The creators talk about this in the companion podcast - the idea was that literature/media from these games still exists (which we can see as Ellie has the poster), and the only way you found out about fatalities anyway was via gaming publications/urban legends. Just like in the real world, nobody really learned these combos by trial and error.
> Everyone I ever met ever, learned such gaming combos, with their friends, by trial and error.
To be fair, fatalities are not generally discoverable by trial and error, unlike combos. You have such a small window of time to enter them when they show up at the end of the match. The first time I encountered one, I had no idea what was going on and then a few seconds later it was over.
However, back then we had gaming magazines and books that revealed all the fatalities, so you could easily look them up.
Thanks for that memory. Someone at school would whisper a combo move and you'd pencil it down and eagerly rush home from the bus later that day to try it out.
We really were guessing different combos, in rural Iowa at least.
I had the pleasure of being taught mathematics by the creator of Inform, Graham Nelson, at Oxford (and Oxford class sizes are _small_, 2-5 students). He’s a super interesting guy - created Inform, teaches pure mathematics at the highest level, but seems to most enjoy writing poetry.
If you go looking for elixir stuff it’s there, and it seems like its usage in industry is expanding at a steady pace. IMO this is because it’s a reasonably approachable language designed to solve a common difficult problem (high concurrency, fault tolerance at scale)
I agree with this. It irritates me hugely when we estimate tasks by complexity and then use our estimations to determine which tasks we can accomplish in a sprint.
Exactly - and it also ends up seeping back into the estimation as a result, 'a junior/recent hire/someone unfamiliar might pick this up, so let's make it [the higher number discussed] to account for that'. If it was actually complexity, it's just as complex whoever works on it. How hard they find it and how long they take might vary, sure, (and that's fine, and sometimes it'd be me taking longer than someone else) but not the work's complexity.
Maybe a research group wants to investigate a connection to another discipline.
Maybe the research group comes across a talented student and sees the potential for a research grant (how this works depends on the country).
Maybe the student has the means to self-fund and so the university happily collects a pay-cheque.
I fell into the first category - I did my PhD in a quantum information group despite my background being in mathematical logic. I was accepted because I knew a lot about different formal logic systems, and they wanted to study connections between those and the formalism they were using for quantum information.
Gödel's future work on constructible hierarchies and the dialectica interpretation were directly inspired by Principia Mathematica. I agree that characterizing Gödel's view on Principia as a "step backwards" is overly simplistic, but he certainly mentions and takes inspiration form the work throughout his career.
> as he was mainly criticizing the syntax
If you mean to say that Gödel's criticisms of Principia were just about syntax - that is also incorrect. Gödel had substantial complaints about the truthfulness of the axiom of reducibility that (IIRC) Russell himself thought posed a valid attack on the system in Principia.
Check out Marques Brownlee's video on this - they probably _were_, it renders your face using the internal cameras in real time and displays that.