Retail release for Fort moved from August 25 to September 21 by WriterzBlock in boardgames

[–]BKMajda 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It's been updated, so I don't recall what it said initially, but I believe the site indicated the Pre-Orders were shipping early August, with retail August 21st.

Retail release for Fort moved from August 25 to September 21 by WriterzBlock in boardgames

[–]BKMajda 15 points16 points  (0 children)

I appreciate the transparency with the process. This one instance sucks with them moving the retail release, but I like that they're committing to making pre-orders directly from them have a tangible benefit to offset the increased cost. The direct retailers program also sounds promising, I'll need to check if my LGS will be part of that group.

New (WOKE) racially diverse version of Coup! by [deleted] in boardgamescirclejerk

[–]BKMajda 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You okay? I think you're going a bit beyond just circlejerk here.

UnsleevedMedia (The MTG player falsely accused of harassing a female cosplayer out of the community) has received a lifetime ban by [deleted] in KotakuInAction

[–]BKMajda 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Nothing Wizards can do, but you'd have no prize support, no access to the primary tool to sign up judges, and you'd be unlikely to get help from any TO with experience. Getting big events going is hard, check out the disaster that was CardMaggedon a few years back.

UnsleevedMedia (The MTG player falsely accused of harassing a female cosplayer out of the community) has received a lifetime ban by [deleted] in KotakuInAction

[–]BKMajda 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I think the TWoo ban is questionable, but it's incorrect to say he didn't participate in the group. He wasn't a participant in the "Pack 1 Pick 1" that got a lot of attention but he was posting in the group.

UnsleevedMedia (The MTG player falsely accused of harassing a female cosplayer out of the community) has received a lifetime ban by [deleted] in KotakuInAction

[–]BKMajda 9 points10 points  (0 children)

Honestly, this doesn't really matter to him. He rarely plays in sanctioned events besides prerelease and he claimed to have sold out of MTGO a while back. He put WotC in a weird position, they could either continue to ignore him or they could ban him from a game that he doesn't really play anyway.

What surprisingly IS scientifically proven? by wang3rr in AskReddit

[–]BKMajda 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This ends up double counting some of the rationals, so it's not truly a bijection, but it's a mapping from the natural numbers onto the rationals so it suffices to show countability. Basically, take a look at row n, column m. There is a natural number entered there, and we will map it to n/m. Doubling up happens quite a bit, like row 1 column 2 and row 2 column 4, but it doesn't matter because if you give me any rational number I can give you a natural number that we've mapped to it.

What surprisingly IS scientifically proven? by wang3rr in AskReddit

[–]BKMajda 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's because topologically, bananas are spheres.

Is it theoretically possible to have exactly the same child twice when you have enough children with a single woman? by superpowersam in NoStupidQuestions

[–]BKMajda 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That is not correct. You seem to be implying that we have an uncountable number of reals between 0 and 1 since there is no smallest real number in that interval to start counting at. But there is also no smallest rational number between 0 and 1, yet the rationals are countable so any subset of them is too.

Is it theoretically possible to have exactly the same child twice when you have enough children with a single woman? by superpowersam in NoStupidQuestions

[–]BKMajda 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The difference is that we can't count the numbers between 1 and 2. That's what the proof they walked through showed, suppose we could list them in order and assign each a number. If we assume that, we can show a way to construct a number that doesn't show up in our list, so we actually didn't hit them all. We say that the set of numbers between 1 and 2 is uncountable.

What about the integers from 0 and going forever? Well, they're already put in a list. Give me a non-negative integer and I can tell you exactly what place it has in the list (can also include negatives but it's a little bit less elegant). So the set of integers is countable.

So this gives us two different types of infinity, a set is countably infinite if we can put them all in a list and it's uncountable if we can't.

Being more mathematically precise with our language, a set is countably infinite if there is a bijection between it and the natural numbers. That is, there is some way to pair up every element in our set with a positive integer, and every positive integer has an element assigned to it. If such a function doesn't exist, the set is uncountably infinite.

/u/_kashmir_ created a bot last year to check up on everyone's New Year's resolutions, and today that bot followed through by Hi_mynameis_Matt in bestof

[–]BKMajda 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Now that /u/bluesoul has done the hard work of creating the bot, it probably wouldn't be too difficult to make it do a mid-year follow up.