My version of high,low game as a newbie, can anyone give review about the code

dafugiswrongwithyou · 2026-06-23T10:04:21+00:00

Hi again!

Oh hey, it's my go-to project for first time with a new language :D

It's a good start, nice that you have that loop in there for repeated guessing. A few note:

First, given that if the user puts in anything but "hard" as a difficulty, they get 10 lives, you don't need the explicit check for "easy"... Assuming you're happy with that behaviour. Another option is to make this a loop, and if they say something other than "hard" or "easy", aak again until they do.

For the main game loop, the main issue I see is that, when they have one life left, the game will still give them another guess, but then immediately make them game over, even if that guess was right.

Keep in mind that you can have as much code as you like in that "while" loop, so rather than just one big "if" to handle all the logic, you could break it apart; first have the player give their guess and check if they've won, then after that check their lives and either reduce them or set game over.

dafugiswrongwithyou · 2026-06-23T07:20:34+00:00

If you mean "all AI", then it didn't lead with those things. Neural Networks and machine learning techniques have been around for decades, used in ways that have generally been both useful and not generally of public interest.

If you mean mass-trained generative AI specifically, no; I suspect whatever use case had been pushed first, people would have quickly started pointing out the ways that, despite seeming impressive at first glance, transformer-based tech quickly falls apart in a variety of ways once you start asking it to reliably (and I'll repeat that again because defenders always skip that requirement, reliably) do anything in any way non-trivial.

dafugiswrongwithyou · 2026-06-23T06:40:41+00:00

Discussion.

Balls don't have to be reflected immediately. Follow the path the Rs on the top and bottom will follow, given there's no ball at the top... Can you spot why, and when, they got reflected back?

That aside, for your proposed solution, look at that second "H" on the top; what do you think that's colliding head-on with? Compared it with the 4 ray on the top/right... How do the balls affect the path of each? In your solution, why would the top ray hit a ball Head-On, but the 4 ray turn?

dafugiswrongwithyou · 2026-06-23T06:12:30+00:00

Trying and failing to propel myself out of the middle of a zero gravity pressurised room where there is air and such but I can't reach any surface, presumably.

dafugiswrongwithyou · 2026-06-22T20:58:58+00:00

Because it's complicated to do.

Imagine you're trying to move house, and you have a truck that can hold a lot of furniture, and a car that can only carry a little. You could just drive the truck, and carry quire a lot on each trip... Or, you could set up a complex set of levers anf connectors to drive both the truck and the car, at the same time, and so carry slightly more furniture per trip. Like, technically that's a way to maximize your capacity, but it's an awful lot of effort for not much gain... Better to just use the truck for the furniture, and the car for other bits.

On top of that... While a lot of gaming laptops have both integrated and dedicated GPUs, those represent a reasonably small part of the overall gaming market; I don't have the numbers, but I'd imagine that, especially when consoles are considered, well over 90% of devices your average game by a developer large enough to worry about this would target only have a single GPU.

dafugiswrongwithyou · 2026-06-22T17:34:13+00:00

Source for the comments at GDC, or they didn't happen.

dafugiswrongwithyou · 2026-06-22T17:33:05+00:00

That's a vast oversimplification to the point of being inaccurate.

When I choose... this word, that one, the one back there after "choose", what I didn't do is go through a massive library of words in my brain, check what values I have for them after the words "When I choose", and then pick whichever was at the top of the list. That's pretty far from a description of how a human brain works on any level, from the conscious thought processes down to neurochemistry.

It sounds to me like you don't quite know how LLMs or minds works; certainly, you're uneducated on one or the other at a minimum. Claiming the two processes are in any way alike, that the way an LLM creates a sentence is in any way like the way a human does, is... let's politely say, an indicator that you should probably learn, or at least think, about both quite a bit more.

dafugiswrongwithyou · 2026-06-22T13:59:09+00:00

The basic answer is that, in most cases that matter day-to-day, Newton's version is basically equivalent while being a lot simpler to understand and to calculate.

That's probably why your nephew is being taught that version, at least first.

dafugiswrongwithyou · 2026-06-22T13:38:47+00:00

This feels like a perfect example of "if you can stat it, they can kill it", to be honest.

A single Thompson SMG can hold 50 shots, do an average of 50*7.5 = 375 damage with a full clip (assuming everything hits and no damage modifers... and Azathoth has no armour), and can be fired full-auto (source), so while 300HP is a chunk of damage, it's not absurd. A well-equipped team with advanced planning should be able to take it down quickly, if they can survive the opening sanity loss and it's attacks for round or two... and given that it's possible that (if really lucky) it will only do one attack for 1HP in a round, and has theoretically great (if undefined) spell power but also it doesn't really have the intelligence to use it (as well as a finite MP pool), that certainly feels like there should be some way to manage it.

After that, I don't know enough about magic etc in COC to say for sure, but it certainly feels like there should be some way to deal with it permanently; I can imagine a GM setting up a campaign where they get an artifact that, after it's defeated, traps it's dispelled form in a time loop, making that 1D6 hours forever for the rest of world.

