This is a potentially stupid question, but I'm genuinely curious... For an actual run of this, would the ACE save file setup be included in the run time, or would the save file itself just be provided as a "verification movie" or whatever like for NG+ runs?
If the fact that portal was up for consideration was mentioned literally anywhere in this thread (that I checked multiple times leading up to the event), I would have gotten in contact with you and written/practiced something. Instead the run commentary was essentially "here you fly across the room because cameras and portals".
Whaaat? Keeping things a secret? Why would we even do that? To surprise people with the fact that we run a PC TAS on an SNES?
Who needs that element of surprise anyways right?
I feel like a thread planning for the execution of the TAS block is an okay place for "spoilers" for the TAS block. Also, being condescending and sarcastic is unnecessary. I'm trying to provide constructive criticism, and the lack of good commentary has been a sore point of the TAS block for a very long time, and I'm sure a lot of people would agree with that.
Masterjun wrote:
And not being able to explain glitch-heavy TASes in realtime, which usually require several pages of submission text to get all the details in? Like that's easy and reasonable to do right?
Before jumping immediately into the TAS, a brief moment could be taken to explain the essentials of what's happening. I don't know all the specific details of SM64, but I'm entirely confident that with a 1 minute lead-in to portal I could explain basic movement and the escape from the relaxation vault, and then keep pace with the high points for the rest of the run.
While I was really impressed by the technical details of what was happening (once it was finally explained), I'm disappointed by the lack of good commentary for the SM64 and Portal TASes. I actually thought about getting out of my seat in the stream room, running up to the stage, and asking for a headset to tap in for commentary since I discovered most of the tricks in that run (along with imanex for the rest of them). If the fact that portal was up for consideration was mentioned literally anywhere in this thread (that I checked multiple times leading up to the event), I would have gotten in contact with you and written/practiced something. Instead the run commentary was essentially "here you fly across the room because cameras and portals".
In my opinion you would have been better off instead playing a video like We Are Number One or Gangnam Style or some other meme, because this was possibly the worst possible way to show off such impressive and optimized TASes.
edit: I'm realizing this is coming off really negatively. The technical aspect of the TAS block was insane. I didn't realize that each ACE step was setting up for the big finish until it all came together, and none of what happened seemed even remotely possible to me even as I was watching it. I don't think any of it was "ruined" in any way, I just feel like the commentary could have been better, and I think the decision to show off two very highly optimized TASes at low framerate/quality was a pretty bad call. I would have personally preferred to just see the Skype bit (which was legitimately really flippin cool) and then maybe console verify the SM64 TAS.
This has probably been brought up before =P
On The Pit and the Pendulum in TTC, is it possible to do the 2x a presses route for that star with the level on the random setting?
I'd imagine cloning all the coins would be a royal pain in the ass, but if it's possible to do it on random then an AB kick off the wall next to the star can land you down on the spinning red coin platforms, saving another A-press on the re-entry.
It would, but not for the reasons you think. You are ignoring the fact that the wages are averaged, therefore the sheer number of men in the work force has no effect on the results, with the exception of having a smaller sample size of women.
You say sheer number like it's an IMMENSE amount more, when in reality it's about 70% of all men participating in the workforce and 60% of all women. (https://www.dol.gov/wb/stats/latest_annual_data.htm#labor)
That doesn't account for the 92%/8% split on death rates, so I'm not sure where you were going with this? I acknowledged that the wages are averaged literally two sentences later.
Anty-Lemon wrote:
But let's say you're right. In that case, there is definitely a wage gap, but instead it's women making far, far more than men. About tenfold.
Literally what? I have no idea what you're trying to say with this.
Anty-Lemon wrote:
Labor-intensive and dangerous jobs do not necessarily make more than other jobs.
At no point did I say they do. I used that as an example to show that despite risks associated with the positions, men gravitate towards those jobs, showing that sometimes negative aspects of a job (like lower pay) isn't enough to push someone away. Similarly, women might be willing to accept lower-paying jobs if they're more aligned with the skillset they've learned or been taught. Take a peek at the following link and note how much likely it is for a woman vs a man to get a degree in something like psychology, sociology, education, and english literature. Meanwhile, men are picking up more degrees in business administration, mechanical engineering, economics, marketing. That's just talking about bachelors degrees, not even the associates degrees where men are more likely to pick up electrical engineering, computer systems networking and IT, etc.
edit: Before you respond with salary figures, note that in all of this I'm not talking about salary differences but rather the different choices men and women make with their education before landing in the workforce.
http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2010/2010161.pdfAnty-Lemon wrote:
If you can prove that women choose to take lower-paying jobs (i.e. not denied them), then you have a point. But as of right now your "proof" only serves to distract from the point
The way you word that makes me say that no matter what I link to you, it wouldn't be enough "proof" :)
edit: Alright, after browsing that department of labor PDF a bit more, I'm convinced that there's a horrible wage gap that we need to fix. White males only make 83 cents for every dollar an Asian male earns. I feel disgusted and discriminated against.
