that gives away too much information, instead i'd go with something that tells you that you've found the best solution. you'll still be able to know whether or not to keep going, but you get no information that makes finding the ideal solution easier.
This is a very cool and enjoyable game. I'd be really interested in knowing what framework/library was used to make it. I inspected the source and can see the game is done on canvas, but can't work out more than that.
This is incredible and just what I wanted. Chrome extension and mobile app, and I could even seamlessly import all my pocket data direct from pocket. Absolutely using this. I don't tend to read things offline as much since internet is everywhere now, but I love having all my bookmarks in a nice browsable format with tagging.
Wordle and NYT Connections are two games I've enjoyed playing daily for several years. I like how they're relaxing, simple, I can come back to them throughout the day, and they're so accessible that friends and family frequently play too and we share results. I wanted to create something in a similar vein that I'd enjoy playing daily alongside them.
Chiddle is what I came up with. It's essentially boggle, but with scrabble-style letter points, and the aim is to get the highest score you can with your five highest scoring found words. You can try to find as many words as you like but only the top five scoring are counted towards your score, which is shown primarily as a percentage of the highest possible score. When you can't find any more you can submit your score to reveal the remaining top words and share your result. Like Wordle there is a new puzzle each day.
It's written in HTML/pure JS/CSS, with puzzles generated by a .net console app. Hosted for free on cloudflare.
All words have definitions, so if you try a word but are not sure what it means, you can read the definition afterwards if it's valid. When the top words are revealed, their definitions are also laid out alongside them. I found this to be a nice way of learning some new words. I also added a hint button to aid with finding the last word(s) to get you to a 100% score (all it gives you is what letter the word starts with). I go back and forth on whether the hint system affects the challenge too much, but I often don't get to 100% even with hints; some words are just really tricky to spot!
The biggest challenge of the project is in trying to generate puzzles that are satisfying to complete. After some early testing I found the criteria that makes the best puzzles are:
1. Lots of possible words.
2. Top words that are relatively common.
3. Tops words that are not mostly similar.
For point 1 I reject generated puzzles that contain a word count below a threshold. For point 2 I collected a number of common word lists from different sources, and I use the number of lists a word appears on to determine how common it probably is. If it's possible to get a 100% with common words, then the puzzle goes to a manual review stage where I check that the words are in fact common, and that point 3 is satisfied.
I've been playing around with the game for quite a while and I'm running out of ideas on how to improve it. Any feedback or suggestions are welcome!
Thanks, haha yeah I thought it was a shame too. Maybe i'll repost in a couple of months, or blog about it sometime and share that. I've got some reddit posts up in word game related subs but the game won't stand out as much there since lots of others are doing the same.
I just tried to post about this and got redirected here. I am honestly gobsmacked at this from Microsoft. We're paying a premium and expect a solid uptime in return, and I'm at 14 hours down now with no resolution. They're a leading cloud provider with an abundance of resources to mitigate these sorts of issues
I wondered if anyone would bring it up. Polytopia other than csgo is the only game I really play anymore. It's essentially civ distilled into a perfectly cruftless experience. It's also perfect for multiplayer, as it works beautifully on phones (less friction to take a turn) and you can easily jump into 24-hour turn limit games.
I'm not sure the civ guys can come up with something to compete with it. The recent games were so bloated and everything dragged on to the to point you'd just lose interest mid game, or quit before an inevitable victory/loss in the late game.
Also I'm not sure what you could do to improve Polytopia to make it a better game, except adding multiplayer team games.
If you're happy with wikijs I'd advise that you probably stay on it to be honest. WikiJS is a great project. They two differ quite a bit in design and structure, if wikijs's structure works well for you already you may find yourself fighting against the BookStack structure/layout. Can always give the demo [1] a go to get an idea.
Gold is also one of 118 boxes on the periodic table. It pre-existed humans and has been something people valued for millennia.
Bitcoin is an imaginary thing someone made up ten years ago that we all just collectively decided to value. Or at least, some of us did, in the hopes that the rest of us would come aboard and they’d be rich.
The cool thing about a bubble is we can all be rich on paper, for a bit. If you cashed out and bought stuff, though, good for you for finishing on top.
Of course it can fail! It's all about chances and risks, no?
For me, there is only a small chance that cryptocurrency will truly break through. But when it does, it will be HUGE.
So a small chance X total game changer = a lot of potential return.
If you invest 1% of your portfolio, you can only lose 1%. However, there was (and still is) a small chance it goes x100, which means a total 100% return on your portfolio. So now you have 200 instead of 100.
I was proven right, and so it's easy for me to say I took the right decision. But when it would have gone to 0, it would have still been a smart move to invest 1%.
For me, the stupid people are the ones who are sure about the outcome. While at this point, nobody knows. You can only see the potential or not.
Realizing gains in a shockingly volatile speculative investment just seems like common sense. Particularly so if you can take out your original investment and be "playing with house money" so to speak.
Correct me if i'm wrong, but to open a payment channel with another party on the lightninng network (for example Starbucks to buy coffees) you need an onchain transaction. Then when you finally want to settle all of the lightning network transactions (pay your tab) you need another transaction. So you need at least two onchain transactions for every merchant you want to trade with.
The reason this doesnt scale is because for 100 million people to open one payment channel, it will take over a year to process all of those transactions. That wouldn't happen though as the transaction costs would skyrocket to the point people wouldn't bother.
Am I wrong? Genuinely, this is how I see it and why it cannot work.
> you need at least two onchain transactions for every merchant you want to trade with
you absolutely do not. you open a channel once with some node and that channel can be used to send payments to all other nodes.
it's also simplistic view that you need 2 transactions per settlement of a channel because with channel factories you can batch-open-and-close-and-top-off many different channels with single (albeit fairly large) transaction.
systems like that grow organically and people get onboarded via many different methods, so it's not like tomorrow we will have a queue of 100 million people waiting for channels to be opened.
i do expect bitcoin network to hit capacity limit by transactions in future and we will see what it is going to look like, but i rather prefer bitcoin's glacial pace of becoming more and more efficient at ground layer, forcing all sorts of experimentation to happen in upper layers and in sidechains without ever compromising the foundation.
Ok so I've learnt something there, just one transaction to open a channel that everyone uses. But then what happens when you've transacted with say 30 different merchants, and the tab is called? Is that one bitcoin transaction to settle, or 30 since you're presumably sending bitcoin to 30 different wallets?
Personally I don't like the glacial pace of ground layer dev, as it makes me think this stuff can't be solved. Each way you approach it is a compromise.
It's called lightning network for a reason. It's a network of Bitcoin channels. You can open a channel with Burger King and use it at McDonald's. The latter will route the payment instantly to the former, and all channel states will be updated. Read the lightning channel technical papers if you're interested, it's really worth it.
It’s one transaction to settle any number of in-channel transactions. That’s why it doesn’t make sense to talk about 7 transactions per second because every one of them can represent a billion value exchanges.
It is infinitely more important to preserve stability of foundation than it is to experiment with new features. Bitcoin runs in its current form for more than a decade and that stability is worth a lot.
I'm concerned that looks a lot like a more conventional system where you have centralized payment processors. The best-connected ones are most successful, incentivizing acquisitions until there are very few of them or even a duopoly.
Is it worth moving my app from the subdomain app.mystartup.com to mystartup.app? Or would separating the app from the marketing website harm SEO? The app itself is completely inaccessible to bots.
