• 0 Posts
  • 16 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 12th, 2023

help-circle
rss



  • It would do both with just one “groundhog year” pill. Live a year with my current wealth and use the experience of that year to plan out how to earn money when it repeats. At the same time I would use that first year to measure my health so that I could take precautions or act on all that accumulated knowledge when the year repeats. There would still be a second pill to choose, and I think I’d choose the +3 charm because I could also really use it.

    But I don’t think this would work how I envisioned because I misunderstood the “groundhog” pill. I think it’s supposed to mean that you repeat the same day 365 times, which wouldn’t work for lottery/investing. So then I agree, taking the $π million and +3 charm is probably the best.


  • Oh wait does “groundhogs day for a full year” mean that you complete a year then at the end you start that year over? Or is it that you repeat the same single day 365 times? Because repeating the same single day wouldn’t give someone enough info to invest or win a lottery (they close sales more than a day before drawing winners). I’m not sure I could out-earn $π million in a single day even with 365 attempts and +3 charisma… unless it was some kind of criminal heist, but then it couldn’t be known if I would be caught on a later date.


  • Maybe I’m misunderstanding the “groundhogs day” power, but couldn’t you spend a year tracking winning lottery numbers, bets, and/or stocks and then “loop” that year and act on that knowledge in the repeat year? Then you would also essentially get +1 year of life and way more than $π million. I would also use the first loop to take medical tests of my health as much as possible since it wouldn’t matter if I went into debt in the first loop.

    I guess the downside would be that any progress you’ve made on personal goals would have to be redone. Or maybe you don’t get to decide the starting point of when you would loop back to. Or just my luck, there would be some butterfly-effect shit and I would end up worse off in the repeat loop because my investments would have failed.








  • I thought decompiling with Ghidra was okay too, I may have just misunderstood the wiki article when I double checked post-commenting and crossed out my comment. I’m not entirely sure what comprises “proprietary techniques”. But I’m pretty sure that documentation needs to be provided in order to keep it on the legal side. Hopefully this project can come back and recieve continued support ala similar decomp projects.


  • I think the binary they distributed still included the art and sound assets; the users didn’t have to provide their own. And “clean-room” design is more than just providing source code. You need to provide a “paper trial” / commit history and documentation of how the final code was derived from the original code. My mistake, clean room is when you recreate the project without reading the original/compiled code at all. Specifications are written based on observed behaviors of the original user-facing program and new code is written according to that.


  • Maybe I’m wrong, but wasn’t there a way to release this while avoiding the issue of copyright? My understanding is that publishing “clean-room” reverse engineered code is legal. The graphics and sound can’t be redistributed, but you can distribute a tool to rip those assests from a ROM and let the users provide a ROM they own. This is what Ship of Harkinian does no?



  • I was stubborn about this for so long, and I’m still not entirely sure I understand it, but here is a perspective that made me doubt my belief.

    Imagine the Monty Hall Problem, but with 100 doors and only one grand prize. You pick one; it obviously has a 1/100 chance of being a grand prize. Then Monty reveals 98 doors without grand prizes in them such that the only doors left are the one you chose and one that Monty left unopened. Monty obviously arranged for one of those two doors to have the grand prize behind it. The “choice to switch” is really just a second round of the game, but with a 1/2 chance of winning (wrong, your odds change only if you “participate” in round two).

    If you stick with your door, you are relying on your initial 1/100 chance of winning. If you switch, you are getting the 1/2 odds of the “second round”.

    Apparently with three doors, switching gives you a 2/3 chance of winning, but I don’t understand the math of how to get that answer and I wouldn’t be able to calculate the odds of the 100 door version. I just know intuitivey that switching is better.