92 karma · joined August 6, 2010
Why can't we do the same thing with 4d? Why does the object just disappear when it bounces into the 4th dimension, can't we maybe see a projection of it onto the 3rd dimension?
Actually, AI for games is pretty much never equivalent to AI for non-games. The end goal is different - games want to provide a non-optimal set of instructions, so that it's challenging but not impossible to win. The goals are entirely different.
If you're making a game, this is probably at least a useful example to look at, even if I don't agree with some of the decisions they made (uninterruptible moves, for instance)
```
enum = Enumerator.new{|y| a = 0; loop{y << a; a += 1}}
enum.next => 0
enum.next => 1
etc
```
I believe this has existed since 1.8x
I feel a little guilty because I have friends who are doing things which are way better for society (teachers, for instance) and are damn good at what they do, but making only a fraction of what I make. I feel good about what my company does, but I don't think we (or especially other companies that are adding so little value to people who actually need it, rather than essentially just the tech elite in SF/NYC/etc) are adding so much more that it justifies the huge disparity in salary.
Remember, not all courses are made equal. I went to a tech school, and transferred after my first year to a high tier liberal arts school. I had a much harder time with a 050 level into liberal arts course my second year, than I did with a 400 level course on Poetry (of which I didn't have any sort of background in). I found the liberal arts courses at the tech school were aimed towards tech students - meaning, in that specific case, many of them felt somewhat watered down.
I would be willing to guess that, as a frequenter of Hacker News, you're more likely to be more active in a tech oriented circle. Growing up, and at college, I was more active among humanities oriented folk; my experience was that the tech folk were good at one thing (whatever they studied) and otherwise just played lots of video games, while the humanities students did every thing + 1.
So, all in all - my point is that anecdotal evidence is just that. Technical people can have a broad understanding, but it doesn't mean they do. Same goes for Liberal Arts.
Help me out, here.
I understand that (label second '(...)) makes second evaluate to that in the future, statefully, but, the lambda symbol doesn't even appear to have a definition; furthermore, if you try to use it in a way that would work with a real lambda, it doesn't work.
For instance [[:lambda, [:x], :x], 2]
The rules that he cites as the minimum rules basically describes the "metroidvania" subgenre. Essentially, games in this genre have an open world, in which you explore to find powerups in order to reach more places to explore. While the genre doesn't demand level puzzles, that's how the games are typically designed.
Zelda is a series that is established on certain traditions - you go from dungeon to dungeon, and in each one get a new piece of gear that lets you explore the world more. Looking just at that part of the game, every zelda game looks the same. But I think as a series it's generally good at varying a little bit from the formula.
Otherwise looks good to me :).