search of the:   for: 
code logs -> 2010 -> Wed, 08 Sep 2010< code.20100907.log - code.20100909.log >
--- Log opened Wed Sep 08 00:00:27 2010
00:03 You're now known as TheWatcher[zZzZ]
00:10 cpux is now known as cpux[angrydome]
00:17 cpux[angrydome] [chatzilla@Nightstar-20a84089.dyn.optonline.net] has quit [[NS] Quit: ChatZilla 0.9.86 [Firefox 3.6.8/20100722155716]]
00:33 cpux[angrydome] [chatzilla@Nightstar-20a84089.dyn.optonline.net] has joined #code
00:45 AnnoDomini [annodomini@Nightstar-0e71a8ff.adsl.tpnet.pl] has quit [[NS] Quit: leaving]
00:58 Thaqui [Thaqui@27B34E.D54D49.F53FA1.6A113C] has joined #code
01:01 Tarinaky [Tarinaky@Nightstar-f349ca6d.plus.com] has quit [Client closed the connection]
01:02 Vornicus-Latens is now known as Vornicus
01:58 gnolam [lenin@Nightstar-38637aa0.priv.bahnhof.se] has quit [[NS] Quit: Z?]
02:43 Rhamphoryncus [rhamph@Nightstar-bbc709c4.abhsia.telus.net] has joined #code
03:11 Thaqui [Thaqui@27B34E.D54D49.F53FA1.6A113C] has quit [Client closed the connection]
03:27 celticminstrel [celticminstre@Nightstar-f8b608eb.cable.rogers.com] has quit [[NS] Quit: And lo! The computer falls into a deep sleep, to awake again some other day!]
03:29 Reiv is now known as Orthia
03:45 cpux[angrydome] is now known as cpux]
03:45 cpux] is now known as cpux
03:48 cpux [chatzilla@Nightstar-20a84089.dyn.optonline.net] has quit [[NS] Quit: ChatZilla 0.9.86 [Firefox 3.6.8/20100722155716]]
04:02 cpux [chatzilla@Nightstar-c978de34.dyn.optonline.net] has joined #code
04:02 Alek [omegaboot@Nightstar-8f41d887.il.comcast.net] has quit [[NS] Quit: ]
04:09 Alek [omegaboot@Nightstar-8f41d887.il.comcast.net] has joined #code
05:36 Thaqui [Thaqui@27B34E.D54D49.F53FA1.6A113C] has joined #code
05:37 cpux is now known as shade_of_cpux
05:41!Deepthought.NY.US.Nightstar.Net *** Reiver invited ilovefire into the channel
05:41 ilovefire [santros_vexan@9FC3E4.302C78.2139AD.36C0B1] has joined #code
05:42<~Reiver> Vornicus: Well he's here now
05:42<~Reiver> And I think what ILF wants
05:42<~Reiver> is a comparative model of the successes you get at X dice of difficulty Y.
05:42<~Reiver> So he can see, for example, how many dice being added is equivalent to a difficulty being dropped from 5+ to 4+.
05:42
< ilovefire>
Yes
05:42
< ilovefire>
basically
05:43
< Vornicus>
Aha! Okay that I can handle.
05:43<~Reiver> This being a useful guideline for comparative power - and also just what die pools make for a nice starting point in 'expected maximums'.
05:44<~Reiver> (AKA: We get the mechanics playing Nicely when two people who are both Good at doing something are doing it to each other, and then just how things behave differently when the die pools are smaller.)
05:45
< ilovefire>
Quite
05:46<~Reiver> Indeed, if it turns out that, eg, TimeSpinners are much better at taking something they suck at and making it Awesome, it's probably okay if topline Fatespinners are thus the better combatants - Timespinners are all about rigging matters anyway, afterall. Fatespinners are all about the glorious chaos of improv.
05:47<~Reiver> (I made that example up.)
05:47 * Vornicus fiddles.
05:48 * Rhamphoryncus violins
05:49 * Reiver dueling banjos.
05:49 * Reiver wins, because no-one else even wants to compete.
05:49
< ilovefire>
(Basically, Fatespinners can reduce difficulty, either in what's needed to get the success, or the number of successes needed. Timespinners add dice. Lots of dice. I'm not sure if they should be able to make dice explode or not, but they do need a way to do Impossible challenges.)
05:49 * ilovefire grins at Reiver.
05:49 * Vornicus outbanjos Reiver.
05:49
< ilovefire>
You forget what state I'm from, BOY?
05:49 * ilovefire CHALLENGE!
05:49 * Vornicus (used to) play banjo in real life.
05:49<~Reiver> ahahaha. Awesome.
05:50<~Reiver> ILF: I think they rig the Impossible by having exactly the right thing on hand.
