This is more or less my take, but at least for me it's not about the level of difficulty exactly. It just feels very transparently like exploring a state space, where the "a-ha" moments just boil down to breaking into a different neighborhood of that space. To be clear, the puzzles are very well designed, and also very hard; but I don't find solving them satisfying at ALL. Compare with Baba Is You, where the "a-ha"s feel to me more like having a grand insight than finding the right very specific sequence of moves.
Put another way, it's been years since I played Baba and I can still remember the key insights to some of the sneakier puzzles. I couldn't even begin to do that for SSR.
Yeah, but what stops P1 from DDos'ing and picking checkmate each time?
If P2 picks check the first time, then they're done. At any point after if they pick checkmate, since P1 has checkmate selected they will reveal it and P2 will lose.
You're assume if someone picks 'checkmate' and the next player picks 'check' the games is over and the checkmate selector loses. I assumed that it means you treat it like 'check' 'check' and continue playing. But neither is actually specified in OPs post.
But let's assume it's your rules. Then winning is easy, just never pick checkmate. Literally never. As soon as your opponent picks it, they lose.
So is war (the card game), but people still play it
I think the proposed game has that both of you lose, like tic tac toe. The only way to win is to checkmate as described. Although it is a memoryless game as proposed, so all options (restart, continue, end) are indistinguishable. Maybe if you win, you go again?
Anyways, the game seems to be described to be the equivalent to the political doctrine of mutually assured destruction. Also a terribly designed game.
> Hi, I just wanted to know, where can I find the documentation to know more about this contrib.lib.file.mkOutOfStoreSymlink option ?
> Well, since is a very simple function, no documentation is really needed.
I've been gradually transitioning everything to NixOS, starting with my homelab mini PC, then my Framework laptop, and now my daily driver desktop. It's hard to imagine going back because the pros are so strong compared to the cons, but the docs situation is truly dire.
That’s my feeling when reading nixos forums. People are willing to help but don’t realize how little newbies know about nix when asking for help. The first month of nixos was a massive uphill climb for me, and that knowledge doesn’t stick well because I get to interact with nix every few months to tweak things, not weekly or daily.
It’s a solid os, and I’m enjoying it, and I love that I can’t break things while tweaking. But the docs are and discussion threads are not written for beginners (it’s really hard to write for beginners).
You might wish to do some cursory research before arguing further. For example, as a starting point, the Wikipedia page on civil disobedience has an entire section labeled "Action" listing counterexamples.
Alright, I'll bite. What about imperative programming fixes the scaling issues you're describing?
Typically programming scale is regarded as a benefit of FP over imperative programming, as the lack of mutable state results in less moving parts to reason about.
Part of it is solved by how longer files are much more readable in imperative setups and can benefit from things like an editor/IDE being more able to jump around within the file since it’s not a big tangled up deeply nested chunk and developers can add things like titled section dividers for the editor to latch onto.
And no language will fix all these woes on its own, but problems take a lot longer to crop up with a disciplined team in an imperative app compared with a declarative one.
FP probably does scale better when we’re talking about the nuts and bolts under the hood, but I don’t believe it’s well suited for UI except in the simplest of cases. There’s too much in that domain that’s at odds with the nature of a declarative/functional approach.
This may seem like hyperbole, but this is the reality for students and test-takers every day in virtual environments now.
I assisted as TA in a virtual learning environment. While we didn't make it strictly mandatory to keep the camera on, our learners were encouraged to do it, and we kept tabs on who was "engaged" and present, because at the very least, we needed to tabulate an attendance roll for every day.
If you're taking a standardized test, whether you're at home or in a controlled lab, the camera will always be on. Multiple ones. Not optional.
There is a large storm of controversy on college campuses about adapting young students early to surveillance cultures. I attended a community college about 7 years ago, and I felt I'd be a second-class citizen without a smartphone and an SMS'able mobile.
We weren't surveilled through smartphones at the time. But there was an app to receive campus alerts about public safety and other crisis events. And our virtual class sessions had various ways of ensuring we were human, and awake.
Taking finals and certification exams, I was often sat in a special-purpose testing center, and Step One was showing ID; Step Two was surrendering my watch, my phone, my wallet to place in a locker outside. So, students simply become accustomed to showing ID and being on-camera, and it becomes a fact of life before you graduate.
"My Toyota Corolla struggles to drive up icy hills."
"It doesn't struggle, you struggle." ???
It's fine to critique your own tools and their strengths and weaknesses. Claiming that any and all failures of AI are an operator skill issue is counterproductive.
Put another way, it's been years since I played Baba and I can still remember the key insights to some of the sneakier puzzles. I couldn't even begin to do that for SSR.
reply