Both Armani and Icho got the intended solution for Lemmy Watch The Stars! I genuinely thought the level would be a challenge even for these guys. As impressed as I am however, these two are probs the best solvers on here so I can't say I'm surprised.

@Armani - yours had a slight variation at the end, but it's more than acceptable as you solved all the main puzzle elements of the level and used all the skills.

@Icho - seeing you get it on the first attempt was quite something! I like the fact that you took a look at the level for a few seconds, and then said "let's just go for it..." and then proceeded to solve it exactly as intended!

These are a solid set of levels by the looks of things! I haven't had a look at any replays and I only watched Icho solving my level, so I'll have a go at them over the next few days and see if I can solve any of them! Might even do an LP of my own, actually...

EDIT: I have filmed an LP for Rule 1 now.

Some excellent conversation going on here, I'm glad this topic is now thriving in the way I'd originally hoped.

Do you think numbers exist? Or to put it under another way which of the "three schools of thought" do you prefer?

I'm almost certainly a Mathematical Fictionalist, in that I do tend to question the existence of numbers, or at least what we understand about "numbers existing", and I do tend to regard them as being products of thought rather than original truths. However, they are incredibly useful, and number systems are responsible for many of world's great advancements.

What Numberphile says about the Fictionalist reconciling this dichotomy as "numbers are successful, but this doesn't make them true" resonates with me more than anything else that was mentioned in this video, so that would probably be where I stand. Of course, it's a very tentative standpoint based on relatively limited understanding, hence my fascination with the subject and desire to discuss and learn more.

I'm torn between nominalism and factionalism. I'm not sure as it may depend on the definition which could get a bit squirrelly.

Since squirrels are cute, fast, intelligent and resourceful, I wouldn't worry too much about things getting squirrelly.

The first two fall short especially when pushed to limits... If numbers are real; that is some kind of objects that exist in the world; where are they, what are they?... If numbers are merely a language to describe reality what is the reality that is being described with a number like pi? It's just an approximation

Agreed. This is the root of my fascination with the subject. In the video, the example was used of describing numbers to a child using objects: "here's a pencil, add another pencil and you have two pencils!"

I can't help but then think: yes, but a pencil is made up of 1 piece of wood and 1 piece of lead, so 1 pencil is equal to 2 parts. This would seem, on the surface of things, to prove that 1 = 2, but of course it doesn't prove that at all. The object of "1 pencil" is here being treated as a whole object, despite being made up of multiple elements.

However, it leaves the question behind: the fact that the pencil is being treated as 1 object has been decided - i.e. it is a product of human decision and system-making. It it not, therefore, a truth.

This thinking is not necessarily useful, of course, as it somewhat arbitrarily challenges a system that's proven to be successful, valid, and progressive. It merely asks the question: yes, but is it true? However, I keep coming back to that, and always have done. Maths is amazing, no doubt, but it has its limits.

Math is an aspect of our mind; a language, a code that describes the world or makes up the world. Perhaps it is universal. Or it might turn out that other intelligent life operates with a totally different set of mental tools instead....

That would be incredible: if we were to meet beings from other planets who also use Mathematics, or - better still - have some other way of understanding things that seems completely bizarre to us at first, but works for them!

I thought this was why the Pangaea theory was formed? And I thought Pangaea is/was proven by plant/animal fossils being similar in certain places like Africa and South America etc.

The evidence all points to the continents being joined at some point in history, and Pangea theory was developed in support of Plate Tectonics theory. However, ask yourself which is more plausible:

1. All of Earth's continents were once joined together one one side of the planet, whilst all of its water made up the other half. Because... reasons.

2. The Earth was once smaller, and as it grew the crust broke apart, new crust was formed, and the gaps filled with water (likely from comets).

OK, I've biased the second option slightly, but it's really hard not to when you describe each theory in these terms!

Are you familiar with project Kepler space telescope?... What's interesting to me is they've discovered many "super earths"... In hubris we always say "Earth is perfect for life" But it may turn out we our unlucky and there are in fact BETTER places for life elsewhere.

This is fascinating: I'll look into this, for sure! I have no doubt that there are other places in the Universe which humans may find more temperate and better suited to us than Earth. It's just an issue that we can't seem to stop squabbling with each other long enough to make significant progress in finding these places, but... it's only a matter of time.

What are you're thoughts on alien life?

Aliens exist. There simply must be other planets out there which support life. It simply wouldn't make sense that, in a seemingly infinite Universe, there is only 1 inhabitable planet with life on it. As far as I'm concerned, the very idea is proof enough of life elsewhere. It would be good to find some, though.

"Existence" is a pretty slippery concept anyway... Numbers seem more aligned to the programming of a simulation while "real" objects seem more aligned to the data.

So, God is a coder! Who'd have thought a programmer would take such a viewpoint?

