To the average gamer (even if a big consumer of video games) mouse accuracy and polling rate makes zero difference. I can tell from experience. That may be why they put default settings that are pretty low-end even for supposedly high-end gaming mice. (Also, if a higher poll rate has a bigger impact on CPU load, they may purposefully opt for a lower default rate.)
In academic papers I understand plagiarism to be taking portions from other papers (such as relevant amounts of text, results, or other such things) and including them in yours in a manner that does not mention that the portion is taken from another paper nor clearly distinguishes that borrowed portion from the rest of the text, making it look like it's your own original work. This even if you express the idea of the other paper using your own words (the worst case of plagiarism being, of course, that you just copy text from the other paper verbatim, without specifying that it's coming from that other paper, making it look like it's your writing).
One of the most common ways to acknowledge the source of a claim or portion of text is to use wikipedia-style citation symbols. Another is, of course, to clearly quote the other paper in a very distinctive manner (such as eg. on its own paragraph, visibly indented more than the rest of the text, and mentioning in some manner where it's quoted from.)
Of course this is only talking about text. The concept of plagiarism needs to be applied differently when we are talking eg. about a visual medium.
While of course you can never know, nevertheless the average speedrun aficionado doesn't seem like the bigoted type to me.
Of course you should always be cautious with your valuables (ie. never leave your wallet and other valuables unattended where strangers could have access to them), but other than that I would estimate that any risks are pretty low. I'd say you are more likely to be assaulted when walking on the street than being harassed, mistreated or robbed by any roommates in this event.
I thought plagiarism is presenting someone else's work as your own, rather than using someone's work without crediting.
If I, for example, photograph a statue and put that photograph on my web page without saying who made the statue, that's not plagiarism. If I claimed "I made this statue", that would be.
Somehow I never pictured Discord as the jealous type. After all, he's arguably the most powerful reality-bender in Equestria (with the possible exception of Pinkie), almost omnipotent, and thousands of years old. One wouldn't think that jealousy would be a characteristic of such a demigod.
(But then, if you study even a bit of Greek mythology, perhaps it's not so strange after all.)
According to the site logo, TAS stands voor Tool-Assisted Superplay, not speedrun.
I'm honestly wondering if you are just trying to troll me.
That logo doesn't dictate the policies of the site. It could just as well say "Tool-assisted slowplay movies" and it wouldn't make any difference.
Might I even suggest that not only would the current tiers require the game to be completed, but for it to be completed "properly".
I understand it would be a rather fuzzy definition in some cases, but IMO an ACE run that jumps to the end screen doesn't actually complete the game "properly". It would fit nicely in the "demo" tier.
IMO the current tiers should be about game completions, and this new tier (if it's created) can be free of such requirement. It clarifies things, and makes it much easier to say "this goes to the demo tier".
Said tier could thus also host runs of games that have no clearly defined ending or completion.
I'm not really seeing the point of this. It seems to me that any technically interesting run already qualifies to be in Moon tier; if it didn't get into Moons, then most people wouldn't find it technically interesting for the same reason.
I thought that a TAS has to, at the very least, complete the game. If it doesn't complete the game, then it's hard to call it a speedrun at all. (Because that's the very definition of "speedrun": To complete the game as fast as possible.)
It's Nintendo of America, not the jerks at Nintendo of Japan who takes down everything.
Actually that sentence is ambiguous. It could mean that NoA are the ones taking down everything, or NoJ who are doing so. Completely honestly speaking, I'm actually not sure which one you are referring.
One cannot help but be a bit amused at how Nintendo has been so notorious in recent times about being pricks and don't caring about fair use, but they themselves don't have any problem in (ab)using fair use clauses.
Reminds me of Disney. Disney is notorious about aggressively defending their IP, no matter how innocuous the use might be, going to even ridiculous extents (and also infamously lobbying for perpetual copyright to protect their Mickey Mouse IP), yet have no qualms about using works that have fallen into public domain only shortly before. (For example Disney's The Jungle Book film was made just a few years after the original book fell into public domain.)
Now I'm even more confused. According to Wikipedia, the Riemann series theorem states that if you have a conditionally convergent infinite series, you can rearrange its terms to get a new series that converges to something else, or even diverges. This raises two questions:
1) So?
2) How does that help to prove the equation?
I don't understand that step at all.
(Also, since you didn't specify any limit in your proof, wouldn't it make the equality hold for all x, not just for |x|<1?)
Flip wrote:
Second, you have a very poor case for even copyright infringement under fair use clauses, of which is satisfies nearly all of them.
The Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 license, which is what all TASes are published under on this site, clearly decrees:
"You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use."
I think that sacrificing real-time to lower the in-game time for a vault publication should be acceptable only in very special circumstances and if the rationale is good enough. The higher the difference in real-time that this causes, the better the argument should be why it should be accepted. (For example, if 50% of a run is pausing just to lower the final in-game timer by a few seconds, that's not very acceptable anymore.)
However, the center of a black hole cannot have an infinite pull. Otherwise the entire cosmos would have been sucked in by now.
The gravity (outside) of an object depends only on its mass, not on its size. Just because you compress the object to be zero-sized doesn't change its mass, and thus doesn't change its gravity.
If our Sun where to be right now compressed to zero size, not much would happen in terms of its gravity and planetary orbits. They would still be the same.
The difference comes when you approach this new Sun, and become closer to it than its original surface. The closer you get to it, the stronger the gravity now. (That wouldn't happen with an uncollapsed Sun because once you get inside it, more and more of its mass will be above you, which means that as you approach the center, gravity lessens.)
As you approach a singularity, the gravity approaches infinity. At the singularity itself reality breaks (barring some possible quantum effects that we don't yet understand).
I know this is nitpicking, but I'm too much of a perfectionist to not to comment a bit... :)
You seem to be using "RNG" (ie. random number generator) to mean something along the lines that its output cannot be predicted (for example because it draws its values from a nondeterministic source, such as player input or sampling resistor noise), and that BoI does not use a RNG because it produces a seed value at the start of the game and after that everything is deterministically generated from that.
That's not what "RNG" means when talking about computer programs. (Well, not strictly at least. If you have a non-deterministic source of randomness available to your program, you can of course use it. However, that's almost never the case in practice, especially if you need to produce a large amount of "random" values in a very short period of time, eg. in a fraction of a second.) Although in this context it's more accurate to use the acronym "PRNG" (ie. pseudorandom number generator). However, in practice the term "RNG" is used to mean "PRNG" in this context.
It's not uncommon at all for programs, such as video games, to generate a random seed at the start of the program from a non-deterministic source (most usually the system's clock) and then from that point forward use a PRNG algorithm for all of its random number needs. Since such algorithms are deterministic, it means that every number that comes next out of it is predictable.
Of course what this means (and closer to your point) that if all the "randomly" generated levels are generated at the start of the game using this, it's much harder to get a favorable layout, as you can't control the output of the RNG on a level-by-level basis. The only thing you can control is the initial seed for the RNG.
(It would be easier if levels were generated at the start of each level, and if something else in the game also draws values from the RNG, eg. based on what the player does. This would add more control to generating each level.)
Anyway, this has little to do with the original point, so I'll just shut up now.
Conservation of angular momentum has the consequence that if you shrink a rotating object (all other parameters remaining the same), it will start rotating proportionately faster (so that angular momentum is preserved).
A (rotating) star that collapses into a black hole becomes zero-sized. By this logic it would rotate at infinite speed. Yet that doesn't happen. It will still rotate at a finite speed.
Is the reason that the singularity actually becomes a ring rather than a point?
(Which makes me think: Does it become a ring because of conservation of angular momentum?)
