They could, if they cared to research that much, which many don’t seem to want to do.

I still find the ai program that infers your age based on your age pretty funny :p and it never really get’s it completely.

I don’t know, I’m currently enjoying my break, but maybe I will :) For now I’m doing random acts of sudoku if someone mentions it :)

Okay, so I looked it up. Apparently, you don’t need to guess in proper Sudoku, when there is only one solution

Yup, you got it :)

, but apparently there are also many Sudoku, sometimes printed, which have more than one solution, and so you require guessing.

Yeah, but only where you have come to a place where a 50-50 guess is needed, when you get used to solving good puzzles you learn how to figure it out, and there is a lot of checkers that you can run on puzzles if you’re not sure, and if you find one with multiple solutions you just evade that source.

Also There are known good sources for puzzles, ones that are proper puzzles, so the best choice is just to keep at them.

Also, some sites mention “guessing” as a technique, which I probably took it to mean that you have to do it.

Guessing is used in speedsolving, where they solve the puzzles really fast. Guessing is a valid technique in picross as well, you can just guess if a cell is filled or not, it’s exactly the same in sudoku, you just cheat yourself, and it’s a big likelihood that you made the puzzle unsolveable, personally I find it not very gratifying to guess, so I never do.

Since I believed guessing is required, I would leave the puzzle where I got a bit stuck, assuming this is where I need to guess.

Yeah, some of the techniques, like finned fishes, Alternate inference chains and 3d-Medusa and so on can get a bit involved, so if you haven’t seen them before it’s hard figure them out by yourself. I used to moderate the r/sudoku sub over at reddit, where we used to help people solve a lot of puzzles they were struggling with. But really difficult stuff like that usually aren’t in printed puzzles, they seldomly have anything more complex than an X-wing.

If you want to learn about techinques https://hodoku.sourceforge.net/en/techniques.php is a really good source, and hodoku is a really good solver too in case you want to learn, if you want something online there is https://sudokuwiki.com which is decent as well :)

Thanks for the comment! If I start to like Sudoku again, the blame would be all on you! 😀

Hah, you’re welcome, I’ve been solving for around a decade now, and it’s still fun to me, so at least there is something for it.

You don’t have to guess with sudoku, I’ve done around 15 000 puzzles or so by now, and even the hardest have logic behind them, of course you can guess if you can’t figure out the logic, but every one of them if you get them from a quality source has no guessing, and a single solution.

Ooh, I loved Murder by numbers, bought it full price some time ago, and it was well worth that :D

You’re right that the theory is not about God, but explains the origins of the universe.

How so? I don’t see what you mean here, it doesn’t explain anything, it just builds a level of assumptions on top of something, basically explaining something with an untested hypothesis.

what I said about God is what I think is a logical conclusion.

If you Agree to the premises I guess, but I don’t, so it explains nothing.

If something has a beginning, then it must have been kickstarted somehow.

Then who kickstarted god? Or does he/she/it for some reason get special treatment here? (This is special pleading)

What kickstarted it is by definition its creator.

If I kick a stone down a hill I did not create the stone even though I set it in motion.

And this applies to our universe, in my opinion.

Hmm, I don’t see how you evade an infinite regression here, unless you break your own rules and give one link in the chain an “eternal always existing” modifier. We don’t know that anything eternal exist, or even that our universe isn’t eternal (extisting eternally as a singularity before spreading or a part of a bigger multiverse that we cannot perceive)

It is merely a statement that they must exist.

It is just assuming that something must exist, since you’re building your logic on very shaky premises that we cannot prove.

An effect must have a cause.

Must it? Or have we just never seen the contrary (black swan fallacy) Who caused god? like I said before you can’t get away from that without special pleading.

I apologize for sounding pretentious earlier, that was not my intention, but I can see how it came off as such. And apologize for misunderstanding your intentions as well.

