Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(36)
Joined: 9/11/2004
Posts: 2624
Fun fact:
If you set 0 = sqrt(x) - log(y, x) where log(y, x) is log base y of x. Then you get y = x^(1/sqrt(x)) after a little bit of algebra.
We need to find the maximum of this function, as this will give us the maximum base that will intercept sqrt(x).
We find the derivative of x^(1/sqrt(x)) to be x^(1/sqrt(x))(1/x^(3/2) - ln(x)/(2x^(3/2))). The extreme value is where that is equal to 0. So we set it equal to 0 and solve for x, and we find that x=e^2 (we can verify this quite simply by observing that ln(e^2) = 2. And 1/n - 2/2n = 0.)
We can verify this is a maximum by computing the second derivative and confirming that the curve it concave down.
Therefore the maximum value of y such that log(y, x) intercepts sqrt(x) is y = (e^2)^(1/sqrt(e^2)) or e^(2/e)
Therefore the log(x) of any base greater than e^(2/e) will always remain below sqrt(x).
Build a man a fire, warm him for a day,
Set a man on fire, warm him for the rest of his life.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(36)
Joined: 9/11/2004
Posts: 2624
This movie was very entertaining, but I think a potentially more interesting goal would be "Maximum points" depending on the exact way that the end time bonus interacts with which points can be grabbed.
(With the caveat of course that lives may not be lost.)
Build a man a fire, warm him for a day,
Set a man on fire, warm him for the rest of his life.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(36)
Joined: 9/11/2004
Posts: 2624
Bisqwit wrote:
I disagree. Knowledge has increased, but intelligence has not. People are as intelligent as they were thousands of years ago, if not even dumber.
I'll accept that an average human now is more or less as intelligent as a human 2000 years ago.
However, the total population of humans is much larger now than it was 2000 years ago. So if intelligence is an additive property, and if you accept that humans are the primary contributor to intelligence on Earth, then you find that the total intelligence of the Earth is around 20x-40x higher now than it was during the time of Jesus, which contradicts your claim that total intelligence is either fading or staying steady.
If intelligence is not an additive property, then please explain exactly how you account the total intelligence of a system.
Build a man a fire, warm him for a day,
Set a man on fire, warm him for the rest of his life.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(36)
Joined: 9/11/2004
Posts: 2624
Pokota wrote:
Amaraticando: Closed system? Please, do confirm for me where the local information/intelligence had been decreased to allow for our local bursts of information/intelligence. My understanding is that because we can't confirm this, we can't say one way or another if Open System or Closed System is fact.
Me: Open System, Open Canon, Revelatory Religion. I understand on a low level how Conservation of Energy works, thanks to this very thread, and that it's not going to end in the black if this is a closed system.
I think there's one possibility that you're overlooking. That the question "Is intelligence an open or closed system?" is ill-formed and devoid of meaning. It's possible to construct sentences that are grammatically correct but carry no coherent meaning, for instance, "My orange taxes bake well," or "How tall is light?"
Intelligence could be said is an emergent property of certain systems, (including those with no living parts), and there is no single valued representation of the amount of intelligence in a system. Or you could say that only humans seem to be intelligent. Or one of many other different claims.
So in order for the question "Is intelligence an open or closed system?" to make sense first we have to rigorously define intelligence, then we have define the ways in which intelligence may be created or destroyed.
In Godel Escher Bach, Hofstadter uses an interesting analogy to illustrate intelligence as an emergent property of systems. In The Ant Fugue, Dr. Anteater tells Tortoise and Achilles of his patient Aunt Hillary, who is the emergent intelligence of an ant colony he tends to, and how at one time this colony had a different identity. It's an interesting if dense read. But it's somewhat analogous to the real life experience of someone having a head injury and his or her personality completely changing.
In these processes is intelligence lost or created? Perhaps, perhaps not, it's difficult to say because we still haven't defined intelligence. Intelligence might not even be a quantity at all, but a process. For instance, if you have a machine that is capable of performing a simple task (such as solving a Rubik's Cube), it can be said to have limited intelligence at completing that task. If you then simply remove the power, the machine seems no longer intelligent, and this intelligence can be switched on and off.
What about humans? Surely a sober, alert human can be said to be more intelligent at solving problems than a sleepy or drunk one. One can lose effective cognitive ability if one is distracted, worried, afraid, or just haven't had their morning cup of coffee. Cognitive ability can be developed through exercises, or it can be diminished through disuse or disease. Is the total intelligence of the universe changed after I've had a good night's sleep?