05:50<~Reiver> Shooting down a soaring bird with a rock? Impossible.
05:50<~Reiver> Hell of a lot easier if you can pull a pistol out of your pocket, though.
05:50 * ilovefire nods
05:51<~Reiver> Other than that, I'd be inclined to rig Trivial as 2+ and Impossible as 6+. These would be difficulties that Are Not Normal, and a GM Should Never Set.
05:51 * ilovefire nods
05:51
< ilovefire>
And the way I have it set up, it is easier for Timespinners for get what they need. After all, they just have to plan to do it six hours ago right now.
05:51<~Reiver> (The reason for this is because 2+ and 6+ have a seriously different probability curve to 3+-5+.)
05:51
< ilovefire>
Fatespinners have to actually figure out something that *fits the narrative*, in troping terms
05:52<~Reiver> These two extra difficulties mostly exist because of Magic.
05:52<~Reiver> "I want to do X!" "You can't." "So that's an Impossible starting difficulty then?" "... Yes."
05:52 * ilovefire nods
05:53
< Vornicus>
Aiegjeezus
05:55<~Reiver> Vorn: Explodifications?
05:55
< Vornicus>
Yeah, but I just figured out I was Doing It Wrong, hang on.
05:55<~Reiver> haha, was gonna say.
05:56
< Vornicus>
...not as bad as I thought, but still pretty bad.
05:57<~Reiver> Vorn: No real comparison between 'em?
05:57
< Vornicus>
For a 1-success thing, Fatespinner's hard->easy is a little bit worse than a Timespinner /tripling/ his dice.
05:58<~Reiver> Huh. Awesome.
05:58
< ilovefire>
hmm
05:59<~Reiver> This would make sense, mind.
05:59<~Reiver> 1/3 to 2/3 odds
05:59<~Reiver> Ssssooo
06:00
< Vornicus>
Hard -> Medium is a little more temperate: 66% more dice is an approximate match.
06:00<~Reiver> That would mean then that hm
06:00<~Reiver> If, let's go with I dunno 6 dice it sounds fun
06:00
< Vornicus>
(the Aiegjeezus was when I was getting an 800)
06:00<~Reiver> To go one step easier, the Timespinner would be needing to add +4d?
06:00
< Vornicus>
Reiver: From hard to easy, yes.
06:01<~Reiver> Hard to Medium, or Hard to Easy?
06:01
< Vornicus>
Oh, sorry, that's hard to medium.
06:01<~Reiver> Hmm.
06:02<~Reiver> But it would be like adding +12d to compare to Hard to Easy.
06:02<~Reiver> Am I right so far?
06:02<~Reiver> (Though I admit that's slightly surprising in a way - I had expected it to be one of them curves like my setup where each die added drastically improves your odds of success. Not as much as altering the target value, I suppose?)
06:03<~Reiver> [Impossible is 6+], Hard is 5+, Medium is 4+, Easy is 3+, [Trivial is 2+]. [Squarebracket values don't come up naturally, because they're even worse in this sort of math]
06:03
< Vornicus>
+10d H-E
06:03<~Reiver> Wow.
06:03<~Reiver> Hmm.
06:03<~Reiver> Perhaps rethinking slightly then
06:04<~Reiver> although wait
06:04<~Reiver> hum.
06:04
< Vornicus>
I-H is +7, H-M is +4, M-E is +4, E-T is +4
06:04
< Vornicus>
I-M is +17, H-E is +10, M-T is +10
06:05<~Reiver> Impressive.
06:05<~Reiver> Still, not actually that much of a problem... hm...
06:05<~Reiver> We let Fatespinners do it cheaply then, I suppose. And make two-step reductions Bloody Expensive for a Fatespinner.
06:05
< Vornicus>
I-E +30, H-T +21, I-T +53
06:06
< Vornicus>
This is one-success challenges.
06:06<~Reiver> Okay.
06:06<~Reiver> It gets worse or better as the challenges increase?
06:06
< Vornicus>
Haven't calculated, let me see.
06:07<~Reiver> OK!
06:07 * Vornicus rejiggers.
06:07<~Reiver> Still, +4 dice is not actually that bad
06:07<~Reiver> It could end up that Timespinners can do Minor Tweaking, while Fatespinners are either "I trust in fate" or "SHUT UP I SAID SO" with relatively less delineation.
06:08<~Reiver> (BTW ilovefire: Vorn here? Totally and Already getting a Special Thanks.)
06:08
< ilovefire>
(God yes.)
06:08<~Reiver> (Just for that bit of math alone~)
06:09
< ilovefire>
The way I was planning it initially, idly, was as thus: a Fatespinner spends one point of weaving to reduce the difficulty by one, or reduce the number of successes required by one.
