Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
Samsara wrote:
Nach wrote:
I think you're looking too much for an affront just because you are disagreeing with someone. As Mothrayas said, please stick to debating the various points, not attacking people, moderators or otherwise.
I've said nothing but "grassini is being more aggressive than anyone else"
I was not referring to you. Various people in the thread resorted to calling grassini names, and they should not.
Samsara wrote:
"I think Warp is intentionally provoking me" and "I think Mothrayas' moderation may be influenced by bias." I don't understand how any of these can be construed as personal attacks
I don't think those are personal attacks either. However complaining about Mothrayas' moderating when all he asked was people to not do name calling is uncalled for.
Samsara wrote:
especially when compared to everything grassini has said so far. All I'm saying is that if you're going to punish me for "personal attacks", you have to punish him in turn for those actual personal attacks.
I don't see a single post of his where he mentions so and so on TASVideos is such and such. You don't like what he's saying. I don't like what he's saying. So what? If you find yourself being attacked by what he's saying (but it cannot be personally, because he hasn't mentioned you by name in any of it), then you're intentionally deciding to place yourself within whatever ridiculous construct he's framing.
Samsara wrote:
I don't exactly take kindly to being called paranoid, aggressive, and a hypocrite
He has called *you* none of those things.
If you find remarks like "the hypocritical left..." to be personally referring to you, the problem is with you who are deciding to label yourself as whoever the "the hypocritical left" are. If you believe you are not a hypocritical person, then you cannot be part of "the hypocritical left".
Samsara wrote:
and I really don't take kindly to him insinuating that the candidate I supported runs a child sex trafficking ring.
That's a religious mindset, to find great offense in someone disliking what you like.
Instead of "not taking kindly" because you "supported", instead disprove so called trafficking ring.
Here, I'll do it for you: http://www.snopes.com/pizzagate-conspiracy/Samsara wrote:
But over everything else, I don't take kindly to their actions being defended and mine being moderated. Like I said, if such heavy-handed moderation is going to be used, it has to be equally applied to both parties.
I do not know why you find it heavy handed to ask people to be civil to one another. People should be civil to one another.
Samsara wrote:
Otherwise you may as well just re-name this thread to "The Trump Appreciation Safe Space and Meme Zone (No Paranoid Hypocrite Liberals Allowed)" so no one else mistakes this place for having fair moderation.
Please do not confuse not moderating ridiculous non-personal remarks with unfair moderation.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
Samsara wrote:
but even you have to realize that grassini's the most aggressive personal attacker in the thread right now
I just reviewed every post by grassini in this thread. While I find some of his words to be outrageous, I do not find him personally attacking anyone in this thread.
Samsara wrote:
If you're going to moderate this thread, do it fairly. Don't just pick on the side you disagree with.
I think you're looking too much for an affront just because you are disagreeing with someone. As Mothrayas said, please stick to debating the various points, not attacking people, moderators or otherwise.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
If you want to upload a WIP please use: http://tasvideos.org/userfiles/my#uploadfile
You can share with just those you want to share, or you can make it public so everyone on the site can see it.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
I just noticed mixed-match mode doesn't have a vs. com option, what the heck? (I didn't realize it before, because I always play this game with friends)
In any case, I believe a full TAS for this game should include both Tetris and Dr. Mario.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
I find the settings chosen questionable. Essentially the easiest to defeat computer was selected.
The fastest speed (level) should be used because it's the hardest, might as well consider it on easy mode otherwise. The height setting which should be TAS'd is arguable. The obvious logic to pick height of 5 is to make it hard for the player with a lot of junk on the screen. However, that same logic makes it easier to attack the computer (which was pointed out in the submission notes), and for that reason, height of 0 may be the hardest. In any case, I don't find this played the game on the hardest possible setting.
Why wasn't mixed-match played? Playing in mixed-match mode fights the computer against all built in games. Tetris-only makes it seem like only half the game was played, and I'm not certain such a branch should exist for this game.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
Thank you for making this run, it was solid and well played.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
Anyone else want to comment on this run?