Any model purporting to answer these questions should be prepared to met with skepticism, and must be much more well defined than I have attempted here to be effective and persuasive.
Build a man a fire, warm him for a day,
Set a man on fire, warm him for the rest of his life.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(36)
Joined: 9/11/2004
Posts: 2624
nfq wrote:
This talk about entropy, the universe and intelligence reminds me about an inventor who I read about, who said that the universe is the brain of God.
With the benefit of hindsight, John Keely is a nearly transparent charlatan. He led people on with promises, smoke, and mirrors and managed to get away with it for years. I am sorry to hear that you revere this man. I would suggest perhaps that you review his findings with a critical eye.
Build a man a fire, warm him for a day,
Set a man on fire, warm him for the rest of his life.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(36)
Joined: 9/11/2004
Posts: 2624
Pokota wrote:
So how does one go about destroying information? Is that even a thing that we can comprehend? My understanding is that even a black hole doesn't destroy matter so much as make it infinitely dense and irretrievable.
That's a very good question. Think of it this way. If you whisper a secret in a room, when is that information destroyed? It never is. You'll agree that the form of that information is kinetic energy in the form of sound waves. And we both know that energy can never be created or destroyed.
Whisper bounces off of a wall, some of it is converted to heat, but the pattern of that heat is influenced by the sound, just not in a way that we can retrieve. It has fallen below the noise floor. You can think of noise as just information that is too scrambled to decypher.
The second part about the black hole is actually an extremely contentious area in current QM, because a black hole may theoretically be completely described by only three parameters. Mass, Charge, and Rotational Vector. However, black holes also evaporate via Hawking radiation, which means that the information swallowed must return somehow to the universe eventually. We don't yet know, or have a solid theory. One of the basic premises of most interpretations of QM is information cannot be destroyed, if it could then it would violate unitarity. The most common interpretation of QM is Relational Quantum Mechanics, which is an interpretation based off of Quantum Information Theory, which is entirely concerned about Quantum information and its state. So if black holes can indeed destroy information, then this is new physics and our best models will need to be revisited.
Here's the wiki page on the black hole information paradox:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole_information_paradox
And here's a Google Tech Talk that gives a quick and mostly accurate lay person primer on QIT (the title is slightly clickbaity, but it contains a very good rundown):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dEaecUuEqfc
Build a man a fire, warm him for a day,
Set a man on fire, warm him for the rest of his life.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(36)
Joined: 9/11/2004
Posts: 2624
Warp wrote:
Pokota wrote:
Warp: In other words, it's a zero-sum game and the information I use has to come from somewhere within the system. Is that a close enough approximation, or did I make a bad assumption about the argument?
More like a "negative-sum" game, given that entropy almost always increases, but yeah, nothing stops some of the numbers from becoming positive, as long as they are counterbalanced by other numbers becoming negative by at least that much.
Actually, from the perspective of information theory. Information and entropy are equivalent. So information is *always* increasing. Analogy: A cue ball smacks into a billiard ball and some paint is left on it. This is entropy. But it's also information.
Most of the time, the information isn't useful. But entropy being equivalent to information is why computers require energy and why they produce heat.
However, intelligence is completely different from information.
Build a man a fire, warm him for a day,
Set a man on fire, warm him for the rest of his life.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(36)
Joined: 9/11/2004
Posts: 2624
Pokota wrote:
OmnipotentEntity wrote:
You reject evolution, and invent a conspiracy to explain it.
He just explained Intelligent Design from a programming perspective.
Please explain to me how this is relevant. I do not understand your point.
EDIT: Ah I believe I cracked it. I said he rejected evolution. I did not claim why. Think of it as "You must reject evolution, and invent a conspiracy to explain it." Rather than "You rejected evolution as a result of xyz, and invented a conspiracy to explain it."
It was not addressing any specific claim, or claiming he did not make a claim as to why. In the second half of my post the "why" is irrelevant.
Build a man a fire, warm him for a day,
Set a man on fire, warm him for the rest of his life.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(36)
Joined: 9/11/2004
Posts: 2624
Aqfaq wrote:
Bisqwit wrote:
I have eventually come into the conclusion that intelligence in a closed system cannot increase, and that it is a natural law much akin the law of entropy.
The point is: Earth is not a closed system. According to the basic understanding of physics, sun delivers energy into the system. It is the energy from the sun that ultimately drives the whole process of increasing complexity. Just like entropy can decrease locally, intelligence can increase locally.
