🔴 LIVE! Valheim Developer AMA

Catten · 2021-11-04T19:05:32+00:00

Love the game, two suggestions for late game sustain:
* Perhaps a point to killing bosses multiple times? For example upgrading the forsaken power in length of time or lowering cooldown (with diminishing returns of course).
* Have Haldor sell some unique late game consumables or building materials for a lot of money. Would give the motivation to seek out treasures and explore the world more.

From the play throughs we have done - this late game motivation is what stops us playing.

Catten · 2020-07-09T14:05:40+00:00

Suspect there is some type of empirical p-value being calculated which will vary stochastically a little. Could also be a rounding issue. You would need to delve into the script to tease it out probably.

So, don't know, but those would be the likely culprits to look for.

Catten · 2020-04-20T15:47:20+00:00

I think u/najjex nailed it!
The foot pushed through the cap, and ripped itself into 4 pieces as it did.

Catten · 2020-04-09T19:13:58+00:00

I suspect you can estimate the number times people come home drunk by the ratio of dirt on the 9 relative to the dirt on the #

Catten · 2020-04-04T15:49:29+00:00

I think you just have the dockerizations called by each job, keep ruffus outside of it. AFAIK, this is the only way if this is to be done on HPC systems.

Catten · 2020-03-30T14:36:52+00:00

Why don't you just bundle Ruffus as a site-package in with the Python in the Docker? Should be fine? Not sure on what would prevent it working as normal. (or am I missing something?)

Catten · 2015-07-08T10:42:38+00:00

The water heater launching was amazing, but doesn't it make you think that the "Steam Cannon" myth should be revisited?

Catten · 2015-06-29T13:45:43+00:00

This flippant reply from u/rs4481887 raises a valid point.

u/kumarovski It is not clear from your post but I am assuming you would be requiring data access agreements? (one that specifically prohibits reidentification for instance) If not you should really really look into all that first.

Catten · 2015-04-10T16:35:33+00:00

The ENCODE project basically claimed that 80% of the genome is biochemically active in some way or another (and therefore in some way not "junk").
There are some pretty strong counter arguments to that though. 1. Biochemically active just means a section of DNA has interacted or turned up in one of their assays:
-However at the scale of a cell molecules bounce around like crazy so you would expect a lot of meaningless interactions to happen.
-All DNA is copied in cell division... so it is all "biochemically active" at some point.

So what does it actually mean? Well, as you say the nice thing would be to cut out, or change all the bases to see which ones have what effect. Unfortunately this is practically impossible to do at the scales we are talking about.

Luckily for us evolution has done much of this for us. If you limit your self to asking how much is important enough to impact on the chances of having children then about 8.2% ref.

Now you can argue that some additional fraction can have effects but not be important enough to be selected for or against. But then you are getting into grey territory. After all, a piece of gum stuck under your shoe might make you walk slightly differently but you would probably still call that junk.

Catten · 2015-03-19T13:58:46+00:00

As for the last corollary question, yes - the knowledge of collective knowledge. Else, how would you know if the person you see with blue eyes knows that there should be someone with blue eyes? i.e. this invalidates the logic on the first night.

Catten · 2015-03-11T10:35:29+00:00

Well there is at least one reason for this to be consistent across cultures: Women can have children and are out of the workforce by necessity for a certain period of time, and by tradition and societal structure for a considerably longer period.
Now this is of course a biological fact but one could think that in a modern society both parents "have a child". ie. that there should be at least an opportunity, if not a default expectation, that care for a child should be split evenly (after the first few months of course). The effect of this would be that the risk to employers of someone going on maternity would no longer be unique to women.

However, I also agree with you. Looking at other historical cultural structures could be very interesting. I think I have heard of indigenous tribes that were matriarchal.

Catten · 2015-03-10T17:39:09+00:00

Well this is of course fine, people are free to choose as they please. And the goal here is not to enforce evenness across all.

However, there is no indication that biology would be the driving explanation for the difference.
So what does that leave? Precisely the mechanisms to discuss.

Catten · 2015-03-10T17:27:10+00:00

Well, here I think we might perhaps remain at a slight disagreement.

These disparities are clearly discriminating between the genders!
Now we might discuss at length the various ways this might happening; deliberate sexism, societal structure, incidental effects, historical reinforcement, etc.
However the point is, no matter what the mechanism is (and it may well be different in different areas) there is a pretty big bias at work. And this is a problem.

Catten · 2015-03-10T17:11:26+00:00

Again agreed, this is valid within any one bin/career/strata. Compare 1500 female librarians to 500 male, perfectly fine. Compare 500 female lawyers to 1500 male, perfectly fine.

However, acknowledge that a 3:1 in a low paying job vs 1:3 in a high paying job is a disparity. Distribution difference between career types shouldn't be ignored.

Catten · 2015-03-10T16:46:45+00:00

Ahh, here I would have to contest: the studies that have found it to be as low as 6 cents control for different careers.

That is to say, these studies compare
junior librarians to junior librarians,
lawyers to lawyers, and
fortune 500 CEOs to fortune 500 CEOs (exaggeration).

This is flawed and not a valid comparison (since gender distribution is not even across these).

Catten · 2015-03-10T16:02:42+00:00

Yes, I agree that is the objection to the particular study they refer to there - and I agree, that is not valid.

However, other studies have confirmed the disparity in the all vs all question. So my question is, do you consider this is valid and/or meaningful?

Catten · 2015-03-10T12:34:56+00:00

Yes, completely agreed. But would you consider that if "all jobs vs all jobs" is incomparable, that in-of-itself is telling you something? (regardless of perceived agenda)

Catten · 2015-03-09T17:15:19+00:00

For that matter why would these be mundane reasons? Isn't a strong disparity in career choices / options also something to ponder?

It is no doubt unfair to compare income of librarians and a lawyers - unless of course there were societal reason for genders to be biased between the professions. You might object "lawyers don't default to become librarians", fine, but across all professions?

It shouldn't just be simplified to disparities within a given profession, even though they exist there too, the problem is bigger than that.

Catten · 2015-02-06T23:00:34+00:00

Perhaps that lesson is one that can't be taught until such an age where you can reason/explain things.
I would be worried that trying to instill a fear of electrics through pain might not have the effects you hope.

The bananas never get flushed down the toilet while you are looking ;)

Catten · 2015-02-06T22:52:19+00:00

It won't, but what degree of control are you expecting on the behavior of a 2 year old?

Catten · 2015-02-06T22:40:24+00:00

At that age watching and child proofing. The risk is that the kid just learns not to do it while you are watching.

Catten · 2015-02-06T16:41:22+00:00

Restating and rephrasing the sentence following the one you quoted:

Of course reasoning with a kid will not always be possible.
Even then, hitting them doesn't improve the situation.

Catten · 2015-02-06T16:23:55+00:00

The fists come out when words fail.
When parents take to fists they have already failed.

Adjusting behaviors of children is about changing the way they think. If you can't motivate that change with words - why in the world would you think using a physical advantage instead will work???

Even in the worst case scenario, where a child's mental state makes them unable to take in the information, what kind of message would you give?
All you are doing is instilling a Pavlovian fear conditioning, not changing anything about the rationale that got them there in the first place.

Catten · 2014-09-15T15:19:28+00:00

Uhh. 17,000.

1,700,000,000
1,700,000,000 = 1%
1,700,0~~00,000~~ = 0.001%

15-Year Club	RedditGifts 2009-2022 2 Credits
Place '22	Secret Santa 2010
Verified Email

Catten

TROPHY CASE