For the record, people with aspergers are notoriously bad at picking up on sarcasm. Please be considerate, even though I realize the urge to be asshats is almost impossible to resist.
I agree. It would be nice if we could at least act somewhat like grownups from time to time, like when someone with a disability asks a question related to their disability. People who have disabilities get enough of this kind of nonsense (as well as people who think they can "help", by "training the weak leg"). It's really just not funny, not helpful, and it's extremely immature.
Really. So if people are bad at something, they should be protected from that thing? If people are bad at socializing, please don't try to socialize with them? That's being mean and inconsiderate to them? If people are bad at detecting sarcasm, don't ever confront them with sarcasm? If your foreign cook-housekeeper is bad at grammar, let's talk like this to them "You clean windows later and making dinner, OK?", at least don't use complex sentences. This is being very mature and considerate to them! Then wonder how it is that they never improve.
I refuse to treat anybody with Asperger's as anything less than a normal person. I use sarcasm with normal people. People with Asperger's are not incapable of detecting it. Sarcasm is real. It exists in this world. I don't get why you think it's mature to protect people from it.
I get offended if people disagree with me and I'm very bad at arguing, so would you please maturely refrain from arguing with me? Thanks. Oh that's different, because Asperger's is a real disability and me being bad at arguing isn't? What if science finds out I'm not just being bad at arguing, indeed some area in my brain associated with arguing is a lot smaller than in average people, quite a few people are affected by it, and so then they give this condition a name? Then it's a disability? Taxi drivers have bigger hippocampuses because they make more use of them. Maybe just arguing more with me would cure me? Shouldn't we at least give it a go? No, I need to be protected from getting this chance. (Not claiming Asperger's works the same way, it doesn't seem to, as far as we know)
Asperger's is defined over its symptoms. If you have lots of them (and had them at an early age), and none of the candidates for a differential diagnosis apply, you have Asperger's. Its symptoms include being worse at some things than people who don't have it. Its symptoms are not being unable to socialize ever and they aren't being unable to detect sarcasm. It's also a developmental disorder, so yes, people with that condition cannot be cured, so my opposition has a point, but again, they can become a lot better at the things they are bad at with training! To a point where they can indeed detect sarcasm most of the time and indeed read most facial expressions, intonation and body language correctly when conscious effort is applied. But surprise! This can't happen unless they are confronted with it!
I get very upset about this because the idea of protecting people from the things they are bad at seems just very insane to me, and even cruel. Oh, he's got dyslexia, let's be considerate and give him less reading assignements than the rest of the class. Let's send a mail to all of our friends, but him I'll phone, so he doesn't have to read, which he's bad at. I think the more sane approach is to make him read more, so he could get to a more normal level and ultimately have less difficulties in everyday life, but maybe you think that's an immature approach. Maybe you think it's more mature to keep reading his emails to him because we should be considerate. Please explain to me how your logic is more mature, I doubt you can.
Males naturally have better spacial visualization abilities than females. So let's protect females from having to park their cars into difficult spots. If you see a female having trouble at it, don't hesitate to offer her help. In fact, let's not even make them try. We shouldn't expect them to perform as well, so let's be considerate and give them less practice in driving lessons, we mustn't be so demanding. Let's never make them practice, since they are naturally worse at it! Not the best analogy, but maybe now you get where I'm coming from, since I know you are very pro-feminist, and if I were female, I'd find the above very insulting. I didn't bring it up to derail the topic any further, so please let's not.
I submit once again that people with Asperger's don't have to be protected from sarcasm. We should treat them like normal people.
For the record, people with aspergers are notoriously bad at picking up on sarcasm. Please be considerate, even though I realize the urge to be asshats is almost impossible to resist.
I don't think it's a good idea to consciously avoid the use of sarcasm among people with Asperger's. They might be bad at detecting it, but not incapable. Due to their high intelligence (compared to other forms of Autism), they can compensate for their disadvantages to a certain degree. A weak leg has to be trained, in my opinion. At least, one should try before totally abandoning it.
Dear WiiUltimate,
if you are serious, I should probably let you know that there already are or have been TASers with Autism. You might want to contact them. Pretty sure that Bhezt Rhy has it? Also, Spider-Waffle? I think those have officially announced it. You are welcome to share your efforts at any time in the [URL=http://tasvideos.org/forum/viewforum.php?f=46]Newbie Corner[/URL]. I'm not sure why your topic has been moved to this section as opposed to the Newbie Corner.
Kuwaga wrote:
TASing with disabilities is illegal in 16 states. Just put in a fake location though, and you'll be fine.
This is sarcasm. I thought your question of whether it's alright for you to TAS with disabilities was ridiculous, so I gave a ridiculous reply. That's a typical situation in which sarcasm is commonly used.
