Posts for Warp


Banned User
Joined: 3/10/2004
Posts: 7698
Location: Finland
Euler's formula is traditionally written as: eix = cos(x) + i sin(x) However, due to the cyclic nature of the trigonometric functions, shouldn't it be more precisely: eix = cos(x + 2πm) + i sin(x + 2πn) , m,n∈ℤ Why isn't it written like that?
Banned User
Joined: 3/10/2004
Posts: 7698
Location: Finland
Habreno wrote:
Hypothetical: If this were any generic game, would we have this much of a debate over it?
No. But this is Super Mario Bros. One of the dozen or so quintessential TASable video games in existence. A game so famous that many non-gamers who know absolutely nothing about video games recognize, or at least have heard of. I think special treatment is warranted. I don't think it's "unfair" or anything of the sort. Think of it as something similar to how some games have like two dozens of speedrunning categories at speedrun.com, while others have only a couple. Some games simply are more popular than others, and there's nothing wrong with that. As for my opinion, I think the NTSC and the PAL version can perfectly well co-exist as separate categories (perhaps even separate games).
Banned User
Joined: 3/10/2004
Posts: 7698
Location: Finland
i5-2500K @ 4.2GHz:
User Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:54.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/54.0
Vector	Block	Result	Duration
12	3	correct	49.50ms
13	3	correct	95.15ms
14	3	correct	193.25ms
15	3	correct	378.80ms
16	3	correct	754.56ms
12	4	correct	99.50ms
13	4	correct	197.91ms
14	4	correct	394.38ms
15	4	correct	789.16ms
16	4	correct	1596.77ms
12	5	correct	203.78ms
13	5	correct	406.18ms
14	5	correct	813.64ms
15	5	correct	1634.22ms
16	5	correct	3268.81ms
User Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/59.0.3071.115 Safari/537.36
Vector	Block	Result	Duration
12	3	correct	153.21ms
13	3	correct	212.78ms
14	3	correct	329.73ms
15	3	correct	656.80ms
16	3	correct	1316.50ms
12	4	correct	185.98ms
13	4	correct	371.60ms
14	4	correct	747.01ms
15	4	correct	1492.65ms
16	4	correct	2976.65ms
12	5	correct	388.43ms
13	5	correct	778.52ms
14	5	correct	1559.11ms
15	5	correct	3112.93ms
16	5	correct	6219.53ms
Mac mini (Late 2012) (2,5 GHz Intel Core i5)
User Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.12; rv:54.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/54.0
Vector	Block	Result	Duration
12	3	correct	69.44ms
13	3	correct	140.31ms
14	3	correct	272.45ms
15	3	correct	509.44ms
16	3	correct	1031.92ms
12	4	correct	138.01ms
13	4	correct	275.57ms
14	4	correct	538.96ms
15	4	correct	1067.29ms
16	4	correct	2240.24ms
12	5	correct	284.13ms
13	5	correct	558.77ms
14	5	correct	1052.97ms
15	5	correct	2224.91ms
16	5	correct	4491.34ms
User Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_12) AppleWebKit/602.1.50 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/10.0 Safari/602.1.50
Vector	Block	Result	Duration
12	3	correct	290.29ms
13	3	correct	295.29ms
14	3	correct	574.64ms
15	3	correct	1139.16ms
16	3	correct	2316.13ms
12	4	correct	254.80ms
13	4	correct	487.86ms
14	4	correct	988.40ms
15	4	correct	1950.85ms
16	4	correct	3840.05ms
12	5	correct	486.51ms
13	5	correct	1011.69ms
14	5	correct	1984.01ms
15	5	correct	3966.46ms
16	5	correct	7934.20ms
The stock web browser in my Samsung Galaxy Express 2 (which I have absolutely no idea which browser it is, because neither the phone, nor the internet, shows this information anywhere; the phone itself just names it "Internet", which isn't very helpful) doesn't work with this at all. It just says "Status: Processing" forever, but no result lines appear. The (New) 3DS web browser still says "Status: Failed, your browser does not support workers." The PS4 browser says:
User Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (PlayStation 4 4.72) AppleWebKit/601.2 (KHTML, like Gecko)
12 2 correct 15412.67ms
13 3 correct 30705.94ms
14 3 correct 61477.68ms
15 3 correct 122074.35ms
16 3 correct 244508.77ms
12 4 correct 33221.63ms
13 4 correct 66443.97ms
Didn't care to wait for more results. When I get to work tomorrow I can test with an iPad, and perhaps with some more exotic hardware.
