@GentlePurpleRain: @GarethMcCaughan is right. Triple defs themselves are extremely rare too. I have seen other types of triple clues before (eg def-wordplay-wordplay) but they were in a variety cryptic which explicitly stated that that was a gimmick in some clues and required us to alter the entries before they went in (ERAS with a wordplay-def-wordplay clue would be entered into the grid as ERASER, for instance).
4 hours later…
user230888
4:51 AM
@GentlePurpleRain Why dont you just simply delete both accounts ? They are, after all, aren't used for anything useful; and I wouldn't bother a bit if you deleted both.
user230888
(BTW, its a bit funny to see that plagiarism is from one account and banning is from other)
You (ironically) raise a good point though... what's the point of banning any individual account when known sockpuppets exist? The banning is theoretically of the user, rather than the account.
I.e. they've attempted to ban the user, by banning the "primary" account. But they should actually ban all accounts (known to be) used by the user
user230888
(With my special overmod power, I can (I think) end the ban in two days by deleting and recreating) :P
@tpk Why are you trying to goad the Mods into dealing with you anyway? If you want to not be here, or want to not have your accounts active, be a big lad and take out your own trash. Are you just trying to provoke a response, and an active dislike of you by the PSE community?
@Rubio, I personally know there are gambling people who willingly close their accounts at certain gaming places and ask the administrators not to open their accounts even if they themselves beg for it. I.e. to close them permanently.
The case might be as similar regardless whether tpk confesses or not.
@MariaDeleva I'm not sure the analogy holds, but I guess maybe I see your point. People who can't help themselves need others to do it for them. But this isn't so much a case of a weak willed individual needing someone to step in to keep him from harming himself.
@Ankoganit Hey there! Yes, I use Tikz when doing simple graphics or when I'm not computing complicated plots. The shadows where done "manually" in the sense that each cube is actually a single command repeated by a foreach for 66 times. The shadows are then done using an \if to assign it to each cube, so that for example, the cubes on the left do not have a shadow on top of them or on the left. And the last cube has a complete "cube" shadow.
Of course, the shadows are in orthographic view, not perspective, as in the latter case, they would change angle at the bottom of the pyramid and at the top. But for this, it wasn't worth it. :D Previously each cube had its faces colored to fake the shadows, but then I changed my mind so every cube now casts its own shadow, I thought this was a better way to handle. The shadow is basically a semi-transparent black shape. Which is more or less how shadows behave in the real world.
@boboquack I have an alternative solution for the freezing water puzzle.
@Alenanno Umm I'm not sure actually. Drawing the cubes should be easy, but idk how I would place the letters. But at least, it's very easy to switch between orthographic and perspective.
I think if you define it well enough - how many are you allowed to move, make it clear you can't break or stack or stand on end or whatever - that has a definite end state so the problem per se is well defined
people may come up with more than one way to do it, but as long as it's not absurd, that's probably fine
I'd like to tell a story,
but there isn't really one here.
3+4+5=6
There's just a cryptic puzzle
6 1 4a 7 4d 9, 3 2 5 8.
all mixed up in itself.
xnoywt
oivwjh
rdfsbr
vsisne
hjqffe
There are several steps,
kruof
qumsh
but just one solution in the end.
werde
wkvmp
xjhij
hlc f
...
That moment when you're trying to be active on SO again, but the first two new questions you encounter are extremely low-quality and you immediately loose all motivation again :D
I just thought of a weird puzzle that would be frowned upon by experienced users but would probably get into the HNQ and fetch me a lot of upvotes (Because, it would probably have many answers)..
Aargh, that "What makes me so Strong" puzzle has beaten me all ends up... I am pretty sure, it's something simple...
I actually do not have any well established answer for this puzzle. I will use the answers and experiment to see what method works best. — Tommy Woldt25 mins ago
Agreed. In fact, even better than giving a hint would be to add a few more lines to the riddle (not spoilertagged). If there are too many solutions which fit the riddle, even disregarding spoilered hints, then the question might end up being closed as too broad. — rand al'thor22 secs ago
I actually mean, In the guide, it says, "The two def. should be disconnected enough so that the answer is unambiguous". My question is, What is "disconnected enough"?
I see the examples, but for example, the word "run" has like 50 odd meanings to it. Does taking randomly any 2 meanings of the word make it fit into a cryptic clue?
I think it means the word needs two disconnected meanings. e.g. "refuse" meaning to say no and "refuse" meaning garbage. If the meanings are closely linked (e.g. "bare" meaning "unclothed" vs. "bare" meaning "to expose"), then I would say they aren't sufficiently separate.
Gotta say it, as for some reason it's really sticking out at me. It bugs me how your profile pictures hair gets cut off. I have always wondered what it was and I finally clocked on to it.
How's life then? Are the puzzling people treating you well?
@BeastlyGerbil Originally, I was going to, but then I had the perfect idea for the "Twelve Puzzles of Christmas". (Who knows, maybe I'll just make them on my own if I have the time!)
Doesn't that present two solutions that are a little too similar? "Casual actor" = PLAYER and "Casual actor engaged in seduction" = ROLEPLAYER? It's not really separate clues.
@BeastlyGerbil I think it means that it's conversational. Comments are supposed to be mostly one-off, so if, for example you posted "Yeah, I know what you mean" as a response to a previous comment, that might be considered "too chatty".
Well, I think here it prompts earlier to move the discussion to chat rather than on SO, for example. Although, I am not too sure - don't know the exact number of comments the system does that.
I was even looking for such an option yesterday on SO and couldn't find it
10-letter words for "casual": occasional, nonchalant, improvised, incidental, fortuitous?, insouciant, capricious
@MariaDeleva Are you an SO mod? Because that option is usually only available to mods, unless the system detects an abundance of comments (usually within a short period of time).
@GentlePurpleRain no, but I am not a puzzling mod either. And I have seen it here on multiple occasions - after 7-8 comments or so. But I have never seen it on SO.
Well, I still believe the rule for "move to chat" is different - I just looked at my answer at SO - it has 12 comments. Unless, this option is only visible to the asker of the question?
I remember seeing it on SO (didn't have much rep back then). If it is rep based then it probably only appears for users with >= 20 rep (talk in chat privilege)
@GentlePurpleRain There's a "move this conversation to chat" option for any two users - not necessarily mods - who engage in a long enough (not sure exactly how long) comment chain.
Which is different from the mod-only power of moving all comments on a given post to chat.
I'll jump in and say that (correct me if I'm wrong) it's possible that "seduction" is the def and "actor engaged in" clues a synonym of "actor" with the word "in" inserted
BTW, is there any clear policy whether to add an additional "s" after a possessive noun ending with "s"? Most articels I found say there's no clear rule, some people append it every time, others only after common nouns but not proper nouns ending with "s". (at least that's the example I found) Which rule do you guys as native english speakers follow? (might be a completely different one)