Any time anyone complains about a wage gap, I thoroughly enjoy reminding them that men make up 92% of all workplace fatalities. If I wanted to apply wage gap logic, I could say that men are nearly 12 times more likely to die on the job performing the same work as a woman, but obviously that's ridiculous.
Men suffer more job-related fatalities than women because men choose different, more labor-intensive, and more dangerous jobs than women. Similarly, the reason women make less than men ON AVERAGE is because they tend to choose different jobs than men.
Source: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/cfoi.nr0.htm
My assumption, after having only briefly glanced over the full publication, is that it's because of an effect similar to Shell Theorem. There are graphs in the publication that support this assumption. Do note that the publication is free if you click the PDF link, so you could read it for yourself if you're really interested =P[/url]
These are the very first VR headsets to ever launch to market. Up to this point, every single R+D dollar they've spent has gone into this one product, and now they have to make a profit on it, so obviously they're going to focus on just selling this one product. Later, once they've proven the concept, they can trim the fluff and release other versions (and I'd be extraordinarily surprised if they didn't do this, by the way. Have patience).
Early adopters pay a huge premium on EVERYTHING, this isn't something that's new to VR.
Well bear in mind VR headsets are still pretty new technology. Just like phones, the price will go down eventually. Also the whole point of a VR headset is the augmented reality, being able to move your head around and stuff. Elsewise just tape black paper against your screen and stick your face to it if you want VR.
This is the most important point in the thread. Much like the automotive world, where F1 invents technology that slowly filters down to consumer/mass produced cars, this technology will be available in cheaper, less feature-filled variants within a few years. Not every technology is affordable at launch, sorry to say. Look at how 4k monitors have dropped in price, though. Similar things will happen with VR headsets.
I made a thing with a couple input plugins using slowdown on an emulator that some people here may enjoy watching:
I'm gonna ask here again, since it appears you deleted my comment on your video/blocked my account, for whatever reason:
Why does your subtitles and description link to a wikipedia page instead of tasvideos.org?
I didn't delete your comment. I got a mobile notification to my phone and never saw it on my video. I thought you deleted it. I don't think I blocked you either. My run was not submitted here and has no affiliation with it... so I don't know what link you're expecting exactly
Here's a quote from the second paragraph in that article:
All life on Earth shares a common ancestor known as the last universal ancestor, which lived approximately 3.5–3.8 billion years ago, although a study in 2015 found "remains of biotic life" from 4.1 billion years ago in ancient rocks in Western Australia. According to one of the researchers, "If life arose relatively quickly on Earth ... then it could be common in the universe."
This sounds like faith and religious doctrine to me. Just replace Genesis 1:1 with Evolution 1:1 and state "In the beginning, Common Ancestor..."
They also sound quite faithful on that 3.5-4.1 billion figure. That researcher's quote was telling, as well, in stating that such could be common phenomena in the universe. No hard, indisputable evidence. But faith, nonetheless.
You appear to be confusing faith and uncertainty. He's not proposing that, certainly, this is definitely a common phenomena in the universe. He's proposing that Earth isn't necessarily the only place where it could have happened. (I mean, he literally used the word "could".) That's a very reasonable opinion of him to hold, based on the measured vastness of the universe.
There's no faith involved in the age of the common ancestor of the species. That is done with radiometric dating techniques that are the best "yardstick" we have developed as humanity to determine age of ancient objects and species. I won't claim that method is perfect, as I myself don't know the specifics or tolerances or precision of radiometric dating, but I'd say that it's not an unreasonable number. It's certainly more reasonable than 6000 years, for instance, or 20 years, or 10 googol years. And again, none of this requires any faith whatsoever, it's all based on observations about the natural world and MOST IMPORTANTLY it is ALWAYS subject to change. If we discover that radiometric dating techniques are flawed and inaccurate, then we will find ways to improve our methods of dating ancient objects and species. That's the best part about science: it's never static, and the methods can always be improved. The absolute best day in the life of a scientist is the day that an experiment is done that goes against the currently accepted model. It means there's more work to be done to improve our model!
...
you do know that we're not a single society yet, right?
