|
If you lost 5 games, that would account for the difference.
|
|
|
|
|
Yes. I went back and edited my answer some 10 hours ago to say that my failures would account for the missing 5 but somehow it didn’t make it to my original message.😳😳😳
|
|
|
|
|
I have a recollection of playing some game back in the 90s -- possibly MineSweeper.
Whenever I lost a game, I killed the process, preventing it from logging, so I had 100% wins. 
You might want to try that. 
|
|
|
|
|
All this IoT coding without a debugger has totally leveled me up.
I've got a guy using my GFX library, who ran into two major issues with it.
First one I tracked down took me under 5 minutes.
It was a signed unsigned mismatch buried in this file: gfx/gfx_open_font.cpp at master · codewitch-honey-crisis/gfx · GitHub[^]
I jumped right to it, based purely on a value I got back from a single call, with the problem being clear down the call stack. I actually kind of astonished the person I was helping.
Second one was today. He was crashing after hours of running. Immediately I tracked the crash and found out it was due to heap fragmentation. Not even a problem with my code. Found it in under a minute.
I'm getting *really* good at this. I almost don't even need my exception decoder.
To err is human. Fortune favors the monsters.
|
|
|
|
|
|
I've spent a lot of years doing maintenance programming (aka cleanup up issues in other peoples code) and I get exactly what you mean. For me it's gotten to the point where you read through a bug/issue report, and in your mind you can already categorize it in certain ways, which leads to having a game plan on what the issue might be and how to test it.
I may not always be right, but I am able to test out a lot of possible ways of finding the issue quickly, narrowing down where to look. But most of the time the issue can be found quickly and fixed.
There was an interesting news article today about (a Devs thoughts on developer productivity), where it talked about the 10,000 hour rule of working in a field before becoming proficient. 10,000 hours is approx. 5 1/2 years, working full time. My own belief has been that a developer needs to work for 5 years before I would suggest kicking of the training wheels, and they an be trusted to work on their own(of course there are exceptions).
Sorry, rambling a bit. But after working in this field for so long, when addressing any software challenge you can fairly quickly put together a plan on how to work through it based on a lot of hors of past experience.
|
|
|
|
|
I think it seeps into the subconscious; then connections are made that are ... subconscious.
"Before entering on an understanding, I have meditated for a long time, and have foreseen what might happen. It is not genius which reveals to me suddenly, secretly, what I have to say or to do in a circumstance unexpected by other people; it is reflection, it is meditation." - Napoleon I
|
|
|
|
|
Wordle 334 6/6
🟨⬜⬜⬜⬜
⬜🟨⬜⬜⬜
⬜🟩🟩⬜⬜
🟨🟩🟩⬜⬜
⬜🟩🟩🟩⬜
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
Just made it.
|
|
|
|
|
Wordle 334 5/6
🟨🟨⬜⬜⬜
⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜
⬜⬜🟨⬜⬜
⬜🟩🟩🟩⬜
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
Keep forgetting about repeated letters.
Software rusts. Simon Stephenson, ca 1994. So does this signature. me, 2012
|
|
|
|
|
Wordle 334 5/6
🟨⬛⬛⬛⬛
⬛🟩🟩⬛⬛
⬛🟩🟩⬛⬛
🟨🟩🟩⬛🟨
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
|
|
|
|
|
Close. Very close:
Wordle 334 5/6
🟨⬜⬜⬜🟩
⬜🟨⬜🟨🟩
⬜🟩🟩⬜🟩
⬜🟩🟩🟨🟩
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
"I have no idea what I did, but I'm taking full credit for it." - ThisOldTony
"Common sense is so rare these days, it should be classified as a super power" - Random T-shirt
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
Wordle 334 5/6
⬜⬜⬜⬜🟩
🟨🟩⬜⬜⬜
⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜
🟩🟩🟩⬜⬜
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
|
|
|
|
|
Wordle 334 3/6*
⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜
🟩⬜⬜⬜⬜
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
Happiness will never come to those who fail to appreciate what they already have. -Anon
|
|
|
|
|
Class apart!