So, yes, I agree that intelligence might ultimately only degrade in the universe, if we look at the universe as a closed system. To my understanding, that is exactly what cosmologists and physicists conclude based on the same mathematics that you use. However, there is no reason why intelligence could not increase locally.
In his defense, he said akin to entropy, not equal to. I had considered writing a similar counter argument, but I didn't want to put words in his mouth, he hasn't described the mechanism to how, when, and why his law works. Or what even a closed system of intelligence is.
Build a man a fire, warm him for a day,
Set a man on fire, warm him for the rest of his life.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(36)
Joined: 9/11/2004
Posts: 2624
Bisqwit wrote:
Actually, I reject the theory of evolution precisely because of mathematics. On my own I have eventually come into the conclusion that intelligence in a closed system cannot increase, and that it is a natural law much akin the law of entropy.
A closed system can not exhibit more intelligence than what was originally put into it.
If you would like to fully support this point, I'll be happy to explain where you've gone wrong. As it stated currently this is an argument from incredulity and/or ignorance (not to say you are ignorant, I certainly don't think that, that's just the name of the fallacy.)
You won't find this "law" in textbooks, because it undermines the theory of evolution, which I think is, despite its near-unilateral acceptance, a hoax specifically designed for the very purpose of replacing God as the creator of the universe. I am planning to make a YouTube video / blog post centered around this topic.
I think this is an important point. You reject evolution, and invent a conspiracy to explain it. If you didn't then you'd have to reject a belief more important to you, your Biblical literalism.
So I guess the salient question is, if you were wrong, would you want to know? Do you care whether or not the beliefs you hold with respect to your religion are true? Or would you rather not sweat the details, and you prefer the security and community, irrespective of whether or not you're actually correct?
Build a man a fire, warm him for a day,
Set a man on fire, warm him for the rest of his life.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(36)
Joined: 9/11/2004
Posts: 2624
nfq wrote:
OmnipotentEntity wrote:
(For instance, a genetic code was predicted by the theory of evolution.)
Never heard of that, and I couldn't find anything by googling. A source would be interesting :)
I apologize, I misremembered the exact sequence of events, and I retract this claim.
My former justification of this claim was due to the following misunderstanding:
Previous theories of evolution, such as Lamarckism, claimed that the desires of the parents drove the characteristics of the offspring. While Darwinian evolution rejected the majority of these, he did not (and was thus incorrect) in rejecting the use/disuse inheritance. I was under the impression that he had rejected this form of inheritance as well, and thus implied the existence of some other mechanism (form unknown) that dictated the characteristics of offspring (which was later discovered to be the genetic code.)
This is somewhat of an overstatement, due to attempting to be brief and due to a slight misunderstanding of the history. I again apologize, but there it is.
Build a man a fire, warm him for a day,
Set a man on fire, warm him for the rest of his life.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(36)
Joined: 9/11/2004
Posts: 2624
Hat wrote:
Hey! By the way. Although I know it is late, this movie not accomplishes the goal.
I found rings (I think they are 3) does not collect, even when he have the electrical barrier to attracting rings.
How does this affect? Or is it not important?
I mentioned this prior to publication. He comes back and collects those rings during act 2. Approximately 3:18 in the youtube video.
Build a man a fire, warm him for a day,
Set a man on fire, warm him for the rest of his life.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(36)
Joined: 9/11/2004
Posts: 2624
ars4326 wrote:
Also, perhaps it would be a good idea if someone created a theory of evolution discussion thread (since it's getting an increased amount of attention here).
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(36)
Joined: 9/11/2004
Posts: 2624
To avoid equivocation, there are two parts to evolution.
First, there is the fact of evolution. This is the simple observation that life on this planet took a different form in the past. And therefore must have changed at some point, mechanism unspecified.
Second, there is the theory of evolution through natural selection. This is the theory that explains the observation of the facts of evolution and makes predictions to what we will find if we begin looking. (For instance, a genetic code was predicted by the theory of evolution.) Like all good scientific theories it is also falsifiable. For instance, if one were to find a fossilized rabbit skeleton that dated back to the Triassic, this would be very strong evidence that the theory of evolution has some problems.
If you have an argument that does not relate to the facts of evolution or the theory of evolution. This is probably not the best place for it.
If you have an objection to or a question concerning the theory or facts of evolution, this is the appropriate thread for it.
