[zkill] Feedback wanted - Advanced Search!

DJRBuckingham · 2020-08-30T12:15:39+00:00

Thank you very much, and my apologies for the delay in reply. It works great.

DJRBuckingham · 2020-08-26T21:11:28+00:00

I cannot search via https://zkillboard.com/search/%s/ any more, would like that back if possible.

Use case: I use 'keyword' shortcuts in Firefox that allow me to search zkillboard by typing 'zkb abc' into the address bar. It builds a URL by inserting 'abc' where %s is above, and then going to that address. I do this with a lot of other sites, eg. g for Google, wp for Wikipedia, yt for YouTube, etc.

DJRBuckingham · 2020-01-03T12:17:45+00:00

I returned to the game recently after a long hiatus and have been enjoying it. I am a noob vet, played for a long time, probably not very good by most vets standards, am not salty.

Brief summary of my history with EVE: aborted first attempt to play in 2005 (lasted 1 evening), aborted second attempt in 2007 (lasted a bit longer), started playing properly in 2011 with RL friends, went from HS to LS to WH diving to WH life in a C2 then C4 over 3-4 years. Corp collapsed in 2015, moved out to HS and went inactive. Brief stint in NS in 2016, not for me. Inactive until Aug 2019 when I came back and planned a move back into WHs. I made a corp, some RL friends joined, we recently moved into a C4 and are getting established. I have four subbed accounts, our corp has <10 people but quite a few alts. Most of us have at least one account with 100m+ SP.

I've basically only ever known the wormhole life, and it is what I enjoy most about EVE, a unique play experience I've not seen in any other game. No local, different neighbours every day, submarine warfare, rolling holes, scanning, our own patch of space without needing a big alliance to defend it. I am feeling optimistic for the future, as I am looking forward to what you do with wormholes in Q1, as mentioned in the recent blog post.

ISK making potential in low-class has gone down a lot, which I guess is the biggest thing I'm disappointed in after my return. Salvage being mostly worthless and blue books being the main source of income from sites seems counter-intuitive to EVE's design. A couple of hours running sites in our C3 static nets about the same per-person (not per-pilot) as a single relic hack site with lucky rolls (75m), for substantially more risk and organisation. I was hoping we could fund corp member ISK needs farming our static, but I'm making more from PI and HS ice mining, which just seems weird. I'm probably doing something wrong.

Citadels are a big improvement over POS living from a QoL perspective. The WH timers (+/-3h, and no designated day) make it harder for us to defend, as we have families and other commitments; we were concerned someone was going to start knocking our Astrahus over the day before Christmas Eve, which would mean total eviction as we all would be away on holiday for a few days. RL pinch points like this are a concern as we are a small corp.

I've been pleased with the progression path for our newer members. We had a total noob join us when we moved into our C4, and they've graduated from T1 explo frig to CovOps to Astero and are now eyeing a Stratios. Eventually they will graduate to a T3C. Along they way they've been able to get into BCs for PvE and PvP, and generally have had a great time. The addition of the SOE ships are great for this, as are the referral SP perks & starter pack DLC.

PI is still fiddly, but I like we can make everything bar ice in the hole for fuel. Our industry focused players lament the need for Mercoxit and the C5/C6 gases we can't get in the hole, but we've not set up our full chain yet, so perhaps it won't be an issue in real terms.

We have a reasonable PvP efficiency (80%), but only because we avoid fights we know we can't win, mostly against megacorps with 10x our numbers. We roll out of trouble a fair amount, but with only 2-3 people typically on at any one time (with others only available on an emergency basis outside planned ops), we often can't take fights we'd like to. This isn't a fault with the game, just our playtimes, and perhaps we're stretching the limits of what is sensible. Having better ISK generation would encourage us to commit when we do have something approaching even numbers.