Laws are usually fairly reasonable, so there obviously doesn't exist a law against TASing with disabilities. TASing with disabilities is neither dangerous to the TASer nor to any other people involved, so there would be no reason to outlaw it. Most people would be able to figure this out by themselves.
If people speak untruths, they are either wrong, lying, trolling or it's sarcasm. Since most people, by a very large margin, would know that there isn't a law against TASing, it's unlikely that I was wrong. If I intended to lie, I would have backed up my statement with evidence to make it sound more credible. If I wanted to troll, I would have made my comment more provocative and made an effort to portrait myself as credibly wrong. Since none of these options are very plausible, I think you should have concluded that it's highly probable for it to be a joke or sarcasm. An important difference between sarcasm and a lie or trolling is that with sarcasm, it's usually expected that most people will easily detect it.
Trolling is when we pretend to be stupider than we really are in order to get attention. Trolls usually expect lots of people to fall for it, but sometimes it's more fun to them to throw in more or less obvious hints that they are trolling, so that only stupid people will fall for it. This gives them not only attention, but also a pleasurable feeling of intellectual superiority. For example, they would Capitalize random words in a Pattern that no Language in the world Uses. This, in combination with you asking a pretty ridiculous question, is how I concluded you are very likely trolling.
If you look up the definition of sarcasm, it might say that it's used with the intention of hurting people. This isn't necessarily true. My intention was to make people laugh. When people are confronted with untrue statements, this creates a form of tension between what they think is real and what is claimed to be real. When they find out immediately that the person uttering that statement couldn't have been serious, this relieves this tension and this usually produces a mildly pleasurable feeling.
Maybe somebody will find it funny how I'm spelling out all kinds of obvious things in this post. Maybe not.
I have probably already posted this song, but it's such great art, in my opinion.
Dark and gothic lyrics, powerful presentation. Crazy good vocals, so much expression.
The name of the song is "Doukeshi A", "Clown A".
The pretext established by the rest of the album seems to be that Clown is possessed by a dark spirit, or his shadow. So the lyrical I seems to be a mixture of both personalities. Clown's genuine emotions and his shadow converting them into murderous intent and a great lust for blood.
I'm not sure who the child is. I guess it's maybe a girl (Diana?), referred to as child because of her age, given the rest of the album. Maybe it's also an inner child. "Even if I die, I can't really die" seems to be the spirit talking (the video translates it differently, but the phrase in quotes is closer to the literal meaning, I hope. 0:55 あの子が泣くと 俺は死んでも死に切れない for reference).
For some reason, I really dig the theme of this album a lot.
I don't think it has ever been done this well.
Link to video
My dear child,
I wonder if I can see you again today
As from the shadows of the curtain call,
I’ll play the fool
When the curtain rises,
I want you to be laughing
If that child cries,
then even if I die, I can't really die
I'm a clown with no name,
my tragedy is comedy
Trembling behind the stage,
a bearded singer in women’s clothes
I will present you a bouquet,
red like blood
With a note attached,
done in blood letters
Nobody really gives a damn about you
Noone but me
I love you so much that I want to kill you
Please, manager,
the child is crying
Do me a favour and
Make the child dance and shine for me
Who are you?
Mirror, oh mirror?
I love you so much
I love you so much that I want to kill you
This might be the whole album, subbed, on Youtube: [URL=https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/47215851/13kai_wa_gekkou.html]Link[/URL]
My troll sensors went off too. Just saying. I think it's more likely for a troll to capitalize random words than for somebody with Asperger's. TASing with disabilities is illegal in 16 states. Just put in a fake location though, and you'll be fine.
P.S. Welcome! ^o^
It's sad that there is no vvvvvv, hotline miami or dustforce among the top 250.
You are wrong about VVVVVV. #211
Unrelated to VVVVVV, but good:
Link to video
This might be one of my favourites:
Link to video
Here's a song from a series that isn't any good (imo) besides at being moe moe and the music:
Link to video
Was pretty surprised to find on #12 of [URL=http://www.hardcoregaming101.net/vgm/bestvgm2011.htm]this[/URL] list a track from a game I had never even heard of. I was pleasantly surprised. Very unique style. Trancy. The composer seems to be called zts.
Link to video
Very nice.
I still think that ultimately the best way to program a generalised TASing bot is to make it scientific. Forming and testing hypotheses about how memory addresses interact, how much of it it can control or influence, and under which circumstances. Very playfully at first, with the goal to learn as much as possible. Then finally tear the game apart. Of course this would be _really_ hard to achieve.
