A rather easy, but hopefully entertaining, puzzle.
I've taken the titles of 23 famous movies and removed all punctuation and spaces. Then, whenever I saw a letter that appeared more than once, I removed all but one instance of that letter (but I never changed the order of any of the letters). Can you figure out what movies these are?
I played face-to-face Titan for the first time in oh, about three years tonight. Pretty much as I remembered it; player elimination, lots of down-time (especially with newbies learning the game), and I lose to better players when I make a decision that seems like a minor thing that turns out to be a big risk.
Anyway, I got to thinking about the relative strength of the creatures. The game gives a general guideline for how strong a creature is: multiply skill by strength. But how true is that in reality? A Centaur and Ogre are both 12-point creatures, but are they really equal in hand-to-hand combat?
I figured I might as well do the math for this by using a very simplified system:
Say I want to compare creature X with creature Y. Take an "immortal" creature X and have it start attacking a giant pile of creature Y. Do the same thing with an "immortal" creature Y and have it attack a pile of creature X. After some amount of turns, you'll have an integer number of dead Ys and dead Xs. That ratio should be a good gauge of which is better; the closer the numbers are (in more turns), the closer the monsters are.
Of course, this system ignores inherent abilities like flight and rangestrike and native abilities. Also, there's something to be said for variance being important, and not just expected value. But it was a fun exercise anyway. Anyway, here are the results. The ones I marked with an asterisk are those I found particularly interesting:
Skill-level-3 vs. Skill-level-4 creatures: (18 turns) 9 Gargoyles die for every 8 Centaurs. Centaurs win! (45 turns) 18 Lions die for every 25 Centaurs. Lions win! (60 turns) 32 Lions die for every 25 Minotaurs/Rangers. Minotaurs/Rangers win! (18 turns) 8 Gorgons/Warbears die for every 9 Minotaurs/Rangers. Gorgons/Warbears win! (45 turns) 25 Gorgons/Warbears die for every 18 Warlocks/Griffons. Warlocks/Griffons win! *(105 turns) 50 Wyverns die for every 49 Warlocks. Warlocks/Griffons win! (120 turns) 50 Behemoths die for every 64 Warlocks. Behemoths win! (18 turns) 9 Behemoths die for every 8 Angels/Unicorns. Angels/Unicorns win! (18 turns) 8 Dragons die for every 9 Angels/Unicorns. Dragons win! (189 turns) 98 Dragons die for every 81 Giants. Giants win! *(105 turns) 49 Hydras die for every 50 Giants. Hydras win! (60 turns) 32 Hydras die for every 25 "8-die-Titans". "8-die-Titans" win!
Skill-level-2 vs. Skill-level-4 creatures: (12 turns) 5 Ogres die for every 4 Centaurs. Centaurs win! (144 turns) 45 Trolls die for every 64 Centaurs. Trolls win! (12 turns) 5 Trolls die for every 4 Minotaurs/Rangers. Minotaurs/Rangers win! *(216 turns) 80 Cyclops die for every 81 Minotaurs/Rangers. Cyclops win! (270 turns) 125 Cyclops die for every 81 Warlocks/Griffons. Warlocks/Griffons win! (360 turns) 125 Guardians die for every 144 Warlocks/Griffons. Guardians win! (12 turns) 5 Guardians die for every 4 Angels/Unicorns. Angels/Unicorns win! (18 turns) 5 Serpents die for every 9 Angels/Unicorns. Serpents win! (756 turns) 245 Serpents die for every 324 Giants. Serpents win! *(216 turns) 80 Serpents die for every 81 "8-die-Titans". Serpents win! (12 turns) 5 Serpents die for every 4 "9-die-Titans". "9-die-Titans" win!
Skill-level-2 vs. Skill-level-3 creatures: (18 turns) 8 Ogres die for every 9 Gargoyles. Ogres win! (45 turns) 25 Ogres die for every 18 Lions. Lions win! (60 turns) 25 Trolls die for every 32 Lions. Trolls win! *(18 turns) 9 Trolls die for every 8 Gorgons/Warbears. Gorgons/Warbears win! *(18 turns) 8 Cyclops die for every 9 Gorgons/Warbears. Cyclops win! (189 turns) 98 Cyclops die for every 81 Wyverns. Wyverns win! (126 turns) 49 Guardians die for every 72 Wyverns. Guardians win! *(18 turns) 8 Guardians die for every 9 Behemoths. Guardians win! *(18 turns) 9 Guardians die for every 8 Dragons. Dragons win! (3 turns) 1 Serpent dies for every 2 Dragons. Serpents win! (135 turns) 50 Serpents die for every 81 Hydra. Serpents win!