Banned User
Joined: 3/10/2004
Posts: 7698
Location: Finland
jlun2 wrote:
These stats look horrific in comparison to others. Should I be worried?
I think that "M" in the processor type name might be the major culprit. Also, Chrome is not be the fastest browser around for running javascript.
Banned User
Joined: 3/10/2004
Posts: 7698
Location: Finland
These are some results when run on a Mac mini (Late 2012):
User Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.12; rv:54.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/54.0
Vector	Block	Result	Duration
12	3	correct	60.68ms
13	3	correct	125.74ms
14	3	correct	251.34ms
15	3	correct	500.49ms
16	3	correct	986.71ms
12	4	correct	131.13ms
13	4	correct	268.80ms
14	4	correct	532.13ms
15	4	correct	1044.32ms
16	4	correct	2092.74ms
12	5	correct	272.00ms
13	5	correct	539.31ms
14	5	correct	1080.26ms
15	5	correct	2134.38ms
16	5	correct	4285.14ms
User Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_12) AppleWebKit/602.1.50 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/10.0 Safari/602.1.50
Vector	Block	Result	Duration
12	3	correct	308.16ms
13	3	correct	343.68ms
14	3	correct	742.75ms
15	3	correct	1196.80ms
16	3	correct	2308.72ms
12	4	correct	248.77ms
13	4	correct	485.07ms
14	4	correct	968.24ms
15	4	correct	2091.01ms
16	4	correct	3791.65ms
12	5	correct	479.89ms
13	5	correct	961.96ms
14	5	correct	1971.17ms
15	5	correct	3913.86ms
16	5	correct	7765.22ms
Banned User
Joined: 3/10/2004
Posts: 7698
Location: Finland
I ran the test on my Samsung Galaxy Express 2, using Chrome.
User Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Linux; Android 4.4.2; SM-G3815 Build/KOT49H) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/58.0.3029.83 Mobile Safari/537.36
Vector	Block	Result	Duration
12	3	correct	1477.55ms
13	3	correct	1124.49ms
14	3	correct	2080.48ms
15	3	correct	4066.57ms
16	3	correct	8294.92ms
12	4	correct	1152.91ms
13	4	correct	2263.72ms
14	4	correct	4605.16ms
15	4	correct	9250.36ms
16	4	correct	18691.99ms
12	5	correct	2347.20ms
13	5	correct	4705.85ms
14	5	correct	9545.65ms
15	5	correct	18835.07ms
16	5	correct	38579.04ms
I also tried running it using Safari, but it didn't seem to work. It just showed "Status: Processing", but even the first result didn't show even after several minutes of waiting. Either it would have taken many minutes, or for some reason it didn't work at all. Also tried the constrained version, same thing. On a New 3DS the page says "Status: Failed, your browser does not support workers."
Banned User
Joined: 3/10/2004
Posts: 7698
Location: Finland
The PS4 Pro uses a 2.13 GHz x86-64 AMD “Jaguar”, 8 cores. The CPU is fine, it's just that the PS4 web browser is absolutely horrendous. I don't know which engine it uses.
Banned User
Joined: 3/10/2004
Posts: 7698
Location: Finland
For the fun of it, I ran the page on the PS4 web browser (running on a PS4 Pro). This web browser is one of the most horrendous and inefficient pieces of crap software I have ever seen. The results are even worse than I thought. (I can't copypaste from the PS4, so I'm going to write these results manually):
12 3 correct 15615.51ms
13 3 correct 30746.64ms
14 3 correct 61337.25ms
15 3 correct 122403.86ms
I stopped it there because each line was taking several minutes.
Banned User
Joined: 3/10/2004
Posts: 7698
Location: Finland
Intel Core i5-2500K @ 4.2GHz.
User Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:54.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/54.0
Vector	Block	Result	Duration
12	3	correct	48.34ms
13	3	correct	94.25ms
14	3	correct	186.94ms
15	3	correct	374.95ms
16	3	correct	753.46ms
12	4	correct	99.76ms
13	4	correct	197.96ms
14	4	correct	395.03ms
15	4	correct	792.79ms
16	4	correct	1596.70ms
12	5	correct	205.97ms
13	5	correct	408.06ms
14	5	correct	811.49ms
15	5	correct	1628.90ms
16	5	correct	3251.23ms
I also tried with Chrome to see if it would make a difference. It makes a huge difference.
User Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/59.0.3071.115 Safari/537.36
Vector	Block	Result	Duration
12	3	correct	148.05ms
13	3	correct	212.86ms
14	3	correct	329.86ms
15	3	correct	656.69ms
16	3	correct	1315.93ms
12	4	correct	186.76ms
13	4	correct	371.51ms
14	4	correct	747.57ms
15	4	correct	1489.38ms
16	4	correct	2979.64ms
12	5	correct	390.16ms
13	5	correct	780.23ms
14	5	correct	1561.55ms
15	5	correct	3133.90ms
16	5	correct	6245.17ms
I don't know if smaller is better, but since it's measuring time, I'm assuming it is. I always thought that Chrome is faster than Firefox, but it appears that in this case it certainly isn't.
Banned User
Joined: 3/10/2004
Posts: 7698
Location: Finland
I suppose in that case MrCheeze's post has merit. If it's its own independent executable that does not need to be run inside a separate emulator, it could be seen as a different version of the game on its own right. Of course then we have the other interesting question: At least in the past the idea of having TASes of (essentially) the same game for different systems has not gotten a very warm welcome. Usually only one version of the game has been accepted (although there might well be exceptions). Given this, would we want separate TASes of the N64 version and a Wii VC version of Super Mario 64 or Ocarina of Time? (Personally I wouldn't have a problem, if they are distinct enough to merit it, but there may be other opinions.)
Banned User
Joined: 3/10/2004
Posts: 7698
Location: Finland
One simple change, which wouldn't require modifying the backend almost at all, would be to embed the 0-10 dropdown menu into the "rate this movie" line in the movie description, and add some javascript magic to make it update (either whenever it's changed, or when a button besides the dropdown menu is clicked) without going to a different page. The decimal part menu could simple be left out (and assumed to be 0 in this case). I think this has been suggested in the past by people, and I think it would perhaps be the solution that requires the least amount of meddling with the backend code, and thus perhaps the easiest to implement.
Banned User
Joined: 3/10/2004
Posts: 7698
Location: Finland
MrCheeze wrote:
A Virtual Console game is simply another release of a game. The fact that it happens to be implemented via embedding an emulator and ROM is nothing more than an implementation detail.
I got the impression that "Virtual Console" is an (official) N64 emulator for the Wii, as in, it's an application that can be run on its own, and then you can launch N64 game ROMs (that have been downloaded from the Nintendo shop or wherever). Which would mean that the N64 games published for the VC do not come with an emulator and N64 system ROM in themselves (because they are part of the VC app). I have to admit this is purely an assumption from my part. I haven't checked what the Virtual Console actually is. Is my assumption incorrect? If my assumption is correct, then it raises interesting questions about running an emulator (official or not) inside the emulated system, and then abusing the inaccuracies of that inner emulator. (I know that real-time speedruns have zero problems with this, but TASes are managed under a bit different set of rules.)
Banned User
Joined: 3/10/2004
Posts: 7698
Location: Finland
Radiant wrote:
Too bad this forum doesn't have a "report for personal attacks" button. How about we get back to the actual discussion instead of flaming people?
What personal attacks?
Banned User
Joined: 3/10/2004
Posts: 7698
Location: Finland
BrunoVisnadi wrote:
That's a very easy problem to fix. As suggested before, there could be the option of voting 0 stars. The interface I imagine is 6 clickable stars, with an 'X' in the leftmost denoting the 0 stars vote.
Hmm... I don't think that's very intuitive. Its meaning isn't very apparent.
