Due to expected high load on the weekend the frontpage has been made static and needs to be updated manually. It seems you also have a stale copy in your cache, refresh the frontpage with Shift + F5.
All syllogisms have three parts, therefore this is not a syllogism.
Too bad you're abandoning this. In case you have any WIP movie (or anything else really) you want to share, why not upload it to Wiki: userfiles/document it here, so if someone comes along to pick this up, there's something to go on from (or at least examine).
All syllogisms have three parts, therefore this is not a syllogism.
Well done nfq, you got me there. If you did insert hints that made your posts distinguishable from sincere conspiracy theory gibberish then I didn't pick them up.
I should have checked your post history myself and not rely on Warp's statement that you expressed similar beliefs before (because it's one of the few ways to beat Poe's Law).
I could always argue that I had checked and just "reverse-trolled" you, but that, I feel, would be a waste of time, because I like discussing with nutjobs to a certain extent (and those certainly do exist!).
Anyway, as long as this also applies to ars4326 and this thread as a whole, this now becomes quite boring, but nice try!
Edit: Oh, and that yellow color phenomenon on LCD screens is called https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haidinger%27s_brush
All syllogisms have three parts, therefore this is not a syllogism.
I cannot reason you out of something that you didn't reason yourself into. I had hoped you'd take away something from my Illuminati post: The fact that you can take any statement and prepend an infinite chain of conspiracy and doubt to it. In this case you prepended the idea that "the government" created a ridiculously complicated ruse (if you want to see how to do this more effectively look at North Korea) and I prepended the idea of an underground organization (like it's done in Deus Ex to provide some sense of mystery) using you to make us doubt in "the government" and esp. NASA's discoveries (what is commonly seen as a one of the greatest technological achievements of mankind).
The difference between a ridiculous and a well-formed claim is that you have something to show for one, the other is unfalsifiable. If common visual artifacts and lens and atmospheric phenomena are all it takes to make you believe in absurd statements, then you truly are susceptible to deception. There surely are dubious things going on (take the NSA/Snowden case) even on a grand scale, but even those are not as grand as hiding the existence of an entire planet near the sun.
In fact I claim the following: "The government" uses a certain pattern in the crystalline structure of LCD displays to test on a global scale whether they can convey subliminal messages to users of the LCD without them noticing. As side effect of this can be seen by non-indoctrinated people when they look on a white and bright background of the LCD and, while keeping their head straight, rotate the screen clockwise or counter-clockwise. You should see a faint yellow figure at the center of your vision which is an artifact of the technology they use to later embed invisible visual patterns that alter the mood of the user.
Have fun living in your world where everybody is out there to get you.
All syllogisms have three parts, therefore this is not a syllogism.
...
But what is sad about it? The fact that NASA doesn't have the balls to tell us the truth, and they show us CGI footage from space? That's sad, I agree. Shouldn't we question NASA, the governments and our rulers, and the things they tell us, or should we just accept their supposed superior knowledge? The earth couldn't possibly be flat, right, because we were all told it's round in school, and we saw a spherical model of it? Our senses which tell us it's flat could lie to us, but our rulers would never lie to us, right?
blablabla
If you seriously believe this, you might have a mental illness (that's borderline paranoid as in paranoid personality disorder). Talk to your psychiatrist.
The reason that NASA mostly shows us CGI footage is that you can't just fly around with a camera in space willy-nilly and make planetary showcases (even though the camera movement in some of these videos looks slow, it's probably close to or more than the speed of light; yes you can speed up the footage but it'd also take decades or centuries to capture depending on the scope of the project)).
Neither do they have the time and resources to send a space probe on a complicated path around our solar system for decades capturing vast amounts of photos just to see what they already know from observation with high-end telescopes that were built for this exact reason (and there are plenty of non-CGI images around).
Space exploration costs serious money but NASA (and ESA, etc) recognize that giving laymen a visualization of what's going on (esp. when maneuvering probes or stuff around the ISS) is an important part of public education, which is why they produce these in the first place. These things are complicated enough, setting up a tens of millions of dollar camera man simply isn't worth it (but occasionally a photo gets snapped when you don't expect it (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pale_Blue_Dot).
All syllogisms have three parts, therefore this is not a syllogism.
Having studied psychology and Sigmund Freud, it makes sense though that they show us their CGI balls, because it's a way of trying to cover up the truth that they have no real balls.
Ah, Freud. That explains why this post sounds like it was made on copious amounts of cocaine.