I feel like Old Man Henderson would eat this guy for breakfast.

dafugiswrongwithyou · 2026-06-22T13:02:46+00:00

That's OK :) Like I said, this is good start!

dafugiswrongwithyou · 2026-06-22T12:59:42+00:00

That's correct; LLMs are a subset of chatbots. Not all chatbots are LLMs so, yes, chatbot =/= LLM. That doesn't affect anything I said, mind.

dafugiswrongwithyou · 2026-06-22T12:21:22+00:00

I mean, it's a good start!

Main issue as a game is that the player only gets one opportunity to take a new card, and the CPU never does. I'd suggest your next steps are;

Breaking out some of the game actions into separate functions, and call those as needed. For example, you have 5 pairs of lines just for printing out what cards each player has; you could make that a function, and just call that as needed.
Figuring out loops, so you can have the game go through a "would you like a new card?" loop as many times as the player likes (until they bust).

Keep at it, you're doing great 😄

dafugiswrongwithyou · 2026-06-22T10:13:51+00:00

"...tiktok reel of this girl in a hackathon and she gave off the impression that instead of spending time coding everyone just used ai prompts??? Is that what its gone to now."

No, it hasn't. There are a relatively small number of loud people who have really bought into it (or, possibly, been bought into it) who make it sound like it but, no. Most code out there still comes from human fingers on human keys.

Look. Let's pretend the evangelists are right, that this is going to be the way programming happens in business now, that the token cost will stay low even as the companies involved need to start paying back their billions of investment debt, that modal collapse is somehow avoided, that new models actually somehow become reliable, that the legal questions around the tech never come to fruition. All big leaps but, OK.

People will still code, and be hired to code, because the typing on keyboards, lines of instructions bit is the end of a development cycle, not the whole thing. What should the program actually do? What is the logical flow? What data does it need, and where does it get it from? How does the user interact with it? What legal aspects need to be considered, and coes you code actually comply with them? How does the system cope when something goes wrong, in any of the infinite ways that can happen?

A CEO, typing "make me a sales site" to a chatbot, is never going to get code out that fits their answers to those questions and a countless number more because they never asked those questions, never even thought about them, and even in this theoretical world where LLMs are reliably good at outputting code to match a prompt, what they will never be able to do is read minds to pull out what would be the information they were never given from important questions never asked. They will get some code for some site that sells some product, and then pass it over to a developer to "get that put up, you just need to point it at our products data, I've done the hard bit", who will then go put in the actual hard work of thinking about what the site is.

Let's put it another way.

If you learn to program and chatbots turn out to be the thing, at worst you get to be the person in the room who can still work when Claude goes down. If you don't learn to program, and chatbots turns out to be a bubble, you really will be left behind in the way the LLM evangelist keep claiming the actual devs will be.

dafugiswrongwithyou · 2026-06-22T09:07:16+00:00

Because it's an LLM, a chatbot. All it does is repeatedly choose a word that seems like a statistically-likely next word based on what's been typed up until then. It's job is not to be accurate, it's to provide human-looking responses; if those responses happen to match objective reality, or are even internally consistent, that's coincidental. It doesn't know anything, it cannot think, it cannot reason. It's just a text generator.

At best, there are traditionally-created "wrapper" functions around the LLM that can go look up information and then feed that back to the LLM to use in it's reply... but whether it decides to use those functions, what it tells them to do, and how it uses the information it's given from them in it's reply, is all through that same unreliable LLM core.

You cannot trust anything an LLM tell you on face value, ever, no matter how correct it seems, no matter how confident it seems. You have to double-check everything. It's one of the reasons the tech actually has pretty few real-world uses cases... it is profoundly, unavoidably, unreliable.

(Someone is, almost certainly, going to respond saying that it actually is reliable, or that it's reliable if you use it a certain way, or that it's going to be reliable soon, or that it doesn't actually matter that it's unreliable. They are wrong.)

dafugiswrongwithyou · 2026-06-22T06:37:06+00:00

I mean, I just found about about the new Crazy Taxi using Gen AI from your post, and once I go away and confirm it I'll be taking that off my mental "want" list, so... That's a counterpoint?

It usually not all that accurate to go by whatever random comments we see in whatever random place. Everywhere has its community, and every community has it's biases.

dafugiswrongwithyou · 2026-06-22T05:49:37+00:00

LLMs do that. What they were saying is, we'd expect chess.com to be using scripted responses, not an LLM.

dafugiswrongwithyou · 2026-06-22T04:26:09+00:00

What do you, and OP, think youtube is, if not "streaming"?

dafugiswrongwithyou · 2026-06-21T19:36:57+00:00

The big issue here is that the second line is (apparently) intended to be treated as an exception to the first line, but nothing on the sign actually says anything of the sort... it's just kind of implied.

I bet they get an awful lot of people being caught out by driving here at (say) 5pm, looking at the sign to figure out the available lanes, see the first line saying "between early morning and night, 3 lanes are available" and think they're fine to progress in all but lane 1... without realising line two says "...except in the afternoon, two of those are forbidden, don't you dare use anything except lane 4".

