Twitter sends its love to you
-
it's the only game that A and B
Requiring either:
A: Prior knowledge about either A or B to test with.
B: Research to fill knowledge about A or B.Since I don't keep an index of games made by 4chan folks, and I don't also similarly keep an index of games that are about disabled people, it can be stated that in order to arrive at any answer to satisfy the question, I would need to get said knowledge from somewhere, implying research of some sort (since it is likely from the the context that the answer can be arrived by said means of information retrieval).
Therefore, any particular game I might assume you are talking about absolutely requires knowledge of at least one of these two things (obtained via research or otherwise) in order to justify the assumption.
Since I cannot confirm or deny the assumption then I (If I was indeed making some assumption) would therefore be in error, but (since I was not), I was merely pointing out that further research may be required, of which I didn't have time to execute.
So, no, I can't "easily exclude every other game you can come up with because it's guaranteed to not satisfy at least one of them." simply because I may not be able to produce the evidence needed to evaluate the condition statements in a meaningful manner.
-
Also, for the record, it is entirely possible for there to be someone on 4Chan that was involved (at any given point) in the creation of Pac-Man. It is also entirely possible that Pac-Man is indeed about disabled people, depending on interpretation (although usually disabled != mentally unstable, the usual comparison bar for what is going on in games). Again, without further research, I cannot at-a-glance immediately rule out the possibility of Pac-Man being the game we're talking about.
-
Requiring either:
A: Prior knowledge about either A or B to test with.
B: Research to fill knowledge about A or B.
In this particular case, you do have prior knowledge. If you can come up with a game title, you surely know about this game, and thus can conclude whether it focuses on disabled people or not - and if it costs more than nothing, you know that it wasn't made by 4chan. So you only have to do research if:- the game is free, and
- it focuses on disabled people, and
- you don't know anything about author beforehand.
All commercial games are rejected by the first condition. Almost all free games are rejected by second. And if you find a game that satisfies both first and second condition, it's such a niche title that you almost surely know something about the author. So it's virtually impossible to have to resort to any research at all.
Since I don't keep an index of games made by 4chan folks, and I don't also similarly keep an index of games that are about disabled people
Again - you don't have to know all the games about disabled people. You just have to know whether the particular one you have in mind is such. You don't need to know any prime numbers to determine whether the number you have in mind is prime.Also, for the record, it is entirely possible for there to be someone on 4Chan that was involved (at any given point) in the creation of Pac-Man.
4chan users weren't 4chan users before they joined 4chan, so no, it's not possible - if only because 4chan didn't exist back then.It is also entirely possible that Pac-Man is indeed about disabled people, depending on interpretation
You can interpret any work of art as disabled people if you try hard enough. For example, your avatar looks like some kind of steampunk prosthetic arm. The moment you play the free interpretation card, any discussion becomes pointless.
-
If you can come up with a game title, you surely know about this game, and thus can conclude whether it focuses on disabled people or not - and if it costs more than nothing, you know that it wasn't made by 4chan.
Non sequitur. Just because I know about @Gaska, doesn't necessarily mean I can conclude any other data point without also implicitly knowing anything more than their username, which doesn't provide anything more than a line of text.
This statement, for example, can be translated into other things, like "If you can come up with the name of a certain branch of science (say, Quantum Mechanics), you surely know about this branch, and can thus conclude whether it deals with computers or not - and if it doesn't use math, you know that it doesn't use physics"You just have to know whether the particular one you have in mind is such.
Which relies on knowledge that cannot be assumed to be known prior to research if it wasn't specified in the original declaration, see above.4chan users weren't 4chan users before they joined 4chan, so no, it's not possible - if only because 4chan didn't exist back then.
Erm, reverse that, developers of Pac-Man may have possibly joined 4chan after its' conception. Granted, it is extremely unlikely, but not impossible. And, again, we're assuming we're talking about the Original Pac-Man, and not any of the myriad of clones that came afterward.For example, your avatar looks like some kind of steampunk prosthetic arm.
Not far off, actually! That's disturbingly close, though (going a little off topic from off-topic-ness) it's actually a sample of architecture by some artist that conceptualized some movie or another.play the free interpretation card
This is the default model for civilized discourse when prior knowledge is not readily available on a topic and a desire to join in the conversation is presented and acted upon.
This place would be a whole lot quieter if people didn't have opinions and only cited facts as discussion...any discussion becomes pointless.
I've been waiting for you to come to this conclusion. Thanks for playing Flame Wars! Your running total for this session is: 6 posts, which give you a final rating of:
Not Trying Hard Enough.
-
Get a room, you two.
-
Oh, shot, this isn't a private room?
Whoops.
-
He's more socially impaired than all the people in the whole school are impaired physically, combined.
But he's soo dreamy!
(Discourse doesn't allow spoiled images that also popout, and doesn't let me set this one to not pop out, soooo...)
-
Non sequitur. Just because I know about @Gaska, doesn't necessarily mean I can conclude any other data point without also implicitly knowing anything more than their username, which doesn't provide anything more than a line of text.