Do you want to buy my Orgone chamber now?
All syllogisms have three parts, therefore this is not a syllogism.
...
It's all part of their plan to deceive us into mindless slaves. They don't want us to trust ourselves and our own senses, they want us to trust them, so that we become their slaves, and we have to go to them to get information and answers (fake answers, like evolution) to the big questions.
No, it's all your plan to make us believe we are being tricked into not believing our senses, so we stop trusting real evidence to make us your mindless slaves. (which is of course all part of a greater plan of a certain underground organization (Illuminati) who I am merely playing with in a game of my own devising (the fact that I reveal this is also part of the plan obviously and the fact that I revealed that I revealed that information is also part of the plan, a.s.o.))
nfq wrote:
...
Authorities like NASA are trustworthy? Having studied psychology and Sigmund Freud, it makes sense though that they show us their CGI balls, because it's a way of trying to cover up the truth that they have no real balls.
As such it would only make sense for you to suggest that. nfq confirmed as Illuminati. Burn him!
All syllogisms have three parts, therefore this is not a syllogism.
If your TAS is slower, and there's legit proof that it can be optimized better rather easily, why should it be published?
Because the difference is minimal.
It doesn't matter if it is minimal. Considering the big, TASing history of Classic Sonic games, it's pretty significant.
It does, there's substantial precedent for publications with known improvements (known at publication time). It's all a matter of magnitude and in the end a decision to be made by a judge.
All syllogisms have three parts, therefore this is not a syllogism.
By the way, if you have any (constructive) criticism regarding the submission process/rules here, feel free to post on the forums or PM site staff.
Thanks
P.S.: Oh and, if your YT encode is well made, it can appear as the encode in the publication, if you want.
All syllogisms have three parts, therefore this is not a syllogism.
I'll leave this here http://www.catb.org/esr/faqs/smart-questions.html (transfer to this community accordingly) on the off chance you're not a troll. Read it, understand it and follow it. Otherwise joining new communities less lenient than ours might become an unpleasant experience.
All syllogisms have three parts, therefore this is not a syllogism.
Recursive implementations of these types of things are often sweet and short. Another possibility is to notice that you essentially have all possible combinations of (n-1) bits (where n is the number of elements). This means that if you increment an integer from 0 to 2n-1, then you can output each element and between them either a comma or "and" depending on the correspondent bit in the integer.
OTOH the recursive implementation is probably more beautiful.
That counting algorithm I described earlier. I also had one that used the monadic instance of a list in Haskell to do that. Both seem extremely overengineered compared to what creaothceann posted. At least my solutions work out of the box for any amount of delimiters, but it bugs me that I didn't suggest "the obvious" firsthand.
All syllogisms have three parts, therefore this is not a syllogism.
I can't help you with those languages, but maybe I can give you a hint on how to do it in an imperative style.
If you have n (n>1) things and m (0<m<n) delimiters, then you'll need all combinations of those m delimiters of length n-1. So e.g. with A,B,C,D as your things and "and","," as delimiters, you need all combinations of "and" and "," of length 3 (D doesn't have a delimiter after it).
One way to think about these combinations is counting. If we count in binary the numbers of length 3 it looks like: 000, 001, 010, ..., 110, 111. Likewise with delimiters it looks like: , , , | , , and | , and , | ... | and and , | and and and. You can see there's a straightforward mapping between the two (0 -> , and 1 -> and).
So now we can count using our delimiters:
let things be the list of length n of things
let delims be the list of length m of delimiters
let result be the list of resulting strings
let counter be a base-m number with n-1 digits (initialised to 0)
repeat m^(n-1) times
let temp be the mapping of counter to delims # e.g. 0 -> ","; 1 -> "and"; 101 becomes "and", ",", "and"
intersperse elements of temp between things and add that to result # e.g. "A " + "and " + "B " + ", " + "C " + "and " + "D"
increment counter # e.g. 101 -> 110
You could represent counter as e.g. normal integer, boolean integer (if the language offers that) or boolean array of proper length (for more delimiters the base of the counter needs to be higher of course, you could also cut out the middleman completely and directly count on your delimiters).
With this I'm sure you can do the rest.
All syllogisms have three parts, therefore this is not a syllogism.
