Jump to content

  • Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account

Khaiy

Member Since 27 Jan 2010
Offline Last Active Yesterday, 11:12 PM

#4817736 Typing skills practice

Posted by Khaiy on 30 May 2011 - 08:55 PM

What really made me a good typist is instant messaging programs. I was the nerd who always typed whole words and used correct punctuation, and often complete sentences too. There's always the time pressure to get your comment written in time, before the thread of the conversation moves on. But I agree with Luckless. Typing isn't about transcription, it's about getting the right key-presses to feel natural. You can do that with copying typing exercises, but it's easier if you let your thoughts flow into the keys.


#4817612 What category of history does ancient egypt fall under...

Posted by Khaiy on 30 May 2011 - 12:47 PM

LOL I don't dispute that. "American history is American history" just as "Egyptian history is Egyptian history". Using American history as an example, there are certain parts of the history that exclude certain groups. You wouldn't say that Christopher Columbus sailing to America and murdering the Indians is black or African history. But it could be called European or white history. Black history in America comes later. :o

I asked a simple question about Ancient Egypt analogous to the Christopher Columbus example above.



Christopher Columbus can absolutely be considered a part of black or African history. He had a lot to do with slaving and the slave trade in the New World, if not on the main continent. You could even stretch it further, as the initial forays into the Americas (specifically, the way in which they were made) set the stage for slavery as the economic engine for the United States.

Maybe you should reread what I asked. :o


Sure thing:


[What category of history does ancient Egypt fall under]
...before arabs/European invasions.

Incase anyone didn't know, I'm a huge history buff but this has been bugging me. :D




The thing is, I read the threads that you post pretty carefully and post reasonably thoughtful answers. Your initial question is incredibly vague, and depends on a frame of reference that is not absolute. As my reply clearly stated, I think that Egyptian history can be meaningfully considered through any of those lenses. It does not fall under any one moreso than the others.

Egypt had a huge impact on all of the categories you provided, and was also impacted by them. Sure, Egypt is mostly in Africa, so that could be a contender-- any history in that part of Egypt would be geographically African. But part of it is also in Asia, which you didn't even present as an option. Europe was heavily integrated with Egypt via trade and geopolitical/military tension, to the extent that you can't discuss some major portions of European history without Egypt being involved. So it certainly falls under the European tent as well.

Why do people have to choose between them and only them? What is the value of declaring it definitively to be part of any of three broad groups that eventually did invade and occupy it before any of the invasions took place? The idea that those three categories of history are the only choices is absurd, and to say that ancient Egypt is wholly owned by European history or African history or Arab history absurd as well. Since we can define categories in nearly any way we would like I presented the Egyptian one to you as the most appropriate, vastly moreso than the three you presented. It is definitely the category I would favor over a contrived set of categories presented absolutely with no reason as to why my options are so limited, and the question itself so arbitrary and vague.

The analogy you presented doesn't suit the question you asked, because what you would be asking by analogy is "Which category does black history in America fall under before America was colonized: Christopher Columbus, Italian, or French". Or for a totally new analogy, "What category does fast food fall into before the invention of fast food restaurants: McDonalds, Burger King, or Wendy's". Your qualification forces revisionism onto the question, and it doesn't even fit.

If your question is where did Egypt have the most influence of the three, or which had the most influence on Egypt in the pre-invasion eras, or something like that, that's a discussion that can take place. But to ask which of the three you presented is the proper category for the history of Egypt itself is imprecise and revisionist.


#4817580 What category of history does ancient egypt fall under...

Posted by Khaiy on 30 May 2011 - 11:26 AM

Why would it have to fit neatly into one of two continental categories or a single cultural/religious one?

Egyptian history is Egyptian history. For a long time Egypt was the most powerful nation around, and accordingly it defined its own era. Egypt's power waned eventually, and it was both a factor in and a result of the affairs of other powers.

You can definitely look at sections of history that might focus on a given region or culture or whatever, but these are broad sweeps rather than hard and fast categories with well defined, bright-line borders between them.

So I suppose my answer to your question is any of the above and others, if the section of history I'm looking at happens to be one of them and also involves Egypt. But if I were to examine Egypt specifically, I wouldn't use any other category as my defining paradigm.


#4816261 Header Files

Posted by Khaiy on 26 May 2011 - 07:07 PM

Please look in the standard!
If you have a question after that then please post it.


Not particularly rude in itself, although it does not answer the question and does not save much effort compared with the answers you actually provided later.


Incorrect replies like yours have no place at all. The short story is that it is implementation defined where each of these look for files and even that they may look in the same place.