Build a man a fire, warm him for a day,
Set a man on fire, warm him for the rest of his life.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(36)
Joined: 9/11/2004
Posts: 2624
feos wrote:
What problem is there exactly?
Are you asking me to give you a rundown of the ways that the church is patriarchal? Or do you just want justification as to why this patriarchal system is a problem?
ars4326 wrote:
If anyone is interested, I believe the individual in the video, below, can articulate my stance concerning the theory far better that I'd be able to type in words on here.
Well, I have some time, let's go through the video. I expect a magnificent gish gallop.
----
First up, the anthropic principle. Yes. Life as we know it could not exist if some of the basic parameters of the universe were changed. But this is only regarding life as we know it. Could life exist? Almost certainly, it would just need to be different. Life as we know it only exists or could exist in a vanishingly tiny fraction of the universe. Most of the universe is inhospitable, cold, lifeless hard vacuum that would kill most life as we know it in a matter of seconds. The universe isn't fine tuned for life in any reasonable sense of the word "fine tuned."
While this is absolutely not the domain of evolution, even the current knowledge of science doesn't really need him to "give [us] that for free."
----
Cosmological Constant is not necessary for life in any meaningful way. This is a red herring.
----
Entropy is only valid for a closed system. Evolution does not defy entropy, because the Earth is not a closed system. It receives an insane amount of energy from the Sun. But again this is outside of the scope of evolution, as it is a fundamental misunderstanding of physics.
----
We do have several recorded examples of new species. The process is called speciation and it's been a well discussed and understood phenomenon for over 150 years.
----
"When [he] says species he means an entirely new kind of creature emerging." Well, ok. Then you're not really talking about species. You're talking about a group of species, at the family or order level. And those do happen as well, gradually, over the course of hundreds of thousands of years. So it shouldn't really be surprising that we haven't witnessed such an event on the timescales of a single human lifetime.
----
"BioGenesis" is not a scientific concept. "Life only comes from life," is not something you'd ever read in a serious biological paper. This is also outside of the scope of the theory of evolution. There is a separate theory, which is much less mature and worked on, called abiogenesis. Partially because it's likely impossible to find a smoking gun piece of evidence that says absolutely "this is the method that the first life arose from non-life." (Because there are several routes and because the difference between "life" and "non-life" are actually rather fuzzy at that level.) And partially because few people are actually really interested in finding out the exact mechanisms. It's possible, it probably happened several ways, once life started one form out-competed the rest. And that's history.
----
The first life was almost certainly not as complicated as a cell. At best it was Amino acids and RNA chemically combining without a cell to produce more RNA. Lipids became a byproduct of some of these reactions, and by chance some of the RNA was scooped as the lipids made small bubbles. Again, outside of the scope of evolution.
----
We have seen RNA and Amino acids arise from non-living organic matter, actually. Just needs a little energy (the kind that can come from the sun or from lightning.) Again, outside of the scope of evolution.
----
"Needs a digital code that's 10s and 10s and 10s of times more complex than this laptop computer..." No, actually. A laptop has much more data storage than a typical human cell. A human genome is roughly 725MB, which can be losslessly compressed to around 4MB. There is 4MB of unique data in you. That's about the same as an mp3 file. Again, nothing to do with evolution.
----
"Can't have any junk code in there." Over 99% of DNA is junk. That's why your 725MB genome can compress to 4MB. Nothing to do with evolution.
----
"Instructions line by line." No, this is a fundamental misunderstanding of how DNA works. DNA only has instructions to make proteins. And it certainly isn't a line by line thing. Life is and remains kind of a mess. Also has nothing to do with evolution.
----
"Trillions and trillions of strands," only if you count every cell in the body. Again, our DNA only has around 2.9 million base pairs per cell. So he's about 6 orders of magnitude off. Great job. Moreover, he makes it seem like any mistake in this coordination can cause things to explode. Normally, nothing happens. If something goes wrong badly enough, well, that's essentially what happens when you get cancer. It's not like that happens ever, right? Nothing to do with evolution.
----
As an aside, the human body has only 4MB of unique data, yet the body is so complex, how can this be? Fractals! Remember that the Mandelbrot set is also unbelievably complex, but it can be defined extremely simply: z = z^2 + c
Most of the patterns of the human body are self symmetric. Like the brain, and your blood vessels and so on. These are generated as a fractal would be, from simple rules.
----
Consciousness. This has nothing to do with evolution. However, for an excellent treatment on the subject I recommend I am a Strange Loop by Douglas Hofstadter.
