Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[GavJ]

Okay three more examples, all made by DF players specifically from Bay 12, all labeled in context as learning curves, all have various consistency problems as graphs matched with that title (referring to the non-joke portions of the graphs, obviously). The last one is the only one I hadn't seen before when posting this thread:

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

This is the one that other bay12 posters complained about the axes on immediately after it was posted

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Axes not labeled, or scale, so potentially accurate, but the illustrations imply it is steeper than other games would be plotted, at which point it stops making as much sense with the title. Although it would be an interesting idea to hijack the metaphor by having, for example, this, and then "Angry Birds" as a bird just flying straight upward effortlessly =P

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

 Presumably from the caption, the y axis is "how unfamiliar stuff is" which is a fine axis, and potentially even a sensical (inverse) learning curve, but suffers from the issue that it would need to start out at the TOP, not the bottom, in the beginning, since at time zero, everything is maximally unfamiliar. Also, with each release, it should be a perfect vertical, then taper down slowly again. So axes are fine, but plot doesn't match what he said it means.

[Matt_S]

I will gladly admit one point: improperly labeled graphs are bad.

Communication is meaningless without standardization, so this seems like a minimum requirement.

I disagree (depending on how philosophical we're going to get). Lots of times standards are full of mistakes.  And as one of my professors said:

The right of a physicist to use any darned coordinates he or she chooses shall not be infringed.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with using different variables.  Some choices might make things easier or harder, but that's your business.

Graphing "learning curve" using chaotically chosen axes you pulled out of a hat to try and fit the verbal metaphor: Not Okay

I've said this a couple of times now, but I'll say it again: a graph that's like a potential energy diagram is perfectly logical and informative.  I don't give a damn whether other people do graphs like that.

[Lyeos]

I still want to know why that graph I posted is even being used in this discussion, as I only grabbed it and stuck it in here because someone mentioned the graph for Dwarf Fortress needing a gallows. It was never intended to be used by anyone, and was just posted to fulfill that man or woman's wish of seeing people hanging in a graph.

Edit: Hey! I just checked that other thread! Wow! That guy had the same idea! 

[GavJ]

disagree (depending on how philosophical we're going to get). Lots of times standards are full of mistakes.

I don't intend to mean it in a black and white way.  It's a continuum:

No agreement/standardization at all <--------------------------------> 100% agreement and standardization
On the left side, there can be no effective communication.
On the right side, communication is perfect with no misunderstanding.
In the middle, where of course almost everything actually occurs, communication will work eventually (usually. Ocassionally both will incorrectly think they were understood and walk away), but is increasingly inefficient the closer you get to the left.

If you prefer, a more precise statement:
"The meaningfulness and/or efficiency of communication is directly correlated with the degree of standardization and common ground amongst the involved parties."

[Matt_S]

"The meaningfulness and/or efficiency of communication is directly correlated with the degree of standardization and common ground amongst the involved parties."

I'd disagree with "meaningful" but would agree with "efficiency" to an extent.  I think the effect levels off pretty quickly.  Outside of academic contexts, I'd place more value on being understood by a larger audience, which usually requires not assuming any standardization.

[GavJ]

I think you're interpreting "standardized" differently than I am...

If you and I both know that grass is green, then we have a standardized understanding of the color of grass. It doesn't require some international institution of people with rubber stamps or anything.

Presenting to an audience that literally had no standardization of anything with you (i.e., does not speak the same language, does not share any gestural understanding, does not use any common facial expressions with you, etc.) would be literally impossible, and you definitely don't assume that when you prepare a speech, in the sense I'm talking. Or you would just give up instantly after starting to prepare, because there would be nothing you could do.

[Matt_S]

And a learning curve is a graph representing the difficulty of learning a task, so I don't see how that's less standardized than the color of grass being green.

[Putnam]

So... is it slippery slope we're talking here?

[FrankMcFuzz]

My brain hurts. Can we just say it's a learning ∞

[Dyret]

HEY GUYS I MADE THE MORE SCIENTIFICALLY ACCURATER CURVE! BEHOLD AND RENDER UNTO ME THINE NERD CRED!

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

[Calathar]

I was disappointed to find out that this thread wasn't about how much easier DF has gotten since 40d.

[FrankMcFuzz]

I was disappointed to find out that this thread wasn't about how much easier DF has gotten since 40d.

When I first started, I accidentally downloaded 40d instead of the newer one, and my first fortress lasted 15 years until I gave up how to how easy it was.

Then I upgraded my version and died immediately.

So I don't agree.

[GavJ]

I was disappointed to find out that this thread wasn't about how much easier DF has gotten since 40d.

It could be about that if you like!

[WoobMonkey]

If you and I both know that grass is green, then we have a standardized understanding of the color of grass.

Been watching this thread, and feel the need to poke my head in on this point.

Is a brown patch on your lawn no longer 'grass?'  There are grasses that are blue, yellow, golden, red, pink. . . . or are they not grasses?

Sometimes, standardization is a detriment to communication.  Not only can it stultify the natural evolution of a language; in cases like this, it narrows the scope of a term to the point where it's powerless to describe reality in all its glory.

/ducks out the back door

[FrankMcFuzz]

If you and I both know that grass is green, then we have a standardized understanding of the color of grass.

Been watching this thread, and feel the need to poke my head in on this point.

Is a brown patch on your lawn no longer 'grass?'  There are grasses that are blue, yellow, golden, red, pink. . . . or are they not grasses?

Sometimes, standardization is a detriment to communication.  Not only can it stultify the natural evolution of a language; in cases like this, it narrows the scope of a term to the point where it's powerless to describe reality in all its glory.

/ducks out the back door

This thread is getting too surreal and philosophical for me *dives into magma*