Water under the bridge :) No worries :)

Also I notice you have some downvotes. Just want to clarify that it is not me.

No worries, I don’t care about the votes, interactions are worth way more than someone clicking an arrow :)

But that’s a theory isn’t it? I haven’t seen any scientific theories to gods how do we know anything about a god, much less what the nature of their being? It’s just not based on anything, (therefore my allusions to magic)

I don’t enjoy your tone policing… There are ways to do that without sounding pretentious and holier than though, please keep that in mind for the next time.

Why do you think the universe needs a beginning, but there are special rules for your god because of?.. magic?

Kind of, just that it’s going in short bursts, and has more of a autochess way of upgrading weapons. It’s also nice since each run is around 20 min, feels a bit more strategic and chaotic, and there are a load of characters :)

How likely do you think it is that even with the heavy push anything more than a small percentage of people will switch.

I already pre-bought brotato, which comes out on the 3rd of August, really looking forward to be able to play it on my switch as well :)

It comes in handy for some weird things like this :)

The output seems pretty similar to using

tr -cd '[:graph:]' < /dev/urandom | head -c 256

Which is pretty nice as well :) Basically just take /dev/urandom and throw away everything that isn’t a typeable character :)

maybe, at least it’s something to consider :) Now nothing wrong with liking the language if you do though :) just talking about my misgivings with it.

I was excited by rust, back when it used sigils instead of box and other keywords, it was an exciting language, I had some fun with it, but it wasn’t ready yet, so I went having fun with some of the languages in its family (ocaml, F#) And when I went back to rust some years ago to write a little tool for myself (https://codeberg.org/sotolf/tapet-rust) to try it out, and it was really cumbersome, and ended up rather slow. I really don’t like the rust syntax, and yes, that is kind of shallow, but there are so many bad choices, like a ; not being there rather than a return, it just doesn’t work for me. Error handling is decent, just that it’s syntactically cumbersome unless you use a package like anyerror, there are packages, so many packages, and what you wanted to make that is just a small tool now has 2 Gb + of build artifacts. I later found out about nim, and rewrote the tool in it, and got a more stable faster tool in a 3rd less code (https://codeberg.org/sotolf/tapet-nim) And the way to work in nim just fits me so much better.

The thing about the rust pushing people (They are funnily enough mostly people that haven’t really used it for much yet, but went into the hype) is not that they are exited about a language, sure I can get that, it’s the way they are pushing it, they talk down about other languages, demand people rewriting things in a language they are exited about, I don’t like the slow compilation and the huge stuff. It’s just not me. Don’t get me wrong I know it’s a good language, just too low level for what I (and most people really) need and it getting pushed for places where it’s not really suited, I don’t really think it’s a good thing. There is also this push for cleverness in their libraries and code, and cleverness in code is always a red flag to me. So it’s not you rust, it’s me.

I’ve been using it for 2 years or so, mostly for hobby programming, and I really love it, it’s been great for the kinds of things that I do at least :) Feels great and logical to write, and it’more or less works the same way my mind does, the type system is really good think something like Ada, and it can be both a pretty low level, and high level langauge. YMMV, but I really like it personally.

Aww, the hype got to ya… yeah, seeing it again and again, at least don’t do like everyone else who are starting to shill for the language without even having tried it. I’m just tired of rust activism, so tired.

For me it depends on the size, for small stuff like 1000-2000 lines of code that mainly I just work on alone, something like python is okay, if it is something longer, I miss types a lot.

The thing is nim is more than just a typed python, it just works really well, I’ve had a lot of fun with it the two or so years that I’ve used it.

But then again, I have a lot of fun testing out different languages, and don’t care about marketability, since I’m just programming as a hobby, and not as my profession, right now I’m playing around with picolisp, and it’s pretty fun :)

I was using python for quite a bit, but don’t like how cumbersome their types are, I really fell in love with nim when I was looking for alternatives, it’s an underdog, but personally I really like the langauge.