Emphasis added by me. Somewhat rude, particularly as rip-off provided a link to MSDN that very strongly supports the answer that he gave as one that is correct, as far as practicality is concerned. The link also provides more nuance, should the OP desire it.


OK this thread confuses me somewhat. Factually incorrect information gets voted up and factually correct information which asks the lazy OP to do some leg work themselves gets voted down? With a post about headlights also getting voted up. Erm let me check again is this the Lounge!


Emphasis again added by me. Calling the OP lazy is certainly not polite (although perhaps not completely unfounded, I don't know)-- especially when you could easily have given your eventual answer upfront for a similar amount of effort. And not to nit-pick, but telling someone to look in the standard isn't factually correct information.

Why don't we just close every pure C++ thread - since the correct answers are all in the standard.


That sounds like an excellent idea but what in the OP's post says it is C++?


Combative and petulant. As I mentioned above, the particular language chosen is irrelevant to rip-off's comment. An unnecessary comment to anything that came before which can only be response to rip-off's comment if you totally miss the content of what he said.

I see. What gamedev wants is damn right lazy people posting lazy questions that do not show they have tried to find the answer for themselves. I think you will find my answer to look in the standard is net etiquette for lazy bastards wanting information ie RTFM. To imply that I was rude or anything even close I find an insult, look again at my post it twice uses the word please and even requests that if the standard is not understood then ask another question.


Expecting someone to at least try looking something up first is indeed reasonable etiquette. Asking a basic question without such an attempt is not. But someone else displaying less than perfect etiquette is no reason to conduct yourself even more objectionably, which you quickly descended to.

Your initial reply was not really rude, as discussed above, but also directed the OP to a document which he may or may not have had available to him, and is quite long and dense besides. It's unfortunate that you feel insulted by my impression of your tone in this thread. But if you re-read it, do you really feel as though you were nothing but polite and reasonable throughout?

I would like you to clarify where I was "Aggressive, combative, [or] rude " but never mind all is well, I do not need gamedev just as much as it seems the gamedev community does not want correct answers.


See above for the requested clarifications. I did not say that you yourself were all of those all the time, or that you are an example of the worst of them or even a particularly bad example. Just that such behavior invites downvotes, because it is discouraged by the community. You have several downvotes in this thread, and as you said your information is not incorrect, so they can't be from that. That leaves your comportment.

As for leaving gamedev, we'll be sorry to see you and your expertise go. But you are as free to stop coming at any time as you are to simply not respond to threads and questions that annoy you.


#4816208 Header Files

Posted by Khaiy on 26 May 2011 - 04:37 PM

OK this thread confuses me somewhat. Factually incorrect information gets voted up and factually correct information which asks the lazy OP to do some leg work themselves gets voted down? With a post about headlights also getting voted up. Erm let me check again is this the Lounge!


Reputation is about more than just whether or not you are factually correct. It also reflects your broader value to the community. Aggressive, combative, and rude people do damage to the community by making any thread in which they participate harsher and more highly charged, even if they present information that is factually accurate They damage the community also by making these boards a less inviting place for new members of all skill levels and interests.

Your statement "Look in the standard" not only does not answer the question, but also is longer than an answer which you might have given, like "It depends". Even a slightly longer sentence such as "It's implementation defined." would have been a low effort way to answer the OP's question, compared both to the post that you actually made as well as to just not posting anything.

You were downvoted because your posts are the sort that the voters would like to see less of around here. Still confused?


That sounds like an excellent idea but what in the OP's post says it is C++?


It's not an unreasonable assumption to make that the OP might have been talking about C++. But rip-off's point stands with any language. These boards would be a barren place if no one was allowed to ask questions because the answer might be (or even definitely is) in some expensive document. Going further, why even teach programming in classes? People can just read the language specs and then fend for themselves.

If you feel that a question is beneath you, an easy way to avoid having the poster waste your time with their ignorance is to just not respond.




#4815886 Dropping the F-Bomb

Posted by Khaiy on 25 May 2011 - 08:56 PM

Probably should have not said that intelligent people would rather not swear. Intelligent people swear, just alot less than the less educated.


Are you basing that on anything other than assumption and elitism?


#4815811 Dropping the F-Bomb

Posted by Khaiy on 25 May 2011 - 04:53 PM

Well, Puciek, intelligent people can usually come up with a better word to describe the situation at hand without having to resort to swearing.



Unless a swear is the best word to describe a situation at hand. Intelligent people may also reach the conclusion that there's no reason to bar an arbitrary set of words from their vocabularies because they are amorphously declared bad for no particular reason.

