Print

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

[forsaken1111]

Button hit it on the head there. Nobody fucking cares.

This whole thread has boiled down to you (GavJ) insisting that you are right and everyone else is wrong. It reminds me a bit of my grandmother (rest her soul) and how she used to tell me that everyone else on earth is a 'godless heathen' because they had different beliefs. Pigheaded, narrowminded, and incorrect.

[Playergamer]

^^

Ninja'ed:^^

[Matt_S]

but I don't particularly care.

I wasn't aware that simply not caring whether you're wrong made you not wrong. Apparently science is a lot cheaper and easier than everybody thought. We don't need to invest billions and toil for years to unlock the world's secrets. For any given mystery, we just need to flip a coin to choose an answer, not care if the result is wrong, and then... it won't be wrong! Just distribute literal quarters instead of quarters of millions in funding grants.  It's brilliant!

talking about thermodynamic entropy vs other entropy like they're fundamentally different makes me raise my eyebrows.

All due respect to your eyebrows, entropy means "measure of [insert specific specialized type of] disorder" in a lot of scientific circles. Not as a colloquialism. As official, well-defined jargon in a wide variety of fields. From computer science to statistics to neuroscience, I've seen it all over the place with very specific meanings.  It is not only thermodynamics. Hence the addition of an adverb now when referring to the thermodynamic variety (if out of any clear context of thermodynamics), in order to not confuse everyone.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_(disambiguation)

You clearly missed my point, in multiple ways it turns out.  My first point was that I wasn't wrong for using a definition in a way that's different from a specialized field. My second point was that pretty much all people who use entropy use Shannon entropy or some generalization of it, and the difference is what system you're looking at (and with thermodynamic entropy you can look at just about any system you want, so it's a really, REALLY flexible definition).  And this is where you seemingly contradict yourself.  When I posted, I was chuckling mildly to myself that entropy used to be a specific term with a specific meaning to a specific field, and by your standard other definitions would be wrong.  It turns out you accept alternative definitions to "entropy", but reject alternative definitions to "learning curve".  I can't figure out this contradiction.

[imlovinit]

Ugh can we just go back to threads involving finding new ways to cause cruel and unusual punishment in the game like we normally do?

Also Forsaken your gif thingy is waaaaay to distracting i spent like ten minutes staring at it.

[Lyeos]

Ugh can we just go back to threads involving finding new ways to cause cruel and unusual punishment in the game like we normally do?

... Making your dwarves build a "3D" model of a graph that GavJ would consider correct?

No booze until they get it right?

[forsaken1111]

I can't figure out this contradiction.

Because GavJ says so, obviously.

Ugh can we just go back to threads involving finding new ways to cause cruel and unusual punishment in the game like we normally do?

Absolutely! In my latest fort (masterwork mod) I brought a few dozen plumphelmetmen and plumphelmetwomen along and tossed them all into a prepared 10z deep pit with a retracting bridge at the bottom. Below the bridge is a 44z drop into a 9x9 room filled with butchershops!

When I need food, I pull the lever and a small bit of the plumphelmetpit is opened via the retracting bridge, dropping anywhere from 3-5 plumphelmetpeople into my butchery.

For variety, I also throw in all of my animals and any dwarves who bring along cats (and their cats) and any nobles who make terrible demands or mandates.

Obviously I can't actually butcher the dwarves, but they do get a very deserved death.

Its a hellish dark little pit with barely enough room to stand, what with the 30 plumphelmetpeople, dogs, cats and other assorted dwarves. There are usually at least 2-3 rotting dead bodies in there. I do sometimes toss in food or booze or captured invaders.

Also Forsaken your gif thingy is waaaaay to distracting i spent like ten minutes staring at it.

I am not responsible for any time lost staring at my avatar. My avatar is provided free of charge for the entertainment of the Bay12 community. Please do not stare directly at the avatar. Please only enjoy the avatar in the approved and proscribed manner. Please do not consume the avatar orally or administer it as medication. This avatar provides no proven medical benefit. Clinical trials have shown no link between this avatar and autism.

[TempAcc]

Personally, I dont really believe DF is that hard to learn. Its actualy pretty acessible for its sheer complexity, given you dedicate yourself to learning the basics for a few days. I made my first pump stack and steel industry after about a week of playing it, but the first version I played was 40d, which had way simpler but less controllable military, soooooo.

[catpaw]

Ugh can we just go back to threads involving finding new ways to cause cruel and unusual punishment in the game like we normally do?

