No. It was because you meant bad coding when it’s unrelated. I said that multiple times.
I agree for sure that IMC has some bad coding in some places. I’m not going to defend anyone if they’re in the wrong side. But if you’re using that wrong and complaining about the wrong thing - yeah, something’s off, that’s what annoys me.
This sounded pretty arrogant as something you have/had no idea about just told because you think that way. Be it related to IMC or not.
If you’re being hostile you’re giving rights for others to be hostile back to you.
May you quote where I said that? Or maybe are you just misunderstanding?
If I was more informed about RNG I would be going to talk about correlations.
And as much as you might not like it. I’m the kind of person to explore two sides of these stuff before talking about them. I’m open to change my mind at any time if I feel like it. I’m not rigid on a side of the wall just for the sake of it.
Sorry again @Peako if I’m reading your posts in a wrong way but I’ll try quoting something again:
These were my results. Exactly that.
Plus I have more than years of coding experience and playing with stuff and already observed how srand() and rand() do happen to give long high roll streaks or low roll streaks. The probability is almost impossible, it’s really low. But not impossible, that’s all.
No one is manipulating RNG. You’re just searching part of what you want and discarding everything else if not.
Also, @Peako, also, humbly asking ><, if possible correct me here if I’m saying bs.
The higher the sample the better distributed will be the numbers. That means >50/<50 rate can change later on, or not change at all and simply end up being similar, it’s just random. But not impossible for it to change.
That’s somewhat my reasoning for pulling back.
Rigidly disagreeing and discarding possible correlations and possible low probability cases, especially with memes, is what I’d expect from someone that isn’t actually well informed about RNG.
I’m going to ignore this since you stepped back to your old opinion and forgot everything you learnt.
You also forgot I’m not talking about patterns or rules that will apply or repeat.
So may you suggest a better way of doing it?
My big non-quote/non-reply posts are usually:
- Cover initial thoughts and possible reasons for posting.
- Some arguments, sometimes that works for both sides or one side.
- Examples for the arguments and/or examples that can support those if I find any.
- Last thoughts/conclusion/questions.
They’re not multiple posts as one to prevent double posting. They’re a post as whole on the same context.
If you can suggest some better format so it can be understood better I’m open to suggestions.
But let’s be honest here. Definitely, no one is going to like someone cutting out the parts they actually told about “something X” just to be told “you’re contradicting yourself because you totally ignored the something X”. This always triggers the “troll flag” for me because it’s a common way to annoy people in the internet and I’ll stop being so nice to you when you do that. Especially if it continues and you keep avoiding when I ask about it.
My first answer for you was the same tone you answered to the topic:
If instead of saying something that is somewhat sarcastic and didn’t went to “IMC can’t code HURR DURR” braindead troll mob sentence it would have been great.
We both disagree with the first posts of each other. You’re not the only one answering in the same tone back. I saw this same thing over and over and over in-game as well.
Why is it too hard for people to understand that the same type of things that annoys them can also annoys others?