I find it odd that the edge length is even.
Peter Molyneux may have just monetized trolling
61–70 of 73 posts
Re: Peter Molyneux may have just monetized trolling
#62After decades of trying to mke better and better videogames, always more realistic, Molyneux shows that the average human is, in fact satisfied by a Skinner box and will gladly pay for it.
Do you honestly think the average human being is busy playing Curiosity?
Re-read my post. I didn't say the average human being is busy playing Curiosity; I said that the average human is fully satisfied interacting with a Skinner box.
Re: Peter Molyneux may have just monetized trolling
#63Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you honestly think the average human being is busy playing Curiosity?
Re-read my post. I didn't say the average human being is busy playing Curiosity; I said that the average human is fully satisfied interacting with a Skinner box.
Re-write your post. You said Molyneux showed something about the average human. You can't backpedal that into a statement not involving Molyneux.
Re: Peter Molyneux may have just monetized trolling
#64Earlier quoted context omitted.
There were 4,096 total layers; currently 262 layers have been removed with 17,758,801 cubelets left on the current layer. So 3,834 layers and 112,689,867,042 cubelets remain. The cube age is 166 days, so at the current rate of progress (~148,787,753 cubelets per day), it should take another 758 days to complete. However, the rate has been slowing from over 2 layers/day at the start to just over 1.5 layers/day. Combin…
There are only 2048 layers. I used the statistics from [1] at 5:20 from day one. Layer 1, 66,631,501 cubelets remaining on the current layer and 33,982,651 cubelets destroyed in total. Because it is the first layer it is made up out of 66,631,501 + 66,631,501 = 100,614,152 cubelets. An estimate of the edge length is obtained by dividing by 6 faces and taking the square root and this yields 4,095.0000407. It is a bit…
I can help your intuition with the n - 1, I hope. It's true that it's negligible when you're handling cube roots. But when you're cutting down to faces you end up ignoring the entire inside of the cube, so edges can cause problems. Looking at a single face, you have four edges that must be shared, so give away two edges a keep two edges, and you very easily result in a square of n-1 on every face.
Re: Peter Molyneux may have just monetized trolling
#65It's hilarious when someone finds two actions that are opposites of each other and collect on both sides from people who want to take part in each. I had a similar thought. I worked for a truly evil (management-wise; the engineers and PMs are fine) startup in the winter of 2011-12 and I've been debating whether to name-and-shame. The ethical problem I have with it is that, while I could easily kill the company (publi…
Maybe save it for an example in your book? Your blog already has enough great material to establish your place at the forefront of modern philosophy. Now it's just a question of marketing. Kickstarter campaign for your book sounds good. And to those who have down voted Mr. Church I can only say, how dare you.
Well played; I read your post while taking a sip and now I can't stop coughing/laughing.
Re: Peter Molyneux may have just monetized trolling
#66Earlier quoted context omitted.
Re-read my post. I didn't say the average human being is busy playing Curiosity; I said that the average human is fully satisfied interacting with a Skinner box.
Re-write your post. You said Molyneux showed something about the average human. You can't backpedal that into a statement not involving Molyneux.
> you said Molyneux showed something about the average human.
Yes.
> You can't backpedal that into a statement not involving Molyneux.
I didn't backpedal; you can change "I said that the average human is fully satisfied interacting with a Skinner box" to "I said that the average human is fully satisfied interacting with a Skinner box, as shown by Molyneux's Curiosity", if it makes you happy, but it doesn't really change anything.
Re: Peter Molyneux may have just monetized trolling
#67Earlier quoted context omitted.
