explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

Talk:1223: Dwarf Fortress

2013-06-12T01:27:07Z

Excrubulent:

Turing-complete computers were built in Dwarf Fortress [http://www.geekosystem.com/dwarf-fortress-turing-machine-computer/] and Minecraft [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1X21HQphy6I] Sebastian --[[Special:Contributions/178.26.118.249|178.26.118.249]] 05:48, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

:"getting that computer to run Minecraft" means getting the Dwarf Fortress turing machine to run minecraft. Which would probably be impossible, because the computer Dwarf Fortress is running on will not be able to run the turing machine fast enough or with enough memory. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 09:12, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
::Speed ''may'' be considered irrelevent (as exemplared by [[A Bunch of Rocks]]). Memory upper-limits applies to ''every'' real-world example (possibly including the Universe itself, thus anything that is not self-contained but capable of sharing data with the external Universe, in order to overcome this limitation). However, usually we can fudge this if this expected usage will get nowhere near the effective memory capacity.
::However, apart from the speed of running (and the fact that the quantifiable 'Fort-contained' memory theoretically available may not be sufficient to hold the state of any reasonably Minecraft-like playing environment), I'm wondering about the interface. Playing Minecraft-within-Fortress would require some interesting setting up. Having myself made a Tetris-within-Fortress (sort of, never got around to rotating tetronimos, although translation of the falling pieces and line-anihilationsof those that had settled all worked as planned), I suppose you could start with a matrix display made of remotely controlled bridges (from water-activated pressure-plates), a bit like I used to 'externally' represent the data held within the "block matrix" pump'n'pool 'processor' for my Tetris example.
::Something that somewhat evaded me (or, rather, forced me to slow the game progression down well below its normal pace) was a control mechanism. Clicking and setting levers to be pulled, or locking and unlocking doors to allow creature-activated pressure-plates to be run over, depends on knowing that all dwarves (or animals, or hostiles being sent scurrying in circles in a dungeon loop as each tempting exit is automatically closed off and the next one round the track temporarily opened) continue to respond to your requests. It did very much seem like the Bunch Of Rocks situation, indeed. ;) [[Special:Contributions/178.98.124.195|178.98.124.195]] 13:07, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
::I thought the point of the mouse-over text was that running Minecraft on a turing-complete computer in Dwarf Fortress would be utterly pointless, impractical, and a waste of time, and that's IF it's even theoretically possible. The point of this comparison in my mind is a comment on just how pointless and impractical the task of complete population surveillance is. I mean, surely there's an easier way to get what you want? [[User:Excrubulent|Excrubulent]] ([[User talk:Excrubulent|talk]]) 01:24, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Shouldn't it be "''I'' do" and "Then you're effectively ''a'' Dwarf Fortress ''player'' watching your dwarves play Dwarf Fortress" because "Big Brother" is singular? [[User:DiEvAl|DiEvAl]] ([[User talk:DiEvAl|talk]]) 09:22, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
:Not necessarily, because "Big Brother" is the nickname for the nebulous amoral mass of people who make up the surveillance arm of the government. Yes, in Orwell's book, this was actually represented by a singular man to the public (who, possible spoilers, may or may not still be alive). But the nickname could refer to a lot of people as a whole. See also the "corporate we", where people in a corporation refer to the company and ambiguous nonspecific people in the company as "we". Not related to the "royal we". --[[User:Tustin2121|Tustin2121]] ([[User talk:Tustin2121|talk]]) 14:04, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Then you're effectively Dwarf Fortress players watching your dwarves make comics about Dwarf Fortress players watching their dwarves play Dwarf Fotrress. [[User:DiEvAl|DiEvAl]] ([[User talk:DiEvAl|talk]]) 09:26, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Question: Who is the 'you' in "that makes you the kind of person who wastes ten more getting that computer to run Minecraft"? The reader of the comic? Big Brother? I'm very confused how it is that if "A" is the kind of person who implements a Turing-complete computer in Dwarf Fortress, that it follows that "B" is the kind of person who wastes ten years getting it to run Minecraft. [[Special:Contributions/69.21.142.178|69.21.142.178]] 15:23, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
:I think the 'you' is Big Brother. Like I said above, the task of surveilling a population is so daunting that it's like doing the DF-computer-MC thing. It's never going to be practical. [[User:Excrubulent|Excrubulent]] ([[User talk:Excrubulent|talk]]) 01:27, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Talk:1223: Dwarf Fortress

2013-06-12T01:24:22Z

Excrubulent:

