Nah, too simplistic for an AAA title.
I still envision a full-fledged AAA MLP game that's similar in style and gameplay to Naruto: Rise of a Ninja. To see what I'm talking about, see this let'splay (starts from the actual gameplay):
http://youtu.be/9ihWqj3t95A?t=3m50s
The second part shows more of the gameplay inside the village (you might want to mute the sound because the player is incredibly annoying):
http://youtu.be/3An55eMprHM?t=3m57s
Is the set of all possible infinite bit strings larger than ℝ?
(Since an infinite amount of numbers can be represented in two ways as a bit string, is there a bijection between the two sets?)
Describing a bijection between natural and rational numbers is easy: Make a two-dimensional grid of all the rational numbers in such a manner that the numerator increases on one axis and the denominator on the other. Then just index each element in a diagonal fashion.
(Although, thinking about it, creating a grid of rational numbers in that manner will create many repetitions. Their numerator-denominator pairs may be themselves unique, but their value will be the same as other rational numbers in the grid. In this sense a blind indexing will not be a true bijection, as more than one natural number will be mapped to the same rational number. However, I'm assuming that rational numbers that have already appeared in the indexing can be skipped.)
Anyway, I was thinking if there was an equally easy and intuitive way of building a bijection between real and complex numbers.
I don't know even nearly enough of GR to understand whether an object in acceleration (which is what Superman in this scenario is, given that he needs to constantly change his flying direction, and thus he's experiencing measurable acceleration) experiences the same passing of time as a non-accelerating object moving in a straight line.
I don't know how time works in accelerating frames of reference.
Some sport games can ostensibly be TASed for pure completion time. I think golf games are potentially good examples.
With other sport games aiming for completion time doesn't make much sense, but that doesn't mean it's unpublishable. It just needs to be of high-enough entertainment quality.
Cantor's argument is what showed that real numbers are uncountable.
AFAIK CDA is not enough to show that real numbers are uncountable. The only thing it does is demonstrate that there exist sets that are uncountable. You need an additional step to demonstrate that there exists a one-to-one correspondence between the set of infinite digit strings and a subset of R.
But how about this: Let's take a list of all irrational numbers and construct a new number that's not in that list (using the diagonal algorithm). Since the new number was not in the list, it ought to mean it's not irrational. And by definition a number that's not irrational is rational.
(Therefore, I surmise, the CDA cannot be used to demonstrate that the set of irrational numbers is uncountable...)
I was thinking about Cantor's diagonal argument.
Suppose we have a list of (the decimal representation of) all rational numbers between 0 and 1. We take the first digit (after the decimal point) of the first number, the second digit of the second number, and so on. Then we change each of those digits. What we end up is a number between 0 and 1 that's not in the list (because it's different from every single number in the list.)
What does this mean? Well, it means that the number we constructed this way is not a rational number. It's not in the list, therefore it's not rational.
Why doesn't the same logic work for real numbers? We take a list of all real numbers and do the same operations as above. We end up with a number that was not in the list. Therefore the number is not a real number?
I suppose a counter-argument would be that you can't build a(n indexed) list of all real numbers and thus the premise is impossible. However, to prove that you would need something else than Cantor's diagonal argument?
The only time I found where it's best to use some concept of new is where you have a function which needs to return an object.
The last time I remember using 'new' was when I wanted to implement an array that used copy-on-write, as that was the most efficient solution to a particular problem I was implementing. (Naturally the 'new' and 'delete' were encapsulated inside the array class.)
Then there was that time that I implemented a data container that used the same technique as "short string optimization" (because in the vast majority of cases the amount of data was so little that it would fit inside the object itself, and rarely was there need to actually allocate extra memory, but the class needed to be able to support any amount of data.)
Those are the most recent ones I remember (and it has been some time.)
If you are using std::unique_ptr (or std::shared_ptr for that matter), it usually means that you are allocating individual objects dynamically.
