• 0 Posts
  • 38 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: September 27th, 2023

help-circle




  • Mirodir@discuss.tchncs.detoProgrammer Humor@programming.devSus
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    107
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    Sure. You have to solve it from inside out:

    • not()…See comment below for this one, I was tricked is a base function that negates what’s inside (turning True to False and vice versa) giving it no parameter returns “True” (because no parameter counts as False)
    • str(x) turns x into a string, in this case it turns the boolean True into the text string ‘True’
    • min(x) returns the minimal element of an iterable. In this case the character ‘T’ because capital letters come before non-capital letters, otherwise it would return ‘e’ (I’m not entirely sure if it uses unicode, ascii or something else to compare characters, but usually capitals have a lower value than non-capitals and otherwise in alphabetical order ascending)
    • ord(x) returns the unicode number of x, in this case turning ‘T’ into the integer 84
    • range(x) creates an iterable from 0 to x (non-inclusive), in this case you can think of it as the list [0, 1, 2, …82, 83] (it’s technically an object of type range but details…)
    • sum(x) sums up all elements of a list, summing all numbers between 0 and 84 (non-inclusive) is 3486
    • chr(x) is the inverse of ord(x) and returns the character at position x, which, you guessed it, is ‘ඞ’ at position 3486.

    The huge coincidental part is that ඞ lies at a position that can be reached by a cumulative sum of integers between 0 and a given integer. From there on it’s only a question of finding a way to feed that integer into chr(sum(range(x)))



  • after leaving can’t join another for a year

    Can you fix this? There was enough misinformation floating around about this already when this feature went into beta.

    Adults can leave a family at any time, however, they will need to wait 1 year from when they joined the previous family to create or join a new family.

    it should say something like: “After joining, can’t join another for a year”






  • I can only speak for myself. For me it felt really great being able to explore the world having absolutely zero idea of what is what, how much game is left, etc. It is reminiscent of a time when I was a kid and playing a game was exactly like that.

    I even got quite sad when my friend “accidentally” told me

    spoiler

    That a certain action I did locked me into a specific ending unless I did something I probably wouldn’t be able to figure out. Rationally I understand that this is as inconsequential as it gets, but I didn’t even know for sure if there were multiple endings until that point.







  • I’d argue that with their definition of bots as “a software application that runs automated tasks over the internet” and later their definition of download bots as “Download bots are automated programs that can be used to automatically download software or mobile apps.”, automated software updates could absolutely be counted as bot activity by them.

    Of course, if they count it as such, the traffic generated that way would fall into the 17.3% “good bot” traffic and not in the 30.2% “bad bot” traffic.

    Looking at their report, without digging too deep into it, I also find it concerning that they seem to use “internet traffic” and “website traffic” interchangeably.


  • I definitely paid with some time investment, but you bet I wrote a short script to automate toggling that rule on/off. It’s also not like I had to run that script every time I wanted to play a game. Only to play a game in my brother’s library while he was playing something else or when I wanted to play one of my games and he was already in one.

    Summing up the time investment vs. the cost of games, and using a time-money conversion rate that assumes I had a well paying job in my field and wasn’t still a student, it was definitely profitable.

    You’re definitely right on the frustration front though: I bought many games just to not have to deal with this. It was mostly used for games one of us was on the fence about. Or (like in the Outlast case) only one of us really wanting to play a game and the other just playing along because playing together is fun no matter the game.
    Now, in the former case, it might be back to sailing the seas.


  • Mirodir@discuss.tchncs.detoGames@lemmy.worldSteam :: Introducing Steam Families
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    I think people are more negative than positive about this change. The old system allowed for far more freedom at the cost of being more annoying to set up.
    This change cracks down on anyone who used the old system in unintended ways, i.e. to share games with family members not living in the same household. For now that check only compares store region/country, but I wouldn’t be surprised if they tighten the requirements further in the future.

    It’s also a negative compared to the old system if one of your (adult) family members throws a huge tantrum, allowing them to cause a lot more damage and inconvenience than before.

    Edit: I just wanna mention, I am saying this as someone who is usually “RiDiNg sTeAm’S DiCK”.