So, using this, we can get a relative ranking of all the creatures, from weakest to strongest:
Harry Nelson asked me this little teaser recently:
Find a word that contains the bigram "ie", where if you replace "ie" with "ei", it is still a word. The bigram can't be at the beginning or the end of the word.
There's only one common word pair that works:
There are, however, many dubious and obscure answers we've found:
diety (like a diet) / deity (god)
fient (archaic spelling of "fiend") <-> feint (a feigned attack)
frier (something that fries) / freir (archaic spelling of "friar")
gien (archaic spelling of "given") / gein (humus)
mien (bearing or manner) / mein (Chinese noodles)
riem (strip of oxhide) / reim (alternate spelling of "riem")
wierangle / weirangle (both alternate spellings of "wariangle")
I'm playing a computer game that contains a silly mini-game. Here's how the mini-game works:
You can bet any amount of money up to $1000.
The game deals you a card (from a standard playing deck). Aces are high.
You may bet that the next card is "higher" or "lower". After you make your choice, the next card is revealed. It is guaranteed to not be the same value. If you win, you double your bet. If you lose, you lose your bet.
If you win, you have the option of trying again, with the current card, or cashing out. You can try again up to 5 times (which would result in 32x your bet).
Clearly this game is advantageous to the player.
My question is: Suppose it takes me 1 second to choose "higher" or "lower", and 10 seconds to start the game (including making the initial bet). What is my best strategy to win, say, $200,000 in as little time as possible? Is there a reason not to bet the maximum? Will I do better if I decided to "stand pat" on 7s, 8s, and 9s, or should I just play everything through?
Note that by the time someone posts an answer, I'll probably won't be playing the mini-game any more, so your answer will be mostly academic.
The great majority of bridge players out there are little old ladies who know how to play the game through years of experience and trial-and-error. They follow rules and patterns but they don't really understand where those patterns come from or why they are the way they are -- and they don't really want to understand either. "Don't explain things to me, just tell me what to do!"
Most teaching programs out there are geared towards such players. However, my feeling is that teaching the game to an experienced and intelligent gamer is better using a different tactic, one that focuses more on the "why" instead of the "what". So here goes.
Bridge started out being a very simple game, scoring-wise. One side got to declare trumps and score points, but as a requirement they had to take more tricks than the opponents. That's at least 7 tricks, so they scored points for each trick they took above the 6th one. The way the points worked was:
If clubs are trumps, each trick is 6 points. If diamonds are trumps, each trick is 7 points. If hearts are trumps, each trick is 8 points. If spades are trumps, each trick is 9 points. If you play without any trumps, each trick is 10 points. Playing without any trumps was called "biritch", and eventually evolved into the name of the game.
(Nitpickers: Yes, I know that there is an even older scoring system than this that used different score values. I'm starting in 1904 instead of 1886 here.)
Each bid has a literal meaning. For instance, a bid of "three spades" means "I think my partner and I can take nine tricks with spades as trumps". Players competed in bidding, and the highest bid got their suit to be trumps.
At some point someone got the idea that there should be a bonus for hitting 30 points. They called this a "game", and a bit like in tennis, once one side scored enough for a "game", the scores reset, and whichever team got to two games first won the whole match (called a "rubber").
For those who can do arithmetic, getting to 30 points using the above chart is:
These values became ingrained in bridge-players minds so much that they were kept when the scoring system was redesigned in 1925:
Clubs and Diamonds ("minor" suits): 20 points. Hearts and Spades ("major" suits): 30 points. Notrumps: 40 points for the first, 30 for the rest. Game threshold: 100 points.
These basic values are still used today.
