Is that last bit a dig at German humour?
- Posts
- 0
- Comments
- 2128
- Joined
- 2 yr. ago
- Posts
- 0
- Comments
- 2128
- Joined
- 2 yr. ago
Winamp! (Winamp!) Winamp! It really whips the lamma's ass!
One time I rented a uhaul van and it had a backup camera that would show up in the rear view mirror. Not the whole thing mirror, but it had a little screen embedded in it.
Yes, but they did establish that one of the guards is no longer living and that giving barbarians riddles is dangerous for everyone involved.
The answer is stable because the liar will always say the bad door is safe and the truth teller will always say the safe door is safe, therefore the liar will always say that the truth teller will direct you to the danger door and the truth teller will tell you the same.
I tried to add some self-reference to the question to make a paradoxical answer but can't see a wording that even causes something like "this statement is false", at least not one about which door to pick.
Only ways I can think of start with the paradox right in the question. Like "If the other guard said, 'this statement is false', would you believe him?"
Sucks someone downvoted just for asking questions to better understand this less than straightforward thing. I've always believed that if you think something is wrong, you should challenge it, because even if you are wrong, the resulting discussion can help you understand why your previous perspective was flawed, which might then cascade to other things you didn't realize you were also mistaken about.
How can they both explain it when one only tells lies?
Yeah, it's impossible to say one way or the other because the setup is underdefined and leaves a lot of room for ambiguity or loopholes.
On that note, don't beat yourself up or consider yourself stupid because of that. Even though it's questionable whether it would work or give them room to screw you, I think it was a good creative solution to the riddle that I've never seen before. If you came up with that on your own, I'd consider that a sign of good potential. Nurture and refine that, don't try to beat it down to avoid being wrong ever. (Haha I really hope you're not like 50 or that might come off as really condescending rather than encouraging).
Like, thinking about it more, I think it can be resolved by changing the "and" to an "or", at least on the lying side. Though that would open up the truth side to be able to sneak in a lie while technically telling the truth. But there might be another adjustment that would close the loophole entirely and give a solution that doesn't require a reference to the other guard's answer.
Careful with that because "the wrong direction and blue" would still be a lie. So would "the correct direction and fluorescent yellow".
And it has a bunch of assumptions about the sky and their perception and knowledge of it built in.
(Split it up into another comment since it's a different idea).
Another thing that DMs can do is punish meta gaming with things that go against expectations. Like maybe some secret doors are actually the release mechanism for some damgerous monsters that act as security when someone sounds an intruder alert. Or the listen check is to see if you can hear the siren's song in the distance as you pass a nesting area.
Maybe the pressure plate is connected to a power source and system to bring the facility the players just entered online, turning on lights and opening doors that are otherwise locked when it's in mothball mode because the wizards who built it assumed the secret entrance would provide enough security. So while it looks like a trap, it's just some home automation that would make everything easier. Then if they skip the "trap", gotta have a scene where they return with someone else who does step on it to leave them wondering if they made a mistake or if they did it the more interesting way.
I need to find a group one of these days, it's been too long since I've played a tabletop RPG and I was a naive power gamer when I last did, so I'm curious about playing a game without min/maxing.
Though the best game I've played was with a friend who wanted epic shit like in Devil May Cry. There were no real rules, there were rolls but pass or fail was more of a vibe check than anything specific because the more you described a cool action in detail, the more likely it was to succeed. It was pretty awesome and fun.
For context, DMC features epic scenes like a man-sized entity fighting and beating a skyscraper-sized titan, blocking bullets with swords, and I can't remember if this is actually in one of the games but even if it isn't, it kinda shows the level they are on, but I think there's even at least one scene where a character uses bullets as stepping stones to get within sword range of someone firing down on him from high up.
Yeah, I agree that having a secret communication channel between the DM and players is good because it goes deeper than just meta gaming: there's also meta meta gaming.
As in you hear a piece of information that your character would have no way of knowing and this piece of information makes the correct tactical option obvious. It might not have been as obvious before, but now that you know, you can't unknow it (at least not without an even more severe disruption to the game). So does that mean you can't pick that now obvious option to avoid meta gaming? What if your character probably would have chosen that option anyways? Same thing for trying to do something that would reveal that information to your character, would your character have done it without the information? Should you just pick a bad option now because any good option is meta gaming?
I don't think there is a good solution once anyone knows about the information. Hell, even your barbarian's decision to not say anything could be considered meta gaming because you were doing it in response to how the other players were acting and justified it afterwards just like they are doing. Avoiding the meta gaming option is still meta gaming, it's just from a place of not being able to help but meta game.
It's like playtesting magic decks against another one of your decks alone. Sure, you can see some things like how well the mana ramp works, how big of a threat you can get on the board relative to your opponents, but when it comes to interactions, you know exactly what spells you should counter or ignore, what might happen if you choose to block or let an attack through. There's no tactical surprise or bluffing, which can both play a big role in the game.
When I DMed, I liked to have some rolls from the players ready ahead of time, because I found even "roll a spot/listen check" gave away too much information on its own. Pass or fail, it was a signal to start doing some active searching because there's something of interest in the vicinity. So instead I'd just use the early rolls and cross them off my list as the players made passive sensory checks and only mention anything if the roll was high enough.
Then notes can be passed with the information to those who know it, plus extra nothing notes sent from time to time, maybe with a promised reward if they don't say it's a nothing note so the meta gaming that results just wastes time and discourages people just reacting to notes.
