Policies about necroposting in other forums make absolutely no sense. Why should it matter how old the thread is? Whether your response is relevant to the thread or not is completely independent of the fact of how old the last post is. It's not like the age of the oldest post somehow determines how relevant your response is.
It just feels like someone came up with this random idea, and for some psychological reason it spread like wildfire. The worst thing is that some forums took it so to heart that they enacted outright draconian and completely nonsensical rules about necroposting, as if necroposting were one of the worst crimes in existence.
Both poles of a magnet will attract iron. Given that magnets can attract and repel each other (depending on the orientation), one could easily think that there would exist a material that both poles of a magnet would repel. But as far as I know, there is no such material. Why is this so?
Semi-lightweights - Earth Ponies - Pinkie Pie and Applejack
Middleweights - Unicorn Ponies - Twilight and Rarity
Given that earth ponies tend to be physically stronger and more accustomed to physical labor, while unicorns are accustomed to make most tasks with magic, shouldn't that be the other way around?
(And please, no wings for Twilight. Perhaps if we pretend that episode didn't happen, it will disappear.)
But how close can you theoretically get without touching?
Speaking of snooker... I find some instances of spin rather incredible. For example, there are cases where the player makes a long pot by making the white ball travel the entire length of the table, with a strong backspin, and when the white ball hits the nominated ball, the backspin kicks in and makes it come back all the way to almost its starting point (without colliding with any walls in between or anything like that.)
How can the white ball travel the entire length of the table, all the way with a backspin strong enough that after it hits the other ball, the backspin is still able to make it traverse the entire length of the table again, in the other direction? One would think that contact with the table would eliminate the backspin completely (the only effect the backspin would have being that it slows down the ball during the first trip.)
Thief and Assassin's Creed are rather obvious, but parts of it also reminded me of The Score and Entrapment. (Of course the ending references Equestria Girls, but I think you were not asking that.)
Maybe this is the beginning of the end? Maybe all hope is lost? Maybe we will just end up as a footnote in the annals of history... for a time. Until everybody forgets we even existed.
In the episode "Hearts and Hooves Day", during the song "The Perfect Stallion", look at what the ponies are doing during the line "this one's too old."
I'm rather surprised.
In a literal sense it would be one atom. However, snooker is not a sport where the rules tend to be strictly applied. In a disputed situation the referee will usually act more like a mediator, than an enforcer. Its not a complicated or subjective rule IMO. You just place the ball as near as possible to the black spot while still being in line with the brown spot.
I think you are missing my point. I was hoping for the conversation to go towards the theoretical discussion on what it really means for two objects to "touch" each other in physics, and how close you can theoretically get before reaching this definition.
Snooker rule:
"When the nominated colour is potted, the player will be awarded the correct number of points. The colour is then taken out of the pocket by the referee and placed on its original spot. If that spot is covered by another ball, the ball is placed on the highest available spot. If there is no available spot, it is placed as close to its own spot as possible in a direct line between that spot and the top cushion, without touching another ball."
So, how close is "as close as possible without touching another ball" in terms of physics?
I believe the final consensus was was summed up in the analogy "the strategies are like a recipe, the final input is like a cake. TASVideos accepts cakes, not recipes."
Which is ironic, given that recipes do not fall under copyright, while individual performances do.
Yes, but the credit can be given in various ways: either just mentioning the old author in submission text, or adding their name as a co-author, or not mentioning the name at all (since the name is already mentioned in current publication, which is going to be obsoleted and thus linked back). Currently, the chosen way of giving the credit depends completely on the new author's attitude. Perhaps we could elaborate some general rules (when it's better to add a co-author and when there's no need).
Given that the keypress files are published under a certain publication license (hidden somewhere in the innards of the website), said license already stipulates how the original authors have to be credited.
I've always been disappointed by how much focus is given to the popular background characters.
This is also something that they often misunderstand.
One of the major reasons why background characters in this kind of show with very little screentime and no dialogue get popular is because it excites the imaginations of the fanbase: They like to imagine what those characters really are like, what they do (that's not shown), what kinds of relationships they have, and so on.
