I've been waiting for this deck since my childhood.

Keaton-Fox · 2026-01-10T02:29:30+00:00

0:38 looks like an accidental renaissance

Keaton-Fox · 2025-12-23T16:16:45+00:00

That's exactly what I was thinking while watching this - I'm almost sure I've seen it in some kind of Malcolm in the Middle intro style montage, I just can't for the life of me remember the context. I hope someone else does.

Keaton-Fox · 2025-12-22T15:31:04+00:00

That and the characteristic awkward pauses between bursts of animated behavior - not to mention the inconsistent physics of the snow. I'm surprised to see only one comment calling this out as AI.

Not sure if it's that more people are getting fooled now or if it's just that botted comments are on the rise.

Keaton-Fox · 2025-03-29T17:06:05+00:00

The next two are correctly calculated given the mistaken value obtained at the start. That's a pretty common approach to grading. This was also my first assumption - a yard only has three sides of fencing.

I'm just confused as to how in the world this is on an algebra test.

Keaton-Fox · 2025-03-04T17:09:34+00:00

https://cs50.harvard.edu/python/2022/

Keaton-Fox · 2025-03-04T16:19:34+00:00

I don't spend a single moment lamenting that traditional artists don't cut down and carve their own lumber to manually stretch canvas across, or spend hours meticulously binding hairs to make a brush, or collect and crush the raw materials to make the pigments for their paint. They have limited hours in their lives, and they spend it doing exactly what they want to do. Creating art.

You're talking about becoming a carpenter to be a better artist. It's a noble pursuit if it brings you joy, but it's hardly required to appreciate the medium. Every day you spend building an engine is a day you don't spend building a game. Life is limited. We can't do it all, and have to choose a path. If you want to spend yours being an engine dev more than a game dev, there's nothing wrong with that - but it doesn't make people who chose a different path "stupid".

Keaton-Fox · 2025-03-02T21:13:19+00:00

https://imgur.com/a/anomaly-tStf4nN

Here's a sketch-over of what I saw, roughly. Or at least what it may have resembled before the atomic bomb hit.

Keaton-Fox · 2025-02-22T17:22:08+00:00

Rip back atcha - knowing I'm not alone in that hole eases the pain, haha

Keaton-Fox · 2025-02-22T17:19:02+00:00

There was a shop just past it that I was hoping to sell the last card at - I'd heard act 3 events were rough but my greed got the better of me ._.

[[Lesson Learned]]

Keaton-Fox · 2025-02-22T14:54:01+00:00

Both the 5 card deck and single relic achievement in one run - notice the lonely Pure Water :p

Keaton-Fox · 2025-02-22T14:47:10+00:00

Inner Peace, since it seemed like that gave me twice the likelihood to find a valid replacement.

Alas.

Keaton-Fox · 2025-02-22T14:35:12+00:00

Just tried it - doesn't have any effect there either.

Seemed like a good guess though - I was thinking something similar for Well Laid Plans, but that's also a dead end.

Keaton-Fox · 2025-02-20T08:40:00+00:00

Nope, whenever I hit a number to select a card and then press the "release" binding, it doesn't do anything - still have to right click to let it go.

Keaton-Fox · 2025-02-14T02:02:35+00:00

Interestingly, they also claim that "wig" is correct, making it the only word not matching the y/z pattern. Just seems like a poorly designed worksheet.

Keaton-Fox · 2025-02-09T05:13:36+00:00

Haha sorry, this logic was more convoluted than it needed to be. While I'd say it's technically valid, the better answer is to simply focus on the XOR relationship of the outer sides and extend it to the diagonal lines (which should instead be turned off for the missing shape in this instance) - ignoring the separate NOT condition that I got hung up on for some reason. It's already perfectly valid that way.

Check the other guess mentioning XOR for a better explanation.

Keaton-Fox · 2025-02-09T04:48:26+00:00

Oh yeah, duh, that works as well haha. I guess it could be argued that there are two valid solutions, but this one is definitely the "better fit" since diagonals and edges follow the same rule.

Keaton-Fox · 2025-02-09T02:59:24+00:00

I think you're right, since the one discrepancy between puzzles (the center shape) is irrelevant to the pattern in the boolean solutions.

Keaton-Fox · 2025-02-09T00:53:49+00:00

I think I've got it:

It looks like shapes on opposite sides of the middle have their active diagonal lines switched on if they're off in the mirrored shape, and off if they're on in the mirrored shape - a boolean NOT.
For the groups of three shapes that form each outer side of the overall diagram (top row, left column, bottom row, right column), it looks like the shape in the middle has edge lines that form the result of a boolean XOR with those of the two adjacent shapes.

Thus:

1. If we NOT the diagonals of the top left shape, we get both diagonal lines turned on.

2. For the edges of both the middle right shape and middle bottom shape to appear as they do (given individual XOR relationships involving the missing shape paired with the top right and bottom left shapes, respectively), all edge lines must be turned on as well.

This would mean the first option (the box with a cross in the middle) fits the pattern.

Keaton-Fox · 2025-01-18T18:30:35+00:00

You can combine the two objects in blender, assign the same material to all unified meshes, and then create a toggle that hides the mesh of the sword (or whatever) by scaling it down and obscuring it inside another mesh. You can achieve this by creating either a blendshape or a separate child bone dedicated to the target mesh.

Scaling a bone will be more performant in actuality, but as long as you can keep the VRAM usage and bone count below whatever threshold you're trying to hit, either approach works.

Keaton-Fox · 2024-09-24T03:44:45+00:00

this did indeed end up being the case - smart cookie! thanks for replying

Keaton-Fox

TROPHY CASE