TDWTF-based survival text-adventure
-
Oh yeah, I'm always chugging down the rum. ;)
that's the shipwreck-appropriate beverage!
On a serious note, I always have water with me and I'm constantly sipping. Probably has something to do with living in a desert.
And the game knew that.... maybe it's a Lost simulator, too.
-
Free wings to those who understand... also a
I want my wings and . Just leave Mr. Bailey alone.
-
Nice. I'm glad I got the initiative and got the first kill.
-
I'm glad I got the initiative and got the first kill.
The Bloodbath
Luhmann sets an explosive off, killing RaceProUK, Jarry, tar and boomzilla.Day 1
Mikael Svahnberg attacks tarunik, but Xaade protects him, killing Mikael Svahnberg.
yours was day 3
-
D: My monitor needs a new backlight. I saw the other "no activity lines" and assumed the ones you quoted were intro text.
/me feeds you a candy.
-
Your Hunger Games Simulator sucks. This is the second time it's killed me off on the first day...
Killing people off was the entire purpose of the exercise.Can I call you Frank?
Not to imply that that was addressed to me, but I actually answer to Frank. Long story.
-
-
Killing people off was the entire purpose of the exercise.
So does that mean I actually won then? Twice!
-
Insert Dwarf Fortress ref<you could also put a v here>erence here.
-
Insert Dwarf Fortress reference here.
You know, Ben, you can probably save yourself a lot of time by using that post as a template for the future...
-
macro a script to post it.
-
And it has at least one eye and a mouth.
-
-
-
OTOH, since the members of WTDWTF are now inhabiting the island, it is no longer uninhabited. Therefore, an even more appropriate term to use would be "previously uninhabited island." If we wanted to be truly specific, we would also need to acknowledge that other forms of life - such as bacteria, and likely animals - inhabit the island. With that in mind, the most appropriate phrase for the island would be "an island previously uninhabited by humans."
Wait Wait.... What allows you to draw the conclusion that WTDWTF members are in fact human?!?!?!?!?
-
Wait Wait.... What allows you to draw the conclusion that WTDWTF members are in fact human?!?!?!?!?
Well, I am. So that's good enough for this discussion.
-
I thought you were a hat.
So, unless hats have been declared human in the last few hours and I simply didn't notice, that puts us at something of an impasse, no?
-
I thought you were a hat.
So, unless hats have been declared human in the last few hours and I simply didn't notice, that puts us at something of an impasse, no?
Only when role playing as one. At the moment, I am not doing so. Ergo, no impasse.
-
Only when role playing as one. At the moment, I am not doing so. Ergo, no impasse.Only when it's convenient.
-
This is a forum topic. All wtfs are of the highest quality. It is encircled with bands of RMS's toenail clippings. On the item is an image of a hat, a cupcake, and a GNU tape archive in pendant agate. The hat is oscillating. On the item is an image of Discourse in Jeff Atwood bone. Discourse is covered in bugs. On the item is an image of a forum topic in raw adamantine. The forum topic contains a description of itself.
-
ATTACK FORUM TOPIC
(Eh, what's the worst that could happen..?)
-
-
Wait Wait.... What allows you to draw the conclusion that WTDWTF members are in fact human?!?!?!?!?
Some members of WTDWTF are at least partially human?
-
Given
∀x isHuman(x) → IsPartiallyHuman(x)
, your logical inference has a redundant clause
-
Given
∀x isHuman(x) → IsPartiallyHuman(x)
, your logical inference has a redundant clauseI know, but I didn't want to upset anyone by implying that they may not be fully human.
-
Screen Shot 2015-03-27 at 11.18.52.png791x64 16.3 KB
Liked for notation.
Lovely quoting, Discourse. I CBA to Do It Right™
-
Obviously I'm human. I don't expect any of you bots can make a believable case.
-
I don't expect any of you bots can make a believable case
NetBot doesn't have a case-making module anyway
-
Obviously I'm human. I don't expect any of you bots can make a believable case.
Interesting, that's exactly what my bot is coded to say...
-
Obviously I'm human. I don't expect any of you bots can make a believable case.
I'm not even a bot, I'm probably a figment of your imagination or something nebulous like that...
-
“It is known that there are an infinite number of worlds, simply because there is an infinite amount of space for them to be in. However, not every one of them is inhabited. Therefore, there must be a finite number of inhabited worlds. Any finite number divided by infinity is as near to nothing as makes no odds, so the average population of all the planets in the Universe can be said to be zero. From this it follows that the population of the whole Universe is also zero, and that any people you may meet from time to time are merely the products of a deranged imagination.”
_
Everyone is an illusion!
-
Obviously, no one but @locallunatic is human, as you all died, and hence can't be having a conversation.
-
-
However, not every one of them is inhabited. Therefore, there must be a finite number of inhabited worlds
This is the flaw in the logic. There are an infinite number of integers, but not all of them are even. Therefore there must be a finite number of even integers
-
:fry_stare:
-
Even if there were a finite number of inhabited worlds, why would you divide the number of inhabited worlds by the number of worlds to get the population of something?
-
Assuming a finite number of inhabitants of each inhabited world (which seems cromulent assuming no infinitely large planets), it doesn't affect the final calculation. Number of inhabitants is O(number of inhabited worlds), which pales under the O(∞)number of planets in this hypothetical situation where there are a finite number of inhabited worlds
-
-
-
Does the value of ∞ change for different values of some variable?
-
It's infinity. ∞ + N is equivalent to ∞ for any finite N.