----
Dr. Chuck Missler - you'll notice that his list of accomplishments does not include anything to do with biology. Just because a person is knowledgeable in one area does not mean he is knowledgeable in another. Moreover, if he were to find a quote of a respected biologist who rejected Evolution that still wouldn't be sufficient, because science is built around consensus.
----
Symbiotic Relationships. They do not develop simultaneously. They do not have to develop simultaneously. Many forms of simple life are not symbiotic at all.
----
Mendel's laws of genetics was one of the first and best independent confirmations of a prediction of evolutionary theory. This should be hilarious...
----
3D has nothing to do with this. DNA is a 1D array that exists in 3D space (like everything else in the entire world, including non-living things, like rocks). You go up and down it. Not left and right.
----
DNA doesn't create something from nothing. DNA uses the other machinery of the cell to create proteins. It just happens to carry the instructions.
----
DNA does not do redundant error correction, computers do. He has it entirely backwards.
----
DNA does not self heal. Cancer, remember?
----
He really likes big, wrong, pointless numbers. But what does this have to do with Mendel?
----
Human heart? I don't see his point. There are a lot of variation in human hearts. And the human heart clearly isn't the only way to make a heart. And the human cardiovascular system isn't the only possible system to distribute nutrients across a large multicellular organism. For instance, trees do not have a heart. Moreover, hearts did not arise from single celled organisms directly, they did so as a gradual process over billions of years. Still waiting on the resolution to the Mendel name drop.
----
Russian Silver Fox and "microevolution". If you have a calculator displaying 0 and I tell you to flip a coin and if that coin is heads add one, if it's tails subtract one. And I tell you to stop if it reaches the number 5. Do you think you will ever stop? Of course. This is what most people agree with when they agree that microevolution happens.
If I give you the same task and tell you to stop if it reaches 1000000, do you think you will ever stop? It seems a bit more risky. But mathematics tells us that you will stop, but it might take a while.
Random variation within species will accumulate unless something stops it. And people who talk about microevolution often do not have any mechanism for halting this genetic drift. Often times something is forcing the random variations in a certain direction, this force is called Natural Selection. And it is very good at its task.
----
DNA is "weakening." According to what metric? Yes, some random mutations are bad. Some can be good. Most, the vast, vast majority have absolutely no effect.
----
Oh look, he stumbled upon the definition of a species. I don't understand why he feels this is a problem for the theory of evolution.
----
It's now 24 minutes in. I am 1/4 of the way through this. He hasn't stopped "giving us" stuff yet. Which means he hasn't yet actually tried addressing evolution directly?
----
Of course giraffes aren't closely related to horses. They're entirely different orders. A giraffe is Artiodactyla whereas a horse is Perissodactyla. Their last common ancestor was between 55-100 million years ago during the initial evolution of mammals. Giraffes are more closely related to Buffalo and Whales than they are to Horses(!)
----
Coding does not grow. I guess no one told him about genetic algorithms...
----
Come on. Literal valves exist all over the place in our circulatory system.
----
Yes, a giraffe is very different from many animals. Yet it still has the nerve that goes from the brain to the voice box at the top of the throat by way of the heart. All of the things he's mentioning could have happened gradually. Had giraffes been created by some intelligent designer, that would have never made it in. However evolution can not only explain that nerve, it actually predicted this before it was known to be a fact.
----
I've spent about an hour and 15 minutes on the first 31 minutes of this video. So I'm going to stop. Because I have work that I need to get done, a deadline looming.
I'm willing to address any specific concerns you have about evolution, if you're willing to articulate them to me directly, I'll be more than happy to explain them in detail. However, I believe you get the point specifically on this video? There doesn't seem to be anything in this video that is special or unique. Just a lot of bad science trying to refute good science, all thrown out very quickly in gish gallop style.
Build a man a fire, warm him for a day,
Set a man on fire, warm him for the rest of his life.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(36)
Joined: 9/11/2004
Posts: 2624
feos wrote:
Aqfaq wrote:
how come Jesus did not have even a single female disciple
You've only heard of 12 of the disciples, right? Let's count.
Virgin Mary
Mary Magdalene
Photine
Thekla
Helena of Constantinople
Saint Nino
Olga of Kiev
Let me guess. It's too few for you? If so, go ahead and tell us, what actions of God would have justified your feminism.
