# Parallel Ruby universes ("Rubyverses") - A proposed interface for # parallel, "semi-private" method or method-and-data spaces via # "closely associated" objects.

reduce(root){@1[@2]||={}}

A proposal to specify the path for bury with classes as values of a hash arg: {}.bury(users: Array, 0 => Hash, name: Hash, something: 'Value') # {user: [{name: {something: 'Value'}]} So all absent nodes could be created via klass.new

{}.bury(users: Array, 0, 'Value')

{}.bury(users: Array, 0 => 'Value')

A one-liner alternative for hash-only cases can be implemented using Enumerable#reduce: root = {} [:a, :b, :c].reduce(root){@1[@2]||={}}[:d] = 'E' # root => {:a=>{:b=>{:c=>{:d=>"E"}}}}

I think the issues/problems specified in the comments are not present with a Hash-only implementation. :) I would be supportive of re-considering this feature just for use with a Hash, where I believe 80% of the real-life use cases would (and do) exist. I have encountered this need before in the wild, but not with Arrays.

If this is okay, then it might even be nice if #dig took a block as well as a fallback value: [].dig(1) { 'default' } #=> "default"

Would it be desirable to specify the new object in a block? That would make it somewhat symmetrical to how Hash.new takes a block as a default value.

data = {}.extend XKeys::Auto # Vs ::Hash, uses arrays for int keys data[:users, 0, :name] # nil data[:users, 0, :name, :raise => true] # KeyError data[:users, :[], :name] = 'Matz' # :[] is next index, 0 in this case # {:users=>[{:name=>"Matz"}]} pick = [:users, 0, :name] data[*pick] # Matz data[:users, 0, :accesses, :else => 0] += 1 # {:users=>[{:name=>"Matz", :accesses=>1}]}

In fact, I'm only here because it seems like something one would 'expect' ruby already to do.

Review changes

dont belive the tags, it doesn't have any steam trading cards. waste of money and time.

If you’re a puzzle fan and own any type of Windows, MacOS or even Linux computer,

Yes I fully understood that this was going to be a cryptic puzzle game and that it required research outside of the game. I expected this to have ARG elements and require abstract thinking. However, I also expected it to be longer than 2 minutes of content. You are given 10 pages to read in-game, they might as well have just been screenshots posted somewhere on the internet. And you have no way to input your solutions in game.

This is gonna be an uphill slog and I'm really excited for it. If you know that's what you're getting into (a long slow grind on puzzles that may not fit well together), this could be great - especially if you're invested in both the work and the community (posting on here helps loads with games like this!) Your mileage may vary!

Thanks for review. Please post also to protondb.com to help users and devs there...

Proton is a new tool released by Valve Software that has been integrated with Steam Play to make playing Windows games on Linux as simple as hitting the Play button within Steam. Underneath the hood, Proton comprises other popular tools like Wine and DXVK among others that a gamer would otherwise have to install and maintain themselves. This greatly eases the burden for users to switch to Linux without having to learn the underlying systems or losing access to a large part of their library of games. Proton is still in its infancy so support is inconsistent, but regularly improving.

I've been made aware of a "Compatibility tool to run DOS games on Steam through native Linux DOSBox" called "steam-dos". It can be found on https://www.github.com/dreamer/steam-dos . I pulled this tool from git and using it as the the steam play compatibility tool Megarace 2 runs without issue. Saving both settings and games works again! There is no keyboard support for controlling the vehicle in game but both mouse and joystick/gamepad work. To get around a missing launcher.exe error I copied "MegaRace 2.exe" to the same folder as the original and renamed the copy to "Launcher.exe". Linux users: in your MegaRace 2 folder (steamapps/common/MegaRace 2/) create a symbolic link to start.sh named Launcher.exe. This allows the game to launch through Steam. This also allows you to put time on the game through Steam, hitting that coveted 5 minute mark that makes creating a review possible. With that out of the way, the game itself is a nice touch of nostalgia but the port is absolutely terrible. I don't remember it being quite this difficult to install off the 2 CDs. The game won't launch at all without tweaking. Can't save the config settings. Can't save the game at all in fact. While I really like MegaRace 2, you unlock tracks by completing the previous ones. Since the game can't be saved, I end up running The Foundry track over and over until I'm sick of it.So I'm torn. I love the game but I hate the completely broken port. For $3 and a local install of DOSBOX it can be made to work so I will recommend it anyway.