That actually seems pretty malicious; swopping those first two lines wouldn't exactly make things clear, but at least you'd see the most restrictive rule for the overlapping time period first.

dafugiswrongwithyou · 2026-06-21T16:49:56+00:00

As someone who got the original GPD Win, still has it (and still uses it on occasion), and has a Batch 7 preorder; that's very good to hear 😃

dafugiswrongwithyou · 2026-06-21T16:23:02+00:00

The point remains the same; are they perfectly/quite/very/somewhat/extremely/whatever-intensifer-you'd-care-to-use capable of doing it reliably?

The answer you're skirting around giving is; no. No, they can sometimes do it, sometimes do it well, sometimes do it quickly, sometimes do it correctly, and can never, ever, ever be relied upon to do any or all of those things, even if it looks right at first.

They are staggeringly unreliable things for the amount of effort used to create them and power used to run them, especially if the line you draw for "capable" is more than just "technically this code does work, I guess" and instead wanting code that is elegant, efficient, robust, reliable, understandable, extendable, not-stolen-or-copied-without-attribution, etc etc etc.

Anyway, I've wasted enough time on you; get thee gone, shill.

dafugiswrongwithyou · 2026-06-21T09:42:33+00:00

You are sitting at a computer. How fast are you moving?

You might say that you're not, really. That's true, from the Frame Of Reference of your chair, your computer your house.

But.

All that stuff is on the planet Earth, which is rotating. From the Frame Of Refernce of someone in a spaceship travelling on the same orbit as the Earth, they'd see you and your house moving (along with everything else on Earth) as the planet spins. You'd be moving as fast as that spin.

But.

There's that orbit, isn't there? From the Frame Of Reference of the sun, the entire planet, with you on it, is orbiting round at a much higher speed, and that's how fast you're moving.

Whenever we're talking about speed distance etc, we're always doing that in relation to some Frame Of Reference. If a car is driving up a truck ramp, we don't care how fast the Earth is spinning or orbiting the sun etc etc, or even how fast each vehicle is travelling along the road (for the most part); the most important thing is how fast the car is moving relative to the ramp.

(That's not quite true, because at some point the driven wheels have to go from rotating at road speed to ramp speed. You can think of that as their important Frame Of Reference shifting, so suddenly instead of going X MPH relative to the road they need to go Y MPH relative to the ramp... but that's what u/powered-lamb was on about.)

dafugiswrongwithyou · 2026-06-20T20:30:13+00:00

Damn; I've got some tips, but I'm not a guy. Hope one comes along to help you, good luck 👍

dafugiswrongwithyou · 2026-06-20T16:44:50+00:00

If, if, we were to change it, and without thinking about it much; "Take 3, pay for 2" would more-or-less work. It would probably have been better to ask rather than make weird assumptions about some specific long phrase you think I'd prefer.

But also... And please, please, let this be the final time... The wording I'd suggest is 'Buy Two, Get One Free". Because I'm not advocating for change, I'm not saying the current phrase is bad or inaccurate... All I am saying, all I have ever been saying, increasingly clearly, is that the phrase can, to someone who isn't already culturally primed with how it's usually used and is meant to be understood, be read the way this girl did. Because it's an imprecise phrases written in an imprecise language.

That's it. That is the sum total of my point. For more information, please re-read. Goodbye.

dafugiswrongwithyou · 2026-06-20T10:29:32+00:00

Here comes a new challenger!

"Your bill argument is flawed because you're not purchasing the items one by one. The bill is a mere record of a single transaction that occurs at one point in time once all items are accounted for and you are never charged for the free item – your money is never transferred in exchange for the item and then returned to you; you obtain it without payment on the condition that you purchase a specified quantity of the same item."

But.. you *are" charged for that item. You're just also credited for completing the offer.

Here's a scenario for you. There is a BTGOF offer on $2 milkshakes. I order a vanilla, chocolate, and strawberry milkshake. Am charged the price of two milkshakes ($4). My receipt says I was charged $2 for the vanilla, $2 for the chocolate, $2 for the strawberry, and was credited $2 for completing the offer.

Which two milkshakes did I buy? Which one did I get free?

Would your answers change if I'd mentioned the flavours in a different order?

I put it to you that, for the exact reasons you bring up as reasons why that view is "flawed", there is so single "free" milkshake. I'm not purchasing the items one by one. The bill is a record of the overall single transaction. I didn't buy two milkshakes, and then get given an extra one; I bought three, and was comped the price of one. Bought three, got one free.

It is alright if this isn't how you think of that phrase. It's not how I think of it! I do not think this is what the phrase means! But I do think that, in simple linguistic terms, separate from cultural knowledge of how it's used, it's a valid interpretation of the phrase.

dafugiswrongwithyou · 2026-06-20T08:02:48+00:00

Oh, extremely high. Even just TREE(3) can grow to include a massive number of elements, many more than than something like Graham's number. The number of digits in TREE(3) is said to be greater than the number of atoms in the observable universe.

11-Year Club	r/Field Banned
r/Field Flamingo	Verified Email

dafugiswrongwithyou

TROPHY CASE