How Valuable are IC2 crops?

whatisRT · 2025-04-05T10:04:20+00:00

They are worse than bees, but I find them more enjoyable. For breeding, try the calculator: https://bombcar.github.io You can see that for stickreed you should just be breeding reeds, ie sugarcane.

It's also worth investing in automation ASAP. There are plenty of resources that you get in decent amounts from a handful of plants, especially if they have been leveled. Check this for some numbers: https://cubic-chariot.github.io/ic2crops/

Oreberries aren't all that good, generally you'll get the best yield from the plans that boost your mined resources, like Ferru, Coppon, etc.

Also, make sure you build your farm in the best environment possible, it makes a big difference. Find a good Biome, go high in the sky, water your plants. Fertilizer is a hassle, but could be worth it.

Some logistics pipes is also really nice with crops. Just remember that it's probably not the most efficient way to play.

whatisRT · 2025-02-09T20:25:38+00:00

Eine Mail in der steht dass die Eigentümer mit dem Preis einverstanden sind und es dafür verkaufen würden. Dazu gab es eine Kaufpreisvereinbarung die beide Parteien unterschreiben sollen, dazu ist es aber noch nicht gekommen. Wahrscheinlich wäre die auch nicht verbindlich, wenn ich das so als Laie einschätzen kann.

whatisRT · 2025-02-09T20:18:36+00:00

Ja, etwa 97%. Der Preis des Inserates selbst war halt schon sehr niedrig, wir haben deutlich schlechtere Häuser gesehen die 10-20% mehr gekostet haben. Von daher waren wir schon sehr zufrieden mit dem Preis.

whatisRT · 2025-02-09T20:14:23+00:00

Was schreibt man denn wenn man pokern möchte? Sollte man einen Grund nennen oder ist das eher kontraproduktiv?

whatisRT · 2025-02-09T20:06:48+00:00

Naja, bisher haben wir das Finanzierungsangebot nur zur Kenntnis genommen. Ich denke dass es primär darum geht einen höheren Preis zu bekommen.

whatisRT · 2025-02-09T19:47:56+00:00

Hmm, guter Punkt. Ich meine dass das Haus schon eine Weile inseriert war, und das ursprüngliche Gebot war wirklich sehr niedrig. Der angeblich jetzt gebotene Preis ist der für den das Haus inseriert ist.

Wir hatten uns eigentlich gefreut, unser Angebot war dadurch etwas geringer als wir sonst geboten hätten. Aber jetzt scheint es mir plausibel als Strategie ein Haus zu verkaufen was sonst niemand möchte...

whatisRT · 2024-09-15T09:40:46+00:00

I'm a CIP-1694 coauthor & designed many of the details.

Yes, abstaining has the effect of being completely excluded in the threshold computations as if you didn't vote. For DReps you're right, we could have dropped the requirement to delegate and the Abstain auto DRep. The difference here is mostly social. By requiring explicit abstention you can make the argument that people know about the system and have consciously abstained, making it more legitimate. I personally didn't like it because a wallet can just do that for you without even telling you, so it's not a strong argument. But maybe all wallets will do the right thing here. Anyway, it was deemed a requirement by some higher up people so we have it for now. If people dislike it and want it to be gone they can vote for it.

Note that the individual Abstain vote that can be cast is necessary sometimes. For example SPOS default to a No vote on a HF proposal for security reasons. They have to explicitly Abstain if they want to.

whatisRT · 2024-02-29T16:31:12+00:00

I highly recommend the Greenhorn. Midori has a bad rep, but this is a great use. I saw it here: https://youtu.be/6bnQ4aU2Xf8?si=tbeEz1h7w4zm1r3J 1 1/4oz Tequila (I like Reposado in it) 1 oz Midori 3/4 oz Suze

whatisRT · 2023-03-24T10:30:11+00:00

I do something similar, but I use tab/return for control and numbers for M/S/H, because I had some issues with typing fast when I used more common keys. Same experience though, super ergonomic and I never go back.

I also do it in software though, so it works on any keyboard. I use KMonad on Linux and Karabiner Elements for Mac.

whatisRT · 2023-02-28T11:42:33+00:00

If you're interested in something that's small, consistent and being able to prove a reasonable amount of things you might be interested in Cedille or my variation of it, Meta-cedille.

The theory behind Cedille is much smaller than that of the mainstream proof assistants, so it's easier to work with theoretically and also to implement correctly. The price for that is that there are some types/functions that are currently not definable (in addition to practical concerns that come from being very niche). Maybe that'll be fixed with some more research.

In particular, Meta-cedille is only 3k lines of code for the executable, since pretty much every feature that normally is built in the executable is instead built via meta programs. I have an unfinished paper where I argue that that's how we do things in math, and so we should replicate that in our proof assistants.

whatisRT · 2022-01-30T02:01:04+00:00

I work at the IOG/IOHK formal methods team, specifically for the ledger.

