Editor, Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Skilled player
(1344)
Joined: 12/28/2013
Posts: 396
Location: Rio de Janeiro, Brasil
OmnipotentEntity wrote:
I have a bag of tiles. The tiles can be either blue or yellow, but you do not know how many are blue and how many are yellow. You draw 12 tiles without replacement: 4 blue and 8 yellow.
Is the next tile you draw more likely to be blue or yellow?
Does the answer depend on the number of tiles originally in the bag?
What is the chance that the next tile you draw is blue?
I think this requires a bit extra context? It feels like it's necessary to make some assumptions about the probability distribution of the colours in the bag.
Edit: If we assume the amount of yellow tiles follows an uniform distribution, it seems the probability of the next tile being each color doesn't depend of the total of tiles. Didn't think of a strictly formal proof but it looks interesting.
One simple case is drawing only a single tile. If it is yellow, the next tile is also yellow with probability 2/3.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Skilled player
(1344)
Joined: 12/28/2013
Posts: 396
Location: Rio de Janeiro, Brasil
I respectfully disagree with eien86's comment's here - it can be lots of fun to start with a popular and well researched game, especially because you will have access to a ton of resources and it will be much easier to reach for help online. Unless your goal is to get a submission of yours published as soon as possible (which would indeed be harder in a game such as Super Mario World since the competition is narrower), I don't see a reason to particularly avoid games with big communities.
If you do choose to go with SMW, no need to read the entire history of this thread (I haven't read more than 10% of it myself), but definitely take a look at the resources page and get a lua script (which are linked there). If you have specific questions, go ahead and use this thread. I'm not around as much lately but I'm sure many others will be happy to help.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Skilled player
(1344)
Joined: 12/28/2013
Posts: 396
Location: Rio de Janeiro, Brasil
Arcorann wrote:
FractalFusion wrote:
Arcorann wrote:
A secret society would like to poll their 60 members on some yes/no question. They are only interested in the parity of the number of yes votes. However, they will only allow a given pollster to interview 50 members, and each pollster may only report back a number between 0 and 50 inclusive. It is believed that up to one pollster may lie or make a mistake in reporting.
* Find the smallest number of pollsters required (easy).
I can't answer the other questions as I don't understand what they are asking. However, for this, it seems the answer is 18: Group the 60 members in 6 groups of 10: A,B,C,D,E,F. Assign three pollsters each for six blocks as follows: ABCDE (x3), ABCDF (x3), ABCEF (x3), ABDEF (x3), ACDEF (x3), BCDEF (x3). You need to do x3 for each block to get the correct value. Then add up the results (# of yes votes) of the correct values for the six blocks and divide by 5 to get the total number of yes votes, and therefore the correct parity. (I don't know if the answer is changed just by only being interested in the parity.)
Let me try to clarify a few points then (looking at what I wrote again it seems I skipped a step when transferring things over):
* The pollsters don't have to interview 50 people, they can interview fewer. As a result, we only need 6 pollsters if we want the exact number of yes votes, but since we're only interested in parity the lower bound is smaller than that.
* The first question should have been "find a lower bound on the number of pollsters required". That was a mistake on my part.
* The pollsters don't necessarily have to report the number of yes votes; they may report an integer based on some other function of the votes they received (again, one pollster may report an incorrect result). The lower bound of pollsters can't be attained if they have to report the number of yes votes (why?), but can with some other function.
For the first question, the answer seems to be 4. We can divide the 60 members in 5 groups of 12 and split the pollsters as ABCD / BCDE / ABDE / ACE. Each pollster can report the parity of each group as their answer has more than 4 bits.
For the others questions, by 'correct result' do you mean the exact quantity of yes votes? Are we supposed to find the smallest amount of required pollsters? And for the third question, is that constrained on such minimum amount of pollster? It's not clear what those are asking.
Edit: perhaps some word is missing? Did you mean each pollster can report a different number or something like that?