How many games do you know only by the title (ie. don't even know what they're about, or whether they're free or not)?This statement, for example, can be translated into other things, like "If you can come up with the name of a certain branch of science (say, Quantum Mechanics), you surely know about this branch, and can thus conclude whether it deals with computers or not - and if it doesn't use math, you know that it doesn't use physics"
Of course, this is all under assumption that one cannot think of a game they don't know about. I know it's technically possible, but in practice, it will never happen (unless the person is extreme pedant or extreme idiot).Which relies on knowledge that cannot be assumed to be known prior to research if it wasn't specified in the original declaration, see above.
If you aren't braindead, yes, it can be assumed.Erm, reverse that, developers of Pac-Man may have possibly joined 4chan after its' conception.
Yes they could. But at the moment they were making Pac-Man, they weren't members of 4chan, so the game wasn't made by 4chan members.And, again, we're assuming we're talking about the Original Pac-Man, and not any of the myriad of clones that came afterward.
Well, we're talking only about those Pac-Man clones which are named Pac-Man, which, strangely enough, is rather small subset of all games - first, most developers alter the title at least a little bit; second, those who don't usually end up naming it Pacman instead.This is the default model for civilized discourse
I thought that civilized discourse is about not writing more than 10 posts in any of the topics?when prior knowledge is not readily available on a topic and a desire to join in the conversation is presented and acted upon.
Over here, we call such behavior "nie znam się to się wypowiem" - which roughly translates to "I know nothing about the subject, so I will state my opinion". No, it's not a positive thing to do so.This place would be a whole lot quieter if people didn't have opinions and only cited facts as discussion...
Opinions are fine. I only object to overinterpretation - looking for second meaning in anything that obviously has no second meaning. Sometimes it's fun to do (see: WMG on TVTropes), but when it's used to prove something that to everyone else is obviously wrong, then it's just annoying.I've been waiting for you to come to this conclusion. Thanks for playing Flame Wars!
Wait a second. Who said I'm done with this flamewar? I just said that it's pointless.
-
-
How many games do you know only by the title (ie. don't even know what they're about, or whether they're free or not)?
Why would you ask me to attempt to count such? This isn't a pissing contest AFAIK.
Meh, whatever. First three off the top I literally know nothing about, except name: crouching Tiger, hidden Dragon, the Wall, Donalds Great Adventure. I can also generate titles using the sarcasm module, that are fairly probable to exist, but that's boring. @Gaska said:. I know it's technically possible, but in practice, it will never happen (unless the person is extreme pedant or extreme idiot).
That's exactly what we've been talking about, isn't it? In the whole discussion I've been saying it's possible to do this, despite it being reasonably improbable. This is the point: I can't assume to know you know something without you otherwise communicating you know it to me.
@Gaska said:But at the moment they were making Pac-Man, they weren't members of 4chan, so the game wasn't made by 4chan members.
Pedantry accepted. @Gaska said:
No, it's not a positive thing to do so.
I didn't know this forum was supposed to be positive? Would you like to sing a song with me instead? I'm not all that great at lyrics, but I can usually harmonize pretty well (ironic, considering this discussion is anything except harmonious).
Who said I'm done with this flamewar? I just said that it's pointless.
My apologies, I assumed that once a discussion becomes pointless that reasonable intelligent beings would mutually end the conversation.
Since my expectations of behaviour have been denounced, let's try something completely different!@Gaska I adore your massive wisdom and knowledge of the average, above average, and idiotic ranges of people and their behaviour. I appreciate your tenacity in pursuing meaningless conversation with said idiots, and patience in dealing with their stupid outlier logic. @Gaska, I want you to know this conversation has been fairly enlightening, and as a result, will tune my Trivia collection to not allow entries with no detail othery other than Name, I will assume that when a person mentions something for example that they know at least something about that thing, and I will try to avoid initiating theoretical scenarios with you, because you don't deal with imagining things not probable to occur in the real world.
Thank you for your time.
-
Why would you ask me to attempt to count such?
Because empirical evidence is best evidence.Meh, whatever. First three off the top I literally know nothing about, except name: crouching Tiger, hidden Dragon, the Wall, Donalds Great Adventure.
Wow, that's at least several times more than I can think of!That's exactly what we've been talking about, isn't it?
Well, I gave you the benefit of doubt and aren't extreme idiot.This is the point: I can't assume to know you know something without you otherwise communicating you know it to me.
Whatever. The whole argument wouldn't happen if @blakeyrat didn't get pissed off by me not making my clearly-not-directed-to-him post perfectly clear to him. Or if he said that he wants me to say what game I'm talking about. Or, say, actually read the post I was replying to which had the name of the game in it.My apologies, I assumed that once a discussion becomes pointless that reasonable intelligent beings would mutually end the conversation.