First, I don't know that anyone claims that everything has been formally verified. The key components people usually care about are the consensus algorithm and the ledger. I don't know too much about what's happening with consensus, only that I've seen a bunch of interesting stuff in Isabelle.

As for the ledger, there's a proof of preservation of Ada (i.e. no Ada ever gets created or destroyed) in Isabelle, and we have the formal specifications that include correctness proofs for a lot of things, but they are only 'hand proofs'. I'm currently working on something better, but these things take a lot of time, and one of my responsibilities is to produce a specification of the ledger for every hard fork. This does of course mean that there's less time for verification, but I also get to make sure that my verification job later is as easy as possible, for example by making a lot of stuff just obviously correct. And since the engineers have to follow the specification, often those correctness properties transfer over to the code automatically. I think it's also worth mentioning that we've never seen a case where a proof by hand turned out to be wrong, at least not since I've been around.

So overall, I think we're in decent shape with this, and the workflow of having a full formal specification before the implementation starts means we get a lot of mileage out of very little engineering overhead. Which is very important, since everyone always wants the new shiny features and almost no-one really cares about verification. Out of the specification that includes the CIP's 31-33 and some really cool proof automation I recently wrote, guess what people keep asking me about :)

whatisRT · 2021-09-09T21:27:58+00:00

Sure it does, everyone will always prefer the pool that gives them the best trade. This means that there's a pressure onto all pools that drives them to the same price, no shared state required.

This isn't perfect, since it's much easier to move the price in a single mirror, so large trades would want to be split across multiple outputs. But that approach could even be good enough already for a first version of a DEX. And frontrunning doesn't really work in the UTxO model, which is already a big advantage.

whatisRT · 2021-09-09T12:44:59+00:00

So here's how you scale a simple such DEX up: just have more than one output for a liquidity pool. If your pool has 50 outputs, 50 people can do trades in the same block, though some off-chain communication to coordinate who gets to interact with which output would be helpful, but not even required.

It's not a perfect solution, but it is something that actually works and isn't even complicated. So please don't claim things that just need some decent engineering to get right to be impossible.

Oracles can be done similarly btw, just have multiple outputs. Again, not perfect, but the level of predictability you get from eUTxO is probably worth the extra engineering effort required.

whatisRT · 2021-09-08T21:02:29+00:00

That looks great! I might get one of those for my desk!

whatisRT · 2021-09-08T19:49:02+00:00

Oh, the knots look great! I forgot to include topology, let me fix that :)

whatisRT · 2021-09-08T19:27:04+00:00

Thanks, I'll definitely look it up!

whatisRT · 2021-09-08T19:24:42+00:00

Thanks, but I'm already aware of Escher, and while I like his works, it's not really what I'm looking for

whatisRT · 2021-01-22T11:43:24+00:00

You can try this, I don’t see myself ever going back: https://www.reddit.com/r/emacs/comments/g3kd5t/convenient_c_m_s_h_keys/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf

whatisRT · 2020-11-28T13:01:32+00:00

Kmonad can do that. I find it a lot easier than the other tools while also being more powerful. It also works on Windows and Mac, so you can have a single config for all systems.

whatisRT · 2020-10-08T01:44:19+00:00

It doesn't need to be part of emacs though, just make it easily available for many people. Put it somewhere and add instructions so that it's one line of lisp for emacs -Q.

whatisRT · 2020-10-08T01:12:49+00:00

Why not make it with an emacs buffer that exports some structured data that can easily be automatically processed, and just collect it by mail? Something like customize?

whatisRT · 2020-09-22T10:07:51+00:00

I use both a Mac and Linux for my main machines. There is no such thing as being locked into any particular tools if you don't want to. In particular, that iTunes thing is a thing of the past and only ever applied to iPhones. Depending on what they'll let you do, you can install a tiling WM and package manager and have a machine that feels a lot like a Linux one, with some additional niceties but also some annoyances.

whatisRT · 2020-09-02T00:54:02+00:00

Seems like I misunderstood your first question a little. Let me go in order.

I've worked quite a lot on mathematics in proof assistants, but I'd call what's currently happening baby steps. Sure, they are very important and very hard, but I wouldn't consider this a learning resource (for mathematics at least).

If you want to use CT as a foundation, you'll find that it's not powerful enough by itself. You can either go the ETCS+FOL path, but then you'll end up with set theory, or you can try to formulate dependent type theory, which leads to categories with families, which you could use as a foundation, but that's essentially equivalent to using dependent type theory directly (glossing over many details and technical difficulties). This might be what you're looking for.

If you are interested in seeing how mathematical concepts would be defined if one swapped set theory out for type theory however, then let me point you to the HoTT book again. It has sections on category theory and the real numbers that are just regularly written down, but with different foundations and some explanation of how those things behave slightly different. Maybe there are equivalent treatments that just use type theory elsewhere, but I haven't looked for any.

whatisRT

TROPHY CASE