Wordle 334 5/6*
⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛
⬛🟩🟩⬛⬛
🟨🟩🟩⬛⬛
⬛🟩🟩🟩⬛
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
"It is easy to decipher extraterrestrial signals after deciphering Javascript and VB6 themselves.", ISanti[ ^]
|
|
|
|
|
Wordle 334 3/6
⬜⬜⬜🟨⬜
⬜🟩🟩⬜🟨
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
Life should not be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in a pretty and well-preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside in a cloud of smoke, thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming “Wow! What a Ride!" - Hunter S Thompson - RIP
|
|
|
|
|
Wordle 334 4/6*
🟨⬜⬜⬜⬜
⬜⬜⬜🟩⬜
⬜⬜⬜🟩⬜
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
|
|
|
|
|
Wordle 334 4/6
⬛⬛⬛🟨⬛
🟨🟩⬛🟨🟩
🟩🟩⬛🟩🟩
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
Get me coffee and no one gets hurt!
|
|
|
|
|
Wordle 334 4/6
🟨⬛🟩⬛⬛
⬛🟩🟩🟩⬛
⬛🟩🟩🟩⬛
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
|
|
|
|
|
6/6
⬜🟨⬜🟨⬜
⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜
🟨🟩🟩⬜⬜
⬜🟩🟩🟩⬜
⬜🟩🟩🟩⬜
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
I hoped I had to dispatch war rocket Ajax to bring back his body but alas it wasn't.
GCS/GE d--(d) s-/+ a C+++ U+++ P-- L+@ E-- W+++ N+ o+ K- w+++ O? M-- V? PS+ PE Y+ PGP t+ 5? X R+++ tv-- b+(+++) DI+++ D++ G e++ h--- r+++ y+++* Weapons extension: ma- k++ F+2 X
|
|
|
|
|
Imagine this: you have a piece of square stock wood: 4x4 say.
You want to cut it so that the square profile becomes an octagon.
So you tilt your table saw to 45o and move your fence across so that a single pass will cut off a triangular corner. You can then pass each side against the fence and voila! (Or possibly violin.)
The question is "how far should the fence be from the cutting edge of the blade?".
I did this this morning: I measured the stock, subtracted a bit under 4 cm, set my fence and cut a test piece.
It was spot on, each of the eight edges was the same length (with marginal variation because the stock wasn't exactly square but close enough) and I moved on.
Except I've been sitting here trying to work out the geometry, and just how I got my number from the original side length. And I have no idea how the heck I did it, because I didn't use geometry, I didn't use a calculator, and it's the first time I've done this. I just went "oh, it's 9.3cm, so I want 3.8cm edges, that's 6.5cm from the blade edge". And I was right.
But it's doing my head in trying to work out how I knew what the numbers were ... and why I was right first time ...
"I have no idea what I did, but I'm taking full credit for it." - ThisOldTony
"Common sense is so rare these days, it should be classified as a super power" - Random T-shirt
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
Cos you're inspirational and clever 
Life should not be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in a pretty and well-preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside in a cloud of smoke, thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming “Wow! What a Ride!" - Hunter S Thompson - RIP
|
|
|
|
|
Says a man who has never met me ... 
My brain is screaming "0.707" at me, which is half root two, so it's probably bloody obvious Pythagoras, but I'm damned if I can see it. Or do square roots in my head. 
I suspect this is going to keep me awake tonight.
"I have no idea what I did, but I'm taking full credit for it." - ThisOldTony
"Common sense is so rare these days, it should be classified as a super power" - Random T-shirt
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
I had a professor many moons ago, when he couldn't readily explain a particular step of a mathematical proof, would say with a smirk,
"it's IOTTMCO!" (Intuitively Obvious To The Most Casual Observer), and he'd move on.
"the debugger doesn't tell me anything because this code compiles just fine" - random QA comment
"Facebook is where you tell lies to your friends. Twitter is where you tell the truth to strangers." - chriselst
"I don't drink any more... then again, I don't drink any less." - Mike Mullikins uncle
|
|
|
|
|
Draw as square. Now draw a 45 degree diagonal across a corner. The lengths of the triangle sides are 1, 1, sqrt(2). That hypotenuse has to be the same length as the edge of the square timber that does not get sawn off. So, in terms of the corner you saw off, the length of a given side is 2+sqrt(2) units. That means for a 4" square timber, your diagonal cuts need to be made approximately 1.17" from the edge. This gives a side of your octagon of about 1.65 inches. e.g 1.17 + 1.65 + 1.17 = 3.99
Keep Calm and Carry On
|
|
|
|
|
This how I visualised it, draw your 4cm square, then draw another 4cm square directly over the top of the first but at 45 degrees rotation. From here you can see that the dimension you need is the diagonal of the 4cm square minus 4cm side all divided by 2, which is (sqrt(32)-4)/2 =. 828cm
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