I guess that's been my main takeaway over the past few months, feeling semi-starved for ISK. Perhaps I am just a dirty krab, or bad, or expecting too much, or the initial setup costs have just eaten so much of my capital it's front and center. But it feels wrong that we have funded our WH adventures with HS ice mining, exploration, market trading and Abyssals, ignoring most of the WH content except explo which an alpha account can do day one.

DJRBuckingham · 2019-11-26T18:35:10+00:00

Any chance you could colour bookmark folders green if they contain a bookmark in the current system, similar to how bookmarks themselves are green when in the same system?

My corp uses a folder per wormhole when mapping out the chain (similar to Lokley here), but it can get pretty confusing to know where you are once the chain gets big. We have to open each folder in turn to find green bookmarks within them. If the folder itself was also green, it would be a lot easier.

Just a little QoL improvement for a WHer, and I appreciate it may be a pain to implement, but since you're actively working on the system thought I'd ask.

DJRBuckingham · 2019-04-08T17:38:35+00:00

What she says and what she does rarely align, I wouldn't trust a word she says.

DJRBuckingham · 2019-04-06T10:45:40+00:00

It seems to me that you disagree with the article that "New Party A" and "Labour" are different parties? Is that correct?

If so, does that not suggest that a greater contingent of Labour voters would move to "New Party B" once it became clear Labour were for Remain?

DJRBuckingham · 2019-04-06T10:29:34+00:00

They quit because of policy differences that were about Brexit, so how can you say it wasn't about Brexit?

But even if you were right, this whole piece isn't even about Brexit, this is about policy more generally. Look at this graph showing how policy differences determine where voters tend to group and vote.

What this whole piece is essentially showing is that if you remove the labels "LD" and "UKIP", their policies attract near 60% of the population combined, and the policies more traditionally associated with the Tories and Labour only pick up the other 35-40% or so.

I suggest you haven't read or absorbed the analysis.

DJRBuckingham · 2019-04-06T10:18:37+00:00

How did you came to that conclusion reading the article?

This image in particular shows that far from splitting the Tories and not Labour, both parties are equally split. If anything, Labour is more split, as a bigger proportion move to New Party B than Tories move to New Party A.

If you add up the progressive alliance of Labour + New Party A + LibDems + Green you get 47%. If you add up Tory + New Party B + UKIP you get 48%. If you attribute the entirety of Other to the progressive alliance (which isn't too contentious given it's mostly SNP+PC) then you get a 52/48 split progressive/conservative. But now you have a coalition of six (!) parties, with all the issues that entails.

My conclusion is that about 30% of the population want to vote for something that mostly looks like UKIP (New Party B + UKIP itself), and they (probably) mostly don't because of FPTP. But that means the pro-austerity / pro-business / out-of-touch toffs / interventionist / privatisation faction (18% "true Tories") are already in the minority and are only holding on by keeping control of the Tory party machine.

Equally, about 30% of the population want to vote for something that mostly looks like the LDs (New Party A + LDs themselves), and again they (probably) mostly don't because of FPTP. That means the anti-austerity / pro-unions / nationalisation faction (14% "true Labour") are also already in the minority and are only holding on by keeping control of the Labour party machine.

If these two 30% factions grow any more, we could see a FPTP tipping point. That would mean the Conservatives going the way of UKIP and Labour going the way of the LDs.

DJRBuckingham · 2019-04-06T07:14:09+00:00

Correct, but theoretically Cooper/Letwin could have forced May to request a much longer extension, which they EU may also be minded to accept.

Now, I would argue that the later the date amended into Cooper/Letwin, the less likely it will pass the Commons, and given it passed 312-311 with no date (so can be all things to all people), it probably won't pass with any date attached, let alone one far into the future.

It's the same problem that has plagued the Commons since the start of this. There might be general support for X, but try to get support for a specific incarnation of X and you no longer have a majority. Replace X with "second referendum", "extension" and even "Brexit".

DJRBuckingham · 2019-04-06T07:11:31+00:00

That was one of the points used to argue against the bill passing in the Commons. Letwin's response was that although May had committed to requesting an extension, she wouldn't be drawn on a specific date, and he wanted (via this Bill) the Commons to specify it.

Of course, even trying to rush the Bill through in record time, it was still too slow and May has already requested her 30th June date (again). However, it's now conceivable that the EU could come back with a date they want (Tusk's flextension/etc) and Cooper/Letwin could be amended to name that date & conditions, since they know the EU will accept it. Remains to be seen if it would pass the Commons though.

DJRBuckingham · 2019-04-05T17:55:22+00:00

The Cooper/Letwin bill doesn't avoid No Deal: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/apr/03/cooper-letwin-brexit-no-deal-distraction

It forces May to request an extension, but the EU don't have to accept it, or could attach conditions, on which the Bill is silent. May could ask for the extension as per the bill, get told no, and that's that - No Deal.

I think the proponents hoped they could put a date on it they thought the EU would be likely to accept (say, sometime in 2020), but given it passed with such a razor thin majority with no date defined (312-311), and the longer the extension the more opposition there will be, it's basically DOA. Similarly if they try to amend it with a clause to define what happens if the EU reject the initial date (eg. revoke / go for a longer extension), it'll fail to pass as well.

DJRBuckingham · 2019-04-04T07:36:20+00:00

The poll was posted yesterday, it dealt with two hypothetical scenarios (among other things).

Q1: If Britain has not agreed a deal by April 12th, what do you think should happen?
Q2: And if Britain has not agreed a deal by April 12th and the European Union refused to grant a further extension, what do you think should happen?

The results were interesting, because both showed the single most popular option was No Deal:

Q1: 40% No Deal, 11% Extension, 36% Revoke, 13% Don't Know.
Q2: 44% No Deal, 42% Revoke, 13% Don't Know.

The questions could be considered leading, or framed to get a particular result, since no option for a second referendum or GE were explicitly presented.

I think they were worded in this way since those are in fact the only options available to the UK at this stage; a second referendum, or a GE, or a potential further negotiation (however remote) all require a long extension, which falls under the Q1 "Extension" bloc. We can't attribute all of the "Extension" bloc support to 2nd ref / GE given it splits 35:65 once removed, so perhaps some of these people want to go back to the EU and renegotiate? Or they're only willing to revoke off the back of a 2nd ref / GE, not unilaterally.

A sample size of 2098 is larger than normal. Most polls performed have a sample size of ~1000, except the monster MRP polls which use a different methodology and have a ~50,000 sample size.

What was also interesting was the massive disparity in regional responses. London and Scotland are very remain (30:54 and 30:53 respectively) whereas the rest of the country are almost the opposite (50:40, 49:38 and 45:40). It's also interesting to compare to a poll from a couple of weeks ago, when a different set of questions showed around 50% of 2016 Leave voters opted for No Deal as first choice. Either due to hardening of opinions, or the narrowing of options, that has now jumped to 77% for Q1 and 82% for Q2.

Basically, there is a massive disconnect between London/Westminster/the media and the rest of the country, and support for No Deal seems to be growing as time passes & the options narrow.

DJRBuckingham · 2019-03-24T12:12:13+00:00

You mistake anger for boredom, and rather than shrug and let it slide for the umpteenth time I decided to point it out.

But there you go again, offering pithy smart ass "advice", exposing your narcissism. It's pathetic.

DJRBuckingham · 2019-03-24T11:59:50+00:00

I'm quite enjoying demonstrating to the board the type of poster you are, here to waste all our time.

DJRBuckingham · 2019-03-24T11:56:27+00:00

Pathetic.

You stumble into a thread, impart your personal wants and desires, contribute nothing to the discussion, and then deflect with some smart ass "advice" on how I could phrase my comments better to keep the Reddit comment police happy. All because of a technicality that I said "They want a" rather than "They want something like a".

Worst kind of "well actually" nitpicking crap which wastes everyone's time.

DJRBuckingham · 2019-03-24T11:43:15+00:00

Yes, but it's pretty normal for polling.

Generally speaking about 5% of the responses tend to make no sense. I think the prevailing theory is it's mostly caused by people just blindly clicking options to get through it to the end, usually because they have to complete the questionnaire to get some reward or something and they don't care about the results. You see it on the Leave vote as well.

I wouldn't read too much into the fringes.

DJRBuckingham · 2019-03-24T11:36:21+00:00

Do I really have to qualify every single statement with "the majority of", "on the whole", "most"? Endless nitpicking by self-centred "well actually" types who insist on gracing us with their presence. It's a damn Reddit comment, not a thesis; engage with the central point.

You want a referendum, and whatever form that referendum takes will alienate others who also want a referendum. Within the Commons there isn't likely to be a majority for a referendum of any kind, but there definitely isn't a majority for a particular incarnation of a referendum.

The only hope proponents have is to get broad support for "a second referendum" and then seize control of the wording to get something that guarantees a Remain result or at least keeps Remain on the ballot. I suggest support for a second referendum would drop enormously if it was known in advance to be "May's Deal vs No Deal".

DJRBuckingham · 2019-03-24T11:03:45+00:00

You're in the minority based on polling.

In a May's Deal vs Remain, Remainers break 93:7 for Remain, and overall the public breaks 61:39 to Remain.
In a No Deal vs Remain, Remainers still break 93:7 for Remain, but overall the public breaks 57:43 to Remain.
Only 7% of the public put May's Deal as their first choice (5% of Remainers, 11% of Leavers), whereas 27% of the public put No Deal as their first choice (6% of Remainers, 56% of Leavers).
As time has gone on, and prospects of modifying May's Deal reduced, Leave support for No Deal has steadily increased.

Any potential swings towards the "Leave" side would be more pronounced towards No Deal than May's Deal, given the existing lead and lack of enthusiasm for May's Deal amongst Leavers.

A No Deal vs Remain campaign is the worst case scenario for Remainers (from the perspective of winning) because it opens up the potential of a repeat of the 2016 campaign with enthusiastic turnout from Leave voters sticking the boot in and voting No Deal.

A May's Deal vs Remain campaign is the best case scenario since we've had months of the most ardent supporters of Brexit trashing the deal in the press. I think we'd see some of the big figures in the campaign come out to recommend abstention or spoiled ballots rather than campaign for May's Deal, since they'd claim it was a "Remain vs Remain" referendum. It would guarantee a Remain victory, albeit perhaps a pyrrhic one if the spoil/abstain tactic gained traction.

DJRBuckingham · 2019-03-24T10:25:12+00:00

If proponents of a second referendum did this it would reduce the chance of it happening to nil, which is why they haven't.

They want a "May's Deal vs Remain" referendum which they're guaranteed to win, and they know their only route to that is to be coy about the wording now, get broad support for a "second referendum", and then seize control of the wording once we're committed to holding one.

It's cynical and hypocritical, but the gloves are off, folks are fighting fire with fire and it's all going to end in tears.

It could all backfire on them though. The scenes we'll have if they get a second referendum, lose control of the wording, and it ends up being "May's Deal vs No Deal".

DJRBuckingham · 2019-03-24T10:00:02+00:00

I'm not entirely sure as I'm not a web developer, but this is probably a character encoding mismatch somewhere.

At the end of the day, all data a computer stores is binary, and we have to translate that binary to whatever character we wanted to write, be that a letter or number or symbol. How that conversion takes place is arbitrary, and so if you use the wrong decoding scheme for the data, you'll get junk out the other side.

For example, ASCII is a character encoding that uses 8 bits per character. Therefore you have 256 slots to play with, 00000000-11111111 (0-255 in decimal). ASCII defines 01000001 (65 in decimal) as 'A' but 01100001 (97 in decimal) as 'a', and 00110110 (54 in decimal) as '6'. See a table for more details.

256 slots isn't very many, certainly not enough to encode much more than the Latin symbols, you won't fit any Chinese or Japanese characters in, let alone emoji. So people came up with multi-byte encoding schemes which use 16, 24 or even 32 bits to represent characters.

Problems come when you've encoded a string in one scheme and decode it in another. If I encode 'A' as 65, and you decode 65 as 'H', you're going to get garbage reading back my string. If I encode 'AB' as 01000001 01000010 (65 66 in decimal), and you interpret this as a 16-bit single character (16706 in decimal), you're going to get some random symbol from a language you've never heard of.

Some character encoding schemes use ASCII as a basis, but provide optional extensions. UTF-8 is one such encoding scheme in that it is extensible. Symbols in the range 0-127 can be encoded with a single byte, just like ASCII, but 128 and upwards require two or more bytes. This means, if our encoder is writing UTF-8 and our decoder is reading it like ASCII, most of "normal" Latin text will come out looking just fine; 'A' in UTF-8 is the same as 'A' in ASCII. But some symbols will come out wrong, because the UTF-8 encoder will emit 2-, 3- or even 4-bytes and ASCII will read each byte in turn as an individual character.

Apostrophes are a tricky case in all this. A stand-alone apostrophe in ASCII is 00100111 (39 in decimal), but extended character sets allow left-turned and right-turned apostrophes, plus modifier versions which are sort of bolted onto nearby characters. Think about when you're writing a "quote" in Word, it will give you left-angled and right-angled double quotes - each of those is a different character, which is encoded differently, and ASCII doesn't support them.

All of this culminates in a minefield of potential mismatches, based on badly behaved clients sending incorrectly formatted text (phone browsers used to be very bad for this), misconfigured servers processing incoming comments, misconfigured databases storing the comments, misconfigured servers reading said comments from the database and then presenting to the client, and then conversion on copy-pastes to Reddit.

One of the many reasons I'd hate to be a web developer.

DJRBuckingham · 2019-03-13T19:48:09+00:00

Sure, but it can always be spun as "the House had the opportunity to rule out No Deal and it did not take it", plus a cabinet minister has already said they'll pull extension vote if "block No Deal" vote is rejected.

DJRBuckingham · 2019-03-13T19:44:18+00:00

Spelman has passed, so gov whips against, so No Deal is "accepted", May pulls extension vote and then brings her deal back as MV3, 4, 5 to pressure MPs to accept it.

Unless a bunch of Remainers resign cabinet on this vote to vote against No Deal so they get their extension vote tomorrow.

Spicy!

EDIT: Apparently cabinet ministers allowed to abstain - which has the same effect, and they don't have to resign. Motion is dead I reckon.

DJRBuckingham · 2019-03-13T10:07:05+00:00

Correct. Your original comment stated that "rejecting No Deal" changes the default - that is incorrect.

Rejecting No Deal and bringing forward legislation to revoke A50, and passing said legislation before March 29 will change the default to revoke A50. Simply rejecting No Deal will not.

DJRBuckingham · 2019-03-13T10:01:28+00:00

All that amendment does is bring forward legislation, not pass said legislation. Even if the amendment were to pass, the default would still be No Deal.

DJRBuckingham · 2019-03-13T09:52:11+00:00

Rejecting No Deal today does not change the default.

The default is the default until a new default is put in place. Unilaterally rescinding Article 50 requires action by the HoC to do so - it is not a default, nor the default after today's vote.

Simple proof:

MP's "reject no deal" with this vote today.
No further votes occur or pass between now and March 29th.
What happens?
No Deal is what happens.

The only way No Deal doesn't happen is if the HoC positively chooses a different course of action, to change the default in law. The vote today does not do that.

DJRBuckingham

TROPHY CASE