06:09
< ilovefire>
Timespinners get +2 dice on a roll for each point of Exertion they gain.
06:11
< Vornicus>
Yeah, that's not quite matching.
06:12
< ilovefire>
Vorn: Yes, i realize this now. But that was the initial setup.
06:12
< ilovefire>
So... what should be matching? (Bearing in mind that spending weaving/gaining exertion is equal)
06:14
< Vornicus>
Oh, mother of god this is gonna suck.
06:15 * Vornicus isn't sure how to get the appropriate timespinner numbers when it's more complicated like this!
06:16<~Reiver> ILF: I seriously suggest you stop trying to come up with costings before we know the differences :)
06:16<~Reiver> OK, Vorn
06:16
< ilovefire>
Reiv: Well, like everything else, these are placeholders to work my mind around until we figure out the real numbers.
06:16<~Reiver> Is the problem working out just how they line up for Difficulty 2 for a start?
06:17
< Vornicus>
No, that's relatively easy.
06:17
< Vornicus>
It's that I'm using a binomial distribution to figure it out, and the numbers don't line up nearly as nicely!
06:21<~Reiver> Oh dear
06:21<~Reiver> It shifts as the dice pools increase, I suppose?
06:21
< Vornicus>
Well, not necessarily.
06:22
< Vornicus>
But it probably will.
06:22
< Vornicus>
More dice means a higher success count in general.
06:23 * Vornicus fiddles with it. Can I...
06:26 Stalker [Z@3A600C.A966FF.5BF32D.8E7ABA] has quit [Ping timeout: 121 seconds]
06:33
< Vornicus>
sigh, doing it by hand, fine.
06:34
< Vornicus>
Oh, very interesting.
06:35
< ilovefire>
Oh?
06:35
< Vornicus>
One level: I +7, H +3, M +3, E +3
06:35
< Vornicus>
Two levels: I +15, H +9, M +9
06:35
< Vornicus>
Three levels: I +27, H +18
06:35
< Vornicus>
Four levels: +48
06:36
< Vornicus>
(this is for two successes)
06:36
< Vornicus>
(at six dice)
06:38
< Vornicus>
So with higher success counts, timespinners do it better than fatespinners.
06:40
< Vornicus>
But for "impossible" tasks, fatespinners do it better than timespinners.
06:42<~Reiver> ... you know, that's kinda awesome.
06:42<~Reiver> Does it go on like this for three successes? Four?
06:42<~Reiver> If so, that's a pretty badass mechanic.
06:43<~Reiver> Timespinners are more reliable. Fatespinners can aim for the stars and pray like fuck.
06:43<~Reiver> (And thus totally ruin the Timespinners plans~)
06:43
< Vornicus>
It appears to continue in this fashion, yes.
06:47
< Vornicus>
The improvement appears to get less pronounced.
06:47
< Vornicus>
Oh, I messed up the 2 success one a bit: one level, H, is +4.
06:47
< Vornicus>
At 3 successes, it's 6/3/3/3, 14/8/8, 24/16, 42
06:48<~Reiver> This is... interesting
06:48<~Reiver> It suggests perhaps that Fatespinners are better off tweaking the little stuff, or shooting for the impossible
06:48<~Reiver> While the timespinners are better off in the middle - slowing down in difficult situations to take their time and do it *properly*, but only when you really need it.
06:49
< Vornicus>
With more analysis I could do something better but as it is I have too much math and not enough brain right now.
06:49<~Reiver> Dude, this is /fine/
06:49<~Reiver> And you are /awesome/
06:49
< ilovefire>
Quite
06:49<~Reiver> Thank you :D
06:49
< ilovefire>
yues
06:49
< ilovefire>
God yes
06:49
< ilovefire>
above all other things, yes.
06:49<~Reiver> It sounds to me like a workable middle ground for starting point is that it's 1 Mana to drop a difficulty by 1... or add 3-4 dice to a roll.
06:49<~Reiver> So perhaps 3-4 dice is how much Aim can help you out by if you spend a turn on it.
06:50
< ilovefire>
(I may include a still-at-large, or perhaps once-destroyed-but-it-took-a-hell-of-a-lot Unreal named after you, Vorn. You're that awesome. You deserve it. And monies.)
06:50 * ilovefire nods
06:50
< Vornicus>
The further analysis would likely show that lower-skill timespinners should spend the same mana to get fewer dice.
06:50<~Reiver> That's an interesting point.
06:51<~Reiver> And actually quite an ingenious one
06:51<~Reiver> You get a lot more out of aiming for a second if you're already an expert than if you're still a newbie, afterall.