What did you think of a Mario-only run? Was the phasing through the floor interesting?
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
grassini: What makes you think I don't know the game "at least casually"?
I specifically judged this run as opposed to some of the other judges because I am familiar with the game.
I've watched nearly all the fighting TASs on the site. I personally don't think this one is as entertaining as our better fighting TASs. Since I find the entertainment level borderline at best, I defer to the feedback.
The feedback for this run was negative. I think that's clear when you see the amount of posts saying it was repetitive or didn't have anything interesting like we see in some other fighting playarounds. This run also got more no votes than yes votes. So I don't see what objective criteria allows this movie to be published.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
Very nice run!
For the most part looks very familiar just less laggier. You even managed to improve the part I disliked the most about the last run (falling section of Dust Man), using a technique we wanted to work but we couldn't quite make it (even though we spent ages trying).
I find it quite surprising that things we wanted to do and ended up being laggier (for us) turned out to be a worthwhile strategy after all.
Also nice to see the different tricks I came up with for the first run all withstood the test of time and remade an appearance here. It really brought a smile to my face to see them again. What can I say, huge yes vote!
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
Just saw this today. This run was absolutely incredible. One of the best TASs I've seen all year and an amazing improvement to an already great run. Much more entertaining too, and I loved how you danced to the music in the scrolling section. Big yes vote!
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
We've had on rare occasion some issues at TVC. At one point they locked the channel down to only allow uploading short movies due to some conflicts they had. I pressed whatever buttons YT offered at the time to complain about the issue and linked them to my fair use page. The problem then went away a week later.
Some of TVC's movies are blocked in certain countries, we haven't done anything to fight that.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Quite plausible, although is has little to do with power on state, and everything to do with some bits flipping while running. Emulating that means allowing for flipping whatever bit you want if nearby bits are modified at the same time.
Systems designed for security often try to defend against this by ensuring no single bit is responsible for a particular setting, and often multiple bits are required to be in agreement, and are stored far away from each other. Cryptography Engineering talks about this, and recommends some distance offsets to use to ensure different values are not next to each other horizontally or vertically in the same cell on currently known popular hardware in order to ensure security objectives.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
Fog wrote:
My assumption is the ability to select the hardest difficulty.
To which I already wrote players shouldn't do when the hardest difficulty only means a goal of not taking damage. This adds dependency on a possible hacked start, and we need to verify the save data.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
Anyone else have anything to comment?
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
<Mothrayas> I tried to put Nach's and my judge messages through google translate in chinese and back
<Mothrayas> apparently "Nach" translates back to "Choline"
<Mothrayas> "Most common signs of choline deficiencies are fatty liver and hemorrhagic kidney necrosis. Consuming a choline-rich diet will relieve the deficiency symptoms. A study of this on animals has created some controversy due to the inconsistency in dietary modifying factors." --Wikipedia
<Mothrayas> so that's what happens when you don't have enough Nach in your system
<Samsara> oh that's why he pets everyone
<Samsara> no wonder no one here has hemorrhagic kidney necrosis
<Mothrayas> good thing the effects of Nach has been tested on animals
* Nach hyper-pets Samsara
* Nach ultra-pets Mothrayas
<Samsara> my liver! it's getting less fatty!
<Mothrayas> I can feel my hemorrhagic kidney necrosis going away!
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
Bobo the King wrote:
We can (and have) run experiments to show that there are no underlying variables.
That show there are no underlying variables? Or that there is no explanation yet which accounts for the possibility of underlying variables?
Further all the experiments I read about said they only proved no local variables. Has there been more tests?
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
Bobo the King wrote:
That's the thing about quantum mechanics: the Heisenberg uncertainty principle says that you cannot know all the variables!
And although the uncertainty principle is relatively easy to grasp to the point that high school students are regularly exposed to it, it is actually a consequence of deeper principles at work. For the sake of this argument, however, if you believe Heisenberg, you've already refuted your own notion of determinism.
