I really don't think you should take it upon yourself, if other people treat you badly, or ignore you. I know it sucks, I really do. But sometimes it's just better to have a "fuck them" mentality, if other people are being a-holes. I understand perfectly that it's often hard to ignore such things, but it's not good to just get depressed over it.
You reaching out like this is a good thing, however. Please keep doing it. The internet is an anonymous and opaque wall, a very cold way of communication, which is no substitute for real human contact, but it's better than absolutely nothing. I want to hear what you have to say, so please don't stop communicating with us.
I assume that the battery can't even be replaced without the savedata disappearing (unless you go to extraordinary lengths to maintain current to the chip while replacing the battery).
Nitpicking time!
I really dislike the filter used in the temp encode. It looks ugly, and it doesn't fit the game at all. I actually like the interlaced CRT look of the console verification video a thousand times more.
(On that note, voted yes.)
Ok, it's official: I hate Daring Do episodes with a passion. Not as much as Magical Mystery Cure, but they are pretty close seconds.
This latest episode was the first episode of the entire series where I was this close to just stop watching it about two thirds through. It's nonsensical, doesn't fit the universe of the series at all (you could just as well consider these DD episodes as alternate universe episodes), and worst of all, astonishingly boring. It was a complete chore to sit through the 20 minutes of the episode.
And, like the first DD episode, there was once again a huge missed opportunity of a plot twist (eg. DD isn't actually who she pretends to be, or some variant of that.)
VR adoption rates crawl to a halt. Surprises nobody.
HTC, Valve and Oculus must be complete retards if they think that a 1000€ toy is going to see wide adoption rates.
Having been born in the 70's, I have inevitably played a few electronic games in my life. In fact, one that I owned, and remember best, was this one. It was actually quite good and enjoyable (for a game of such limitations).
A somewhat different type of electronic game from the 80's and 90's, some of which I got to play, and which feels very nostalgic, is the dedicated chess computer (such as Mephisto). I wish I owned one now. It would have coolness value.
I think Gradius III can also be considered an example, as it tries to kill as much as possible. (I'm not sure if this is done because of convention/tradition, or because it reduces lag. Either way, the result is an effective "100% kills" run.)
Experimenting with also the median of 5d6, I noticed that it, too, became less likely to produce ties for the winner, as the number of players increases, both compared to 1d6 and to the median of 3d6.
More specifically, with 7 players the median of 5d6 has a probability of about 47.1% for a tie, while for 1d6 it's 48.7%. (For the median of 3d6 it's 43.4%.)
At 16 players the median of 5d6 has a probability of 58.9%, while the median for 3d6 it's 59.4%.
I suppose it's safe to generalize that for any n > 1, the median of nd6 will eventually, as the number of players increases, produce a tie for the winners with less probability than with any smaller values of n.
A surprising result from this dice tie problem is that for 2, 3 and 4 players the median method results in higher tie chances, whereas with ≥5 players the normal method has a higher tie chance.
Well, that's indeed surprising, and rather counter-intuitive.
Is there an intuitive informal explanation of why this is so?
At our MtG playgroup we often use funny dice combinations to decide who will play first. Not just your regular old 2d6 or 1d20, but like d20-d12, or even d6*d6*d6, or things like that. Just for the fun.
Yesterday I suggested that we use the median of 3d6. I casually commented that this makes ties more probable than when throwing just 1d6.
For some reason many of the others didn't believe it. After I very informally argued that with the median of three d6's you are much more likely to get a 3 or a 4 than a 1 or a 6, and that's why ties are more probable, some of them still believed that the difference in probability is very small.
So, I was wondering. With n players, each throws a 1d6: what is the probability that two or more players are tied for the highest value? And if instead each throws 3d6 and the median is taken from them, what is the probability then?
Legit question: Anyone ever seem to notice RAM usage for Chrome gradually go up despite overall low amount of tabs? Seems to go away if I completely close Chrome and reopen the same tabs, but what's causing the leak?
It's possible that it's not a bug, but a consequence of a garbage collection mechanism.
Since you are using the mouse all the time when browsing anyway, then why not use the back button/entry in the context menu?
(OTOH, at least in Firefox it's extraordinarily aggravating that the back button isn't actually there if you happen to right-click on an image or link. Inconsistent, changing menus are the most braindead idea ever invented, especially when what changes is the existence of one of the most commonly used entries in the menu.)
An even better solution is to get a mouse with extra buttons. Those basically always have two buttons that are automatically mapped to back and forward in browsers.
They did it because some idiots clicked outside a text field when working on a text and pressed backspace, therefore losing their data.
At least in Firefox, if you are filling form, press back and then forward, it will (at least according to my quick test) remember everything that had been inputted in all fields. I would be surprised if Chrome didn't do the same thing.
(Although this seems to be so only if you go back to the same page via the forward/back buttons. If you go back to the same page eg. by clicking on a link, then it won't remember anything. That kind of sucks, and I think there would be room for improvement there.)