06:51<~Reiver> And that could possibly help deal with fatespinners too
06:53 * ilovefire nods
06:53
< Vornicus>
Fatespinners won't need this -- since fatespinning does the same thing no matter your skill level.
06:54<~Reiver> Vorn: Yeah, but how much would a fatespinners odds change if they can take a low level of skill, and then take an Aim action in order to get themselves lots of dice, then fatespin *that*?
06:54
< Vornicus>
What the fuck?
06:54<~Reiver> Er.
06:55<~Reiver> OK, let us pretend for the immediate moment for clarity purposes
06:55<~Reiver> That aim is +4 dice, and our Fatespinner has Skill 2; he sucks.
06:55<~Reiver> Rather than trying to Fatespin his two dice, which is not likely to work, he Aims to get 6, /then/ fatespins them.
06:56<~Reiver> I suspect this is a rather dramatic improvement in... efficiency, I suppose is the best way to call it
06:56
< Vornicus>
I was under the impression that Aim is something Timespinners do.
06:56<~Reiver> I think we had intended that Aim was a generally available action in the game.
06:56<~Reiver> Timespinners blow a point to Aim the same turn they do their turn.
06:57<~Reiver> (Think 3.0 Haste. "I blow a point to Aim. Then I shoot him.")
06:57
< Vornicus>
Thing is that if Fatespinners can aim too, then they're waaay too powerful.
06:57<~Reiver> Yeah, that was my thought
06:57<~Reiver> Even if it means they've slowed down to every second round.
06:57<~Reiver> The Fatespinner in this case just spent one turn using Aim. Then on his /next/ turn, he fired at 6 dice.
06:57
< ilovefire>
Perhaps Aim isn't so big.
06:57
< ilovefire>
Perhaps Aim adds one dice per round used.
06:58
< ilovefire>
Timespinners just... condense those rounds down. Alot.
06:58
< Vornicus>
Oh, and that's essentially /two/ levels of ease added on to a one-success challenge there.
06:58<~Reiver> Right.
06:58<~Reiver> (Sorry, I had presumed we were implying that Timespinners were Aiming in the same round they Acted, while the Fatespinner was blowing two rounds to Aim, then Spin.)
06:59<~Reiver> (We were insufficiently clear. Apologies!)
06:59
< Vornicus>
Or, we could make it so Fatespinners can't aim and Fate on the same action.
06:59<~Reiver> Hm.
06:59<~Reiver> So you can't line up a shot, then do something improbable next turn?
06:59<~Reiver> Interesting.
07:00<~Reiver> Perhaps it ruins the spontaneity~
07:00
< Vornicus>
The Fate move relies on chaos and the unexpected. Decreasing entropy by deliberation causes Fate to not work.
07:00<~Reiver> However, we should probably analyse this when we're not all so tired
07:00
< Vornicus>
Probably.
07:00
< ilovefire>
Quite, it's 2 AM here and I should go to bed, as I have to be up in 8 hours for class in the morning
07:00<~Reiver> But it's worth keeping in mind.
07:00<~Reiver> ILF? Do you have these sketched notes scribbled down? Including Vorns numbers?
07:02
< Vornicus>
Similarly, the Time move can really throw off your physics - remember, you get slowed down too, you can just react to the world faster - so Aim doesn't match with Time either.
07:02
< ilovefire>
Reiv: Yes, and if I lose that, I log *everything*
07:03
< ilovefire>
Which reminds me I should clean my logs out sometime, I have something like two gigs worth of logs. ;>>
07:03
< ilovefire>
Anyway. I'm going to bed. Thanks a bundle, Vorn.
07:04
< Vornicus>
ni
07:04<~Reiver> Vorn: Think of it as subtle superspeed.
07:04 ilovefire [santros_vexan@9FC3E4.302C78.2139AD.36C0B1] has quit [[NS] Quit: That's a bed.]
07:04<~Reiver> Except you're not actively racing around, you're just steadying your hand and timing the trigger pulls better, etc.
07:06
< Vornicus>
Right.
07:07
< Vornicus>
The physical you gets slowed down too -- so the muscle movements you need take some refocusing to deal with effectively.
07:07<~Reiver> Sure, but that's not hard for a Timespinner
07:07<~Reiver> Who can also pull off literal superspeed if they really want.
07:07
< Vornicus>
Hm
07:07<~Reiver> By moving at normal speed while everyone else is in slow motion.
07:08<~Reiver> Obviously, to the outsider, the relative speeds are a little... different.
07:08<~Reiver> And also, they're trained in stuff.
07:08<~Reiver> Mostly it's being able to time the reflexes, and, y'know
07:08<~Reiver> Being able to slow yourself as well as everyone else down long enough for your brain to catch up is useful too.