Talk:1195: Flowchart

2013-04-13T05:34:00Z

Excrubulent:

Assuming you've already started, it's too late to go get a marker. [[Special:Contributions/76.106.251.87|76.106.251.87]] 07:05, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

:You can add the "get a marker" in that looping line too. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 08:10, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

:If it is between the hours of 8:00 and 5:00, then I can escape, but that is only 37.5% of my day. Doomed, for all eternity. The solution proffered has the problem of the chicken and egg, how does one add get a marker if one does not have one. I like Hkmaly's idea... but proposes the additional questions of how: purchase, loot, or created. Each with their own rabbit trails to follow, ending in the pour house, prison, or crushed under the weight of the markers (mater being created?) But I feel there is a market to the other six billion inhabitants of earth that can be exploited. & Would Vulcans be more susceptible to entering into this loop than humans. [[Special:Contributions/24.106.78.38|24.106.78.38]] 10:37, 5 April 2013 (UTC) Drifter

:Straw Vulcans would be, certainly. [[Special:Contributions/76.106.251.87|76.106.251.87]] 15:54, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

that's the idea, its a commentary about nuclear weapons. if just one person hides a 'marker' up his sleeve when the rest of us genuinely have none, we're all at his mercy. [[Special:Contributions/193.60.97.30|193.60.97.30]] 08:52, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

I think the currently provided explanation is not right. Randall wants us to get a marker BEFORE we get to 'start', hence the phrasing "between you and 'start'" (and not "between 'start' and 'Hey, wait, ...'"). That way when we get to the start, we already have a marker friend to aid us in our infinite quest. Or, perhaps, in other words, to stop being computerized sheep that follow set rules, but rather find an alternative solution ;) I'm new here, so I'll let somebody else edit the explanation if you deem it appropriate... [[User:Blue Charizard|Blue Charizard]] ([[User talk:Blue Charizard|talk]]) 13:49, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

: I thought that this is clearly correct, so I changed it even though I'm also new here. —[[User:TobyBartels|TobyBartels]] ([[User talk:TobyBartels|talk]]) 19:19, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Maybe Randall just wants us to change the algorithmic loop that we get into when we enter the flowchart and create a paradox to kill the Weeping Angels. [[User:Milar Kayne|Milar Kayne]] ([[User talk:Milar Kayne|talk]]) 14:24, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

I was always taught to used lozenges for Start(s)/Stop(s). But YMMV. There are rectangles like above (lacking the curved sides) and small circles (without space for "Start" or "Stop", but contextualised with the uniquetous arrow-heads on each and every line). Also diamonds ''could'' be statements ("Check <foo> exists" -> Yes/No, or "<Foo> is.." -> A/B/C/... for multiple (2+?) exits), although that depends a lot on what style you're using, and I'm betting some would say it's deprecated. But don't mind me. [[Special:Contributions/31.111.77.19|31.111.77.19]] 17:26, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

After staring at the title text for a few minutes, I have another interpretation. You're already stuck in the loop. If there had been a box between "Start" and "Hey, wait" which said "Get marker", then you would have a marker already. If you suspend your logic for a moment to write the "Get marker", then afterwards your situation is self-consistent, because you already passed that point in the flowchart and you now have a marker with which you wrote it. (Well, sort of self-consistent.) ...Does that make sense to anyone besides me? [[User:Bplimley|Bplimley]] ([[User talk:Bplimley|talk]]) 05:07, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

: This is the correct explanation. Please put it into the page, replacing "there is no way to escape this loop". --Zverik

I see three boxes in this XKCD comic (third is quarter hidden by logic). I thought that we were suppose to be learning how to think outside the box in school... - [[Special:Contributions/50.143.22.159|50.143.22.159]] 12:11, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
:Perhaps the third box can be called life, should we really spend it paying outrageous prices for higher education? - [[Special:Contributions/50.143.22.159|50.143.22.159]] 23:27, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

I added a transcript using some flowchart markup that I find at [http://flomojo.com/ FloMojo]. (Past transcripts in this category have used a variety of methods.) —[[User:TobyBartels|TobyBartels]] ([[User talk:TobyBartels|talk]]) 19:19, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Guys, I've discovered a serious flaw in the proposed solution. I got a marker and drew the extra boxes, but then I scrolled the web page and reset the zoom level. I can't get the boxes to line up anymore! This is bad; I'd do it in Photoshop but I've already entered the loop! Halp! [[User:Excrubulent|Excrubulent]] ([[User talk:Excrubulent|talk]]) 05:34, 13 April 2013 (UTC)