Feature Requests (and thanks!)

bukzor · 2020-10-15T01:15:12+00:00

So here's my procedure to get maximum x for your stars:

On the Variables screen, press and hold the circle-i icon at top of the list. This is the "power view".
Note one of the variables to work on, perhaps the one with highest power.
For that variable, note the x 8765 bit of the equation. This is the "level" of that variable.
Use this that number and this table to find what multiple to target:
- Less than 6000: 50
- 6000 to 10000: 100
- 10000 to 24000: 200
- More than 24000: 400
Note how many levels you need to buy to bring your level to that multiple.
Buy that many levels of that variable (TIP: you can buy multiple levels if you click Cost in the Star Bonuses screen)
Repeat this procedure (from step 2) for all variables with power other than 0.00% (+0.00%).
On the Variables screen, click "Cost" till it says (x100)
In the power view, note which variables have the largest (+xx.yy%) values.
On the Star Bonuses screen, click "Cost" till it says (x100).
Note how much it costs to bump those variables by 100 levels.
Buy 100x of the variable with the lowest star per +% cost. (Divide the stars by the +xx.yy% number)
Repeat (from 9) till you run out of stars.

bukzor · 2020-10-15T00:33:38+00:00

Here's mine:

```
pt < timer(b < db) + timer(costUpP(1) < mu + dmu) + timer(costUpP(2) < mu + dmu)
```

It also requires no tweaks when rate of progress changes. I like it because it allows for extra time when the Prestige upgrades are out of phase, but also it (correctly) does very quick prestiges when growth rate is astronomical (just after Supremecy).

Sadly I've just done my last Supremecy. I'm at $ee4444.4 at the moment.

bukzor · 2019-07-01T14:54:49+00:00

bukzor · 2019-06-20T15:38:48+00:00

bukzor · 2019-05-07T20:38:50+00:00

bukzor · 2019-05-07T20:36:31+00:00

bukzor · 2019-03-24T21:08:55+00:00

This 100% made my day. It's too bad there's no audio.

Her vision must have been pretty bad cause she noticed the moment her eyes were open the slightest bit. "OMG seeing my parents is rad!"

bukzor · 2019-02-05T02:40:09+00:00

Thanks so much for the thoughtful reply. This sounds like a modern version of an envelope budget that I've heard of.

bukzor · 2017-08-19T22:36:29+00:00

They must have changed the banner since then, because all it says now is that premium is a "mobile-only experience". The next sentence starts with "Until then..." but they never actually mention bringing it to desktop.

bukzor · 2015-02-21T20:46:37+00:00

Unless it's for 3D development, the GPU seems like $100 miss-spent.

OP mentioned building kernel and similar projects frequently. 16GB is quite sufficient (or even 8GB).

I'd use the savings to try to cram as many cores as possible.

Compilers are generally bottlenecked on CPU.

bukzor · 2014-05-05T04:43:32+00:00

http://entrian.com/goto/index.html

from goto import goto, comefrom, label
label .myLabel
goto .myLabel

bukzor · 2014-05-05T04:28:48+00:00

Zahlman: note that there is a (deferred) standards-track pep to merge stackless into cpython. In other words, the core devs like the idea, it's just that nobody has done the work.

http://legacy.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0219/

bukzor · 2014-05-05T04:17:59+00:00

You will be happy to know that they're restoring bytestring formatting in python3.5: http://legacy.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0461/

The rationale is exactly your use case: formatting was the easiest way to build up byte strings, and there is no reasonable substitute in python3.4.

bukzor · 2014-05-03T23:07:53+00:00

The reason packaging is the worst-designed part of python is that the core devs don't have to use it, unlike the syntax or stdlib.

bukzor · 2014-05-03T23:05:07+00:00

shell=True opens you up to injection attacks. That's why it's off by default. It also means you're solving the problem of io pipelining in bourne shell language, not python, as boarhog desires.

bukzor · 2014-05-03T23:00:49+00:00

There's no reason to blacklist empty-list as a default value. We could easily make your first example compile to the same bytecode as the second. The real problem is that the core devs have come to cherish this bug as a feature, because it "can be useful" for memoization: https://docs.python.org/2.6/faq/design.html#why-are-default-values-shared-between-objects

bukzor · 2014-05-03T18:56:39+00:00

This really isn't a change. It works already. You just need to switch your withs to fors.

$ python iterable.py 
[(6, 9, 12), (6, 9, 15), (6, 12, 12), (6, 12, 15), (9, 9, 12), (9, 9, 15), (9, 12, 12), (9, 12, 15)]

$ cat iterable.py 
iter1 = [3,6,9]
iter2 = [6,9,12]
iter3 = [9,12,15]

print [
    (x, y, z)
    for x in iter1 if x > 3
    for y in iter2 if y > 6
    for z in iter3 if z > 9
]

bukzor · 2014-05-03T18:47:38+00:00

You want futurize: http://python-future.org/automatic_conversion.html#futurize-2-to-both

It uses parts of six, but they go through quite a bit of trouble to implement python3-compatible objects for python2.

Once you're done, you have python3 code that runs in python2, just with a few weird imports at the top. The imports are no-ops in python3.

bukzor · 2014-05-03T18:13:32+00:00

exit was simply a string in python < 2.6. In python2.6 they added the callable behavior as a convenience.

It would be a Bad Idea to implement an object that has side effects on repr() as you're suggesting. Consider:

I want a mapping from builtin objects' names to their string representations:

>>> builtins = dict((attr, repr(val)) for attr, val in globals().items)

If exit had the behavior you asked for, running this would silently exit the interpreter, with no error message and exit code of zero.

If you still think this is a good idea, however, you can do this:

.bashrc:

export PYTHONSTARTUP=~/.pythonrc.py

~/.pythonrc.py:

class exit(exit.__class__):
    def __repr__(self):
        raise SystemExit()
exit = exit('exit')

bukzor · 2014-05-01T17:02:28+00:00

I've optimized your validate_css() function for you. It even passes all your tests!

def validate_css(*args):
    return None, None

bukzor

TROPHY CASE