07:20
< Vornicus>
So anyway: aiming should give more dice the higher your skill; so too should timespinning. Fatespinning should always cost the same amount. I'm pretty sure neither fatespinning nor timespinning should benefit from Aim itself, but I can't figure out how to fluff the latter.
07:21
< Vornicus>
Limiting both fatespinning /and/ timespinning to one usage per action is probably a good idea.
07:27
< Vornicus>
(if you do make it possible to use two of them, they should drastically increase in price for that.)
07:31<~Reiver> The only time you'd use both together are the Otherless
07:31<~Reiver> Who are the disciples of the Elderitch Horrors.
07:31<~Reiver> They get to do awesome shit
07:31<~Reiver> And also blow themselves up a lot.
07:32
< Vornicus>
No, I mean, using Fate twice or Time twice.
07:32<~Reiver> Oh right
07:32<~Reiver> Eg using Fate to go from Hard to Easy?
07:32
< Vornicus>
yah.
07:32<~Reiver> Right.
07:32<~Reiver> That was part of the plan, so this is good.
07:36<~Reiver> Hum. By how much, Vorn?
07:36
< Alek>
what is
07:37
< Alek>
this game sounds interesting.
07:37<~Reiver> If one shift is 1 point, should two shifts be 3?
07:37
< Vornicus>
By how much, what, cost increases for doubling up usage? Idunno.
07:38
< Vornicus>
The second point could cost 3 I guess.
07:38
< Alek>
a touch of Matrix, a touch of Wanted...
07:38
< Alek>
a touch of Push?
07:39<~Reiver> Alek: Indeed.
07:39<~Reiver> Certainly a fair bit of Matrix in it.
07:39<~Reiver> And that silly one where they curve bullets.
07:40 Netsplit *.net <-> *.split quits: Orthia, Vornicus, PinkFreud, @Kazriko, @jerith, Thaqui, Alek, JBeshir, shade_of_cpux, SmithKurosaki
07:41 Netsplit over, joins: Thaqui
07:41 Vornicus [Vorn@ServerAdministrator.Nightstar.Net] has joined #code
07:41 Netsplit over, joins: PinkFreud, SmithKurosaki, JBeshir
07:41 mode/#code [+o Vornicus] by Reiver
07:42 Netsplit over, joins: Kazriko
07:42 jerith [jerith@ServerAdministrator.Nightstar.Net] has joined #code
07:42 Netsplit over, joins: Orthia, shade_of_cpux, Alek
07:42 ServerMode/#code [+oo Kazriko jerith] by *.Nightstar.Net
07:43
<@Vornicus>
Possibly. Or 4. I don't know, that's a question that depends on such things as "how many mana do you get" and "how many actions will you take between getting more mana"
07:43
<@Vornicus>
Alek: a game ILF is making.
07:43
< Alek>
gathered. >_>
07:51<~Reiver> The game is nominally named Of Time and Fate, and is a homebrew setting and ruleset with ilovefire as the creative controller, and, er, like four or five of us are seriously working on with him.
07:52<~Reiver> Generally buffeting hiw with nerfbats as we theorycraft a lovely continuity then get him to remember it from day to day. :P
07:54<~Reiver> btw: Just how much /are/ these modifiers changing the odds?
08:06
<@Vornicus>
Hard, vs 1 fatespun, give 64% vs 89% on 6 dice for 2 successes.
08:15
<@Vornicus>
God, shoot me.
08:15
<@Vornicus>
I'
08:16
<@Vornicus>
m looking at this and going "hey, there's a third mechanic here"
08:17<~Reiver> Dropping the number of needed successes?
08:17
<@Vornicus>
no, rerolls.
08:17<~Reiver> Oh yes
08:17<~Reiver> That was another thing we were pondering for Timespinners
08:18<~Reiver> But I didn't want to poke you about that tonight lest you exploded. >_>
08:18<~Reiver> Also while it's Obviously(tm) a timespinner trick... it might not be too.
08:18
<@Vornicus>
And so then I got to going "okay, now I've got a third source somewhere"
08:19<~Reiver> Haha. We could have the Orderless use a totally different mechanic, halfway between the other two, instead of merely using both horribly...
08:28
<@Vornicus>
mmmm, allow rerolls on things that get close to the target number. :P
08:34
<@Vornicus>
...doesn't actually work as well as fatespinning.
08:34 Zed [Zed@Nightstar-556ea8b5.or.comcast.net] has joined #code
08:37<~Reiver> Interesting.
08:37<~Reiver> I am vaugely tempted to leave rerolls in the hands of Narrativium, if we choose to have it.
08:37<~Reiver> It'd be nice to have a "Player wants this" button that isn't already handled by the in-verse mechanics.