A general rule to avoid deaths (and increasing the death counter) would have to be somewhat akin to it wanting to avoid RAM states that are very similar to previous ones without really getting any apparent new abilities, even if it increases the score or whatever. (I'll gladly accept the first bot to genuinely discover on its own how to acquire the hadouken in MMX as my new overlord)
I swear it could be done if somebody was crazy enough to spend enough time on it. Lock somebody into a cell and don't leave them out until they're done. :p
Tetris seems very difficult. And with that, I'll disappear back to whence I came.
This run seems to do this, please correct me if I'm wrong:
1) Start from save data that has already completed the game.
2) Start a new game file. This is completely unnecessary and unrelated to the next steps.
3) Go into VS mode. This loads the already completed save file. It has nothing to do with the created new game file, it could as well just not be there at all.
4) Use a glitch to beat the game in VS mode, using the completed file's data.
It's not even a new game+ run, if you can just leave out step 2 and achieve the same results. It's then just a glitch demonstration of how to reach the credits in VS mode if you've already completed the game.
If I'm correct, and assuming Swordless knew that step 2 is unnecessary, then this is basically fraud.
More of a maths related question.
If you got a 1 in X chance of winning the lottery, then you'll win it once on average every X tries. However, I think that contrary to our intuition, if you try it exactly X times, you'll have a 1-1/e or 63.21% chance of having won it at least once by then. Why is this? It'd have to do with the fact that if you are unlucky, numbers can go arbitrarily high, but if you are lucky, they can't get arbitrarily low (also winning twice at <X only counts as one win). So the average ends up being X, even though the chance of having won at least once at X tries is well above 50%. You can write a simple program to verify this for yourself. Alternatively, you can calculate the chance of repeated failure by (1-1/X)^tries, so the chance of having won at least once at X times is 1-((1-1/X)^X) and that seems to be the same as 1-1/e. The chance of already having won at least once 37% of the way is 1-1/(e^0.37)
success = 0;
for (int j = 0; j < 1000000; j++)
{
for (i = 0; i < 12345; i++)
{
x = r.Next(12345);
if (x == 1)
{
success++;
break;
}
}
}
Console.WriteLine("Won before average {0}% of the time", 1.0 * success / 10000);
Another interesting question is how many tries do you have to make to have a cummulative Y/Z chance of having won at least once. According to my experiments, you have to try X*LN(Z/(Z-Y)) times. So for a 37% chance of winning at least once, you'd need to try X*LN(100/63) times. A 50% chance is given by X*LN(2/1), a 25% chance by X*LN(4/3), a 75% chance at X*LN(4/1). How can this be explained? What do I need to google for to read up more on this really captivating subject?
(Sorry for starting a new page with this still unanswered):
p4wn3r wrote:
I looked a lot of threads back and saw no problem in abstract algebra, so here goes one. It can also be solved by looking it up, if you know groups well:
Let G be a finite nontrivial group such that, for every two elements a and b in G different from the identity, there's an element c in G satisfying b = c-1ac. Prove that |G|=2.
Show how and why 0,5^(x*y/ln(2)) approximates (1-x)^y for most values of 0 < x < 1 and y being any natural number.
It works especially well for large y, in that case it works even for 0 < x < 2.
Edit: It should actually be 1-0,5^(x*y/ln(2)) and 1-(1-x)^y it seems.
I'm not the best at maths and thought it'd make no difference.
RGB is really just color emulation, it's quite different from "real colors" observed in nature, but looks the same to humans. Our eyes have cells that respond more or less intensly dependent on what color the light they observe is. As most mammals, we can detect how closely a colored light resembles red/green or blue, the differentiation of red and green is more specific to apes. RGB displays abuse this to emulate colors. If a real color would excite our r,g anb b sensitive cells in specific amounts, then the same effect can be simulated with three seperate colors of rgb in different brightness levels. (Some humans apparently have a forth kind of color detecting cells for some reason, but those cells aren't wired up in a way to the (rest of the) brain so they could profit from that)
An alien species capable of sight would be quite unlikely to perceive movies as to look approximately the same as the real world, only in 2D, such as we do. It works well for humans only. I find it quite an interesting subject. Btw, you might wonder how it has been calculated which amounts of rg and b make up which color and the answer is, it has quite amusingly be found out by experiment, letting people mix rgb channels until they perceived their perception to match the target color. RGB emulation is only a step away from directly wiring up information into your brain.
In theory, 2 kinds of color receptor cells are enough to discern colors. The RG destinction we can make specifically helps us detect ripe fruits in trees or bushes more effortlessly.
Automated matching saves money, and when in doubt not spending time on finding out if it's copyrighted, but just remove it / send a notification saves money too
This took absolutely no skill at all except reading and inputing notes, but I think it's nice, so... [URL=https://dl.dropbox.com/u/47215851/shipz/CLASSIC.mid]CLASSIC.mid[/URL]
It might even contain lots of mistakes, haha
