nothing of value would be lost.
Oh, "but I wasn't SAYING it" you say? Who judges whether hate speech is excused by context? Facebook interns? AI algorithms? Sorry, the algorithm has pronounced you guilty, you are now banned.
That is the world you would create.
I think you have some XIs that should be IXs.
You think everyone else can't make conscious decisions, but you can? That sounds like solipsism, or just a lack of empathy.
Reminds me of "100 Great Science Fiction Short Short Stories" edited by Asimov. The format works really well for hard sci-fi, gets straight to the point. Some of them have stuck with me for decades.
That's just a ternary operator. I use that in Java all the time.
value = boolean ? this_value : other_value;
If it was "promise" in the sense of "showing promise", then it's a mass noun and they wouldn't have said "a promise". That's like saying "a money" or "a knowledge".
That was actually mentioned in Nintendo Power volume 50, it's one of the most well-known and easy-to-perform video game glitches.
They also mentioned the Zelda 2 glitch where you could wrong-warp by jumping off the top of the screen and using the Fairy spell. You could get into a weird town that didn't exist, and if you left you were stuck in the middle of the ocean.
No, that's already covered by 0000, nobody drinks that one. Number the bottles 0 to 15 and it's clearer.
The ruling was in 2015, there was a year delay before it came into effect.
Some of these are poorly worded. Why does the answer to the May one keep talking about 30 seconds passing when the only time mentioned in the problem is 30 minutes? 30 seconds gives Nick at least 10 seconds per possible solution, he should have tried them all by then.
It should talk about the number of tries so far (one each), the length of time it took is irrelevant. But why are they even taking turns when they have separate padlocks and could easily brute-force it? I get the concept they're going for but the premise doesn't fit and just confuses things.
JS gets even weirder when you include all the comparison operators.
https://jsfiddle.net/5Yzs6/17/
Did you know undefined is equal to undefined, but not <= undefined or >= undefined?
Or that two instances of the same object/array are not equal (e.g. [-1] != [-1]), but are both <= and >= each other?
Or that /.*/ is non-comparable (only != is true) to all numbers, but greater than [-0.5] and "-0.5", and less than [0] and "0"?
It wouldn't need to involve cognition and logic, it could be evolutionary coincidence: humpback whales with behavior that happens to result in fewer orcas nearby would have more surviving offspring, so this behavior would be selected for.
No, it would require them to add their cert on the intended machines under their control. The only reasons they would need the trust of all browsers and OS's are subterfuge and laziness. They should not be globally trusted to issue certificates.
Tetris is actually an interesting example:
http://tetris.wikia.com/wiki/Random_Generator
Officially branded Tetris games are required to use a "random bag" algorithm where they generate random permutations of the 7 tetrominos, so that for every 7 pieces (aligned with the bag start) you get each type once. You can only get two in a row if they appear at the end of one bag and the start of the next, and conversely there's a maximum of 12 pieces between duplicates (start of one bag, end of the next). Three in a row will never happen.
People may not always feel comfortable checking into a local bar or sharing an anecdote from their lives, knowing these updates may not be relevant to all their connections.
Google Plus solved this exact problem 5 years ago with "circles", letting you choose what to share with which groups of "friends". Why hasn't Facebook implemented this?
Don't forget Codex of Alchemical Engineering, one of their free browser games:
http://www.zachtronics.com/the-codex-of-alchemical-engineeri...
What black hole are you sending JSON into where the only way they could know something is a date is if you use a date type? Why can't that be part of the data structure you agreed upon in order to communicate in the first place?
Would this be implemented as only showing pairs within a certain threshold of difference, or would it choose an application purely at random and then the application with the closest score (or even 50/50 the next highest or next lowest)? The former seems like it could lead to cases where applications end up in a void between clusters and stop appearing in votes, preventing late voters from giving an opinion on them.
Is there a name for this kind of voting process?
I think most people are reading that example and imagining a one-off harsh interaction with someone who doesn't usually snap like that, while the way you describe it:
how unpleasant social interactions persist and grow into a climate of alienation and dysfunction
is more like someone you expect to be rude to you all the time unless you tell them not to be. If that's not going to happen, then just letting it go could be a reasonable response. There's also the fact that this is being recounted after the fact, which implies not just hurt feelings in the moment but a lasting grudge held over something most people wouldn't be bothered by, which can also be toxic to relationships.
> You can't delineate a set of criteria for when to take a statement said to you "personally".
Sure i can. When it affects you, personally. People who disagree with me can't come up with a set of criteria.
Fair enough. Everyone takes offense at different things. But if your threshold is set so low that interactions that most people wouldn't find "uncomfortable or harmful" are "unacceptable" to you, then any interaction with you becomes difficult, and that difficulty will drive people away and alienate you.
That's how you're coming across here, and that's why people are suggesting you try to change yourself, change the way you view these interactions, instead of just insisting that everyone else change to accommodate you. "Don't take it personally" doesn't mean "don't react to things that bother you", it means "don't let it bother you". For things that have no ill intent and don't bother most people (even when it's directed at them), that's good advice.
Everyone forgets about Pac-Man, that was another huge contributor to the crash. The 2600 couldn't handle 5 sprites, so they used one sprite for all the ghosts and showed one per frame. The flickering ghosts against the bright blue background was physically painful to watch.
They estimated 10 million consoles were actively being played, so they made 12 million copies. They sold 7 million, and that's before returns. 7 million people who would think twice before buying another Atari game.
That doesn't explain what "declared a de jure court" means. Declared an according-to-law court? And that made the judge run away? It's gibberish.
and then taken the idea and started building it into their machines by default.
And sold it and kept all the money to themselves? Sounds like a great deal for them.
That only makes sense if you restrict Bob's decision making to consider each game in isolation, without regard to how how rejecting an offer in one game might lead to a higher offer in a future game. At that point, I would call it a different problem entirely, so there isn't much point in comparing the results. I certainly wouldn't label that version of the problem "rational" and the version where Bob considers future games "irrational".
I think he's describing a different problem, since he mentions majority voting. If I was splitting a cake with 2 other people (A and B), A suggested fair division into thirds, and B suggested half for me and half for B, B's suggestion would clearly win the vote.
In ROUND100, Alice knows Bob will take whatever non-zero offer she makes.
Wait, how does she know that? Can you explain why you consider that the most rational choice for Bob to make? As experiment shows, this is not the optimal strategy, so I don't see why you would call it the "rational" one.
Also, keep in mind that you're describing an iterative game (where the same people play the same game with the same circumstances repeatedly) and the pirate game is non-iterative, since the players and circumstances change between rounds. As you note, iterative games are much more complicated and the sort of induction used in the pirate game doesn't really work.
Another problem which puzzles me even more is dividing a cake among three people by majority vote.
Is there a name for this problem? I can only find the fair cake cutting problem, which has been solved for 3 people.
declared a de jure court
What does this mean? Google has no results for that phrase, using any verb tense.