Your logic doesn't follow for me, unless you're saying because we cannot know the variables, therefore they do not exist.
Just because we cannot know how something is determined does not mean nothing is determining it.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
Derakon wrote:
Then please explain why you have any reason to expect that physics be deterministic at any level.
Because based on everything I've ever seen and experimented with myself: If all input variables are known and the algorithm is known, then the exact output is always calculable there is no room for "surprising" results.
I can't even comprehend how exactly we can know all the variables for something, and all the algorithms involved, and not know what the result would be. It even leads to all kinds of questions how that something even operates being known through and through. It would essentially mean that something has free will, which this topic is about. I have a hard time believing humans have free will, let alone minute particles that cannot be subdivided further. If we then postulate those particles have free will to do whatever, why aren't very strange things happening occasionally?
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
Derakon wrote:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds like your argument can be boiled down to "because classical physics is deterministic, all physics must be deterministic." Is that accurate?
No, not at all.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
Derakon wrote:
Nach wrote:
I'm not saying that QM as a whole must be wrong, I'm saying that it comes off as hubris to claim that things are non-deterministic simply because we haven't been able to yet explain random phenomenon.
Things are non-deterministic to the best of our knowledge. That "to the best of our knowledge" disclaimer is attached to literally every statement of fact in scientific inquiries, and is thus assumed to be implicit because otherwise writing things gets really repetitive, really fast.
That's the crux of my argument though, the idea of determinism vs. non-determinism specifically depends on knowledge. Unless we are certain we know everything (unlikely), then we cannot know it is non-deterministic. This is also why I said determinism is non-falsifiable.
Derakon wrote:
so by Occam's Razor there's no reason to assume that one exists.
Yet learning from mistakes of history, there's reason to assume one does exist.
Derakon wrote:
Until such a level is found, "the universe is nondeterministic" is the best (most accurately predictive) physics model we have.
We can *blindly* trust the current knowledge at saying there is randomness, but I find that hard to swallow.
Well, you're letting your personal biases influence your beliefs. At least you're in good company; Einstein famously had trouble swallowing QM as well.
I'm aware of Einstein's problems, and I agree with many of his remarks. These QM concepts don't *feel* like they are being very scientific. It may be the most accurately predictive, but at the same time it acknowledges limitations of not being able to be predictive. But then not being able to predict some things leads to ideas of randomness without physical causation, and all this is coupled with inability to know multiple properties simultaneously, or being able to study things without changing them. All that to me just says we don't know enough, or due to how it all works, we can't know enough. I find this makes "randomness as likely" to be a heavily flawed conclusion.
OmnipotentEntity wrote:
Nach wrote:
Then please explain it in a way someone with only superficial understanding of QM can understand it.
Thank you, I read it. I don't see how this or anything else I've read proves a leaning towards inherent randomness. All these articles just seem to cover better trying to understand entanglement. Also to just throw some crazy on top, these theories I've read don't even seem to discuss what if whatever equipment is running the tests may somehow be entangled influencing the outcome. Are properties being measured those of the particles or possibly properties of the measuring equipment? I'm sure there's some paper on that too, but the summaries on Wikipedia and elsewhere that I've seen don't seem to get much into that.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
Derakon wrote:
Nach wrote:
It is wishful thinking to assume everything is known, when there is no proof for that.
The fact is that the current understanding of QM is a better predictor of reality than any other theoretical framework we've achieved thus far. Does that mean that it is a perfectly accurate description of reality? That is, as noted above, impossible to declare with absolute certainty. But QM is the best model we have right now. Arguing that it might be incomplete due to [insert handwaving here] (as opposed to due to some legitimate predictive failure) amounts to philosophical wankery; it's not a serious argument.
I'm not saying that QM as a whole must be wrong, I'm saying that it comes off as hubris to claim that things are non-deterministic simply because we haven't been able to yet explain random phenomenon.
Derakon wrote:
Put another way, unless you can demonstrate some way to test your proposed hypothesis that things really are deterministic at some level lying "underneath" QM, said hypothesis is pointless.