It's dangerous to start judging people's intelligence based on something which is a combination of cultural and stylistic factors and is subjective besides, like word choice. Especially when you yourself use the direct object of a verb as though it were the object of a meaningless preposition in your opening line.


#4815775 Dropping the F-Bomb

Posted by Khaiy on 25 May 2011 - 03:21 PM

Swearing is appropriate in a game where it suits the character speaking and the situation at hand. If I would accept it as dialogue in a book, or be unsurprised by it and its juxtaposition in real life, it would probably be fine in a game.

In action games, the situation tends to be appropriate (I'd curse if fighting off seemingly endless hordes of monsters), and the characters tend to by the kind that I would believe swear pretty liberally. "Bad" words are an arbitrary set of words that, like any others, have their own meanings and connotations. When all of the words a character says are written carefully, any words so included (including curse words) will fit. If written poorly, then the specific words used are broadly irrelevant. The dialoge will suck, and the presence or absence of bad words will neither save nor doom it.

Dialogue in games tends to be pretty low quality in general, and with the modern ubiquity of voice acting (often poor acting) I often find swear words to be the least offensive part of the whole mess.


#4815678 proof of evolution?

Posted by Khaiy on 25 May 2011 - 11:45 AM

Evolution even more strongly supported than many people here are presenting it to be. Evolution as a mechanism and as a process is quite well understood, easily observable in a lab, and is in fact a Biology 101 lab exercise for new students. Shotgun DNA sequencing and gel electrophoresis are well established enough and cheap enough today that any given college biology student can observe the phenomenon itself at maximum precision.

Like BeanDog said, the only question people can really ask now (rationally) is whether or not the process itself explains current and historical biodiversity, and even that is slowly being addressed as people study the factors that affect the mechanism.

That said, it's still a big topic, and so I can understand why some people don't cling to it intuitively. For every clear, simple genetic adaptation there are cases of drift or runaway selection that people trot out endlessly as "evidence" that evolution doesn't work or isn't true. Those people will never even get into the parts of evolution that they imagine constitute the whole concept, like sympatric/allopatric speciation. It's kind of interesting how ignorance inhibits its own remedy in this (and probably most scientific topics).


#4815422 proof of evolution?

Posted by Khaiy on 24 May 2011 - 09:16 PM

The formal definition of evolution is a change in allele frequency in a population.

Individuals cannot evolve, only populations can.

Accents are not in any way genetically determined, and so the existence of different accents can't demonstrate any sort of evolutionary result.


#4815296 I'm failing college because I have dysgraphia. What should I do?

Posted by Khaiy on 24 May 2011 - 02:34 PM

It's not the same as seeing the slides, but your professor would probably let you tape-record lectures so you can go through them at whatever pace you need. Depending on how much his lecture content deviates from his slides this might largely solve the problem, but at a minimum it could be helpful.


#4815244 Story concept for a breeder/eater/sim game

Posted by Khaiy on 24 May 2011 - 12:53 PM

For me, breeding has to do something other than recursively feed into more breeding, even if that is the core aspect of gameplay. It's too much like grinding in MMOs, where the only purpose of advancing your character is to be able to advance further still, without necessarily offering much variety between what you do to grind and what your reward for doing so is.

So even while breeding is the stated goal of the game, each creature needs to have a valuable function aside from unlocking other breeds. It would be interesting to me if the game was real-time, and production of creatures was constant. The player can allocate resources to different hives/hatcheries or whatever, altering the resultant mix of creatures produced. These creatures (maybe after training) then automatically carry out functions like processing resources or patrolling for enemies. This automation lets the player focus on the breeding and state of the nest rather than the behaviors of specific individuals other than the Founder.

Maybe the player can adjust traits of a breed of creature within a range, so that there is some ability to respond to challenges without needing to unlock a new breed. Unlocking a new breed should be a major investment of resources and a moderate risk, so that the nest will need to be well managed for the player to succeed in unlocking all breeds as the game advances.

I can think of a few story ideas, but they all revolve around the same theme. My idea is that nests work to advance their own genetic lineage and eliminate others who compete for the resources needed to do so. A given nest can only grow so much and still be efficiently competetive or dominate a given geographical area effectively, so producing more Founders is the de facto strategy for expansion.

But the production of a new Founder requires huge risk for an existing Founder, who is vulnerable during the process (and perhaps very formidable at other times). And the pheremones given off in preparation for/during the process provoke a massive response from other non-related hives, as it is a prime opportunity to off an existing Founder and wipe out that whole hive, not to mention deny the opportunity to produce a new nest.