Could you be more precise on what you need from the browser, and how Firefox or Chrome don't provide those features?
Yeah I have to just disagree with Warp that a speedrun is fundamentally about watching the screen. A huge amount of my enjoyment of speedruns is conceptual - I can't tell you how many times I've loved the submission text of a TAS but had no interest in watching the video, or just skimmed it.
I understand that perfectly, but you'd have to agree that when talking about the public at large, the majority of people are more interested in seeing the game being played. The novelty of having a game being hacked (usually by mostly non-visual means) wears off pretty quickly, especially if most runs end up looking similar due to it.
Again, I'm not saying that runs that hack the game should be banned. I'm just suggesting that there's a demand for "glitchless" runs, and perhaps we should listen to that demand. We should also consider what are the sensible requirements for the Vault tier, given that most games will only have one, at most two, runs in existence.
I think you can easily make the argument that with these game-end-glitch runs, much of the reason they're boring is that the encode is focusing on what appears onscreen and through the speakers, but those aren't what the run is actually focusing on, and thus don't give a good view of what's going on.
I think that the fundamental problem is that most people want to see the games played through with astonishing skill (superhumanly so in the case of tool-assisted speedruns). That's the whole idea of speedruns in the first place.
If there is no gameplay of any kind, that kind of defeats the whole idea.
With some unassisted speedruns of some games there exist "glitchless" categories (Ocarina of Time being a good example), because there is demand for such runs. I don't think we should dismiss this outright, even though we are using tool assistance.
Even if splitting speed and entertainment runs is non-ambiguous or non-arbitrary, what is the purpose of splitting them? What benefit is there to putting, say, Super Metroid 100% on the other side of the site as Super Metroid RBO? Why does there need to be a split of this nature?
What is the current world-record tool-assisted speedrun of Super Metroid? Suppose I'm writing an article about speedruns for an online publication, and would like to mention that fact.
With so many Super Metroid runs, it can be a bit hard to find a definitive answer. Some clarity on this could be beneficial.
Instead of just blindly picking a framework, why not lay out the requirements first and then decide which framework(s) best fit(s) the requirements?
Optimally we would have a person who has a lot of experience in web server programming and different frameworks to at least delineate, if not implement, what would be the best options and how it should be done. There are lots of good web server frameworks out there, but perhaps that's the problem: There are too many to choose from, and they all require experience to be used efficiently.
(I actually have a good friend who is a professional web developer and has a lot of experience on it, and has done work for big companies. Unfortunately I don't think he would be willing to do this kind of thing pro bono.)
But don't use PHP.
Why not? Even if you don't like it as a programming language, the fact is that it's arguably one of the web server development languages that has the most amount of people behind it, and the most amount of well-tested frameworks and libraries, and has endured the test of time. Technically it might not be the best possible language for that purpose in existence, but in practice so much work has been done with it, that it's a very good option. Sometimes it's just better to use the option with the most support, and the best libraries, even if it might not be the best programming language (by some subjective measure).
(I'm not saying PHP should be used. I'm just saying that it shouldn't be ruled out just like that.)
While I would like there to be runs of Mario 3 that showcase gameplay on the site, I have to disagree that the DCPM glitch run is "not entertaining to watch" or that there is "nothing to look at." There is absolutely something to look at: A real console turning on with a Mario 3 cartridge in it and instantly displaying the credits. No one had ever seen that before! Far from being "nothing" to watch, it was amazing to watch, and I'm so glad I got to see the reveal live.
This is not about live demonstrations at a charity marathons. This is about runs (and videos made from those runs) published here.
When you watch a video here, there is no live audience, there is no live commentary, there is no real console nor real cartridge, there is no audience reaction, there is no applause. There is just a 10-or-so second video that briefly shows the start menu and then the end screen.
If that becomes common, then it may well turn out to be quite boring. This can become especially problematic if that's the only run published for that particular game.
The question is, can it even be considered a "speedrun"? Should it be classified as a "speedrun"? It's certainly not playing the game through.
Nowadays when developing a web server backend, it's usually a good idea to use a popular well-tested framework (such as for example Symfony) instead of programming it from scratch.
If you look at Wikipedia's comparison of web frameworks page, C# is conspicuously absent.
I think the searching functionality of the site would benefit greatly from improvement. Results should somehow be sorted by how much it matches the search terms and relevance.
For example, if I search for "super mario bros", I would expect runs of the first NES SMB to pop up at the beginning of the results, but instead the first hit is in position 6, the first one being "FDS Super Mario Bros. 2" and the second "Super Mario All-Stars: Super Mario Bros. 2" for no apparent reason.
If I search for "mario land", the first hit is "GB Wario Land: Super Mario Land 3". And if I search for "super mario world", the first hit is "GBA Super Mario Advance 2: Super Mario World". And if I search for "mega man", the first result is "Wii Mega Man 10". And so on and so forth.
I don't know how the search could be improved, but it would be nice if it were.
Mothrayas wrote:
I would scrap Tech ratings.
I think it would be a shame to throw away thousands of ratings.