... Making your dwarves build a "3D" model of a graph that GavJ would consider correct?

Impossible, the learning curve is too steep for dwarves to build. Or the skylimit without hacking it.

[Lyeos]

Impossible, the learning curve is too steep for dwarves to build. Or the skylimit without hacking it.

The point was that it isn't possible, although for different reasons. So, basically, you would be refusing to give them booze forever.

[expwnent]

Skylimit raising: https://github.com/DFHack/dfhack/blob/master/Readme.rst#infinitesky

[sal880612m]

Personally, I dont really believe DF is that hard to learn. Its actualy pretty acessible for its sheer complexity, given you dedicate yourself to learning the basics for a few days. I made my first pump stack and steel industry after about a week of playing it, but the first version I played was 40d, which had way simpler but less controllable military, soooooo.

I think there are very clear levels of playing ability.
0-I'm intimidated by the ASCII (I get the feeling this and the interface are the biggest hurdles to getting into the game)
1-I have no clue what to do or how to do it
2-I managed to keep a fort around until I was attacked
3-I learned to turtle
4-I learned how to create and use the military
5-I started setting challenges
6-I started modding to provide challenges
7-I am Armok (no more !FUN! to be had)

[GavJ]

And other people talking about it doesn't mean they care about the topic of your rant - what they care about is that you're stinking up the forum with your twisted knickers.

...? If somebody thinks I'm stinking up the forum with my knickers, then they'll simply say that. Like you did.
They WON'T, like the majority of people here, make posts oriented toward sharing an opinion on the content, like "I'd say Dwarf Fortress has a steep learning curve if the factor being considered is 'amount of things I don't understand'"

My first point was that I wasn't wrong for using a definition in a way that's different from a specialized field.

It turns out you accept alternative definitions to "entropy", but reject alternative definitions to "learning curve".  I can't figure out this contradiction.

This strikes at the crux of the issue, so I focus on it.

The criterion I'm using is NOT "it's endorsed by a specialized field."
The criterion I'm using is "it has a standardized definition." Communication is meaningless without standardization, so this seems like a minimum requirement.

You can apply this to each and every case to get my opinion on it, in a way that I think is pretty consistent and meaningful:
1) Using "learning curve" verbally to mean what psychologists mean: Okay -- has a standardized definition.
2) Using "learning curve" verbally to mean a metaphorical steep cliff to climb / "hard to learn": Okay also -- has a standard definition
3) Graphing "learning curve" using psychologists' axes: Okay -- they agree on standard axis meanings.
4) Graphing "learning curve" using chaotically chosen axes you pulled out of a hat to try and fit the verbal metaphor: Not Okay -- this is poor communication at best, since there's no standardization. And wrong at worst, if the pressure to pick an axis that fits the metaphor actually causes you to plot things nonsensically, which happens. Selected quotes from this thread make it abundantly clear that almost nobody agrees on what the axes should be for colloquial learning curves. I.e. no standardization, informal OR formal:

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

I think the graphs usually put "skill needed" in the Y axis

Y = amount you need to learn to increment to the next X.

 

total learning required.

It's not about what you learn, it's about the difficulty of learning it.

amount of things I don't understand

amount of stuff the game expects you to learn at once to reward you with a feeling of accomplishment.

5) Using "entropy" in the thermodynamic sense: Okay, has a standardized definition.
6) Using "entropy" in the computer science sense: Okay, has a standardized definition.

[Putnam]

Communication is meaningless without standardization

I disagree with you and so does the English language.

[forsaken1111]

Communication is meaningless without standardization

Communication is the exchange of information. Its the first definition.

If I say "Dwarf Fortress has a steep learning curve." and the personing listening understands the information I am expressing "Dwarf Fortress is hard to learn" then the communication is successful.

[GavJ]

If I say "Dwarf Fortress has a steep learning curve." and the personing listening understands the information I am expressing "Dwarf Fortress is hard to learn" then the communication is successful.

Yes. In other words, you have a standardized definition between the two of you.

By standardized, I don't mean worldwide. I mean within the relevant community communicating, just like you're saying.  But as we can see from the thread, even within the tiny community of relevant people for DF graphs, almost everybody has their own idea of how the axes etc. should be for colloquial learning curves. I.e. they all think of the curves as being different things! Thus, the kind of giver and receiver common ground relationship you described above doesn't exist in this case.

They might be able to muddle through and eventually understand one another after some double takes and head scratching, sure. People are smart. But that would be in SPITE of the terminology and the diagrams, not thanks to them.