The reason bidding is so complicated is due to the fact that there's a big score difference when you get to the game threshold. Let's say that you and your partner like spades, and that there is a 300 point bonus when you BID to the game threshold, but only a 50 point bonus if you're short (called the "partial bonus"). To wit:
If you bid "one spade" and make it, you get 80 points. If you bid "two spades" and make it, you get 110 points. If you bid "three spades" and make it, you get 140 points. If you bid "four spades" and make it, you get 420 points. If you bid "five spades" and make it, you get 450 points.
Any trick above your bid is 30 points, so, for example, if you bid "two spades" and take 3 more tricks than your bid, you get 200 points (NOT 450, because you didn't bid the game threshold).
The strategy lesson here is: If you can make four spades (take ten tricks), it's VERY important to bid it! But if you can only make three spades, it's not important to bid three at all; you can stop at one spade and get the same amount of points (170).
Therefore, the bids below game are much more useful if you ignore their literal meaning, and use them as stepping stones to get to the right point. Here's some examples, showing a full list of different ways on the path to 4S.
You: "1S". Partner: "4S". You: "Pass". "1S" means: "I can take five to seven tricks." "4S" means: "Well, I think I can take five more." "Pass" means: "Okay, that's ten. Let's stop."
You: "1S". Partner: "3S". You: "4S". Partner: "Pass". "1S" means: "I can take five to seven tricks." "3S" means: "Well, I think I can take four more, but not five. Are you at least six?" "4S" means: "Yes, we have at least ten." "Pass" means: "Let's stop."
You: "1S". Partner: "3S". You: "Pass". "1S" means: "I can take five to seven tricks." "3S" means: "Well, I think I can take four more, but not five. Are you at least six?" "Pass" means: "No, I have five. Let's stop."
You: "1S". Partner: "2S". You: "4S". Partner: "Pass". "1S" means: "I can take five to seven tricks." "2S" means: "Well, I think I can take two or three more, but not four." "4S" means: "I have a really good seven; it might be enough for us to get another trick." "Pass" means: "Okay, let's stop."
You: "1S". Partner: "2S". You: "3S". Partner: "4S". You: "Pass". "1S" means: "I can take five to seven tricks." "2S" means: "Well, I think I can take two or three more, but not four." "3S" means: "I'm at seven. Which do you have, two more or three more?" "4S" means: "Three more." "Pass" means: "Okay, that's ten. Let's stop."
You: "1S". Partner: "2S". You: "3S". Partner: "Pass". "1S" means: "I can take five to seven tricks." "2S" means: "Well, I think I can take two or three more, but not four." "3S" means: "I'm at seven. Which do you have, two more or three more?" "Pass" means: "Two more. That's not enough. Let's stop."
You: "1S". Partner: "2S". You: "Pass". "1S" means: "I can take five to seven tricks." "2S" means: "Well, I think I can take two or three more, but not four." "Pass" means: "Well, I don't have seven, so we don't have enough. Let's stop."
You: "1S". Partner: "Pass". "1S" means: "I can take five to seven tricks." "Pass" means: "Well, I can't take two more, so we don't have enough. Let's stop."
We can summarize all this interchange into a simpler chart: "Pass" means: "Let's stop. Either we've gotten to ten tricks and bid it, or I'm sure we don't have enough." "4S" means: "I think we have ten tricks." "3S" means: "I think we have nine tricks, and possibly ten if you have one more than your promised minimum." "2S" means: "I think we might possibly have ten tricks, but I can't even guarantee nine." "1S" means: "I can take five to seven tricks."
What's useful to note is that the lower bids are short of their literal meaning. Saying 1S when you're not actually confident of having 7 tricks means that you can find the game when, say, both partners have 5 tricks each. The sacrifice is that sometimes you'll end up in 1S or 2S and not be able to make it, but in practice this isn't a problem because the opponents will probably be bidding if you can't make 1S or 2S. Another sacrifice is that sometimes you'll have nine tricks but only be bidding 2S. But hey, it's the same score, so that's not a sacrifice at all!
Real bidding is, of course, a lot more complicated because you rarely happen to agree with your partner as to your best suit, and some bidding must be spent to find it. Also, counting tricks is less precise; often it's better if you can count fractional tricks. This means that there's good demand for quick and simple ways to evaluate how strong a hand is. There was a lot of strategy arguments over the best way to do this back in the 1930s, but one system has prevailed, and it's a system where there's about 40 points in the deck, and each trick is about 3 points.