I can't really think straight today for whatever reason and I'm sure, there's an obvious simplification in here, but I came up with this:
import Control.Monad (replicateM)
things :: [String]
things = ["A","B","C","D"]
delimiters :: [String]
delimiters = ["and", ","]
result = map (++ " D") combinations''' where
combinations''' = map unwords combinations''
combinations'' = map concat combinations'
combinations' = map (map (\(x,y) -> [x,y])) combinations
combinations = map (zip $ init things) $ replicateM (length things - 1) delimiters
main = putStr $ unlines result
runhaskell program ~>
A and B and C and D
A and B and C , D
A and B , C and D
A and B , C , D
A , B and C and D
A , B and C , D
A , B , C and D
A , B , C , D
I'm too lazy to do commandline parsing, and the result of this doesn't fit exactly what you imagined, but it's fixable (tell me if you want me to make a standalone program).
The main logic is done by "map (zip $ init things) $ replicateM (length things - 1) delimiters".
"replicateM (length things - 1) delimiters" creates the (length things - 1)-fold Carthesian product of delimiters with itself, so e.g. when the delimiters are ["and", ","] and the number is 3 the result will be
These represent all combinations of delimiters between the "things". The rest of that line creates a new list consisting of lists of tuples, where each inner list has tuples like ("A","and"), ("B",","), etc representing all the permutations that things and delimiters go together, one inner list per possibility:
I assume you're referring to MarI/O? By now there's more than one of these scripts around (modified versions), so you should probably link to the exact one you're using (edit your post).
All syllogisms have three parts, therefore this is not a syllogism.
Can we get a collapase function for posts?
Like if I want to post a LONG script, I should be able to put it into a tag of some kind and have the user click on "Expand" and they can see ALL the text. It may be called Spoiler on other forums. Where you can take a block of text and put it into a special box that can be compressed/expanded.
To add to that: Or put it in an HTML textarea.
All syllogisms have three parts, therefore this is not a syllogism.
Thanks for publishing!
Why is the encode unlisted and named SD though? Also does this need a branch since it's not the main game mode?
Sorry for the long wait. It's named "SD" because that's what I randomly punched into my keyboard as temporary name. It's unlisted because the site has a new bug since the recent PHP upgrade where it won't update YT pages automatically after publication which I forgot about. I'll fix this momentarily. I'll also add a proper description.
Also, there's no branch, because this is basically any% completion, which is omitted as branch. (apparently not) If this ending's the same between the two modes, then 1P VS mode is just the fastest way to get there. I'll see whether we can add a suitable category. Otherwise you should clarify what difference between 1P VS and normal mode there is.
Edit: I saw the video linked above. This should indeed warrant a branch IMHO. I'll ask Nach about it.
Edit 2: I added a description. Please check for factual accuracy/suggest improvements. The branch situation will be sorted out soon.
All syllogisms have three parts, therefore this is not a syllogism.
What do you even mean by reinstallation? Isn't BizHawk packaged as a self-contained folder you put somewhere? Do you mean rerunning the prerequisite installer?
All syllogisms have three parts, therefore this is not a syllogism.
Knowing the error message would be a start...
Windows systems are very volatile and state on disk can change on many occasions and break stuff (e.g. "DLL hell")
All syllogisms have three parts, therefore this is not a syllogism.
We ask that you only submit movies that adhere to the movie rules (ask if unsure, particularly if you believe your run is in a "grey area") and have put significant effort into them (aren't trivially obsoleted). Otherwise use the game-specific forum (or create one if it doesn't exist yet). Chances are you'll get feedback there. Sometimes submissions will be encoded by community members voluntarily, sometimes they won't. Only published movies will appear prominently on the site and on the Youtube channel.
Note, that most submissions require effort by site staff, which can add up very quickly and slow down processing of other submissions.
In general you won't be banned if you are not abusing the workbench for dumping obviously unfinished work ("WIPs"). At first you will receive advice about how to do a better job creating TASes and submitting; if that doesn't suffice you'll get a warning and only then will submission rights be revoked (probably only temporarily or until you can show you have a good movie to contribute. This happens very rarely)
All syllogisms have three parts, therefore this is not a syllogism.
I experience no such problems. It is important, that on login you check the box below the credentials form.
Try the following: Login (with box checked), close the browser (remember to close all browser windows), start a new browser window and look for the phpbb2mysql_data cookie (for the tasvideos.org domain, ignore the phpbb2mysql_sid one). If it's still there you should be able to visit the forums page and be logged in automatically again.
If you paste the content of that cookie e.g. at http://www.url-encode-decode.com/ and click decode, it should be of the following form:
-- 