I don't think that was the point you should have taken from that post... I'd wager he was trying to make the point that we, as humanity (with our shared knowledge that admittedly some individuals and cultures have limited or no access to for various reasons) have been able to observe the natural mechanisms behind the physical phenomena that were previously "mysterious" to humanity as a whole. The heavens were once presumably very very mysterious, so to someone without access to modern scientific equipment, adequate time to study it, etc. it is very reasonable for it to appear to have been created on the whole by a supernatural entity. Same sort of idea with the sun, with the changing of night and day, the changing of the seasons, and so forth. However, today we have rigorously tested scientific explanations regarding these events and mechanisms. I understand that for the religious or spiritual person, it's very easy to say "Well obviously, that's the mechanism that [supreme being of choice] chose to use.". But I guess what I'm trying to say is that it's equally easy for anyone else to cut out the middle man and realize that perhaps a supreme being didn't have to choose to use those mechanisms, and they arose naturally throughout our universe. I would propose that the religious example is more of a leap of faith than the scientific example, though obviously that can be debated as much as you want. The key difference between the religious view and the scientific view is that anyone (with a few billion dollars to spend, in some cases) can reproduce every single scientific experiment done throughout history and either validate or invalidate its results. The religious views don't have the ability to be invalidated, which is a very big problem for the people that don't buy into that world-view.
I guess this was just a really really long-winded way of say "yo bro chill, some people don't believe in a god because they don't see the need for one to exist" lol
(edit: cleaned up some word vomit. If none of this makes sense, I'm sorry. I'm on painkillers after having 2 surgeries to scoop out cancerous tumors =P)
While that article was a very very interesting read, I would like to point out that a significant amount of the emotional and physical (potentially cognitive, but I'm not a biologist or a doctor so whatever) differences between men and women seem to come from hormone levels rather than the structure of the brain itself. Transgendered individuals especially are expected to go through a variety of physical and emotional changes during their transition as their bodies adjust to the changing hormone levels.
I scrolled up this page and didn't even see where you were quoting that from, so I don't necessarily know the context. I did just want to point out that the differences between sexes in a species don't lie exclusively within the brain, even if they are behavioral characteristics.
Again, not a psych/doc/bio so feel free to ignore this entirely opinion/personal observation based post.
I've never played this game before, so take this with a boulder of salt, but it looks like the water flows speed up the pink kirby SIGNIFICANTLY. It might be worth it to not let blue "die", because with him holding back at the left side of the screen the screen doesn't scroll forward as quickly as when they're both together. You also seem to have to wait for him once you get to the surfboard anyways, though there could be something I'm not understanding about that animation.
I mean, if I understand all this right, you can input the correct answer off-screen while drawing whatever you want on-screen. But the published run, essentially, does the same thing (only, it embeds the answer within the drawing). Perhaps, I'm thinking, you could get far more creative with the drawings and, say, re-create the Mona Lisa? Or some other type of compelling theme?
The fun of the run does not come from the picture alone. It comes from the picture fooling the OCR.
If you are going to remove the fool-the-OCR element from it, you could just as well switch to Mario Paint.
You're well aware that the only difference between your definition of "fooling the OCR" and what they're planning to do is the location of the extra pixels they're drawing, right? You can literally do the same thing by placing extra lines or pixels within the lines you've already drawn, from my understanding (though admittedly, that process is slightly more complicated and requires more effort). This is just a more convenient way to do it consistently...
edit: the GDQ audience isn't going to give a single flying fuck how the OCR was fooled into accepting the right answer by the way, so I'm not sure why you're making such a huge deal out of this.
The degree of insanity should slowly increase, starting from 0.
I agree. I'm imagining it starting off very slowly and deliberately drawing the numbers correctly, and then progressively speeding up over 20 or so questions until it's going full speed. From there it could start giving either blatantly false answers or integrals and limits and the like for the next 20-30 or so. At that point it can start printing just garbage characters or "ERROR ERROR ERROR", and then go into a "RAM dump" mode where it starts drawing images of TASBot together with GDQ monitor, ending in the proposal.
Just an idea =P
While we're on this sort of topic, and assuming brain age won't be the entire block for AGDQ, how possible would it be to do a Twitch Plays Family Feud?
Family Feud was a proposal for AGDQ 2015 and we even made a (somewhat distasteful) TAS of it but we discovered that the game has random lag or some other behavior that makes inputting answers at full speed impossible. We may be able to work around this problem by holding buttons for multiple frames (it would slow down text entry but not unbearably so), but I still fear that it's a poor choice because the game forces you to wait so long between each question.