Hopefully that gives a gentle introduction to the strangeness that is bridge bidding. Thanks for reading!
Some friends have told me about translationparty.com. The general scheme is that you put some English in, and it translates it into Japanese, then back into English, then back into Japanese, and so on until it starts to repeat. It's a fun little diversion, but you can also get a fun puzzle by putting in well-known phrases and quotes and having people guess what they were from the results. Here are some for you to try out, roughly arranged from easy to hard:
Oh, you still wave, free land of the brave and the American flag?
This is dangerous!
The key opened the door of imagination. Beyond is another dimension - sound, visuals, dimensions of the dimension, the dimension of the mind. Both shadow and substance, has been moved to the land of things and ideas. Purizupurizumisuterizon.
Hey, my car is here, or what?
A new life in a strange new world before moving on to explore bold new civilization.
These dividend payments and unalienable human freedom and happiness, please seek the blessing for the right to create true equality.
Bajiniaurufu scared?
Some people love to call the crime Maisupesukauboi
If Pokey and obsolescence, all swing around.
Map of money to me!
Have completed all items. Must be restored to get compensation for my friend Robin.
This plant was born to give the plants time to time of death.
Clear, all children! Now go and if you can hit this time!
Stupid fly!
Our world is children. Some dates with us, we, as the next big start
Her life, my country, Iraq, Iraq, the United States, South Africa, South Africa, where, when, the last two years, the United States, Asia, North America, 7 days, in time, August 1st Google's first personal training 2,221 may be bought in the building.
All his love, lost love the best.
To accept the UK!
So far, more will be removed from play.
My friend lives with a very reduced.
EDIT: Here are some hints for the quotes, which tell you the era and medium for each quote.
I'm really liking 80% and 125% as resizing ratios. They are easy to type, easy to undo, don't have the icky rounding errors that you get with alternatives like (150% and 66.6667%) or (75% and 133.3333%) and with repeated applications give a nice range of sizes.
I decided to drop by the US Rubik's Cube National Championships this weekend. They had a couple of cute interstitial "Mystery Events". Tyson Mao asked if I could come up with any puzzles to contribute. I had some ideas, went home, and came up with about 5 or 6 ideas that night. Here are two of them. The first one actually got used; the second one was deemed too hard, and did not get used. However, I came up with an easier version.
Sudoku on a 3x3x3 cube (kinda). You can figure out the rules easily. Two harder puzzles using the same grid will appear in the upcoming book "Sudoku Masterpieces", co-written by Thomas and me.
Inspired by Scott Kim's "Convex-Concave" puzzles. Cut the 10 pieces out.
Medium puzzle: Stack the pieces, overlaps allowed, so that the result looks like a 3x3x3 Rubik's Cube.
Hard puzzle: Stack the pieces, overlaps allowed, so that the result looks like a SOLVED 3x3x3 Rubik's Cube.
Easy puzzle (rot13 encoded because knowing what this puzzle is may spoil the hard puzzle): Fgnpx cvrprf nycun, qrygn, sbkgebg, naq tbys fhpu gung gur erfhyg ybbxf yvxr n phor gung rkgraqf ol gjb havgf va nyy guerr qvzrafvbaf.
Unlike the "too hard to be published" series, these two puzzles should be pretty fun. Let me know what you think.
Another one in the "Too Hard to be Published" series.
The left is a standard sudoku; the right is a sudoku with irregular regions. To solve them, you also need the information that both grids have exactly the same number arrangement.
This puzzle has some history you might find interesting...
Donald Knuth, a friend of mine, wrote some puzzles for International Puzzle Party 29. Two of the puzzles were what he called "Double Sudoku", which were like this puzzle, just with different givens. At the bottom he commented that he didn't know whether it was possible to have a unique solution with only 9 givens.
I decided to take on this challenge, and, learning the ground rules from him (both grids have to be exactly these regions, and the 9 givens must all be unique), I was able to find this answer (with the aid of my computer programs, of course), in about 2 hours of work (and 22 hours of real-time).
I started solving it by hand but have only made a little progress. Like all minimally-given sudoku variants, it's tough!
