I do agree in the end it’s arbitrary, and you’re right there are 2 extremes in strategy, purely analytical and purely reflexive, plus everything in between.

Admittedly without having played this game specifically using both strategies this is purely speculation. But from my experience playing similar games, exactly to your point of the two strategies, if time and moves are weighed equally, I feel like a player using the analytics strategy would end up with a much higher score than a reflex based player at the “same” skill level (however “skill” levels would be pretty hard to quantify and compare by the two strategies).

Hope that makes sense :)

Looks pretty cool. I know this isn’t the point but I feel like from a games perspective the scoring is a bit off. I don’t think 1 extra second and 1 extra move should be the same value. For me to sit there and analyze what the optimal move set would be to move set would be to move a certain block may avoid 2-3 extra moves, but would take way longer than 3 seconds for me to calculate in my head. Maybe make a move add 5 points to the score?

I wonder if there’s a game theory way to find the optimal amount that the moves and time should be weighed to make them equal value.

Either way, pretty awesome you got this working in bash.

Every single time

I think he means Steam’s refund policy is not available to anyone outside the US because they only implemented it to comply with a US law, so like if you are in a country without similar consumer protection laws they don’t offer the refund policy. (its not just the US btw, places like Canada and the EU also have the Steam refund policy)

23 atoms thick

So in other words just lying? You really answered a question you had no idea the answer to with “yes.”

Is this petition online? Anyone have a link?

I’ll believe it when I see it

Middle density housing is severely lacking in most of Canada. Montréal is one of the few cities that does have a bit of mid-density housing and its housing costs are lower than most other similar sized cities. Obviously there’s many more factors but I definitely think mid density is important for reducing this crisis.

It was a just a regular duel, the point isn’t to kill but basically “touch” the other guy like in a fencing match. The other guy got hit twice and survived but had to go to his wedding the next day.

The reason this is interesting is because it’s the reverse of gas cars. Typically the best efficiency of a gas vehicle is on the highway but for EVs you get much more efficiency in local streets

If you were wondering, the mayor won the duel

Honestly I just hope this backfires and less Canadians end up using Facebook, we’d definitely be much better off

Could the same not be said for carbon capture? The point I’m trying to make is that the costs of carbon capture technology and renewables are very similar but the payout is not. It doesn’t make sense to invest in something that’s going to be less effective than something with a similar cost.

Money is a moot point because either way you’re investing in something, either CC or EC. As far as time goes, when it comes to climate change I don’t think time is on our side either, so we don’t have time to wait to develop actually effective CC. We need to be making a transition to renewables now, and smooth out the jagged edges along the way, we don’t have time to wait and hope for a magic technology to eventually make our fossil fuels less dirty

So sounds like instead of spending time and money researching carbon capture we should spend it on energy storage which is an already proven technology that, again, aides a 0 carbon energy source instead of making a fossil fuel source less bad

I’m OOTL what is the 196 community?

The efficiency of CC is higher when you’re doing what you’re saying and capturing at the source but it’s still incredibly inefficient and the costs are just astronomical to get it anywhere near a level that would actually make a dent in the emissions. With the current costs today, it would actually be cheaper to tear down a coal power plant and build TWO wind farms that supplied the same amount of energy each than it would be to build CC to capture a fraction of the emissions generated by the coal plant.

And before anyone says that the costs of CC will come down in the future… So will wind farm costs and solar costs, so in the end why build something to reduce emissions when you could build something to completely eliminate them for CHEAPER instead?

Huh weird, I’m not seeing that

I think what the problem is is that it doesn’t take the relative popularity of posts into account, the news community has 800 members so those posts typically get close to 100 upvotes compared to some smaller communities where you’ll only get 7-8 upvotes, even though that community is only 16 members, so technically that second post is doing BETTER than the news post, but I think the algorithm relies too heavily on absolute score instead