So the goal of the game is to produce a hive capable of facilitating the birth of a new Founder and also withstanding the onslaught so provoked. This can require a mix of all preceding creature types (though the exact composition might be variable, based on the other nests nearby?), as well as effective management. And choosing when to try unlocking the final creature type is a big decision.

I can imagine different difficulties being based on preceding hives in an area-- you're from a well-established lineage on your continent, so you'll have less threat from others, being the first of your line in a new area for more difficulty, and so on. The hardest difficulty could be one in which you are a mutation, rejected by your progenitor as too different and opposing rather than supporting your lineage's expansion, effectively being a new lineage unto yourself, forced to compete with no support of any kind.

There could also be a meta-component, where multiple playthroughs can advance your lineage until you reach world domination, or take the role of a new or different lineage to compete against the empire you've already established.

Just a couple of ideas, maybe you'll find some use for them.


#4815219 Potential job - advice on pay negotiation?

Posted by Khaiy on 24 May 2011 - 11:54 AM

I would most certainly never show my cards first in a salary scenario. If you say £500 and the guy say he was looking at £200 you have left yourself open to 2 things (1 he will tell you to go away or you will have to come much closer to his evaluation 2.He knows you will be on the lookout for higher paying work). It's like playing cards, show your hand first and you are almost always on the backfoot.


What? What do you mean by cards? The factors involved here are the amount/difficulty of the work required (which the hiring person should already know), the skill of the potential hire (which that potential hire should play up), the alternatives to the potential hire that the hiring person has available, and how much those alternatives will demand for compensation. A compensation number links these together.

Starting with a high bid tells the hiring person that you are a valuable worker, and that you are confident enough in your assessment of the work to be done and your own skill to command a high price. You bring to the table a sense of value for the hiring person to maybe be able to grab. You can present yourself as a particularly good prospect who can bestow your singular talents for effects that the hirer won't be able to achieve with other applicants. You can negotiate from a position of strength, where the operative question is whether or not they are willing to pay for you-- not how little they can get away with paying. The potential employer will have to justify why you are worth less than you say to get you to agree to a much lower number.

Letting the hirer offer a number forces them to estimate your value as an applicant based on little information, which is therefore not especially likely to be fair or accurate, especially since the hirer will prefer a cheap deal in this case. Then, you immediately disagree with the number the hirer offers, which is pretty bad if the hirer was making a fair offer (in his or her own view). It increases the sentiment that the applicant is one of many cogs to be chosen from a sea of similar options. The only distinction such a cog can offer is how little they'll accept. A person negotiating from here will have to justify why they are worth anything more than the employer's lowest estimate that they think might work-- that's a weak position. And they'll be starting from the lowest possible starting point, therefore having to climb farther to any result.

Besides, you're assuming that the hirer is not very flexible in what they're willing to offer. If they'll offer $200 to start the discussion, but would be willing to pay up to $800, you'll have a hard time getting there starting at their offer, even though they will accept a higher bid. But if your initial offer is $800, the employer might counter with $400, which is a much better floor to work with than the $200 they might have offered cold.

But anyone can offer fantasy numbers and situations that will support their own position. My point is that I don't see how a potential employee is better off negotiating up from the absolute floor as opposed to down from a higher number, unless that employee offers a ridiculous number that the hirer won't accept even as a ceiling that will be countered immediately. And in this latter situation, the potential employee clearly can't estimate the value of the work properly, and so is not likely to be an effective negotiator in any event.

This is a situation where I think that analogies and metaphors are particularly dangerous. Negotiating isn't like playing cards, where there is an external factor that has a fixed statistical likelihood of being a winning scenario for each party, which all sides bluff around. In that situation, going last is preferrable because you can assess that factor based on the behavior of other players. And if the game happens to be blackjack, that's a pretty thin advantage.

This isn't the case with compensation negotiations. You lose nothing and gain a lot by demonstrating that you are valuable, which you do both with your CV and the value that you place on your labor. There are no objective external factors that enforce results on the negotiation, only how far each side can make the other go. The ultimate card for either side to play is to walk away, which will force the other side to adjust dramatically in order to salvage a deal.

If the goal is to land the job at any price, taking a weaker position where the other side sets the starting number and barely moving around it will be more effective. But if you're looking to be reasonably compensated (in your own judgement), the hiring person's lowest possible is irrelevant. If they won't budge but you still think that the work is worth that pay, then that's where you'll end up. If the final offer is less than you think that the work is worth, you should walk away, unless you're desperate.

The idea that the employer will think that you're looking for higher pay elsewhere is irrelevant as well; if the applicant takes the job, they'll be under contract and unable to move away. But the idea that the applicant can get better pay elsewhere is the major factor that can drive their compensation up.