Now the creators (or some other officially endorsed parties) think like "hey, this character is really popular among the fans, let's ascend it and bring it to the front and give it more screentime and dialogue". The problem with this is that they end up destroying 99% of the characterization that the fans had imagined. This can make, rather ironically, the character flatter and less interesting than it was before.
(I'm not saying this happens always, of course.)
Yeah, but the authors have specifically stated that they're doing the comics specifically for the bronies and don't have to adhere to the same rules that the TV folks do.
I think they are missing the point a bit. One of the major reasons why FiM is so much better than the previous generations is because the characters are so super-cute.
The MLP:FiM comics seem very different in terms of artwork from the show. Look at, for example, their depiction of Queen Chrysalis. She's borderline nightmare fuel!
Yeah, it's interesting that some carnivorous animals are shown from time to time, yet we never see them eating. I suppose it's purposefully avoided and ignored because it would otherwise raise rather odd moral questions, given that all the animals are shown to have some kind of higher sentience (eg. even mice and birds can understand and react to speech.)
Question: Are the ponies in the show really 100% vegetarian?
Cakes and muffins use, at the very least, eggs. (Every single muffin recipe I have looked up online uses eggs. Many, although not all, of them also use butter and/or milk.) Now, I'm not a cook so I really can't say if there exists a suitable vegetarian substitute for eggs that can be used in cakes and muffins, but eggs seem quite ubiquitous.
(There's also the fact that Fluttershy raises chickens. It might be more than just philanthropy. Also, there are cows, that sometimes need herding.)
Technically speaking, when you submit an entry, you are kind of indirectly accepting that 1) it may not be published, and 2) even if it is, anybody can later obsolete it with a faster/better one.
I completely understand that this might suck, especially if the entry was really laborious and you spent months making it, but it would be difficult to come up with something that would be "fair" in this subjective sense. After all, the purpose of the site is to always keep the best version of a run.
If it's any solace, at least the site keeps track of the entire history of runs for a particular game, so even obsoleted runs will never completely disappear.
Take a long movie like Final Fantasy 8, for example. Would tasvideos accept a run of FF8 with 1758778 frames, over DarkKobold's 1758779?
As has been already stated, if the entire input is the same except for an extremely small portion of it, it will probably be obsoleted as having two authors. (And even then, there might be some room for judicious rejection in a case of such a microscopic improvement, especially if the vast majority of the input has simply been copied as-is.)
I think that time to completion is better than time to end input.
Maybe, but the big problem with it is that it cannot be detected automatically (so that the website could automatically and accurately represent the length of the run). Moreover, with many games it's a question of opinion at which point the game has been "completed."
A semi-universal rule of thumb could be that the game has been "completed" at the point where it starts its non-interactive ending routines (that ultimately lead to the ending of the final credits, or whatever the game uses to indicate that the game has completely ended.) So it shouldn't be hard to agree that the input can be ended at this moment at its latest. (Of course there are exceptions to this with some games.)
The problem still remains, though: It's basically impossible to automatically detect when the game reaches this point.
The proposed rule addresses this quite nicely, IMO: It doesn't delay reaching that point, while still being quite unambiguous and easily comparable in an automated manner. In the vast majority of games it also coincides with the start of the non-interactive ending routines. (In the few cases where it doesn't, it isn't that important, really. The end result is still the same: The ending is reached as fast as possible.)
In short, unless you have a heuristic that can tell for sure if a partial path is part of the optimal solution, no path searching algorithm can find the optimal solution faster than by (eventually) trying all possible combinations.
(After it has found one solution, it can reject all partial solutions that are longer than that, but in the case of a video game, that solution will be enormously long, and as said, the search paths suffer from exponential explosion, and any such path can potentially be the optimal one.)
Well if the timing rule doesn't affect the route, it doesn't really matter what you do; the run's basically the same anyway.
I don't know how I could explain this more clearly than I already have. The purpose of the rule is to answer the question "at which frame is it ok for me to stop the run?"
The goal is to give a simple, unambiguous rule that both makes sure that there's no extraneous input left at the and of the keypress file (to make automatic comparison of runs possible and useful), and that the game is still completed as fast as possible (via the route that the runner chose.)
The current rules on this are a bit vague, and the intention is to disambiguate them.