08:37<~Reiver> But I'm not sure how it'd interact with the two powers. Is one favored?
08:39
<@Vornicus>
Hm?
08:40
<@Vornicus>
what, for rerolls? Fatespinners. Higher entropy means more potential benefit from rerolls.
08:42<~Reiver> Interesting.
08:42<~Reiver> I had kind of actually expected the other direction - Timespinners allowing it to protect them from entropy.
08:44
<@Vornicus>
Timespinners have "higher entropy" but it cuts the wrong way: you're less likely to get a particular /exact/ number of successes, but your average goes up faster.
08:44
<@Vornicus>
Faster than your spread increases, that is.
08:45<~Reiver> aha.
08:45<~Reiver> Best left out then?
08:45
<@Vornicus>
(to wit: a single 6-sided die will reasonably come up with anything in its range; a million 6-sided dice have a 1 in a billion chance, /total/, of falling outside of 3.5M +/- 10k)
08:46<~Reiver> awesome.
08:47
<@Vornicus>
Well, idunno. As third mechanic it might possibly come up with something, but it feels less powerful than fatespinning or timespinning.
08:48 * simon_ sits and solves propositional logic sequents, and they're easy as pie until I stumble across one that just baffles me.
08:49
< simon_>
~(~p|~q) |- p I'm not sure how to even start.
08:50
< simon_>
ah, I think I might know.
08:50
< simon_>
~(~p|~q) must somehow lead to ~~p|~~q.
08:50
< EvilDarkLord>
What's |- here?
08:51
< simon_>
EvilDarkLord, it's called a turnstile, and "p |- q" means "p proves q"
08:52
<@Vornicus>
~p|~q = ~(p&q)
08:52
<@jerith>
By De Morgan, ~(~p|~q) => p&q
08:52
<@Vornicus>
<3 De Morgan
08:52
< simon_>
Vornicus, sorry, I meant ~(p|~q) must lead to ~~p&~~q, of course.
08:53
< simon_>
yeah, De Morgan is excellent. this is a bit more low-level. my previous assignment was about proving De Morgan's law. :P
08:53
<@Vornicus>
If you've just proven it, Use It.
08:53
< simon_>
ooh! :)
08:53
< simon_>
thanks.
08:53<~Reiver> Vorn: How much goes crazy
08:53
< simon_>
I've wanted to do that, but forgot.
08:53
<@Vornicus>
Euclid's proposition 2 depends directly on proposition 1.
08:53<~Reiver> If you only reroll failures?
08:54
<@Vornicus>
Reiver: well, then it's... still not technically as powerful as timespinning.
08:54 * jerith uses De Morgan all the time.
08:54
< EvilDarkLord>
jerith: Do you get to use logic programming in work?
08:54
< simon_>
sorry, isn't (p&q)|(p&r) |- p&(q|r) also De Morgan?
08:54
<@jerith>
Although I usually comment it when it's non-obvious.
08:54
<@Vornicus>
No, that's the distributive property.
08:55
< simon_>
that's the one I proved.
08:55
< simon_>
ah.
08:55
< simon_>
right.
08:55
<@jerith>
EvilDarkLord: There are places in my code where I need to test multiple conditions.
08:55
<@jerith>
De Morgan's particularly handy when you get to use short-circuiting as well.
08:56 * EvilDarkLord nod.
08:56<~Reiver> Vorn: Huh. Cool.
08:56<~Reiver> Good to know, cheers.
08:57
<@jerith>
Mostly, I use it to turn weird conditions into things I can throw at any() and all().
09:02 Vorn_ [Vorn@Nightstar-d6447053.wlfrct.sbcglobal.net] has joined #code
09:03 Vornicus [Vorn@ServerAdministrator.Nightstar.Net] has quit [NickServ (GHOST command used by Vorn_)]
09:04 Vorn_ is now known as Vornicus
09:04 Netsplit *.net <-> *.split quits: Orthia, PinkFreud, @Kazriko, @jerith, Thaqui, Alek, shade_of_cpux, Zed, SmithKurosaki, JBeshir
09:10 Thaqui [Thaqui@27B34E.D54D49.F53FA1.6A113C] has joined #code
09:10 Zed [Zed@Nightstar-556ea8b5.or.comcast.net] has joined #code
09:10 PinkFreud [WhyNot@NetworkAdministrator.Nightstar.Net] has joined #code
09:10 JBeshir [namegduf@Nightstar-5c10d129.beshir.org] has joined #code
09:10 SmithKurosaki [Smith@Nightstar-e73eb6b0.dsl.teksavvy.com] has joined #code
09:10 Kazriko [kaz@Nightstar-e09690fa.client.bresnan.net] has joined #code
09:10 jerith [jerith@ServerAdministrator.Nightstar.Net] has joined #code
09:10 Orthia [orthianz@Nightstar-0e291fa4.xnet.co.nz] has joined #code
09:10 shade_of_cpux [chatzilla@Nightstar-c978de34.dyn.optonline.net] has joined #code
09:10 Alek [omegaboot@Nightstar-8f41d887.il.comcast.net] has joined #code
09:10 ServerMode/#code [+oo Kazriko jerith] by *.Nightstar.Net
09:16 Anno[Laptop] [annodomini@Nightstar-5e41c789.adsl.tpnet.pl] has joined #code
09:20
< simon_>
why is the following sequent valid? |- ~p -> (p -> (p -> q))
09:20 You're now known as TheWatcher
09:22
< simon_>
I can rewrite it into |- p | (p -> (p -> q)) which seems much more reasonable.