Parking Attendant is a glorified app game that somehow landed into the Steam Store

The positive reviews are clearly friends of the developer, as this is an extremely low-quality Unreal game, the kind you'd expect from a student project or a 24-hour Game Jam, not something being sold on Steam.

Application: 3-D Shape RegistrationAn important problem in model-based recognition is to find the transformation of a set of datapoints that yields the best match of these points against a shape model. The process is oftenreferred to asdata registration. The data points are typically measured on a real object by rangesensors, touch sensors, etc., and given in Cartesian coordinates. The quality of a match is oftendescribed as the total squared distance from the data pointsto the model. When multiple shapemodels are possible, the one that results in the least total distance is then recognized as the shapeof the object.Quaternions are very effective in solving the above least-squares-based registration problem.

However, the matrixrepresentationseems redundant because only four of its nine elements are independent

ts geo-metric meaning is also more obvious as the rotation axis and angle can be trivially recovered.

Visible spectrum wrapped to join blue and green in an additive mixture of cyan

My preference here is biased by the fact that I spend everyday at work building web components, so Svelte's approach feels very familiar to slots in web components.

The codebase for Pomodone makes more sense to me in Svelte, not React. I find it easier to navigate and work with.

React and Svelte are very similar in many ways, but what I've found is that in all the little ways that they are different, I prefer Svelte.

Svelte is there when I need it with useful APIs, but fades into the background as I put my app together.

If I were to sum up why in one sentence, it's because I don't miss useEffect. I understand why it exists, I understand the approach React takes, and there are benefits of its approach. But writing complex React components feels more like admin; a constant worry that I'll miss a dependency in my useEffect call and end up crashing my browser session. With Svelte I don't have that lingering feeling, and that's what I've come to enjoy.

but I like that Svelte comes with a good CSS story out the box.

This isn't really a downside to React; one of React's strengths is that it lets you control so much and slot React into your environment

I like this approach more because I can scan the code that renders the Box component and easily spot that it takes two children. If the Box took any props, they'd be within the opening <Box> tag, and they would be distinct from any children props.

One gripe I've had with this approach is that you lose the visual cues that you're passing children into the Box component; they now aren't nested within the Box when you render them like we're used to in HTML; it's now up to you to read the props and spot which ones are being used to provide children.

Coming from React to Svelte this did catch me out numerous times but for me I now prefer Svelte's approach, particularly because it removes some of the boilerplate around useEffect.

Svelte is different in that by default most of your code is only going to run once; a console.log('foo') line in a component will only run when that component is first rendered.

Here's where I start to have a preference for Svelte; the two are very similar but once I got used to Svelte I found that React felt like jumping through hoops. You can't create a worker instance, it has to go in a useRef, and then you can't easily pull code out into a function without then requiring useCallback so it can be a safe dependency on useEffect. With Svelte I write code that's closer to "plain" JavaScript, whereas in React more of my code is wrapped in a React primitive.

One part of React that I've always championed is how it's just JavaScript. I like that in React you don't use a distinct template syntax and instead embed JavaScript, compared to Svelte's templating language

I will always find React's approach easier - at least in my head - and I think more friendly to people familiar with JavaScript who are learning a library.

I was pleasantly surprised by Svelte's templating; in the past I've found templating languages overwhelming and inflexible, but Svelte offers just the right amount of templating whilst enabling you to use JavaScript too.

Svelte looks pretty similar, but has two small changes that personally make the Svelte code easier to read, in my opinion:

because React components are re-executed every time the component re-renders, you can easily end up with thousands of workers being created! It's essential to use useRef to avoid this problem by maintaining a reference to the worker that you've created.

However, if these timeouts are moved into a web worker, they should run to time and not get de-prioritised by the browser.

What I like is that currentUser isn't a value, it's a store, and therefore you have full control over how you deal with it.

I like that Svelte doesn't make me use the subscribe API every time I need to read the value.

Talking of context, that's much closer to the approach I take with Svelte and use a writable store.