Banned User
Joined: 3/10/2004
Posts: 7698
Location: Finland
Warp wrote:
The classic proof that you often hear that there are infinitely many primes is a simplified version of Euclid's argument. In other words, the "if there are finitely many primes, multiply all of them and add one, and you get a number that's not divisible by any of those primes, therefore there has to be at least one more prime" thingie. I don't remember when or where I heard this "proof" for the first time, but even back then it bothered me when it just makes the claim that you get a number that's not divisible by any of the listed primes, without even an attempt at a cursory informal argument about why that's the case.
blackpenredpen made a video proving this, and for the first time in my life someone actually presented that final part of the proof in a way that's actually easy to understand. In summary (using my own words): Let's assume there are finitely many primes. Let's take the product of all these primes and call it X. Let's also take Q = X+1. Q itself can't be prime, else the assumption would be wrong. Therefore it has to have a prime factor P. According to our assumption, P must be in the list of primes. Therefore, P divides both X and Q (because P is one of the factors of X, as defined above, and also a factor of Q, as deduced above.) It thus follows that P also divides Q-X. An easy way of understanding why is that since P is a factor of both, it can be taken out of the subtraction as a common term (and this is the part that was crucial for me finally understanding this). But we know what Q-X is: It's 1 (because Q=X+1). Thus it would mean that P divides 1, which is impossible. It was explained before (and the original proof by Euclid mentions it), but that one part above finally made it clear.
Banned User
Joined: 3/10/2004
Posts: 7698
Location: Finland
Radiant wrote:
The above graphic would give the impression that the tas has exactly average ratings,
No, for the reason I mentioned above. The average rating on a five-point scale is expected to be above four
You are still missing the point completely. I am not talking about the subjective meaning of "average", as used in colloquial language when judging a work of art. Nor am I talking about people's behavior when they estimate and rate such things. I am not talking about how the results should be subjectively interpreted from a psychological perspective in terms of the quality of the work. I am not talking about "four stars means that the work is meh". You seem to still be clinging to your complete misinterpretation of my original question "how would you interpret this graph?" I was not asking for a psychoanalysis of the mentality of the people who have rated the work, or an essay on typical human behavior. I was talking about how the graphic visually misleading, giving the impression that the ratings are exactly half-way through the scale, when in reality they are significantly lower than half-way. Forget "average", since you seem to have so many problems in understanding what that word means. Think of the more mundane "half-way between lowest and highest" concept instead.
The reason for that is that the first star is extraneous, always lit, and makes the graphic misleading.
The reason is that you think of a five-point scale as 0 through 4, whereas most people think of a five-point scale as 1 through 5. That's why the latter is the standard and the former is not.
But the problem is that when you display the results using five stars, it leads to a misleading result. People don't think that "oh, the range is 1 to 5? That means I should ignore the first star in the image and just look at the four remaining ones." They will look at the entire image and see that the highlighted portion is covering exactly half of it, and thus come to the intuitive but wrong conclusion that the ratings are also likewise completely evenly split, when that's very far from the truth.
Banned User
Joined: 3/10/2004
Posts: 7698
Location: Finland
Alyosha wrote:
Maybe even just replace the 'did you find this entertaining?' question with the ratings box.
Something like this was tried many years ago. It was relatively soon changed back to the poll question.
Banned User
Joined: 3/10/2004
Posts: 7698
Location: Finland
Radiant wrote:
Warp wrote:
If you see this rating, how would you interpret it?
I would interpret this as mediocre to awful.
I think you missed my point. My intention was not to ask "how high quality would you interpret something having this many stars to be?"
Would you, however, believe that that rating is the result of two 5-star ratings and four 1-star ratings? (Which, in other words, means that twice as many people gave it a minimum rating than a maximum rating.)
Of course, the answer to your issue is to not show ratings until there are a minimum number of votes (e.g. 10), because such situations become vanishingly unlikely as the amount of votes rises.
I think you are still missing the point. My point has nothing to do with the reliability of the results or how much variance there may be, or anything like that. It doesn't matter how many votes there are. There could be 400 one-star votes and 200 five-star votes and you would still get the same picture as above. My point was that a 5-star rating system, visualized like that, using a range of 1 to 5 stars, is visually misleading. The above graphic would give the impression that the tas has exactly average ratings, even though it has well below-average ratings. The reason for that is that the first star is extraneous, always lit, and makes the graphic misleading. This has nothing to do with the "reliability" of the votes, or their amount (or how you would subjectively interpret the result as a measurement of "quality").