09:22
< simon_>
those propositions are independent.
09:28
< simon_>
this is the strangest argument. :P
09:32
< simon_>
1. ~p (assumption), 2. p (assumption), 3. _|_ (~ elim), 4. p -> q (_|_ elim), 5. p -> (p -> q) (-> insertion), 6. ~p -> (p -> (p -> q))
09:34 Vornicus is now known as Vornicus-Latens
09:46 gnolam [lenin@Nightstar-38637aa0.priv.bahnhof.se] has joined #code
12:01 * TheWatcher really does wonder if some of these programmers actually read their compiler output...
12:04
< gnolam>
University code?
12:05
<@TheWatcher>
Worse, php.
12:06
< gnolam>
PHP actually gives decent warnings now?
12:07 * Reiver sets Moinwiki on fire.
12:10
<@TheWatcher>
gnolam: oh, no, just signed v unsigned comparisons, unused variables, pointer casts, that sort of stuff
12:11 * TheWatcher patpats Reiv
12:12<~Reiver> TW: I cannot find the button to let me back at the changes I made so I can get my document back ;_;
12:12<~Reiver> Why they rig bots to edit a page 317 times in one day...
12:13
<@TheWatcher>
linkme, I'll see if I can sort it?
12:14
<@TheWatcher>
actually, brb, need to reboot 'cos of avast update
12:14<~Reiver> http://vorn.dyndns.org/theonewiki/Epic6
12:14<~Reiver> will relink when you return if needed.
12:15
<@TheWatcher>
nah, irssi is running in screen on daedalus...
12:15<~Reiver> oh, haha, cool
12:19
<@jerith>
Reiver: There are Reasons I stopped using Moin for personal stuff ages ago. :-/
12:19<~Reiver> jerith: Yeah, I noticed
12:20<~Reiver> I'd just like the poor old decrepid wiki locked down, if it all possible, so that it can no longer be so defiled.
12:20<~Reiver> And also not attracting so much distasteful attention.
12:20
<@jerith>
I don't actually use a wiki at all anymore, but I've heard good things about pmwiki if you want to switch.
12:21<~Reiver> I don't terribly care what it is, it's no longer actually Used per se
12:21
<@jerith>
(I just don't have the time to do anything nontrivial on the existing wiki.)
12:21<~Reiver> I just like to pull down old files on it.
12:21<~Reiver> Woe
12:22 * TheWatcher remembers now why he utterly hates moinwiki
12:24 Tarinaky [Tarinaky@Nightstar-f349ca6d.plus.com] has joined #code
12:28
<@jerith>
Reiver: If you can hunt down instructions for requiring login to edit, link them to me and I'll do it.
12:28
<@jerith>
We're on v1.8.1
12:28
<@jerith>
(There's nothing obvious in the config I looked at.)
12:33
<@TheWatcher>
Reiv: I give up. apparently the revision history page will only show the latest 100 edits, although half a dozen places say that "all are accessible by editing the url" none of them actually give any useful information on /what to put there/, and I have stuff to do rather than fight shit software~
12:38
<@jerith>
Bah. I don't have an account on there.
12:38
<@jerith>
I usually edit the config to make myself a superuser when I need to.
12:38
<@jerith>
If you can get to a "revert to this revision" URL, you can replace the revision to rever to.
13:05<~Reiver> TheWatcher: Oh no, it's totally fine and I understand.
13:06<~Reiver> jerith: Revision 1 would do well enough.
13:06<~Reiver> It is not the most recent
13:06<~Reiver> But I had not realised the page was being constnantly assaulted.
