[opensource-dev] Consensus? was: Client-side scripting in Snowglobe

Dzonatas Sol dzonatas at gmail.com
Sun Feb 21 16:57:18 PST 2010

Morgaine wrote:
> Carlo, I agree completely with you on the principle of the implementation.
> On the terminology, not only are you not being logical in your naming, 
> but you also immediately contradict yourself and demonstrate 
> beautifully how your suggested naming makes no sense at all, not even 
> to yourself.� Let me demonstrate:

One of Linden Lab's disqualifiers on attempts to be hired had to do with 
a coin placed on any surface and the game of prediction of who would win 
based on who placed the last coin on the surface where there was room 
left over.

They go through a bunch of different kinds of objects, so I won't name 
them off so they can still use the fair ones.

However, there was one they were beautifully wrong about: the sphere.

They even called people "stupid" on the spot who couldn't figure out the 
sphere ended up with even amount of moves. Long story short about... stupid.

We could challenge this since somehow it became more than personal, or 
maybe it was meant to be challenged eventually. It wasn't their standard 
procedure whatever it was.

If we take a perfect sphere with a perfect surface, there is an obvious 
flaw that wouldn't allow it to be even in number of moves.

When LL said "here is a sphere the size of a quarter in diameter... 1 2 
3 4 5 6" as one points top, bottom, left, right,  back, front. And says 
"Stupid" with a superiority look.

Obviously the person that was challenged, the one to be hired, said "Odd."

If you know if it is "even" or "odd" then you know who gets the last 
move, and wins.

Further on the surface about a perfect sphere, if it diameter is perfect 
no matter what tangent coordinate picked out on the surface, then the 
surface could be eventually said it is infinite. There would be infinite 
possibilities of any location on the surface that could be tangent 

If that is true, which gave the possibility of infinite surface, then 
one could also put another perfect sphere nearby the first perfect sphere.

Here is the beauty of this, if the first perfect sphere has an infinite 
surface and the second perfect sphere has an infinite surface, then they 
are both the same infinite surface.

The rules of this game never specified where to put the next perfect sphere.

Now if left some space in between the two spheres, then it should still 
be "Even" number of moves if we continue with this one.

What we put the sphere tangent or in union with the first one. It's the 
same surface, and the game was about the surface.

If it is plainly tangent, then there would be one less coin to put on 
the surface, and it would be "Odd."

No? Not convinced, yet? You say that would be two less coins? And you 
claim "Even?"

Let's add another perfect sphere...

Same infinite surface.

When do we stop?

More information about the opensource-dev mailing list