That last question is ambiguous enough (in this specific scenario) that either answer would work. It's both true that the other guard can't tell her something happened (due to being dead), while the other guard would have said that something did happen if he had been able to. So it's a meaningless question but the wife doesn't know that since she doesn't know the guard is dead.
Which just adds another layer to the joke lol.
Give them a paradox by encoding the other two's potential responses into the question (similarly to the two guard solution, but this time the random response is included). If they are able to answer, then you asked the random one, because the liar and truth teller have no idea what the random one would answer so can't answer only yes or no without potentially violating their truthiness rule.
This isn't to solve the puzzle but to see what the other two would do in that situation. If I figured out the random one with the first question, I'd use the 2nd to ask the same thing of one of the others. Then, if it's still 2 doors, the two guard solution will work on the last one to figure it out.
But if the first guard asked explodes or something when asked, I think that there wouldn't be enough questions left to find both the random guard (which I believe you have to do first) and the door. Though if you change the question to only ask about one other's answer instead of both, you'll be able to find both the random guard and the safe door.
Though hopefully the whole setup isn't a lie and everyone present is a strategic liar that wants you dead. Imagine doing one of those riddles and when you step through the door you notice both doors lead into the same room whose walls now seem to be closing in and the last thing you hear is one of the guards asking another why riddles seem to get people to let their guard down anyways.
And if they stopped, some shitty writer will write an article whining about gen evil killing the hot served coffee industry.
- JumpDeleted
Permanently Deleted
It follows the pattern of every accusation being a confession. I was concerned about this in 2020, seeing all the arguments about voter fraud and such, and my thoughts were that they either committed a lot of fraud in the states they won and are trying to keep the attention on the states they didn't do fraud in, or because they wanted their opponents to ridicule them about the thing so that their supporters would just think it's the usual political back and forth where both sides just accuse the other of whatever would help them win.
I don't think the truth will ever be known for sure unless there's confessions at some point.
Bill Gates was an asshole from the start. Happy to use freely available stuff from the early computing community as well as using his school's resources to build either DOS or BASIC and then acting like he had built it all with his own resources when ranting about free software. To be clear, I don't gaf about using free resources to build something and make money from it, but his hypocrisy and anti-competitive BS makes that aspect worse with him.
So it was always shit, it was just that once upon a time, they actually had to make good software that ran on very limited hardware in addition to their anti-competitive BS, and then had a period where they kept trying to make good software but didn't realize yet that they didn't need to (like windows ME was pretty much universally panned, but it didn't drive people away from windows in general).
I think it was win 10 that I first felt like I was in conflict with my OS. Like in win 7, I'd spend time looking at each update's kdb entry to decide if I wanted it (and skipped the nagware ones about win 10 entirely, for example). In win 10, I had to jump through hoops just to be able to control when it applied updates on my own timeline, not MS'. Win 10 was the worst for resetting settings, like I get it set up like I prefer it to be, then a few updates later I'd have to do some of them again. Though tbf, I don't recall that happening in the last few years, but other worse enshitification has settled in since then and now windows never even touched my current main machine.
You might just not be noticing the crashes because it likes to restart silently. I'll only notice it because sometimes it happens when teams is active on my other monitor and it auddenly disappears. Might be auto update, or maybe even a "we know this app gets worse over time so let's just restart it regularly as a solution".
Stats require a sample from a smaller population that represents the entire population. Phone polls don't include people a) without phones b) who ignore unknown calls c) who decline to reply to poll calls and d) who lie to poll calls (at least not accurately). I know I've been tempted to lie when someone reaches out on behalf of a politician I don't like, though usually I just ignore the texts.
Exit polls can be similarly affected, though the dynamics are a bit different.
Wait are you referencing something else or did Cheers have a crossover with Batman?
When I used to have a cat, at the time I usually slept on my side but I'd switch sides occasionally. She'd be sleeping right on my hip/butt. If I wanted to roll over, I'd just shift a bit first to warn her, then just roll over a bit more slowly than normal and she'd either just jump off while I moved or sometimes just stay on me like a slow rolling log walk. Then, once I'd settled, she would do the same, unless she felt like she was needed at the window or something.
We kinda trained each other... Sorry, cat, but I need to switch sides from my side, claws if I moved too quickly from hers (not because she was pissed at me but to help keep her footing), but it didn't take long to sync up with each other.
I recently learned of MDisc (there's a CD and DVD version, too, iirc) and decided to get a burner and convert my old data CDs.
While I haven't verified every single bit, I did check that the files copied off of it were still functional and didn't see any issues. Also didn't get any errors. I was surprised because I've had some of them for over 20 years now and didn't do more than put them in CD binders to protect them (during the days when I didn't even consider the longevity of the media, other then obvious things like scratches.
Only disc I wasn't able to get the data from was a packet CD, which was a special format that facilitated treating the disc more like diskettes, where you could read or write at will via the filesystem rather than writing the disc as a special package from the start (or having multiple sessions if there's still room on the disc after one such write). I was able to find references to the tech, though not if it was a standard or just a name a few different companies used for different implementations, but I wasn't able to find Linux drivers that could do anything other than rip the ISO and a few strings or tell me it can't find anything. Though it's possible that corruption is really what happened here because I'd expect RW CDs to last a shorter time than the write once ones.
Though I suppose I could try it on my old windows machine and see if drivers are more readily available there.