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Skilled player
(1344)
Joined: 12/28/2013
Posts: 396
Location: Rio de Janeiro, Brasil
It's important to give the community the time to give some input on the the movie's entertainment value, look for improvements and suboptimalities, discuss how well it fits the rules, etc. Before the judgment takes place. Of course the judge will also evaluate all of those things, but the process works better if the community is also involved. So I think 3 days are fine.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Skilled player
(1344)
Joined: 12/28/2013
Posts: 396
Location: Rio de Janeiro, Brasil
Spikestuff wrote:
This is a bump.
It's something that people have brought up long after, or the other thread.
I want to keep it short, and I won't explain far about it.
I do admit to the alt accounts, I do admit to this low point.
I know not many have accepted forgiveness, and I know many hate me for this.
I apologize for the actions I did throughout that time.
I don't know why I chose to do those things anymore, but it is something that is out of line.
As for another part of the reasonings, I want to be the only one dragged for it.
Thank you for being open about it. It's relieving that this topic has reached closure.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Skilled player
(1344)
Joined: 12/28/2013
Posts: 396
Location: Rio de Janeiro, Brasil
Amaraticando wrote:
Look at how pretty, symmetrical, smooth and juicy those curves are.
Look at how most people died outside the hospital, where highly competent physicians saved the lucky bastards who got the intubation.
It's obviously not accurate to represent the curves as symmetrical (and indeed the most rigorous sources about the pandemic evolution never represented them that way, it was a massive simplification) - but that's not the point. The point is that at any given time the amount of people who need intensive care must not surpass the hospital capacity in that region.
Ignoring the advice to 'flatten the curve' has lead to people as young as 20yrs old to die asphyxiated without receiving proper care. They didn't die 'outside the hospital', they died inside it, but without an ICU bed and the proper tools to save the life of someone whose lungs are shutting down.
Even prior to the point where there are no ICU beds left, the too high amounts of sick people in the hospitals overloads doctors and nurses and diminishes the survival rates. This was a very significant factor around here too, so I wouldn't dismiss 'flatten the curve' as something not worth to follow.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Skilled player
(1344)
Joined: 12/28/2013
Posts: 396
Location: Rio de Janeiro, Brasil
pirate_sephiroth wrote:
Well yeah that's already been spoiled, unfortunately.
When the media companies can no longer scare people with the virus, they're gonna go full force on climate change.
You must feel very intelligent, don't you?
Corporations and politicians won't really need to give a shit about it because there'll always be enough of those who are just way too redpilled to be persuaded by widely verified facts.
EZGames69 wrote:
[citation needed]
That thing pirate said is actually very true though - we are totally creating superbacterias through antibiotics abuse.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Skilled player
(1344)
Joined: 12/28/2013
Posts: 396
Location: Rio de Janeiro, Brasil
EZGames69 wrote:
pirate_sephiroth wrote:
Now what do you think it's gonna happen if there's a REALLY serious pandemic in the future, with an ebola-like mortality rate?
It’s almost like Ebola had too fast of a mortality rate for it to spread quickly enough to be an actual pandemic. Have you ever thought about that?
That's specific to ebola. There could be a virus with an ebola-like mortality rate but with an higher incubation period (and that spreads during incubation). That would be a disastrous scenario for humanity.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Skilled player
(1344)
Joined: 12/28/2013
Posts: 396
Location: Rio de Janeiro, Brasil
pirate_sephiroth wrote:
To be honest, the virus itself was the least worrying part of this situation.
This pandemic has already stabilized but it's not going away anytime soon. No one knows how long the vaccine effects will last plus I'm sure there will always be more variations in the future.
Now think about the really awful future possibilities...
Remember the incessant fearmongering from the media companies?
This virus spreads violently fast, however the mortality is very low.
So there are still some people who don't even think there was a real problem, because they didn't really witness any of the "end of the world" scenarios that were being predicted.
Now you remember a certain country mysteriously having a surplus of personal protective equipment just ready for exporting at very low prices, for no reason at all? The manufacturers from other countries literally had no chance to react.
And all this happened with people getting the masks and vaccines mostly because of peer pressure.
Now what do you think it's gonna happen if there's a REALLY serious pandemic in the future, with an ebola-like mortality rate?
What if people were actually afraid to die and rushed to buy and hoard protective equipment? People fighting to wait in long lines just to get the life-saving shot...
What about the skeptics who will think the media companies are just exaggerating again and won't do anything until it's too late?