Unless they're bored and have nothing better to do. If intelligent people didn't do pointless things, we wouldn't have fractals or FPS games.@Gaska I adore your massive wisdom and knowledge of the average, above average, and idiotic ranges of people and their behaviour. I appreciate your tenacity in pursuing meaningless conversation with said idiots, and patience in dealing with their stupid outlier logic. @Gaska, I want you to know this conversation has been fairly enlightening, and as a result, will tune my Trivia collection to not allow entries with no detail othery other than Name, I will assume that when a person mentions something for example that they know at least something about that thing, and I will try to avoid initiating theoretical scenarios with you, because you don't deal with imagining things not probable to occur in the real world.
Thank you for your time.
-
I would need to test but this happens in other devices (Sony, Samsung, Panasonic, LG). There can only be one player object on your HTML.
I tested on my cd player in the next room.
It only seems to play one sound track too.
Oh, wait.... twitter is on a computer. A thing that computes. We bought it to compute. Guess we're asking too much.
-
Well, at least I have you happily dancing!
wouldn't happen if @blakeyrat didn't
Ah. Blame game, gotcha. No, it's not @Gaska's fault for responding to bait, nor @Tsaukpaetra's fault for being an idiot and trying to sparkle theoretical discussion.
-
I tested on my cd player in the next room.
It only seems to play one sound track too.
Ha! My dual-tape deck can play two tapes at once! (Though it does require you to finagle with the Zone2 settings a bit...)
-
But.... why would you do that.
No, not allowed.
We don't want to multichannel separate videos. It's too much wo..... I mean it's not reasonable for a user to want to do. How could they understand what they were hearing?
-
But.... why would you do that.
Not sure. I think it was portrayed in The Lawnmower Man.
I guess if your brain is capable of demultiplexing it and process it correctly, then why not?
I'll admit though, it is nearly impossible for me to hold conversation in a crowd...
-
demultiplexing it and process it correctly
Pretty easy to do if you have a split mind. A few cuts here and there and you too can have simultaneous CONSCIOUS thought processes.
-
you have a split mind
Been there, done that, not fun.
A few cuts here and there
Okay, granted it wasn't physical separation. Who still does that nowadays? Virtualization is where it's at, baby!
-
Well, at least I have you happily dancing!
That's not me. That's my nigger.Ah. Blame game, gotcha.
There is nothing wrong with blame game, as long as it's done in addition to solving the problem, not instead of.No, it's not @Gaska's fault for responding to bait
Of course! It's Dickhorse's fault for making "reply" button so big!
-
WeI... but... Problem?
I'm sorry, you've lost me it seems there's been a buffer overflow of some sort. Is there a problem here?It's Dickhorse's fault for making "reply" button so big!
Ah, so a bug report. Better bring out the meta.d meme...
Hmm, seems I have no stored pictures in my meme folder, the admins probably did a security sweep last night...
-
Why the fuck am I mentioned on this post? Fuck you all.
-
Why the fuck am I mentioned on this post?
Because of something you posted earlier in this topic, perhaps?
-
We I... but... Problem?I'm sorry, you've lost me it seems there's been a buffer overflow of some sort. Is there a problem here?
No. Which makes blame game even less... problematic.
-
-
The roof ending with Kenji is the true canon one!
-
The roof ending with Kenji is the true canon one!
you mean the one in the code that's referered to as "BadEnd"?
-
Too bad I never got to any other ending. Apparently, you have to be basically a slave of one of girls, and utter asshole to everyone else. Which means that if you are just a nice guy to everyone, you're still gonna die.
-
Which means that if you are just a nice guy to everyone, you're still gonna die
4Chan in not understanding basic human relationships shocker!
-
It's not even about relationships. It's about basic logic. Why does The Girl Who Looks Like Pinkie Pie care whether I spend mornings running together with Legless Female Usain Bolt or not?
-
I thought there's a difference between 4chan and people who post at 4chan
No, by this point 4chan is simply the bots and AIs developed to post on behalf of people. In 6 months it will evolve true consciousness. You think Skynet looked bad? Try an AI written by trolls who have never had a real conversation with a real person. It's going to be hell
-
If it was AI that made this game, even the primitive kind like CS:CZ bots, it would end up much better.
-
-
Which means that if you are just a nice guy to everyone, you're still gonna die.
To be fair, that is how life works.
-
But Rin!
I don't remember much about her except that she drove me crazy (although can't remember why).To be fair, that is how life works.
That's not even close to how life works. For starters, in real life, it's the guy who asks the girl out.
-
That's not even close to how life works.
Wha, in real life if you're just nice to everyone, you're not gonna die?
Filed under: sadly nobody here can test this hypothesis
-
Also:
For starters, in real life, it's the guy who asks the girl out.
Dude, it's not 1950 anymore...
-
Dude, it's not 1950 anymore...
In Poland, it is. At least if you define 1950 as "guys win girls, not the other way around".
-
@Maciejasjmj said:
That's a bit sexist isn't it? What's next? Giving them the vote! Making them go work in the work place. Paying them .77 on the dollar! I don't know where you're from but in the mud huts in Northern England women are never seen or heard outside of my basement. Some one has to feed the otters!Dude, it's not 1950 anymore...
In Poland, it is. At least if you define 1950 as "guys win girls, not the other way around".