There were 4,096 total layers; currently 262 layers have been removed with 17,758,801 cubelets left on the current layer. So 3,834 layers and 112,689,867,042 cubelets remain. The cube age is 166 days, so at the current rate of progress (~148,787,753 cubelets per day), it should take another 758 days to complete. However, the rate has been slowing from over 2 layers/day at the start to just over 1.5 layers/day. Combin…
There are only 2048 layers. I used the statistics from [1] at 5:20 from day one. Layer 1, 66,631,501 cubelets remaining on the current layer and 33,982,651 cubelets destroyed in total. Because it is the first layer it is made up out of 66,631,501 + 66,631,501 = 100,614,152 cubelets. An estimate of the edge length is obtained by dividing by 6 faces and taking the square root and this yields 4,095.0000407. It is a bit…
You're right, it's 2,048 layers. The sad part for me is that I knew that number, but when I did the math, I couldn't get it to work with the current layer's numbers, because I forgot that the cube length goes down by two, not one. Oh well, shows I shouldn't do math late at night!
Re: Peter Molyneux may have just monetized trolling
#68Earlier quoted context omitted.
Re-write your post. You said Molyneux showed something about the average human. You can't backpedal that into a statement not involving Molyneux.
> you said Molyneux showed something about the average human. Yes. > You can't backpedal that into a statement not involving Molyneux. I didn't backpedal; you can change "I said that the average human is fully satisfied interacting with a Skinner box" to "I said that the average human is fully satisfied interacting with a Skinner box, as shown by Molyneux's Curiosity", if it makes you happy, but it doesn't really cha…
Kronopath challenged the idea that the people playing Curiosity are in fact average. I don't know if you read his comment as a silly statement regarding billions of people playing the game or something, but there is legitimate argument to be made that the average Curiosity player is far away from the average western citizen.
If the average Curiosity player is not even close to an average person (such as what if 80% of them had OCD), then your statement that Molyneux has showed anything about the average person is incorrect.
So please, either disagree with Kronopath or point out a flaw in my logic, let's not mess around with semantics and restatements.
Re: Peter Molyneux may have just monetized trolling
#69Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are only 2048 layers. I used the statistics from [1] at 5:20 from day one. Layer 1, 66,631,501 cubelets remaining on the current layer and 33,982,651 cubelets destroyed in total. Because it is the first layer it is made up out of 66,631,501 + 66,631,501 = 100,614,152 cubelets. An estimate of the edge length is obtained by dividing by 6 faces and taking the square root and this yields 4,095.0000407. It is a bit…
I can help your intuition with the n - 1, I hope. It's true that it's negligible when you're handling cube roots. But when you're cutting down to faces you end up ignoring the entire inside of the cube, so edges can cause problems. Looking at a single face, you have four edges that must be shared, so give away two edges a keep two edges, and you very easily result in a square of n-1 on every face.
I like the idea of embedding n - 1 squares in each face, it is quite intuitive...but not fully satisfying. It would be nice if exactly six n - 1 squares would fit into the surface...but no, there are two additional uncovered cubelets. Two is again unintuitive to me - 6, 8 or 12 and I would be happy. On the other hand unintuitve results make me redo the work to find the mistake and so unintuitve results are less likely wrong and that in the end is a good thing.
After spending some more time thinking about my initial reasoning it became a bit more intuitive. I thought there are O(n^2) cubelets on each face and the error with the edges is only O(n) so the error should become negligible and it does - the linear error becomes a constant error of less than 1. I just expected it would approach 0 and this is not true.
And now I will stop bothering - my intuition is not the best in this area and I will just have to calculate everything. I just realize that I can not even easily say if the approximation over- or underestimates...we use some cubelets twice, so we under...over...underestimate the area of a face...no, over?...under!...
Re: Peter Molyneux may have just monetized trolling
#70As someone who had paid money to remove cubelets before this was introduced id feel somewhat ripped off. I also wonder how this game would be doing with similar marketing but without Molyneux' name to it. Imo the golden days of the guy are long gone.
The thing being, you didn't.
The interesting question is whether the people who -did- pay movey to remove cubelets feel ripped off or not.
I have no idea who such people are, though, and suspect I wouldn't understand their motivation even if I did, so I venture no suggestions as to the answer to that question.