They could, if they cared to research that much, which many don't seem to want to do.

I still find the ai program that infers your age based on your age pretty funny :p and it never really get's it completely.

I don't know, I'm currently enjoying my break, but maybe I will :) For now I'm doing random acts of sudoku if someone mentions it :)

Okay, so I looked it up. Apparently, you don't need to guess in proper Sudoku, when there is only one solution

Yup, you got it :)

, but apparently there are also many Sudoku, sometimes printed, which have more than one solution, and so you require guessing.

Yeah, but only where you have come to a place where a 50-50 guess is needed, when you get used to solving good puzzles you learn how to figure it out, and there is a lot of checkers that you can run on puzzles if you're not sure, and if you find one with multiple solutions you just evade that source.

Also There are known good sources for puzzles, ones that are proper puzzles, so the best choice is just to keep at them.

Also, some sites mention "guessing" as a technique, which I probably took it to mean that you have to do it.

Guessing is used in speedsolving, where they solve the puzzles really fast. Guessing is a valid technique in picross as well, you can just guess if a cell is filled or not, it's exactly the same in sudoku, you just cheat yourself, and it's a big likelihood that you made the puzzle unsolveable, personally I find it not very gratifying to guess, so I never do.

Since I believed guessing is required, I would leave the puzzle where I got a bit stuck, assuming this is where I need to guess.

Yeah, some of the techniques, like finned fishes, Alternate inference chains and 3d-Medusa and so on can get a bit involved, so if you haven't seen them before it's hard figure them out by yourself. I used to moderate the r/sudoku sub over at reddit, where we used to help people solve a lot of puzzles they were struggling with. But really difficult stuff like that usually aren't in printed puzzles, they seldomly have anything more complex than an X-wing.

If you want to learn about techinques https://hodoku.sourceforge.net/en/techniques.php is a really good source, and hodoku is a really good solver too in case you want to learn, if you want something online there is https://sudokuwiki.com which is decent as well :)

Thanks for the comment! If I start to like Sudoku again, the blame would be all on you! 😀

Hah, you're welcome, I've been solving for around a decade now, and it's still fun to me, so at least there is something for it.

You don't have to guess with sudoku, I've done around 15 000 puzzles or so by now, and even the hardest have logic behind them, of course you can guess if you can't figure out the logic, but every one of them if you get them from a quality source has no guessing, and a single solution.

Ooh, I loved Murder by numbers, bought it full price some time ago, and it was well worth that :D

Then why are you quoting the price of ultra, which is something completely different?

Free Open source software :)

You're right that the theory is not about God, but explains the origins of the universe.

How so? I don't see what you mean here, it doesn't explain anything, it just builds a level of assumptions on top of something, basically explaining something with an untested hypothesis.

what I said about God is what I think is a logical conclusion.

If you Agree to the premises I guess, but I don't, so it explains nothing.

If something has a beginning, then it must have been kickstarted somehow.

Then who kickstarted god? Or does he/she/it for some reason get special treatment here? (This is special pleading)

What kickstarted it is by definition its creator.

If I kick a stone down a hill I did not create the stone even though I set it in motion.

And this applies to our universe, in my opinion.

Hmm, I don't see how you evade an infinite regression here, unless you break your own rules and give one link in the chain an "eternal always existing" modifier. We don't know that anything eternal exist, or even that our universe isn't eternal (extisting eternally as a singularity before spreading or a part of a bigger multiverse that we cannot perceive)

It is merely a statement that they must exist.

It is just assuming that something must exist, since you're building your logic on very shaky premises that we cannot prove.

An effect must have a cause.

Must it? Or have we just never seen the contrary (black swan fallacy) Who caused god? like I said before you can't get away from that without special pleading.

I apologize for sounding pretentious earlier, that was not my intention, but I can see how it came off as such. And apologize for misunderstanding your intentions as well.

Water under the bridge :) No worries :)

Also I notice you have some downvotes. Just want to clarify that it is not me.

No worries, I don't care about the votes, interactions are worth way more than someone clicking an arrow :)

But that's a theory isn't it? I haven't seen any scientific theories to gods how do we know anything about a god, much less what the nature of their being? It's just not based on anything, (therefore my allusions to magic)

I don't enjoy your tone policing.. There are ways to do that without sounding pretentious and holier than though, please keep that in mind for the next time.

Why do you think the universe needs a beginning, but there are special rules for your god because of?... magic?

Kind of, just that it's going in short bursts, and has more of a autochess way of upgrading weapons. It's also nice since each run is around 20 min, feels a bit more strategic and chaotic, and there are a load of characters :)

How likely do you think it is that even with the heavy push anything more than a small percentage of people will switch.

I already pre-bought brotato, which comes out on the 3rd of August, really looking forward to be able to play it on my switch as well :)

Now it works wonderfully :D

Yeah, I was able to see it in firefox, but then I can't register for it ;)

Hmm doesn't seem like I can get to the preregister page in the austrian google play store @ljdawson@lemmy.world

maybe, at least it's something to consider :) Now nothing wrong with liking the language if you do though :) just talking about my misgivings with it.

So they are not excrypting it, but do we agree that with signatures the author uses their private key + the clear message to generate "something"?

Yeah sure, and I think the person you are arguing with is saying as much as well, it's just that this is not encrypting it, when you encrypt something you obfuscate it in a way that is possible to deobfuscate, think the caesar cipher as a simple encryption, a hash/signature on the other hand is something that is generated from the clear text using your private key, which is not possible to decrypt, think very simplified that the person would just put the amount of each letter of the alphabet used in in the text, then add the length of the thread, and then multiplied by your private key. This way it's proven that the holder of the private key is the person writing the text, and that the text hasn't changed since the signature was generated.

... so then anyone can use the author's public key to check that "something" against the clear mesage to confirm the author's identity?

They can confirm that the person holding the private key (not identity, just that they have the key) and also that nobody changed it since they signed it (like the person adminning the forum or a moderator or something)

If that's the case, then my error is that the operation to generate the signature is not an encryption. So, may I ask... what is it? A special type of hash?

It's basically a hashing function yeah.

Look at the words you used, encryption is not the same as a signature, with a signature you can prove that a person with access to the private key wrote the message.

What you're talking about in your message is encryption, and you have it the wrong way around, messages gets encrypted with the public key, and can only be read with the private key.