<template> and <slot>

This element and its contents are not rendered in the DOM, but it can still be referenced using JavaScript.

A Low Bar to Entry, and then What?There is an interesting tension between making something accessible and making it boring. Lowering the barrier of entry is a good thing, but if all you do is low-bar stuff, you end up losing the people again that you managed to attract. There needs to be a path forward beyond the entry level.

A business with a low barrier to entry would be those people in poor countries who “wash” your windscreen at traffic lights. A bucket, a cloth, some water and you are in business. A business with a high barrier to entry might be airlines: planes are expensive, staff with the right skills hard to find, the necessary permits to fly hard to obtain.

The key to any good adventure game, really any good game at all, is to guide the player toward understanding the game world's internal logic, even if that logic only makes sense in the game world. This internal logic is what differentiates a game that encourages clever, creative problem-solving from a game like Antventor, which is a maddening exercise in arbitrary, spaghetti-against-the-wall nonsense.In the old text-based adventure games, the internal logic was grammatical, often based on a simple verb-object combination. This simple structure encouraged absurd combinations, sometimes with no results, sometimes with hilarious results, and sometimes with surprisingly fruitful results. The game would subtly nudge you toward the correct solution with hints and consequences, and you would gradually learn the kinds of actions that made sense in the world and the types of consequences you could reasonably expect. Only after establishing those baselines would ambiguity start to creep in ("I could do this, but should I...?", "Is that item meant for here or there?"). As the genre aged, puzzles gradually grew more intentionally obtuse and absurd as a means to make the game "harder". Ultimately, this obscurantism was a sign of a dying genre, catering to a narrower and narrower echo chamber of hardcore fans, as the gaming world in general grew less patient with the kind of experimentation this genre was first built on.Unfortunately, Antventor takes inspiration from those later games. It is gorgeously animated, but the game design is awful. There is no scaffolding, and little to no internal logic to speak of. The interaction targets are often tiny, hidden, sometimes out of focus, and sometimes completely arbitrary. Combine this with an ever-expanding collection of items and screens, and the game quickly devolves into pointless trial-and-error with thousands of combinations.

"BEER" is a simple one-level platformer with an interesting concept: after some time a shadow of yourself appears and repeats every movement you've made. If the shadow catches you - it's a game over. With the passage of time, more shadows appear. Shadows will relentlessly chase you until they catch you. As much as I know, there is no victory: you will have to jump platforms and collect presents until you are caught. At one point, there are so many shadows, it's unavoidable to be touched by one of them. To delay this moment, you may move slowly, so it's easier to keep track of shadows. You may establish a specific route, so the shadows follow a predetermined pattern. Nevertheless, at one point there will be just too many shadows to avoid.

Not Recommended 1.0 hrs on record Posted: February 23 Product received for free Steam is the happy new platform for another dev who likes to spam copys of the same thrash game on steam so he can bulk sell keys for it.

A copy of Zup! (series) and not at her level

Ever want to experience a game that makes you want to play Rocket Ghost Aidan 2? Just play this! Its completely inferior to RGA 2.

This one is tricky since unique names benefiting SEO may go against a different factor: easy to remember and easy to spell.

Nevertheless, co-hyponyms are not necessarily incompatible in all senses. A queen and mother are both hyponyms of woman but there is nothing preventing the queen from being a mother.

It consists of two relations; the first one being exemplified in "An X is a Y" (simple hyponymy) while the second relation is "An X is a kind/type of Y". The second relation is said to be more discriminating and can be classified more specifically under the concept of taxonomy.

This shows that compatibility may be relevant.

A synonym of co-hyponym based on same tier (and not hyponymic) relation is allonym (which means "different name").

The hierarchical structure of semantic fields can be mostly seen in hyponymy.

A hyponym is a word or phrase whose semantic field is more specific than its hypernym.

A hyponym refers to a type. A meronym refers to a part. For example, a hyponym of tree is pine tree or oak tree (a type of tree), but a meronym of tree is bark or leaf (a part of tree).