The sad thing here is that the concept is pretty much identical to "STRIMKO", which has already been around for a few years now and has been designed, marketed, and popularized by the Grabarchuk family:
Here Conceptis has not only just taken the concept and touted it as their own, but failed to acknowledge the previous work by the Grabarchuks. The first part is scummy, the last step extremely scummy.
Legally the issue is unclear. My general knowledge is that puzzle design concepts can't be copyrighted; only individual instances of puzzles can be. There are no trademark or patent issues here. So, as far as American intellectual property law is concerned, I'm afraid that Conceptis will probably be able to get away with this.
And there might be more going on under the hood than we can see here. It's possible that Conceptis attempted to negotiate the rights to Strimko with the Grabarchuks, and when the Grabarchuks asked for too much control and money, Conceptis decided that they could do it on their own. So morally, although I'm pretty sure that Conceptis is in the wrong (and I'll do what I can to stop supporting them), I can't help but feel maybe there was the possibility that this could have been avoided.
There's a local new restaurant we went to last week called 怒髪天 (Dohatsuten). It has its name emblazoned in giant characters across its awning.
The literal meaning of the characters?
怒 : Anger.
髪 : Hair (as in, the stuff that grows on a human head).
天 : Sky.
Angry hair in the sky? Anger the hairy sky? No matter how I tried to parse it, it sure seemed like a metaphor that went way over my head. (Pun intended.) I decided to track down the source of this crazy metaphor...
Okay, since I suspect no one is going to be blogging too much on what was going on up in the front of VX 921, I might as well start here.
Warning: The following blog report assumes a heck of a lot of context. You might want to read other reports first regarding the Day in the Cloud competition to establish that context.
You know how sometimes you get the dream that you're back in high school again and have to do some stupid tasks set by the teacher?
Yesterday I dreamed that I was back in some math class where the teacher said he wanted us to learn about trade and bartering. He then proceeded to hand out a bunch of fake money to everybody. I got something like 20 bills each of $1, $20, and $100. He then said that we can start trading.
About a third of the students in the class got up and got really into this and started offering and making deals. The rest were presumably thinking the same thing as me, which is that "wow, this is the stupidest game ever." I mean, what sort of deal could you make that would make any sense? "Here, I'll give you 19 one-dollar bills for that $20?" Was this just a matter of the winner being the one who could make the most trades with the stupid students in the class?
In between ignoring silly deal offers I was getting, I was comparing the fake laser-printed money to the real money I had and contemplating the possibility of trading real money for fake money as a way to perhaps win this game, when at that point the instructor passed out another handout.
The handout said that actually each bill was printed in three subtly-different shades of green. At the end of the exercise, the dark green bills in the denomination you had the most of would be worth 60% more, the middle green bills in the denomination you had the middle amount of would be worth 50% more, and the light green bills in the denomination you had the least of would be worth 40% more.
I was astonished. So apparently the teacher wasn't giving out a stupid activity after all.
Who needs the complexity of 9 numbers? Fill in each cell with a number from 1 to 6 so that no number appears more than once in any of the rows, columns, and 2x2 boxes.
Puzzle 3 in the "too hard to be published" series.
This one is small enough to be quite tractable to trial-and-error... but if you can find a logical path to the solution, consider yourself good.
Just in time for the movie, these are all questions regarding the graphic novel "Watchmen". Anyone with a copy of the graphic novel can figure out the answers, but I don't expect anyone except the most dedicated Watchmen fan to get any of these right from memory with better than random chance accuracy. Nevertheless, I hope you find the questions interesting.
The first time motion lines are used in the comic are: A. When the Comedian's door is getting kicked open (in flashback) B. When the Comedian is being thrown out the window C. When Rorschach uses the grappling hook to enter the Comedian's apartment D. When Rorschach throws the Comedian's button onto Dan Dreiberg's table
Rorschach has an inkblot pattern that indicates "surprise." In which one of these cases does he NOT show that pattern? A. When Rorschach discovers the Comedian's hidden closet. B. When Rorschach realizes that Jacobi is dead. C. When Rorschach realizes that Gerald Grice's dogs are chewing on human bones. D. When Rorschach is told that Ozymandias did it "35 minutes ago."