Yeah, it's gonna be amazing. I wonder if this certain country would get lucky again...
Also "flatten the curve" was a hilarious meme.
Humanity was proven to be way too stupid to survive a deadlier pandemic. Covid itself has killed more than half a million people in our country, and a significant proportion of us keep insisting it's no big deal. And I don't see science denialism fading away anytime soon: There will always be those capitalizing economically and politically on it, and people like to buy shit narratives of 'massive media manipulation' to feel intelligent and to not have to adjust any of their world views.
The scenario of a pandemic that kills like ebola and spreads like covid would require absurd levels of cooperation among humanity and of competence among public administrators. We're nowhere close to able to reach those levels.
Climate change will probably finish humanity way before a more powerful such virus has a chance, though, so I wouldn't worry that much about it.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Skilled player
(1344)
Joined: 12/28/2013
Posts: 396
Location: Rio de Janeiro, Brasil
MESHUGGAH wrote:
I don't like this approach. My current opinion according to feos' version is a strong No as this system would not support the original TAS and it's TASers.
What I see is that it's similar to the First 500 project, trying to reTAS old TASes on a new emulator and hoping it will be resyncable at least. If it's improvable, the resyncer becomes an author and he can simply (as long as the judge makes enough investigation to allow this considering the margin of improvement) drop out the other authors.
Note that if these would be my TASes, I'm perfectly fine with dropping me as an author since I don't care about authorship. What I care is that encouraging officially this kind of behaviour (go and try resync TASes! improved? go get your player points! not improved? well, no player points but thanks for the resync, bye.)
I'm not sure if I understand what you mean, but if the second paragraph is meant to explain the first it's unclear how it makes sense. What you described is already the status quo: anyone can pick an old movie to try to improve it, potentially 'dropping out the other authors'. What do you see in the official resyncs system that somehow aggravates the problem of "not supporting the original TASers"?
I don't really get the bolded part, it is not obvious to me why that is what follows out of what came before, or why this specific way of rewriting the equation makes sense. Is that an easy thing to explain?
Because 100-x-y = z, what the first equation actually tells us is:
So after cross multiplying and cancelling the factorials you're left with 100*99*98/30 at the LHS and xyz at the RHS
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Skilled player
(1344)
Joined: 12/28/2013
Posts: 396
Location: Rio de Janeiro, Brasil
FractalFusion wrote:
Saw this somewhere. Combinatorics and number theory:
A bag contains 100 marbles, and each marble is one of three different colors. If you were to draw three marbles at random, the probability that you would get one of each color is exactly 20 percent.
How many marbles of each color are in the bag?
(If it helps, you may assume that the colors are red/green/blue, with #red>=#green>=#blue. Or not.)
There are C(100, x, y) [not sure if this notation is confusing - should read as 100!/(x! y! (100-x-y)!)] permutations of 100 marbles where x, y and z are the amounts of marbles of each color. Exactly 20% of such permutations start with one marble of each color, and then are followed by one of the C(97, x-1, y-1) permutations with x-1, y-1 and z-1 marbles of each color. Since there are 6 possible ways to arrange those first 3 marbles, we get:
C(100, x, y) = 6*5*C(97, x-1, y-1) -> xyz = 100*99*98/30 = 2^2 * 3 * 5 * 7^2 * 11
Now we need to split this product into 3 parts that sum up to 100. It requires a bit of trial and error: 7*3 + 7*5 + 2*2*11 = 21+35+44 = 100
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Skilled player
(1344)
Joined: 12/28/2013
Posts: 396
Location: Rio de Janeiro, Brasil
Acumenium wrote:
A lot of nonsense
Entertainment is subjective and most humans beings simply don't find this run to be entertaining enough to justify a new category. It offers some nice walljump combos but that's about it. The same does not apply to the other run, and you can't change that by stating it offers "no entertainment value and just waits in a floor for ten minutes".
Your absolute cognitive inability to get a grasp on reality is putting you among the most unbearable people to ever have joined this site. Stop repeating the same wrong statements and get over the fact that most people don't share your sense of entertainment.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Skilled player
(1344)
Joined: 12/28/2013
Posts: 396
Location: Rio de Janeiro, Brasil
DJ Incendration wrote:
policy was updated to have less bans, and hey, less bans... actually a good thing! Nobody would use hate speech in this kind of community, or talk about unlawful activities, so that is a good thing they removed the ban for those things.
