71–80 of 129 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you take something that took hours to build and (as is claimed) spend 1 minute modifying it, you absolutely have no right to claim it’s “by” you. I think everyone except you agrees on that.
> I think everyone except you agrees on that As a member of “everyone”, would you please not put words in my mouth.
I got two long pieces, laid them down side by side, and was hoping for another one so I could start getting set up for a tetris, but all I got was garbage Z pieces forevermore, which were the absolute worst piece for me to get. Started a new game. Put the long piece vertically against a side wall. Got an S piece. Whhhhyyyyyyyyyyy?
What .... That is exactly what happened to my wife when I sent her the link just now. "Here honey, this ought to be relaxing" and boom, two long pieces and then a Z piece army. I appreciate a free game but is this one of those abusive research projects? Edit: Undo and redo don't work here either
"Undo and redo" shortcut don't seem to work, but the clickable undo and redo button at the top left work.
It's a quick project which arose from curiosity : "what would happen if the hateful AI tried to do the opposite".
This AI does its best to always provide you some outs to the limit of its abilities. You have plenty of freedom to guide the game into interesting landscape while having an AI that always offer you safe ways to recover. But you still have to play your part, the AI can only handle half the job.
Lovetris has some interesting complexities, and touch the subject of collaborative AI whereas Hatetris is an adversarial AI.
Collaborative AI and AI alignment are interestingly hard research subjects which have philosophical and technological components.
With subject as deep as love and working jointly, it's hard to satisfy everybody.
Lovetris with its "exhaustive short horizon exploring strategy with simple terminal heuristics" isn't capable of perceiving long-term intent farther than its tree searching depth. And reciprocally, if you set the horizon too far, the human player is bad at reading the intent of the AI, and doesn't do what the AI suggest.
There are probably better strategies, like monte-carlo tree search with some neural networks which could better solve the intent communication problem between the human and the AI, and provide a better experience, but they take a little more work than just flipping a sign.
Add a little feedback via data collection and such an AI can probably send its player into an hedonistic loop.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Please do not trivialize having OCD like that- In reality, it's a debilitating disorder characterized by severe compulsions.
Or use the word “trigger” to mean mere annoyance. It is tragic that people with a hatred of people living with conditions like PTSD and epilepsy have turned that word into a joke. (I guess most people who use that word now are unaware of this history.) I know people who experience actual triggers and it's a very painful thing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What .... That is exactly what happened to my wife when I sent her the link just now. "Here honey, this ought to be relaxing" and boom, two long pieces and then a Z piece army. I appreciate a free game but is this one of those abusive research projects? Edit: Undo and redo don't work here either
I'm sorry for your bad experience. "Undo and redo" shortcut don't seem to work, but the clickable undo and redo button at the top left work. It's a quick project which arose from curiosity : "what would happen if the hateful AI tried to do the opposite". This AI does its best to always provide you some outs to the limit of its abilities. You have plenty of freedom to guide the game into interesting landscape while ha…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Tetris" as in "tetrahedron". mind.equals(blown).
More like tetris as in Tetromino: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetromino
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I completely disagree. I made a hatetris myself (called Lövetris) once, spent a good 20 hours on it. If someone took it, flipped a sign (or even re-skinned it) and published it as “by” them I’d be furious. Yes, the product would be different, but 99.9% (literally) of the work would still be mine. The hard part is building the app, not changing a parameter. I wouldn’t even call that a “remix”.
That seems the opposite of open source thinking, which might be why you didn't published it and why you think that way. As an open source author myself I see this as a fair move. Just different opinions :) "The hard part is building the app, not changing a parameter" that really depends, why didn't you take an open source implementation yourself and built on top of it? Then it wouldn't be "as hard", would it? If you…
Apparently the game can out you in a corner where you can not win: ࠁටໃݶԣலໃݹࠅॴໃݛԥ੯ටஈ௨ඥ೦ݹ௨ඥಸݹ௨ටമ๐௨ൽഉݹݹقາڭ௨ටഫݑСටໃԓ௦૫ໃݹ௨ටໃݹ௨ටໃxħقໃƬݴΟໃKЭइໃC౻ටຯٲಏقแڽ௨ఢƔݹரٯໃԔޛඥДݹߚฃໂɛԥడM൵௨బໞݹҬɦషݸßࡇHܤЪsເלԚؿИݷƶ
I was thinking about trying to make a version that optimized for giving you four lines at once to be a real lovetris but then decided that would probably just almost always give the straight pieces so it wouldn’t be too interesting.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Base2048. An encoding optimized for packing maximum data into a Tweet (which supports 280 characters, but with Unicode support).
That is fascinating! In particular, base2048 was designed after twitter adjusted the tweet limit to 280 characters, but started counting “heavy” codepoints as double, making the previously used base65536 less efficient in the context of a tweet. See https://github.com/qntm/base2048#readme
I can't other articles on it other than that readme. Does anyone else know where I can learn more about it? Someone needs to make a Wikipedia page!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This version didn't exist until GistNoesis flipped the sign, so no, it's not. This gets to a larger philosophy of open source: we should encourage people to fork when they want to iterate on someone else's work, however minor that iteration may be. This is open source working as intended.
If you take something that took hours to build and (as is claimed) spend 1 minute modifying it, you absolutely have no right to claim it’s “by” you. I think everyone except you agrees on that.
> All of the methods described in these books are in the public domain; thus anybody can freely use any of the ideas. The only thing I'm retaining control of is the names, TeX and METAFONT: products that go by this name are obliged to conform to the standard. If any changes are made, I won't complain, as long as the changed systems are not called TeX or METAFONT.