Can you put these newspaper headlines in the proper chronological order? (The parenthetical text represents letters that are not on panel and therefore inferred.) A. AFGHANISTAN FIGHTING SPREADS B. ATOMIC BOMB DROPPED ON HIROSHIMA C. CONGRESS APPROVES LUNAR SILOS D. COPS SAY "LET THEM DO IT" E. DR. MANHATTAN "AN IMPERIALIST WEAPON" SAY RUSSIANS F. EASTERN EUROPE: TANKS MASS AS CONFLICT ESCALATES G. FRENCH WITHDRAW MILITARY COMMITMENT FROM NATO H. HERO RET(IRES) I. HOW SICK IS DICK? J. INDUSTRIALIST IN MURDER BID K. KEENE ACT PASSED: VIGILANTES ILLEGAL L. NIXON PROMIS(ES) MAXIMUM FORCE M. NUCLEAR DOOMSDAY CLOCK STANDS AT FIVE TO TWELVE WARN EXPERTS N. NY SURVIVORS REVEAL (NI)GHTMARE UNDER HYPNO(SIS) O. OUR COUNTRY'S PROTECTOR SMEARED BY THE KREMLIN P. PRESIDEN(T) SHOT-FEAR(ED) CRITICAL Q. REDS CROSS PAKISTAN BORDER R. RR TO RUN IN 88? S. (S)CIENTISTS MAKE FIRST ARTIFICIAL WONER ELEMENT: PLUTONIUM T. (SIN)G SING (E)RUPTS: CAP(TUR)ED VIGILANTE S(PA)RKS RIOT: FI(VE D)EAD U. SOVIETS WILL NOT TOLERATE US ADVENTURISM IN AFGHANISTAN V. STICK WITH DICK IN 84 W. TANKS MASS I(N) EASTERN EURO(PE) X. VIETN(AM) 51st STA(TE) Y. WAR? Z. WOMAN KILLE(D) WHILE NEIGHB(ORS) LOOK ON
Dr. Manhattan's pubis is visible: A. When he is looking at the ruins of "The Bestiary". B. When he completely reforms for the first time after the accident. C. When he talks with Laurie on Mars, before the snowglobe flashback. D. When he talks with Laurie on Mars, when she realizes who her father is. E. Right before Veidt subtracts his intrinsic field. F. After he sees Dan and Laurie cuddling together. G. Nowhere outside of A-F. H. All of the above. I. None of the above. J. Only some of the above.
Match these exclamations of surprise at Dr. Manhattan's appearance with the people who uttered them. A. AAAAA! B. AAAAAA C. WAAGH! D. EEEEIIIIGHH! E. Dan F. Gila Flats man seeing Jon's disembodied nervous system G. Laurie H. Man painting "Danger: Quarantine Area" on his apartment
True or False: When Rorschach entered Ozymandias' office to warn him about the possible "mask killer," he broke Ozymandias' window with the grappling hook.
Adrian Veidt's large wall of monitors is first seen in: A. Chapter I. B. Chapter III. C. Chapter V. D. Chapter VIII. E. Chapter X. F. Chapter XI.
There is a feature on Mars named after the Gordian Knot, which Alexander of Macedonia "solved" by cutting in half (as told by Ozymandias), and which the lock company that fixes Dan Dreiberg's front door (broken twice by Rorschach) is named after. That covers three of the main characters. True or False: Dr. Manhattan mentions a reference to the Gordian Knot at some point in the book, to Laurie.
True or False: Laurie Juspeczyk's reflection can be seen in every odd-numbered chapter.
There is a small continuity error with the time zone clocks to the left of Veidt's wall of screens; one clock is labeled with two different city names in two different frames. Which two cities? A. Delhi and Sydney B. New York and Moscow C. Paris and Moscow D. Tokyo and Los Angeles
Which city from the previous list is not actually a wall clock seen in any of the panels?
One of the interesting features of the dream is that I was setting up a website that does collaborative construction of concordances for comics. The alliteration wasn't part of the dream.
See, a lot of comics aren't easily searchable, because the text in the comics are part of the artwork and not text that search engines can find. So, it would be cool if someone did the work of typing all the text in. But that's a lot of work to expect the comic book author to necessarily do.
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
onigame's journal