If it's true that 'nobody would use hate speech on IRC', you won't get 'less bans' by stopping banning people for hate speech.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Skilled player
(1344)
Joined: 12/28/2013
Posts: 396
Location: Rio de Janeiro, Brasil
Acumenium wrote:
I also hesitate to say that anyone can compete, these glitches are 100% tool-assisted. No one is doing these in real-time. Therefore this run is in the same category as a Kaizo ROM hack or something: it needs tool assistance, but then it loses all of its luster. (...) Minimal A button presses is entirely arbitrary.
This point in specific is very silly. First of all, a category not being playable in real time is not a demerit in any way, and it's certainly the case of many game-end glitch runs that involve ACE or tricks too hard to pull off by a human. Secondly, this category is absolutely playable without tool assistance. Anyone can try to beat Super Mario Bros with the smallest amount of jumps. They won't get it in as few jumps as the TAS does, just like time-based RTAs aren't as fast as a regular TAS - all very normal. Thirdly, it's really silly to call minimal jumps 'entirely arbitrary'. The goal is crystal clear objective and it's a pretty popular and recognized challenge for many games. Lastly, let's stop getting Kaizo games wrong - they were meant to be played tool-less.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Skilled player
(1344)
Joined: 12/28/2013
Posts: 396
Location: Rio de Janeiro, Brasil
I don't know how common this is because it's been a while I don't lurk the site, but some of the negative feedback this run received is just bizarre. I surely understand and see legitimacy in people genuinely feeling not entertained due to waiting sections, but the way some people got almost hostile with negative feedbacks grounded on not very sane analysis is pretty disappointing.
I wish people were kinder and lighter when submitting negative feedback - it's perfectly possible to express the same message while avoiding exaggerations and without sounding accusatory. It must be upsetting to put in so much hard work into a run and read some of the comments around here.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Skilled player
(1344)
Joined: 12/28/2013
Posts: 396
Location: Rio de Janeiro, Brasil
Warp wrote:
The latest Numberphile video brought up an interesting pattern in the prime numbers. Or, rather, in the list of sums of two successive primes. This list is:
5, 8, 12, 18, 24, 30, 36, 42, 52, 60, 68, 78, 84, 90, 100, 112, 120, 128, 138, 144, 152, 162, 172, 186, 198, 204, 210, 216, 222, 240, 258, and so on.
Curiously, the segment 12, 18, 24, 30, 36, 42 consists of successive multiples of 6.
Then there are multiples of 6 at semi-regular intervals until we reach another surprisingly long segment of consecutive multiples of 6: 198, 204, 210, 216, 222.
(The next two numbers, 240 and 258, are also multiples of 6, but not the next consecutive ones after 222.)
I wonder if this is just coincidence.
For p > 3 every prime is equal to 6k +- 1, and for small enough numbers a good portion of numbers that can be written this way are in fact primes. So these sequences just mean that 7 consecutive or so of such numbers happen to be primes.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Skilled player
(1344)
Joined: 12/28/2013
Posts: 396
Location: Rio de Janeiro, Brasil
Easy yes vote! The setups were very impressive and they made it well worth watching past the waiting moments, imo - surely I love minimal jumps challenges.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Skilled player
(1344)
Joined: 12/28/2013
Posts: 396
Location: Rio de Janeiro, Brasil
ThunderAxe31 wrote:
DeHackEd wrote:
Warp wrote:
For example, traffic accidents kill over 1 million people very year, but this is something we unfortunately have to live with, because it's not practical to, for example, ban cars completely.
No, but we do require licensing and testing of people before they can drive a vehicle, we investigate incidents and those responsible are held criminally liable.
What about smoking? It is estimated that more than 480,000 people die yearly in the U.S. due to smoking, yet no politician has ever remotely considered banning tobacco.
There are tons of impracticalities in banning cars. I can't see any in mandating vaccines. And there is, of course, a fundamental difference. Being an anti-vaxxer is not an 'activity', like driving a car or practicing a sport, that involves taking some risk. It's just a risk on itself without any action coupled.