Although I applaud the Eastern Orthodox Tradition for raising these women high, at the end of the day, the problem of church patriarchy is systemic and common. Having women in high places in the church is necessary but not sufficient to counter it. I would grant you that in this way the EO tradition is perhaps an aberration*, rather than the rule. However, I certain wouldn't say that the EO church is a bastion of feminism. See here:
http://www.antiochian.org/role-women-orthodox-church
It seems to be more of a "separate but equal" doctrine, and we know how well those tend to work out.
* I've only ever been to 2 EO services, and I've never been involved in the church, so I cannot gainsay you without research that I do not have time to do.
Build a man a fire, warm him for a day,
Set a man on fire, warm him for the rest of his life.
So you say that the Quran is "demonically inspired" yet it managed to trick you 35 times out of 200?
Also Hammurabi was circa 1750 BC. Well before the Torah was written or Israel and Judah were nations...
Build a man a fire, warm him for a day,
Set a man on fire, warm him for the rest of his life.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(36)
Joined: 9/11/2004
Posts: 2624
Bisqwit, it's clear that you take the Bible seriously, and you have a very partial view towards it.
I'd like to illustrate what everyone else is driving at, can you take this quiz and tell me what score you get?
http://bibleorqurangame.blogspot.com/
The point I'm making isn't that "The Bible is OMG horrible." It's that both the Bible and the Quran contain passages of very questionable morality, and other extremely interesting passages that show good character. And it's very possible to pick and choose just the good things or just the bad things. Which is one big reason why Abrahamic religions took off. They can be all things to all people.
Build a man a fire, warm him for a day,
Set a man on fire, warm him for the rest of his life.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(36)
Joined: 9/11/2004
Posts: 2624
I have a rather specific and dumb question about physics.
I'm currently taking Physics II which is mostly just Electromagnitism. We're currently going over the electric field due to uniformly charged rods.
Are uniformly charged rods made from conductors realistic? As in, I would intuitively imagine the charge density to be greater near the edges than the center, due to the potential required to bring a charge to that point from infinity.
Build a man a fire, warm him for a day,
Set a man on fire, warm him for the rest of his life.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(36)
Joined: 9/11/2004
Posts: 2624
amaurea wrote:
xy2_ wrote:
ACE means Arbritrary Code Execution, which is the feat of executing code within the game (usually to warp to the end credits). FF6 has a much 'minor' type of ACE compared to games like Super Mario World for example.
It's arbitrary code execution if you can execute whatever code you want. So how is the FF6 one more 'minor' than the one in SMW?
If I understand what's going on: it's because only the FF6 internal scripting engine is subverted, not the underlying machine code. So you have arbitrary code execution within the context of the scripting engine, but you'd have to find a flaw in the scripting engine to break out of that sandbox.
Build a man a fire, warm him for a day,
Set a man on fire, warm him for the rest of his life.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(36)
Joined: 9/11/2004
Posts: 2624
natt wrote:
Interesting read. I've always wondered how developers handled non-atomic bankswitching with interrupts; looks like, in some cases, they just didn't.
That's quite simple. Simply reverse the order of the instructions. Update to the new bank first, then if the interrupt happens it will restore to the new bank, and then you're just whoops, restoring to the same bank again. NBD.
Build a man a fire, warm him for a day,
Set a man on fire, warm him for the rest of his life.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(36)
Joined: 9/11/2004
Posts: 2624
Warp wrote:
And the thing is, it's not like Square Enix isn't publishing actually good JRPGs even today. For example, Bravely Default is a fantastic JRPG. And it's not even a question of trying new things and new game mechanics, because this game does innovate and use new mechanics, but it still manages to keep the essentials of what makes a good JRPG a good JRPG.
Bravely Default had fantastic mechanics. But I've always considered the most important part of an RPG to be the story. And Bravely Default has an extremely weak story.
Build a man a fire, warm him for a day,
Set a man on fire, warm him for the rest of his life.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(36)
Joined: 9/11/2004
Posts: 2624
Handling the Myconid at 5:15 or so looks a bit awkward, why the stutter step to pause?
I noticed that you nearly bumped into the second step, so I assume the reason was you needed to wait a short amount of time so you could both clear the step and the enemy. But it didn't look like you just cleared the enemy, though I know that hitboxes in this game can be a bit... ridiculous.
Build a man a fire, warm him for a day,
Set a man on fire, warm him for the rest of his life.
I found rings (I think they are 3) does not collect, even when he have the electrical barrier to attracting rings. How does this affect? Or is it not important?