Jesus say

about who the church remains the same

Lexical (semiotics) or content word, words referring to things, as opposed to having only grammatical meaning

A word with multiple senses is likely to havemultiple, distinct tokens that can accurately be described as the direct hypernym for one or more ofits senses

indirect hypernymy (i.e., any entailment) is included in hypernymy and indirect hyponymy is included in hyponymy

The repository also contains the datasets used in our experiments, in JSON format. These are in the data folder.

In coordpairs, a co-hyponym relationship is labelled 1 whereas other realtionships (direct hyponymy and direct hypernymy) are labelled 0.

In entpairs, a direct hypernym relationship is labelled 1 whereas other relationships (hyponymy and co-hyponymy) are labelled 0.

Unlike all previous approaches, which typically extract direct hypernym edges for terms

t is used to create tax-onomies of terms

Hypernymy, or the IS-A relation, is one of the most important lexical relations.

faithful functor

Intuitively, a subcategory of C is a category obtained from C by "removing" some of its objects and arrows.

is the vocabulary of a language or branch of knowledge (such as nautical or medical)

The lexicon of a language is its vocabulary. Lexicon is also a synonym for a dictionary or encyclopedic dictionary

In a broader sense, taxonomy also applies to relationship schemes other than parent-child hierarchies, such as network structures. Taxonomies may then include a single child with multi-parents, for example, "Car" might appear with both parents "Vehicle" and "Steel Mechanisms"

Taxonomies are often represented as is-a hierarchies where each level is more specific (in mathematical language "a subset of") the level above it. For example, a basic biology taxonomy would have concepts such as mammal, which is a subset of animal, and dogs and cats, which are subsets of mammal. This kind of taxonomy is called an is-a model because the specific objects are considered as instances of a concept. For example, Fido is-an instance of the concept dog and Fluffy is-a cat.

Mutually exclusive categories can be beneficial. If categories appear several places, it's called cross-listing or polyhierarchical. The hierarchy will lose its value if cross-listing appears too often. Cross-listing often appears when working with ambiguous categories that fits more than one place.

Researchers reported that large populations consistently develop highly similar category systems. This may be relevant to lexical aspects of large communication networks and cultures such as folksonomies and language or human communication, and sense-making in general.

In the simple biology example, dog is a hypernym and Fido is one of its hyponyms. A word can be both a hyponym and a hypernym. For example, dog is a hyponym of mammal and also a hypernym of Fido.

words that are examples of categories are hyponyms

Two of the predominant types of relationships in knowledge-representation systems are predication and the universally quantified conditional.

Mathematically, a hierarchical taxonomy is a tree structure of classifications for a given set of objects.

Taxonomy is different from meronomy, which is dealing with the categorisation of parts of a whole.

Tree (data structure)

Tree structure

In computer science, a tree is a widely used abstract data type that simulates a hierarchical tree structure

Not to be confused with tree (graph theory), a specific type of mathematical object.

Not to be confused with trie, a specific type of tree data structure. Not to be confused with tree (graph theory), a specific type of mathematical object.

graph theory is the study of graphs, which are mathematical structures used to model pairwise relations between objects

A semantic class contains words that share a semantic feature.

For example within nouns there are two sub classes, concrete nouns and abstract nouns.

The concrete nouns include people, plants, animals, materials and objects while the abstract nouns refer to concepts such as qualities, actions, and processes.

Semantic classes may intersect. The intersection of female and young can be girl.

Model theory recognizes and is intimately concerned with a duality: it examines semantical elements (meaning and truth) by means of syntactical elements (formulas and proofs) of a corresponding language

Roughly speaking, a category may be thought of as a type theory shorn of its syntax.

In fact categories can themselves be viewed as type theories of a certain kind

Some types exist as descriptions of objects, but not as tangible physical objects. One can show someone a particular bicycle, but cannot show someone, explicitly, the type "bicycle", as in "the bicycle is popular."

Property types (e.g. "height in metres" or "thorny") are often understood ontologically as concepts. Property instances (e.g. height = 1.74) are sometimes understood as measured values, and sometimes understood as sensations or observations of reality.

The words type, concept, property, quality, feature and attribute (all used in describing things) tend to be used with different verbs. E.g. Suppose a rose bush is defined as a plant that is "thorny", "flowering" and "bushy". You might say a rose bush instantiates these three types, or embodies these three concepts, or exhibits these three properties, or possesses these three qualities, features or attributes.

