adotbacon

Wow, well done! I found [6,7,8] as well:

6,7,8

6,7,5,3

6,7,1,4,3

6,8,4,3

6,8,7

6,3,5,7

6,2,1,5,7

8,1,5,7

8,6,7

8,4,2,1,6

8,4,3,6

8,7,6

Yeah, the [n,n+1] is only a problem when there isn't enough wiggle room between the numbers. ex: [2,3] and [3,4]

[3,4]

--> [1,2,4] --> 4 can't split because 2/2 and 3/1 are invalid

--> 4 can't initially split because 2/2 and 3/1 are both invalid

[5,6] --> [5,4,2] --> [5,1,3,2] --> [6,3,2] --> [6,5]

[7,8] --> [7,3,5] --> [7,1,2,5] --> [8,2,5] --> [8,7]

When you add more numbers, you need more wiggle room. So, [4,5,6] is problematic and probably [5,6,7].

[4,5,6]

--> [3,1,5,6] --> 6 can't break into 3, nor 5/1. It can do 4/2, but then 5 can't split. 5 also can't split.

--> [4,2,3,6] --> [4,2,3,1,5] --> [6,4,5] --> 4 can't split into 2/2. It can split to 3/1 but then 5 can't split

--> 6 can't initially split at all because 3/3, 4/2, and 5/1 are invalid

Even if [6,7,8] has a solution, I'm sure [6,7,8,9] does not.

I think surfacing additional information would help increase confidence in the system when it raises a problem.

For example, keep a running passengerCount (or rather display it since it must(?) exist). If someone has a copied pass, their screen can show: Current Passenger Count 10 This Pass Last Scanned at 5

If the fraudster & legitimate passenger are back-to-back, that might add some confusion for the agent so they'd need a good way to display this. They can call out to the last person to come back to clear up confusion.

If the fraudster was much earlier, they'd have to go find them. Maybe take a picture of each passenger during pass-scan.

Or simpler: this would be simplified by using Steffen Method boarding [1]: you should know exactly which seat matches a given passenger count number.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steffen_Boarding_Method

I loved playing Psychopath back in 2006 and built a Java clone in 2007 for a class. I love how many awesome puzzles emerge as people pieced them together to make levels on top of the simple rules. I also remember enjoying Stick Avalanche & Boomshine. Thanks for all the fun times & awesome to bump into you!

I've started Pathology.

Lost there too doing the opposite... I tried to get ahead of 3 per minute by creating a nice stockpile. Dead from overfeeding.

Source?

Maybe I'm clashing with the specific phrasing since I haven't heard of a bias in the grading itself (i.e. a bias of the teacher), but rather a bias of the system. Schooling as a whole aligns more with girls' strengths as they're more consistent in the day-to-day (ex: organization, planning, homework) whereas boys tend to test better [0]. The weighting of assignments in a particular class could tip the benefit in either direction.

I could believe girls 'get graded higher' on written assignments due to generally better handwriting. I had poor handwriting (though recall at least one girl classmate with worse) and certainly received no credit on some correct answers as a result. I imagine a frustrated teacher reading through a chicken-scratch essay might dock some points - whether directly with a note calling it out (also happened to me), discreetly, or subconsciously.

[0] https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2014/09/why-gi...

Matchmaking alone isn't inherently evil. As you allude to: what's the point playing if you're going to win 100% of the time or lose 100% of the time?

I'm commenting in the context of why China might ban online gaming. If you can learn the strategies that you fight against in a bot in offline play - or exploit the blunders they make - it can still be fun, but there's less variance and more predictability. You'll probably get tired of it sooner than seeing emergent strategies from other players. Until games are built with bots that can effectively mimic the full range of ELO and unique strategies like you get in online play, I think there will be something missing in offline play. Even then, do we derive the same satisfaction from beating a bot?

Partner up matchmaking with engagement tricks like "first win of the day" and other quests that net you some in-game resources like battle passes and you create a sense of FOMO that drains player time (while ensuring active players to keep queues fast). Add in micro-transactions and financial drain can happen too.

Importantly this is limited to online games. The reuters article doesn't make that clear, but NYT / WSJ articles do [1][2].

Many online games use matchmaking which push you towards a 50% win rate which keeps you more interested than if you were to 'always' win or lose. Depending on the game, you might then spend money or grind time in an attempt to improve the resources available. And in some of those, 3 hours a week necessitates redesigning these games so that they're playable - at least segmenting China's user experience to retain interest. If this regulation can encourage developers to better respect gamers' time and resources, that's a win.

On the other hand, games with longer matches like DotA2/League in their standard modes may run too long to squeeze into an hour. I don't think the experience in those games themselves disrespects the time of users, but the 50% win-rate matchmaking and dream of getting out of 'dumpster tier ELO' can be problematic. On a hot streak or a cold streak? "Let's play til we win/lose."

Single-player games have less pressure and more ability to walk away at mostly anytime (especially these days with quick-save) so you're playing them more on your schedule rather than beholden to the game itself (really the people playing). Multiplayer creates a lot of replayability through the unique decisions other players are making.

[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/30/business/media/china-onli... [2] https://www.wsj.com/articles/china-sets-new-rules-for-youth-...

Yes, here's an example of the "cheese" strategy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R85WVTFPmRE

Plays "normally" (cautiously since the bot is so good) until 7:00 accumulating gold for enough items to more safely eliminate the creeps: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R85WVTFPmRE&t=420s