It's way easier to negotiate down to 150 pounds/day from 200 than up from 100

What if he says £100, you can then say £200 and then it is much easier to agree at the middle £150. You also know that if you are expecting £500 and he says £100 you can then just let him know that you are not in his price bracket and exit the negotiations, not wasting his or your time. Or you can turn it around agree with his fee and state you want a payment on completion. Letting him make the first move allows you much more room to get what you want.

There's an element of playing it as you see it. If you think you need to make the first move and the situation dictates it then make the first move. Generally I'd never recommend it and I have been involved in large project negotiations/strategy.


Why would a hiring person necessarily be unwilling to move up to $500? Or at least closer to that than $100? If you don't negotiate it, you'll never know. If you do try to get a better rate, you still have the option of walking away if the offer doesn't go high enough-- but you very well might end up with a job at a level of compensation you find acceptable.

You are correct that different situations will call for different strategies. Letting the hirer make the first move lets you see what they think the very lowest pay that someone might accept is (or even a bit below that), which can be useful information. But I'm having a hard time seeing why that is generally a superior approach to making a reasonable estimation of your own worth and then leveraging that worth against the employer's needs and means. I don't know what you do with negotiation, what the stakes have been, the skill of yourself or the opposing groups, or how good the results you obtained were compared with the maximum you might have received, so I'm not in a position to judge your negotiating ability, regardless of your role or experience in such matters.

As has already been mentioned, the OP is at a disadvantage in several areas already: a new graduate with little/no industry experience, applying to a place that mysteriously let go their previous workers, a poor job market, and an offer of career experience with material that is nearly obsolete. A reasonable offer for the OP to make is not going to be especially high, particularly as the employer is obviously looking for budget work rather than a high-end expert. The OP will likely have similarly attractive options in the future, as mentioned by Antheus, which makes the value of this particular job even lower. There's little for the OP to gain from this job other than some money in the near term, and even then it could easily be a bad bargain for him unless it's a solid amount. There's no reason to cede the ability to set the terms of the negotiation by default, because the risk of not getting this position is not so serious.


#4815132 Whats With All The Red Stuff?

Posted by Khaiy on 24 May 2011 - 08:31 AM

That's why in my game designs all characters are not humans, but rather are paint-monsters. Many more of them seem to be filled with red paint as opposed to any other colors, but don't ask me to explain it-- I'm not a paint-monsterologist.

I don't know how it's doen in Australia, but in the US the ratings agency has testers play a game and compile a video of all its worst parts, which are then reviewed to give the rating. It's arbitrary and can easily slant against the game since there's nothing to balance those worst parts.

As for blood being just a bit of harmless body fluid splashing about, don't expect that assessment to go very far. It's less like attacking a mannequin when the attack causes blood to spatter everywhere, which certainly ups the violence factor (or at least the visceral feel of violence). Besides, replace "blood" with "semen" and you'll see your "harmless bodily fluid" argument crash and burn despite having your position remain unaltered.


#4815123 Potential job - advice on pay negotiation?

Posted by Khaiy on 24 May 2011 - 08:10 AM

If they ask how much you want, don't give a figure. let them make the first move and negotiate from there. If they ask what you want reply "what are your offering?" or "what is the going rate?" or "what did you pay the last programmer?". Beware that this might be a low figure as they realise you are both in negotiation, but with a starting offer you are in a position to negotiate. If you give the first figure then you are on the back foot as they will either want to negotiate down or think you are too expensive and turn you down.


I don't recommend letting them offer the first number, especially with a question like "what's the going rate?" or asking what they paid the last programmer. What the last programmer made is irrelevent to you because that person no long works there (for suspicious reasons, no less). Asking about the going rate makes you seem ignorant of the industry.

The person who offers the first number is in the driver's seat of negotiating. It's way easier to negotiate down to 150 pounds/day from 200 than up from 100 (sorry, I don't know how to make my keyboard do pounds). If they offer a number then you'll know the minimum you can get and have to dance around that., but you want to be aiming at the maximum.

It's true that they can choose to pass on someone who offers an exorbitant bid, but your defense against that is to offer a reasonable bid. Your presentation and bearing affect how high a reasonable bid can be. Your initial number should be buttressed by references to the complexity of the project and your skills, which together will put a value on your labor. But as has been mentioned, they are clearly looking for cheap labor and you are a new worker. So don't get carried away with daydreams of high pay and interesting negotiations. You are unlikely to have much room to alter the number that the hiring person already has in mind.




PARTNERS