Banned User
Joined: 3/10/2004
Posts: 7698
Location: Finland
Bobo the King wrote:
Special goals - Anything not falling into the above list. Usually game-specific goals that that are not associated with tracked collectibles and achievements.
Maybe it should be a bit more specific than that? "Anything not falling into the above list" sounds way too broad. Perhaps something like: A run that aims to achieve a specific in-game goal, or that uses an in-game limitation, and completes the game as fast as possible while achieving that goal or being restricted to that limitation. Examples: - Completes all optional dungeons (if this is not in itself a 100% completion). - Uses a suboptimal playable character. - In a game that offers optional routes, chooses a suboptimal one. - A specific normal game mechanic (such as running) is banned.
Banned User
Joined: 3/10/2004
Posts: 7698
Location: Finland
On a somewhat tangential note, I don't really like the "1 to 5 stars rating" system, which seems to be so prevalent. If you see this rating, how would you interpret it? Most people would interpret it as average, pretty much exactly half-way between the minimum and maximum. Would you, however, believe that that rating is the result of two 5-star ratings and four 1-star ratings? (Which, in other words, means that twice as many people gave it a minimum rating than a maximum rating.) How so? That seems impossible and completely unintuitive, right? The average of all those ratings is (1+1+1+1+5+5)/6 = 2.33, which rounding to the nearest half-star gives indeed 2.5 stars. Yet, it still feels very unintuitive, and hard to understand how such an imbalance in ratings can put the bar exactly in the middle. And that's what I consider somewhat of a problem. The star bar rating gives a false impression of how it has been rated. It gives the impression that the ratings are about evenly split, when they clearly are not. The problem is that 1 is the minimum rating. Which in turn means that the leftmost star is always "lit". Even if every single rating was the minimum, it will still be lit. This gives a misleading visual representation. If the leftmost star is removed, it suddenly gives a much more intuitive visual cue that corresponds more to the idea of four minimum ratings and two maximums: Another (perhaps better) solution is to allow for 0-star ratings (which means that even with 5 stars, the leftmost one can be off, or only half filled.)
Banned User
Joined: 3/10/2004
Posts: 7698
Location: Finland
grassini wrote:
Also,"special goals" feels like "playarounds" lol
I don't think it should. To my understanding, a "special goal" is a custom (acceptable) goal that has to be achieved, and done as fast as possible. This is quite distinct from a "playaround", where there is no requirement for it being "as fast as possible". Also, I think a "playaround" doesn't necessarily need any particular goal (other than getting to the end of the game).
Banned User
Joined: 3/10/2004
Posts: 7698
Location: Finland
Whenever you watch a movie or TV series, or play a video game, check its http://tvtropes.org page.
Banned User
Joined: 3/10/2004
Posts: 7698
Location: Finland
feos wrote:
It's there for a reason. People are using images they host in the repos all over the github wiki. https://help.github.com/articles/adding-images-to-wikis/
Wouldn't be extremely surprised that if external linking of images becomes too common, they will restrict the use only on that wiki. After all, bandwidth use is never free.
Banned User
Joined: 3/10/2004
Posts: 7698
Location: Finland
scrimpeh wrote:
Are sourceforge and github cool with people just using their services for image hosting? While tasvideos is more than likely too small for anyone to notice, I can't imagine that's in either of the sites' TOSes.
Yeah. A sure way to make them also drop support for external image linking is to abuse the system for something it wasn't intended for.
Banned User
Joined: 3/10/2004
Posts: 7698
Location: Finland
I don't usually watch trailers because I don't want to get spoilers. I watched a bit of the beginning of that trailer, though, because I was curious about the art style. It looks a bit weird. It clearly heavily uses 3D CGI, but it also seems to use a form of animation that looks hand-drawn in the classical cartoon style. It would be interesting to know if it's indeed hand-drawn, or if it's some kind of advanced Flash graphics editing.