Why should we not think there is a level underneath though? At some point scientists were saying the smallest element was the molecule. As science progressed, whatever was thought to be the end all later on was proven untrue and there was a level beyond. Just because the current extent of our knowledge that we're researching is QM, we should honestly think that is the last step? Eventually I guess there must be a last step, but unless we have proof that it is, why should we *believe* that? Such logic is probably just repeating the same mistakes of the past.
We can *blindly* trust the current knowledge at saying there is randomness, but I find that hard to swallow.
Bobo the King wrote:
Your last two sentences demonstrate that you have essentially no understanding of Bell's theorem.
Then please explain it in a way someone with only superficial understanding of QM can understand it.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
Bobo the King wrote:
Ugh, Nach. Please stop. OmnipotentEntity is right. You really don't know what you're talking about and you're doing yourself no favors by insisting that you "fully understand" the physics behind it when you clearly do not.
When did I say I fully understand the physics behind QM?
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
OmnipotentEntity wrote:
It's that for all intents and purposes, we have no reason to believe that there is determinism underneath. And absent of a very good reason to believe otherwise, all you are bringing to the table right now is wishful thinking. An argument from personal incredulity.
My reasoning is very simple, based on every study I've conducted with physics I fully understand, I see that "If all input variables are known and the algorithm is known, then the exact output is always calculable there is no room for "surprising" results" always holds true. Most of those studying QM want to claim this is not true of QM, despite being true for everything else. Perhaps, but they have 0 proof that all input variables are indeed known and that the "algorithm" is all known. There is still much study in the field of QM leaving the question of "algorithm" open, and the fact scientists are still occasionally proposing new variables to look for shows that there is no proof yet that all variables are known. Until there is proof that all variables are known, instead of proof against proposed variables, and knowledge of the field by all scientists is deemed complete, I find all the arguments entirely unconvincing. It is wishful thinking to assume everything is known, when there is no proof for that.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
Pokota wrote:
Per J Christopher Conkling's Joseph Smith Chronology, he started the process for the JST as early as June 1830 (and as late as October 1830 - Conkling has him finishing Moses 5 on 10/21/1830, and finishing with his New Testament work on 2/2/1833) as a result of praying for clarification on certain passages of the Bible. You have to remember, we take James 1:5 very seriously. In contrast, from what I've seen and read he wasn't given a copy of Hebrew scripture to keep until at least 1835
I can't argue on the timeline, but based on recorded sermons that I've seen from the 184x, he keeps referring to Hebrew.
Pokota wrote:
The LDS explanation for the plurality of God in Old Testament writing is that the Godhead (the Trinity for those of you unfamiliar with the term) is three distinct beings united in purpose.
and if you pay attention to 2 Kings and 2 Chronicles and the book of Jeremiah, you can see that it ultimately led to the undermining of the Hebrew faith through comingling of incompatible faiths
The first two sure, how do you see that in the book of Jeremiah? Jeremiah seems for the most part to have other kinds of problems in his day.
Pokota wrote:
Hyperlawful Rabbinic Judaism was more of a knee-jerk response to the laxity of generations past towards the Mosaic Law, but it became so concerned with obeying the letter of the law that it all but lost the spirit of the law. Certainly Moses didn't expect people to start counting their steps on the Sabbath!)
If anything, Hyperlawful Rabbinic Judaism was a reaction to the Boethusians, not earlier generations. There is no letter of the law which states one should count their steps. Rather it says one should not leave their area on the Sabbath. The Boethusians would not even leave their homes, while the other groups at the time understood it as not going past the city limits. If you study up on all the groups who lived at the time, the Rabbis were the most lenient, and aimed more for spirit than precise and extreme literalism. If you've read any of their biblical commentaries, you'd see they are quite free with how they constantly interpret the text. The counting of the steps you're referring to was their calculations as to how far to extend the concept of city limits, a leniency their counterparts wanted to kill them over.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
