My first solution was RNG(hash(seed.toString() + string)), which would get rid of the correlation while still being deterministic based on the seed.
It's also more robust than calling RNG 10 times since if you use the same algorithm to seed as for the RNG proper then you will get the same sequences in each instance, just offset.
Fun game overall, took a little over 2 hours to beat. Some notes:
- I found the decade theming of the packs a nice touch.
- I'm mildly curious as to the maximum difficulty of the math problems.
- I did find the combat a little frustrating as the levels increased, I found that I had to basically ignore the block button if it was on cooldown at level 10 because the time between attacks is shorter than the cooldown, and I was definitely reaching the limit of my reaction times there.
- I recognised most of the movie quotes but some did elude me.
On the topic of incremental game gacha parodies, I couldn't help but think of the recent game One Trillion Free Draws (https://duducat.moe/gacha/), the premise of which is that you need to use your draws to get upgrades to use up your 1 trillion free draws faster. I've come across a few others in my time but I don't quite recall the others.
The 500 edits required for access to TWL is actually for all of the sites under the Wikimedia banner. If you're having trouble finding things to edit on Wikipedia, you can try their other sites such as Wikisource or Wikibooks.
On Wikisource in particular, it's fairly easy to make useful edits through validating proofread pages or proofreading simple pages (both of which can be easily found in the Monthly Challenge).
The conclusion is basically (Larry) Niven's Law of Time Travel. From "The Theory and Practice of Time Travel" (1971):
> If the universe of discourse permits the possibility of time travel and of changing the past, then no time machine will be invented in that universe.
The entire essay is worth a read, of course. Meanwhile the paper in the OP goes for a more mathematical approach.
Somewhat related is the work done in "Falling with Style: Factoring up to 255 “with” a Quantum Computer" published in the proceedings of SIGBOVIK 2025 [1]. The author, Craig Gidney [2], successfully factored all odd composite numbers up to 255 using Shor's algorithm, even though the quantum circuits involved were such that any meaningful output would be overwhelmed by noise (and indeed, performance was maintained when the circuits were replaced by a random number generator).
> To my knowledge, no one has cheated at factoring in this way before. Given the shenanigans pulled by past factoring experiments, that’s remarkable.
[2] Who has previous experience in cheating at quantum factoring: see "Factoring the largest number ever with a quantum computer", posted April Fools' Day 2020 at https://algassert.com/post/2000
A while back I came up with the idea to carve out 4096 code points in plane 14 (Supplementary Special-purpose Plane) for super-surrogates, and use three such surrogates (1 initial, 2 extension) for codepoints beginning from U+110000. If done properly you get unlimited range and self-synchronizing, at the expense of needing 12 bytes minimum per codepoint (more if you want it truly unlimited), but I figured the demand for UTF-16 would be low enough by the time it's needed that it's a workable tradeoff.
Having come across the connection from somewhere else entirely, I found it a very curious rabbit hole. I saw recently a website that attempts to summarise the whole thing (not quite complete) [1], with a section on St. Bride's.
Then there's the oral history someone posted on Something Awful some years ago [2] -- from someone who may have accidentally indirectly derailed the entire movement.
RFC 2550 to the rescue: handling the transition from A99999 to B100000, or even from Z999999999999999999999999999999 to ^A1000000000000000000000000000000 will be a piece of cake.
Neat. However, I noticed that the page description reads "No stress, memory-optimized 3D Tetris variant.", but I can't figure out what's supposed to be 3D about it.
Ha, I missed that. The AI prob wrote that. It thinks it’s 3D because it’s using the three JS library and I was asking for performance optimization ideas
It's also more robust than calling RNG 10 times since if you use the same algorithm to seed as for the RNG proper then you will get the same sequences in each instance, just offset.