While there are some contexts in which this is both practically inevitable but also quite useful (mainly in contexts where you have an inheritance hierarchy and code needs to be able to handle objects of different types; an example of this would be a GUI library), in my quite many years of experience in C++ programming I have found this exceedingly rare. (One reason for this might be that I do mostly game programming, and having to write generic code for an inheritance hierarchy is surprisingly rare there. Which is a good thing, really, since 'new' and 'delete' are quite heavy operations.)
In the vast majority of cases the standard containers do just fine. And in fact, if you use std::vector (and sometimes std::deque) your code will be much more efficient than if you allocated all objects individually. (Sometimes std::set and std::map are very useful, and they do allocate each element individually, which is a bummer, but they are extremely useful data containers in certain situations, so that makes up for it, especially if you are aware of the overhead of allocation and try to avoid doing it in tight inner loops.)
I don't even remember when was the last time I wrote a 'new' or 'delete'. Must be years.
I'm going to be completely honest here: I'm getting tired of the prevalence of runs that just glitch to the end of the game. In fact, I'm getting so tired of them that I may just start skipping them altogether at some point, if and when people keep making them. They just don't interest me anymore.
blah blah blah blah
So, in about a month, a major convention will be going down almost up the street from where I live.
My question to you: Should I stay or should I go?
Actually I don't know what to answer.
My first instinct was "of course! Why not?" But then I started thinking if I would go to a brony convention if one were organized here and... perhaps a bit to my surprise my first instinct was not "of course!" but doubt. Does the IRL brony community really interest me so much that I would go there? Would I feel second-hand embarrassment if some people are actually cosplaying there? Would there be anything there that would interest me, or would I simply get bored in 10 minutes?
OTOH, if you don't go, you won't know if you'll find it interesting or not... What do you have to lose other than about an hour of your life and a bit of gas?
I'm going to be completely honest here: I'm getting tired of the prevalence of runs that just glitch to the end of the game. In fact, I'm getting so tired of them that I may just start skipping them altogether at some point, if and when people keep making them. They just don't interest me anymore.
They had their novelty value when they were new and fresh, but they got old really fast for me. I just don't like them and I don't find them entertaining, I'm sorry. I appreciate the technical aspect of them and the amount of research and work that goes to make them, but that's about it.
I'm not voting "no" because I feel it's unfair to the author (because I still disagree with the voting question, but that's another issue altogether.) However, I'm "soft-voting" no in this comment.
The artifacts around fires have been there since forever. One would think that after all these years the emulator would have been developed to fix that.
I have no idea what kind of system is already in place, and this is probably something you have already thought of, but I suppose it would be relatively easy to automatically log the first post or couple of first posts a new user makes into some file that can be regularly skimmed by an admin to quickly see if some troll or disruptive person has created an account just to vandalize or annoy. The log can then be flushed afterwards.
The staff gets a real time log of every post, as well as "suicide posts", where we see every time someone came here to spam and was automatically dealt with. Gives us a good laugh.
That got me curious: How much spam is posted to tasvideos.org (that we never get to see)?
Would this be fine? One's god is what ever one dedicates most of their life to.
I think this kind of thinking stems from the attempt at guilt-tripping people for completely normal behavior, in order to make them feel like they are doing something bad and need redemption.
Additionally, it doesn't make any sense. How is, for example, sleeping a "god" (whatever your definition of the term might be)? How is doing work to earn your livelihood and support yourself and your family a "god"? What does that term even mean, and why use that precise word? It's such a deliberately loaded word that makes little sense even from a religious point of view (much more so from a secular one).
The first is simply one of encouraging second-guessing the decisions of the moderators.
I didn't think "mini-modding" meant "question moderators' decisions". I thought it meant "act like you were a moderator even though you are just a regular user". Have I missed something?
The second is that mini-modding leads to people being presumptive about what is and isn't allowed, which can lead to a hostile atmosphere. People like to be able to tell other people that they're wrong, whether justified or not.
And this differs from a "non-mini-modding" forum how, exactly?