Same goes to smoking tobacco, which also is much more of an individual risk than a risk to others.
But anyway, these decisions that can save or condemn hundreds of thousands of lifes MUST be based on some consequentialist utilitarianism, and I don't know why people try to avoid it so much. Banning tobacco not necessarily will reduce it's usage and might create other even worse social complications. Mandating vaccines will definitely save thousands of lifes and the only drawback is to get some antivaxxer fools mad.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Skilled player
(1344)
Joined: 12/28/2013
Posts: 396
Location: Rio de Janeiro, Brasil
Warp wrote:
That's another ethical and socio-political dilemma that has no unambiguous straight answer.
I don't see such a difficult dilemma here. Saving people's lifes/preventing deaths are usually very broadly accepted reasons to restrict individual liberties or enforce obligations.
In practice, unfortunately, the State is not able to literally force anyone to take a vaccine. Instead, it conditions access to some public services (eg. schools) to vaccination. I think it's pretty fair to a social contract based State to condition citizenship to basic collaboration with pubic health.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Skilled player
(1344)
Joined: 12/28/2013
Posts: 396
Location: Rio de Janeiro, Brasil
Warp wrote:
If you get infected by the disease (eg. influenza, or the coronavirus) because you deliberately chose not to get vaccinated, and then you proceed to infect another person, who then proceeds to die from the disease, how much moral responsibility should you carry?.
In my opinion, you carry absolute moral responsibility. I'd go further: if you deliberately choose not to get vaccinated (without a decent justification, like allergy to some of the vaccine components) and you act as a vector of the disease, you are guilty of all the chain infections you cause. You may infect multiple people, or a particular person that then infects dozens of people, and any amount of deaths that follows from that is on you.
The covid vaccine should be absolutely mandatory. In countries using vaccines that have a lower efficacy, considering the virus has extreme transmission rates, it's necessary to vaccinate almost the entirety of the population to achieve heard immunity. People should not be allowed to put multiple others and the community health itself at risk due to their own superstitions or flawed beliefs.
Warp wrote:
On one hand this is understandable. (...) Normally a vaccine requires a testing period of 5 to 10 years before it's widely accepted by health officials (...) the vaccines have not existed but for less than a year. Who knows if they'll have some severe side-effects in 2 years or longer?
The main reasons these vaccines were developed much quicker than others were the immensely bigger amount of resources invested (which obviously can speed up research and testing steps without any damage to their integrity) and the reduction in bureaucracy (doing simultaneously tests that were previous required to be done one after the other [again, without any damage to their reliability], agencies centering all their attention on the vaccines development and giving quicker responses, etc).
It's true we aren't able to scientifically observe people that took the vaccine many years ago, but there doesn't seem to be theoretical reasons to be worried about that. The dangerous possible side effects that can be triggered by the vaccine components are short term (like an anaphylactic shock) and thankfully also very are. After a few months the vaccine shouldn't have any effect lasting on your body, except, of course, for the immunological memory acquired.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Skilled player
(1344)
Joined: 12/28/2013
Posts: 396
Location: Rio de Janeiro, Brasil
Although Brazil has only 2.7% of the World's population, we're responsible for almost 30% of the recent deaths for Covid. Meanwhile, our president insists in recommending miraculous medications for worms and malaria that, if anything, can increase Covid's mortality. Until a few weeks ago, he was still actively discouraging the usage of both masks and vaccines - this has only changed since a relevant political opponent has regained political rights.
The situation in hospitals is completely desperate. Doctors and nurses are crying while patients die on the floor. Oxygen is lacking in more and more hospitals, leading to massive deaths in entire floors or ICU sections. Some hospitals are getting out of intubation kits and sedatives - being intubated without these medications is an experience of immeasurable suffering and probable death. This chaos has worsened this year, but it's been so long since the situation is inconceivably bad. It still puzzles me how supposedly sane people in this thread have said some Dengue outbreaks were worse or that they don't understand why strict measures are necessary for fighting this disease. The insensibility I've been seeing in some people is very hard to not take as a trait of plain cruelty.
