> On Feb 8, 2020, at 2:32 PM, Alexis Hunt via agora-discussion
> wrote:
>
> On Sat, 8 Feb 2020 at 17:22, Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion
> wrote:
>>
>> Seems reasonable. Minor thing: it would be nice if this had a self-repeal
>> provision.
>>
>> Gaelan
>
> But that would move it back a
On Sat, 8 Feb 2020 at 17:22, Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion
wrote:
>
> Seems reasonable. Minor thing: it would be nice if this had a self-repeal
> provision.
>
> Gaelan
But that would move it back afterward.
-Alexis
Seems reasonable. Minor thing: it would be nice if this had a self-repeal
provision.
Gaelan
> On Feb 8, 2020, at 1:15 PM, Alexis Hunt via agora-business
> wrote:
>
> Proposal: RtRW Reschedule (AI=1)
> {{{
> Amend Rule 2327 (Read the Ruleset Week) by adding the following paragraph:
> {
> The
On 7 July 2011 23:50, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> It was pointed out to me that Rule 0 says that events with absolute
> deadlines don't occur at all, and "the third midnight UTC" is an
> absolute deadline.
Is it? It's relative to the start of the emergency.
On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 4:51 PM, Elliott Hird
wrote:
> On 7 July 2011 06:16, Sean Hunt wrote:
>> WHEREAS B Nomic was in fact recently discovered to have been
>> locked in perpetual Emergency since 2002, such that its game can
>> never advance; and
>
> Have you got any pointers? Thre
On 7 July 2011 06:16, Sean Hunt wrote:
> WHEREAS B Nomic was in fact recently discovered to have been
> locked in perpetual Emergency since 2002, such that its game can
> never advance; and
Have you got any pointers? Thread titles, etc.; I must have missed this.
Is there truly no
On 11-07-07 07:21 AM, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 1:16 AM, Sean Hunt wrote:
WHEREAS B Nomic, a well-played Nomic, did claim to pass a
proposal directing a player to end the game,
Your definition of "well-played" may be off a bit; that was a
particularly bad piece
On Thu, 2011-07-07 at 10:21 -0400, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 1:16 AM, Sean Hunt wrote:
> > WHEREAS B Nomic, a well-played Nomic, did claim to pass a
> > proposal directing a player to end the game,
>
> Your definition of "well-played" may be off a bit; that was a
>
On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 1:16 AM, Sean Hunt wrote:
> WHEREAS B Nomic, a well-played Nomic, did claim to pass a
> proposal directing a player to end the game,
Your definition of "well-played" may be off a bit; that was a
particularly bad piece of gameplay.
Although, to be fair, no one act
On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 1:23 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wed, 6 Jul 2011, Sean Hunt wrote:
>> Award B Nomic the Patent Title "Imaginationland"
>
> Official pedantry: Not a person.
Proto: first create a rule making B Nomic a third-class person.
On Wed, 6 Jul 2011, Sean Hunt wrote:
> On 11-07-06 10:23 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > On Wed, 6 Jul 2011, Sean Hunt wrote:
> > > Award B Nomic the Patent Title "Imaginationland"
> >
> > Official pedantry: Not a person.
>
> Irrelevant, but relevant is power. I retract the proposal "B is Dead! Lon
On Wed, 6 Jul 2011, Sean Hunt wrote:
> Award B Nomic the Patent Title "Imaginationland"
Official pedantry: Not a person.
On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 1:29 PM, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Most programming languages' numeric data types are really crap at storing
> arbitrary numbers. They tend to be machine registers wearing wigs,
> not the mathematical abstractions that we naively imagine.
<3 Haskell.
Prelude> 10
Elliott Hird wrote:
>This is where you switch to a language that does bignums ;)
Fortunately I already store it as a string.
We had similar shenanigans last year. Proposal 4909 had
AI=1.01337, to find out whether there was any
floating-point rounding in the promotor's aut
root wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 4:07 PM, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 5:55 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
There's really no reason to have a proposal with adoption index above
3, as power 3 is enough to grant omnipotence. (Its Royal Majesty
On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 4:07 PM, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 5:55 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> There's really no reason to have a proposal with adoption index above
>>> 3, as power 3 is enough to grant omnipotence. (Its Royal Majesty Rule
>>> 2140 says
ihope wrote:
> It's a little bit like saying that a proposal that repeals a rule also
> has a property called "Food" which has no effect whatsoever. 9.9 is an
> arbitrary limit; 3 is not.
Like Tidbits in B?
--
ais523
<>
On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 5:55 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> There's really no reason to have a proposal with adoption index above
>> 3, as power 3 is enough to grant omnipotence. (Its Royal Majesty Rule
>> 2140 says, "No entity with power below the power of this rule can . .
>> .")
>
>
On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 3:56 PM, Alexander Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> root wrote:
>> There's really no reason to disallow it, either.
> Apart from proposals whose AI appears to be deliberately set
> high so they database can't handle them?
I meant in relation to Murphy's proposal. Unless
2008/6/23 Alexander Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Apart from proposals whose AI appears to be deliberately set
> high so they database can't handle them?
> --
> ais523
>
It's just a good thing that we all wouldn't stoop to that level.
ehird
root wrote:
> There's really no reason to disallow it, either.
Apart from proposals whose AI appears to be deliberately set
high so they database can't handle them?
--
ais523
<>
On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 3:52 PM, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 5:49 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> The adoption index of a proposal is an integral multiple of 0.1
>> from 1.0 to 9.9.
>
> There's really no reason to have a proposal with adoption in
On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 5:49 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The adoption index of a proposal is an integral multiple of 0.1
> from 1.0 to 9.9.
There's really no reason to have a proposal with adoption index above
3, as power 3 is enough to grant omnipotence. (Its Royal Majest
2008/6/23 Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Can I possibly talk you into retracting that?
>
>
This is where you switch to a language that does bignums ;)
ehird
ehird wrote:
> I PROPOSE THE FOLLOWING PROPOSAL, TITLED
[snip]
Can I possibly talk you into retracting that?
25 matches
Mail list logo