The general concept is interesting and we *do* still have all of the Python that micro500, twm, TheAxeMan and others made for parsing out bad words. It would theoretically be possible to come up with a set of inputs that navigate from one letter to another in Family Feud (it'd be complex, you'd have to figure out a lot of combinations or reset after every letter to handle the routing of how to get from, say, E to N or whatnot). I'm more inclined to use a different game, possibly Super Scribblenauts. Imagine the insanity that Twitch Chat would create...
This idea is growing on me the more I think about Super Scribblenauts, we could have a 5 second voting window during which the most commonly repeated word is typed and see if Twitch chat was even capable of completing, say, the tutorial... :) This idea requires more thought and some testing, I'm most intrigued.
I don't think navigating between the letters would be that bad. You could have a loop where for each character in the string you "decode" it into an x and a y position, and then subtract the current x and y position from that new position and move by that amount in each direction. Like if your variable "delta x" = 3 and delta y = 0, you'd do inputs: (>, wait, >, wait, >, A) or similar. If we're worried about lag, we can make the inputs more like (>,>,wait,wait,>,>,wait,wait,>,>,A,A)
I do DEFINITELY like the idea of super scribblenauts a lot more. I feel like we'd need either a romhack where all you need is to summon things, or a bot designed to complete the level once an item is summoned. Since the DS bot is already being worked on, it could even be console verified for extra swag.
While we're on this sort of topic, and assuming brain age won't be the entire block for AGDQ, how possible would it be to do a Twitch Plays Family Feud? I'm not sure if the chat delay would royally screw us but we could parse the chat messages for items that would successfully result in a correct answer. We could also write something that ignores stuff that's horrendously profane if that's desired, since that would be my main concern from a "what could go wrong" standpoint.
Good point, I didn't even think of doing this. I'll try to see what I can come up with over the next couple of days and come back, I've got some ideas I think could work well for drawings and this would be a good chance for me to start learning some sort of scripting anyways.
@micro500, could that be affected by the system touchscreen calibration from the DS settings?
So if there are 40 possible answers and 120 entries that need to be made (aside from DoB and name), does that mean we need to make 40x120 = 4800 drawings? Or is it likely we're going to just seed the RNG somehow?
I'm neither an artist nor a programmer, but I think I'm going to play around with this. Ideally I'd imagine we would come up with all of the artwork we'd need up front, then find a way to add hidden pixels/shapes in side the lines to trick the recognition system into thinking we drew the right number. That way we can have the inputs set in stone for the drawing, and then the extra junk can be added after the drawing is complete. I'd imagine this would be the simplest way to do it, but I could be wrong =P
edit: are all of the hardware materials we'd need purchased/arranged? I'd be more than willing to help support this financially if nothing else.
I'm not sure if that's really tool assisted, I think it just used save states. I made one but it's pretty terrible, so I'll redo it. I think I've got an ok route though based on that.
Ah my bad I didn't realize you were looking for something more optimized. I'm sure a lot of pannenkoek's ABC videos aren't perfectly optimal time-wise, though. I don't think speed is of particular concern =P
Honestly I enjoy the ABC videos more than actual speedruns, much like I enjoy "least portals" challenges in Portal more than speedruns. I would also be okay with a dedicated ABC thread for SM64.
You should consider seeing a psychiatrist, you exhibit symptoms of paranoid schizophrenia.
Well, RGamma already suggested that possibility on page #1. The only problem is that the psychiatrists are also in a conspiracy. See this documentary if you want to know more about it: "Psychiatry: an industry of death": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_5dSZnbugpc
lmao alright you got me, I took the troll bait. Good job bud.
I am making this suggestion in complete seriousness: I think you should stop that (not only in this thread, but overall), for your own sake. This is not an attempt to silence or censor, I'm honestly just trying to help.
Thank you for your concern :)
It doesn't even matter if you are writing that kind of stuff as a joke or in all seriousness. It just makes people not take you seriously. Why would you want to do that? You know that people are not going to take you seriously, and the more you write stuff like that, they will only gain more prejudice against everything you say. In other words, it hurts your credibility, not only in these matters, but in everything. So why do it?
Of course if you really, really want to keep doing it, there's nothing stopping you. But why would you want to? What's the purpose? You are only hurting your own reputation in the process for no benefit.
It's important for people to know the truth, even if it hurts credibility, or even if it sounds like a joke. In the same way that many Christians keep preaching what they believe, even though people ridicule them, or even throw them to lions, like they did in ancient times.
Since I know things which many people don't know, it would be immoral to be silent.
There are also other reasons why I post the things I do, but at this moment in time, I have not been given authority to reveal them...
You should consider seeing a psychiatrist, you exhibit symptoms of paranoid schizophrenia.