What does it mean for the ghosts to be "unable" to reverse direction? Isn't that just another way of saying that the original ghost AI was programmed to never choose to do so? There are, in fact, a lot of things they never choose to do. The whole appeal of this idea is to see if you can make better decisions than the original ghost AI.
The original ghosts had specifically written patterns:
Blinky chases pac man where he is. Pinky targets 4 spaces in front of you. Inky targets based on Blinky and Pac's positions. Clyde sticks to a corner until you get too close.
They only reverse on their own when the mode changes or you get a power pellet, otherwise they have to wait until a corner, otherwise you end up with behavior like you see in this where you both quickly dance back and forth on the otherside of a wall
Ghosts can only change direction at intersections. Otherwise it's just not Pac-Man. It's one of the many many other maze games from this time period. Pac-Man means something just as much as "vintage maze game" means something.
What makes an assessment "accurate"? If there was an objective answer to that question that could be used to adjudicate the rule, then the process wouldn't be needed in the first place.
> It seems like you agree it would be bad for the government to be able to buy your house when you give an accurate assessment.
You're thinking about this wrong (as is the person you were replying to). The whole point of this system is to define "accurate assessment" as the break-even price where you could take or leave being bought out. That's how much the property is actually worth to you. Not some estimate of the aggregate market price. By definition, it's value to you is greater than or equal to the market price because if it's lower, why haven't you sold already? In other words, the idea is not to tax market price, but "market price + consumer surplus".
Note that because everyone's valuation would go up, this should be paired with a reduction in the tax rate.
> May 25 (Reuters) - A self-driving bus made by Turkey's Karsan (KARSN.IS), opens new tab was struck from behind by a tram in Gothenburg, Sweden, on Monday, just an hour after it began carrying paying passengers, the public transport organiser said.
"The Karsan Autonomous e-ATAK is automated by ADASTEC’s SAE Level-4 automated driving software platform, flowride.ai, which combines perception, localization, and planning modules to make real-time decisions with high reliability. A comprehensive sensor suite, including LiDAR, radar, RGB cameras, and GNSS, continuously captures and fuses environmental and infrastructure data to enable accurate navigation in dynamic urban conditions. The system’s predictive algorithms anticipate the behavior of pedestrians, cyclists, and other vehicles, while the planning module generates safe, smooth trajectories for the vehicle, ensuring passenger comfort and operational safety.
The vehicle is equipped with V2X communication capabilities for potential future integration with city infrastructure, enhancing situational awareness and supporting smart city initiatives. Teleoperation support is available through a dedicated control center operated by Vy Buss, allowing authorized operators to remotely intervene in rare cases such as unexpected obstacles or deviations from the planned route. This additional layer of oversight reinforces operational reliability and passenger safety."
There are some fun ideas here, but also some rough edges. Using today's puzzle (steak->boring, which I have not solved yet) as an example:
-It's not clear to me whether the game is intended to accept any valid intermediate move or to only accept moves that lead to the correct solution. For a while, I though it only accepted correct moves, because it would not accept "steak->house" or "stake->holder" as valid moves, when I think those should clearly be valid "compound" actions (if I understand the rules correctly).
-On the other hand, I now realize that it wouldn't make sense to have an "undo" button if it were impossible to input valid but wrong moves. So maybe omitting steakhouse and stakeholder was an oversight? But now I've spend a while in a "dead end" when I thought the game was telling me I was on the right track.
-At this point, I've spend more time trying to figure this meta question about the rules than I have spent trying to solve the actual puzzle. It would help if the instructions or the game feedback made it clear whether "acceptance" = "correctness" or mere "validity".
-Also, I tried to start off with steak->stake as my homophone move, but it only accepts it as an anagram move. Obviously it's both, but there's no way for me to pick which one I want to use (and therefore free up the move I want to reserve for later).
Yeah I think these are all really fair criticisms and I agree with them all.
Regarding the steakhouse/stakeholder issue, I think that because these words lean American they got missed in the compound word generation stage. Will add them now. Can totally see how that created a lot of confusion for you when trying to solve yesterday’s puzzle.
And yeah I've been finding differentiating between correctness and validity a really hard design challenge because I don’t want to reveal to the player that they are on the solution path since the ambiguity/branching is often what makes it challenging. I think there needs to be a clearer signal that whilst your answer might be accepted, it's not necessarily the correct solution.
Steak/stake is both an anagram and a compound and I still haven’t solved how we handle these edge cases. I shouldn’t really have released this particular puzzle given it starts with this issue. I just didn’t even notice till it was too late!
Thanks for playing and for the super valuable feedback!
Here's another hypothetical. Imagine you just became one of the world's most famous people overnight. The entire media apparatus, and a team of wikipedia editors, were racing to fill in every one of your biographical details, interview everybody who's ever known you, and put it all on the Internet for everyone to read. Are you sure you want anybody to be able to call your bank, answer the security questions you selected a decade ago, and wire all all your money to a bank account in the Caiman Islands?
I would not be surprised if the bank had gotten 50 such phone calls over the preceding two months. The fact that one of them happened to actually be Pope Leo is just the punchline. I'm sure there actually is a way to accomplish this without him coming to the US, but it should 't be accessible to a voice on the phone.
Not to defend the FBI here, but I don't see anywhere where they described it as a leak. In fact, they're officially denying that any such investigation is taking place. It's kind of silly to jump from the article describing as a "leak investigation" to "Aha! The FBI admits it! Hoist by their own petard!"
If there is a leak investigation which let’s be honest. I highly doubt there isn’t at this point. It just adds to the mounting evidence it is probably true. Just like the lawsuit will be dropped before depos like usual if it ever is refiled.
Not that surprising if the thing that failed was the thing that notices whether or not you put something in the trunk in the first place. Unless it does that routine at the end of every ride, regardless of whether it thinks something is in the trunk or not, then it's not a fail safe system and occasional mishaps like this should be expected at scale.
Scenario: A company's costs increased because of both the tarriff and some other factors (perhaps a supplier increased their prices, and the staff unionized and negotiated a salary increase, all around the same time). They probably would have eaten the cost if it was just the tarriff (who can say?), but because the total increase from all factors. was too much, they decided three months later to increase their prices to partially offset the combined loss of revenue. They then discover that sales did not drop from the increased price, so they decide to leave the prices where they are, even after the tarriffs end.
How much of the cost increase is 'because' of the tarriff? Which of their customers should they be forced to refund and how much?
Before clicking on this link, I hopped over to the Wikipedia page and read the intro section to get some quick context. Turns out that was unnecessary because this "article" is literally just the Wikipedia intro, almost sentence for sentence, with some minor rephrasing here and there. It's pretty blatant. Wikipedia is mentioned in the photo credits, but there's no attribution for the text, which I think is a violation of the Creative Commons license and counts as plagiarism?
Also in the movie about these events, rescuers have finally located the wreck and the crew are still alive and banging on the hull with a wrench, but the movie-Russians at that point make needless further delays which cost the crew their chance at survival.
There is no evidence anywhere that anyone was alive in the vessel by the time it was reached by rescuers. Nobody heard a wrench banging. Hollywood made that up to paint a picture of the Russians.
reply