13:13
<@TheWatcher>
yeah, two or three revisions were added just as I was trying random query string options
13:13 Thaqui [Thaqui@27B34E.D54D49.F53FA1.6A113C] has quit [Connection closed]
14:00 SmithKurosaki [Smith@Nightstar-e73eb6b0.dsl.teksavvy.com] has quit [Ping timeout: 121 seconds]
14:06 SmithKurosaki [Smith@Nightstar-e73eb6b0.dsl.teksavvy.com] has joined #code
14:41 Stalker [Z@3A600C.A966FF.5BF32D.8E7ABA] has joined #code
15:32 celticminstrel [celticminstre@Nightstar-f8b608eb.cable.rogers.com] has joined #code
16:47 Rhamphoryncus [rhamph@Nightstar-bbc709c4.abhsia.telus.net] has quit [Client exited]
19:30 * gnolam stabs Valve repeatedly.
19:30
< gnolam>
For such a big and respected company, they're really shit at usability.
20:00
< Alek>
what did they do now? :P
20:04
< gnolam>
Taking a break from their godawfully undocumented APIs, I decided to play some L4D2.
20:05
< gnolam>
And, once I had /finally/ found a good server with good players on it (the difficulty of finding which is also a result of Valve's usability decisions, BTW), I lost connection to it after half a round.
20:05
< gnolam>
L4D2 then pops up "Connection lost, retrying" dialog.
20:05
< gnolam>
So far, so good.
20:07
< gnolam>
Except that it attempts to reestablish the connection for 2 whole minutes. Normally, that would just be a bit daft - if you haven't reestablished connection after a couple of seconds, it isn't going to happen.
20:08
< gnolam>
But... the "Connection lost" dialog is modal to the point of preventing you from exiting to the menu.
20:08
< gnolam>
So you either have to wait for two full minutes or go Task Manager->Kill With Fire.
20:09
< gnolam>
+a
20:13 shade_of_cpux [chatzilla@Nightstar-c978de34.dyn.optonline.net] has quit [Client closed the connection]
20:13 shade_of_cpux [chatzilla@Nightstar-c978de34.dyn.optonline.net] has joined #code
20:45 Chi [omegaboot@Nightstar-8f41d887.il.comcast.net] has joined #code
20:45 Alek [omegaboot@Nightstar-8f41d887.il.comcast.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 121 seconds]
20:58 Chi is now known as Alek
--- Log closed Wed Sep 08 21:18:00 2010
--- Log opened Wed Sep 08 21:18:10 2010
21:18 TheWatcher [chris@Nightstar-b4529b0c.zen.co.uk] has joined #code
21:18 Irssi: #code: Total of 21 nicks [3 ops, 0 halfops, 0 voices, 18 normal]
21:18 mode/#code [+o TheWatcher] by Reiver
21:19 Irssi: Join to #code was synced in 53 secs
21:51 ToxicFrog [ToxicFrog@ServerAdministrator.Nightstar.Net] has quit [Ping timeout: 121 seconds]
21:53 ToxicFrog [ToxicFrog@ServerAdministrator.Nightstar.Net] has joined #code
21:53 mode/#code [+o ToxicFrog] by Reiver
21:54 Derakon [Derakon@Nightstar-1ffd02e6.ucsf.edu] has joined #code
21:54 mode/#code [+o Derakon] by Reiver
21:55
<@Derakon>
Right, you can now upload files, process them, receive emails when they're done processing, and download the processed files, all without having to go anywhere near that icky command line.
21:55
<@Derakon>
All that remains before prime time is adding compression before the network file transfer, and commenting out a processing mode that isn't implemented yet.
23:15
<@Derakon>
Well look at that; compression isn't worth it.
23:15
<@Derakon>
16s to transfer an uncompressed file; 19s to compress it beforehand.
23:18
<@TheWatcher>
What's this for?
23:28
<@Derakon>
I'm slapping a pretty UI around a set of processing programs that only run on a Linux cluster my lab owns.
23:28
<@Derakon>
So the UI basically lets the user pick parameters for the programs and a set of files, then uploads the files to the cluster, invokes the programs with the parameters, and lets the user know when it's done (often several hours later). Then there's a button to let them download the results.
23:32
<@TheWatcher>
Aaah
23:32
<@TheWatcher>
Neat.
23:32
<@Derakon>
Well, I'm glad it works. I just hope the biologists find it useful.
23:43 shade_of_cpux is now known as cpux
23:43 cpux [chatzilla@Nightstar-c978de34.dyn.optonline.net] has quit [Connection closed]
23:43 cpux [chatzilla@Nightstar-c978de34.dyn.optonline.net] has joined #code
23:57 Vornicus-Latens is now known as Vornicus
--- Log closed Thu Sep 09 00:00:00 2010
code logs -> 2010 -> Wed, 08 Sep 2010< code.20100907.log - code.20100909.log >
 search of the:   for: