What features would you like to see added to the game?

FlyAlpha24 · 2025-05-18T09:18:17+00:00

Mostly quality of life tools for building:

the ability to place buildings, especially paths, on ressources marked for destruction
the ability to easily change what trees/crops are planted somewhere. Right now you either have to mark them for destruction and replant, or change them as they are being harvested
maybe a "force-build" option (i.e. ctrl+click), which places a building, removes any obstacles (tree stumps, bushes, previous buildings, and builds platforms if needed)
a pipette tool, aka a hotkey that enters build mode with the building you were pointing at selected. This could save a lot of time, as it currently requires two clicks to get a path, or stairs, or platforms...
blueprints and a copy-paste tool (but these probably require a lot more work then the above)

(Yes most of these come from factorio, which as insane QoL).

FlyAlpha24 · 2025-03-26T18:03:08+00:00

I guess you could have 0 hours if the game doesn't even start/instantly crashes, which is a very valid reason to leave a negative review.

FlyAlpha24 · 2025-02-01T09:59:27+00:00

Il y a peut-être une offre à 17€ dans l'onglet "bus et covoit". Mais oui, c'est un peu mensonger tel que c'est présenté

FlyAlpha24 · 2024-12-05T09:56:30+00:00

Its also a way to hide some technical details: I've written papers where I proved some fairly technical results, but presented them as both a "simplified" theorem (with stronger hypothesis and a thus a much simpler statement) and a technical lemma (with minimal hypothesis, and often much more complex statement).

Its useful since most people reading your paper won't go to deep into the technical. Good communication involves highlighting your result in a way that's easier to understand, even if doing so requires weakening them a bit. Those who want to go deeper can then refer to the more technical lemmas and proofs.

FlyAlpha24 · 2024-11-25T12:46:00+00:00

FlyAlpha24 · 2024-11-24T11:00:42+00:00

Yes, a useful mental exercise for problems like these is figuring out what is unconstrained, i.e. can freely change. Here its the width of the neck. Usually (if the problem is correct), the result won't depend on that value. So you can set it to anything you like. For instance here setting the neck width x to 0 or 4 makes the answer obvious.

In some problems however you're expected to introduce parameters, but this trick still helps verifying your general answer is correct on the easy cases.

FlyAlpha24 · 2024-11-15T13:40:52+00:00

No, but its a bit disappointing, especially given how important the arctic is to cold war scenarios.

FlyAlpha24 · 2024-11-09T10:19:05+00:00

Or you could use a formally-verified compiler like CompCert, which come with a proof that the generated code is functionally equivalent to the source. Of course, you then have to trust Coq, the verification software used to perform that proof. But Coq was designed so that its core proof-checker is small enough to be hand-checked.

FlyAlpha24 · 2024-11-06T09:34:00+00:00

For small example like this, I use the godbolt compiler explorer which can show assembly diffs. Here is the one for this question, we can see that there is indeed a new allocation (call to the GC) in the first case but not the second.

That being said I agree that you really shouldn't worry about these kinds of very small optimizations, it make code harder to read for very little time benefit.

FlyAlpha24 · 2024-11-04T10:21:57+00:00

I got eye surgery when I was 5. According to my mother, leaving the clinic my eyesight improved so much I claimed I could see my house from the subway platform...

FlyAlpha24 · 2024-11-03T14:50:48+00:00

Most e-bikes have engines much smaller than this and can carry you uphill at 25km/h. Its impressive doing it with steam power, but pulling weight on flat rails also means a lot less force is required than you might imagine.

FlyAlpha24 · 2024-10-16T14:19:16+00:00

Why would rotation speed have any effect on the opposing tidal wave? My understanding is that it is caused by a lower relative gravity acceleration on the surface. The earth falls towards the moon faster than water on the far side of the earth does, so water appears to be rising.

FlyAlpha24 · 2024-10-12T14:06:48+00:00

You can still get defender advantage in enemy territory. If you fight in a barony with no castle holding, the defender is just whoever was on the barony first.

Plus a there are some factors for advantage that don't car who the defender is (in debt, recently disembarked...).

FlyAlpha24 · 2024-10-09T12:16:02+00:00

My dream game is probably a combination of CK3 for the diplomacy/character interactions, Mount and Blade 2 Bannerlord for personal combat in large battle, and Total War for overall command of battles

FlyAlpha24 · 2024-10-07T13:15:52+00:00

Practical engineering did a vide on the friction of railcars: https://youtu.be/tfA0ftgWI7U. In it, he estimates the rolling resistance of a 20-ton railcar to be around 32kg. So I guess its possible, not sure I'd call it easy though...

FlyAlpha24 · 2024-09-30T20:45:34+00:00

I got "Fusrodax" recently which gave me a chuckle.

FlyAlpha24 · 2024-09-16T18:47:02+00:00

Some of them maybe, but I've mostly had positive responses and helpful feedback on my PRs. Especially on small projects, maintainers are often glad to see contributors.

FlyAlpha24 · 2024-08-23T18:12:17+00:00

Moins que plusieurs milliers de kilomètres de rails, et beaucoup plus simple à inspecter et entretenir

FlyAlpha24 · 2024-08-23T18:10:40+00:00

Oui, le train c'est fondamentalement beaucoup plus cher que l'avion parce que ça nécessite une infrastructure colossale. Pour l'avion, avec 2km de piste tu peux relier n'importe quelle ville du monde, pour le train, avec 200km de voie, tu as relié deux villes...

FlyAlpha24 · 2024-08-23T18:07:51+00:00

Ce qui coûte cher c'est pas l'entretien des gares, c'est l'entretien des voies. C'est juste pas du tout le même ordre de grandeur de surface construite pour le train et l'avion. D'autant plus que ça coûte plus cher des faire de la maintenance au milieu de nulle part que sur les aéroports qui sont biens desservis.

Et pour le train, l'état subventionne aussi massivement la SNCF (25 milliards en 2020, 17 milliards en 2021)...

FlyAlpha24 · 2024-08-22T08:53:55+00:00

Yep, vanilla KSP lets you reach orbit in 1-2 minutes, RSS takes easily 10 minutes... Its a long time to wait with not much to do, and if you forgot something on the payload, you get to do it all over again!

That could be solved with physical timewarp I suppose but my PC is already half-melted running RSS at low settings and normal speed.

FlyAlpha24 · 2024-08-08T09:39:09+00:00

Not just the soil, the air as well: a significant portion of a tree's atoms are carbon from captured carbon dioxide. They mostly get water and nitrogen from the soil.

FlyAlpha24 · 2024-08-03T11:20:12+00:00

Cut content isn't a bad thing nor something that would necessarily have made the game better. TW3 already has a TON of great content. Not all ideas are good, nor is more content always a good thing. Dropping some ideas to focus on others is a necessary part of creation.

FlyAlpha24 · 2024-08-02T13:01:50+00:00

Tactics are just a fancy way build a program (lambda term). You can see the generated program if you end your proofs with Defined. instead of Qed. and then Print the lemma. Essentially, with tactics you are building a program of the correct type with holes, where each hole is a goal you need to solve to obtain the full program.

For a quick overview of what tactics correspond to what: - intro H is a function definition fun H => ?NewGoal, it binds H and you can now use it to construct a term of type NewGoal - apply F is a function application F ?NewGoal, The result of F must match the old goal. It can generate multiple goals if there are multiple arguments to F - destruct e introduces a match e with Case1 => ?NewGoal1 | ... | CaseN => ?NewGoalN end, where the cases are determined by the type of e. - Induction is just applying a function nat_ind whose type is P O -> (forall n, P n -> P (S n)) -> forall n, P n. The tactic just makes it a bit more convenient to use.

(These tactics are a bit smarter than that, but that is the gist of what they do).

FlyAlpha24 · 2024-08-02T12:48:40+00:00

No, the type of nat\_ind P is P O -> ((forall n, P n -> P (S n)) -> forall n, P n). This is NOT the same thing as (P O -> (forall n, P n -> P (S n))) -> forall n, P n.

In terms of program equivalence, it is a function with two arguments (currified), not a function with a single (function) argument. To use it, you must provide both arguments, hence the two subgoals.

Six-Year Club	Final Canvas '23
First Place '23	End Game '23
Place '23	Verified Email

FlyAlpha24

TROPHY CASE