The distinction in computer programming between classes and objects is related, though in this context, "class" sometimes refers to a set of objects (with class-level attribute or operations) rather than a description of an object in the set, as "type" would.

The distinction is important in disciplines such as logic, linguistics, metalogic, typography, and computer programming.

The sentence "they drive the same car" is ambiguous. Do they drive the same type of car (the same model) or the same instance of a car type (a single vehicle)?

A semantic similarity network (SSN) is a special form of semantic network.[1] designed to represent concepts and their semantic similarity. Its main contribution is reducing the complexity of calculating semantic distances.

There is obvious connections between the flow paths of a use case and its test cases. Deriving functional test cases from a use case through its scenarios (running instances of a use case) is straightforward.

With content based upon an action or event flow structure, a model of well-written use cases also serves as an excellent groundwork and valuable guidelines for the design of test cases

Originally he had used the terms usage scenarios and usage case – the latter a direct translation of his Swedish term användningsfall – but found that neither of these terms sounded natural in English, and eventually he settled on use case.

The is-a relationship may also be contrasted with the instance-of relationship between objects (instances) and types (classes): see Type–token distinction.

In autoepistemic logic, which rejects the law of excluded middle, predicates may be true, false, or simply unknown

The precise semantic interpretation of an atomic formula and an atomic sentence will vary from theory to theory.

A predicate whose quantifiers all apply to individual elements, and not to sets or predicates, is called a first-order predicate.

While propositional logic can only express facts, autoepistemic logic can express knowledge and lack of knowledge about facts.

The autoepistemic logic is a formal logic for the representation and reasoning of knowledge about knowledge.

'female' + 'performer' = 'actress'

An individual semantic feature constitutes one component of a word's intention, which is the inherent sense or concept evoked.

The semantic features of a word can be notated using a binary feature notation common to the framework of componential analysis.[11] A semantic property is specified in square brackets and a plus or minus sign indicates the existence or non-existence of that property.

a class is an implementation‍—‌a concrete data structure and collection of subroutines‍—‌while a type is an interface

but narrowly speaking objects have type

In casual use, people often refer to the "class" of an object

Semantic class

semantic fields are constantly flowing into each other

The English word "man" used to mean "human being" exclusively, while today it predominantly means "adult male," but its semantic field still extends in some uses to the generic "human"

Synonymy requires the sharing of a sememe or seme, but the semantic field is a larger area surrounding those.

A general and intuitive description is that words in a semantic field are not necessarily synonymous, but are all used to talk about the same general phenomenon.

A semantic field denotes a segment of reality symbolized by a set of related words. The words in a semantic field share a common semantic property

grouped semantically (by meaning)

Elin K. Jacob found that classification and categorization are different processes

There may only be historical reasons that, for example, the periodic table is called a classification rather than a taxonomy

Taxonomy was first used in biology, but the term has spread to other domains.

Categorization is, for example, mostly used by cognitive psychologists for what other call classification

Synonyms and near-synonyms for the term classification

(linguistics) A term whose meaning is similar, but not identical, to that of another term.

Categorization is sometimes considered synonymous with classification

Categorization is grounded in the features that distinguish the category's members from nonmembers.

Categorization is the human ability and activity of recognizing shared features or similarities between the elements of the experience of the world (such as objects, events, or ideas), organizing and classifying experience by associating them to a more abstract group (that is, a category, class, or type),[1][2] on the basis of their traits, features, similarities or other criteria.

place

semantic domain or semantic field

For instance English has a domain ‘Rain’, which includes words such as rain, drizzle, downpour, raindrop, puddle.

For instance, in basketball there are many words that are specific to the sport. Free throw, court, half court, three pointer, and point guard are all terms that are specific to the sport of basketball. These words make very little sense when used outside of the semantic domain of basketball.

In lexicography a semantic domain or semantic field is defined as "an area of meaning and the words used to talk about it

Semantic domains are the foundational concept for initial stages of vernacular dictionary building projects.

This uses techniques such as SIL International's Dictionary Development Process (DDP),[4][5] RapidWords, or software such as WeSay[6] or FLEx. These techniques rely on extensive lists of semantic domains that are relevant to vernacular languages.