Seriously though, this is a very interesting idea and would indeed account for the difference between the existence of manufactured systems (languages, numbers, programming code, etc) and the existence of "real" objects (lemmings, humans, ice cream, etc).

My main objection to this theory would be that it's based on our recent understandings of science and technology, and isn't compatible with more historical thinking. The average human living a few centuries ago wouldn't have had any concept of what a "simulation" was. We only understand it now because we've brought about the possibility through our various technological and linguistic advancements. So, naturally, this leads us to question whether such advancements may explain our own reality. An interesting idea, but isn't independent enough to stand up against more constant, abstract ideas about truth and the nature of existence/reality.

I was never a huge fan of simulation theory. For one; it has the same problem the God problem has: you just ask who created/maintains the simulation of the simulator?

Yeah, exactly - that, too.

Pi is not an approximation.  "3.14" or "3.14159" are approximations of pi.  It so happens that Pi does not have a finite representation as a decimal number, but its definition is simply based on the ratio of circumference to diameter.  In a way, the circle is the embodiment of Pi.

But then - which came first, Pi or the Circle?

It is true that it can be very difficult if not impossible, to ascertain how much of our perceived reality is just a product of our mind versus having an independent existence outside of the mind, though I feel like this goes for anything not just numbers though.

Absolutely agreed. Numbers are a good place to start the discussion though, because they are a man-made system which holds up to extensive scrutiny, meaning that they could represent a doorway to truth.

To expand on this: if I say "flying unicorns exist", the response is either likely to be amusement, pity or ridicule. However, if I say "the number 7 exists", it stands up to further discussion. So, better to pursue this particular line of enquiry - even if we may not agree that numbers exist, we can agree that the concept of numbers may be a key to better understanding of reality. Rather than focus on the key though, I'm more interested in finding the door and seeing where it leads.

Problem is that this could introduce again level end dialog menu.

What Namida said - how is this more of a problem than returning to the main menu? I'd say it's vastly preferable.

Probable solution would be to always progress unless escape or other button is pressed but that could annoy players that only want to play single levels.

Also, I think there does need to be some sense of closure after each level given the taxing nature of the game. End-of-level dialogs achieve this perfectly, and give the player the option to either progress to the next level, or return to the main menu.

A solution to that could be to give the option to play all levels (in a folder).

This is a better idea than a Play-All that must be cancelled, for sure. However, I'd still suggest end-of-level dialogs even in this case.

Maybe a discussion of people's preferences generally could open up some ideas.

Mine would be (in order of preference):

1. End of level dialog with level stats and the option the progress to next level or return to main menu - by far the best option. Offers feedback, provides downtime between levels, and above all - gives the player the choice of what to do next.
2. An initial option to either always progress ("Play All Levels") or always return to main menu. If the main menu could be adapted to provide stats on the level just played, this might be a good option - but I'd still suggest using end-of-level dialogs for continuous play.
3. Always return to main menu - this is the Status Quo. It's very jarring and gives no feedback on your performance of the level. Not ideal.
4. Always progress to next level - the least ideal. I'd get tired of the game very quickly if this were the case.

There is indeed no variable Release Rate/Spawn Interval anymore in Lix. I think the runner skill is meant to be a partial substitute.
There is a thread with reasons for the culling.

This is a shame, really, because just about everything else about Lix that I've seen so far is pretty darn good!

If I remember correctly there was another player who wished to progress without getting back to menu as well for a better flow.

Hopefully, then, it might be something that gets looked at sometime. It's not a major issue, of course.

See here. I volunteered to create nicely looking upscaled versions of the game's icons in different sizes. The Scale 150/200 etc. were there to suit different computer resolutions.

Are they applied by default or user-selected?

Since Simon has recently asked what I think of Lix during the multiplayer discussion, I thought it would be helpful to make a video documenting some initial thoughts/reactions as I don't have a massive amount of experience with it as yet.

Link to the video.

Hope this is helpful! Here's a summary of the key points in the video:

+ User interface is inviting, intuitive and self-integrated
+ New players can adapt fairly quickly thanks to the helper text on the in-game panel
+ Customisation is easy
+ Online multiplayer! :thumbs-up:

- Gameplay seems a little bit slow, I ended up playing with Fast Forward on quite a lot
- No release rate control - or if there is, it isn't obvious
- Always going back to the level select screen breaks game flow quite a bit, although I suppose there can be positives for this in that it reminds you to take a break, and is good for playing single levels within packs.

EDIT: Just had a look through the Lix folder and discovered that most if not all graphical elements of the interface (and the Lix themselves) are completely customisable! I'll likely have a play with it at some point.

Question: what are "Scale 150/200 and 300" for?

Bombers?

Yes, I've now moved the pieces far enough away that bombers don't interact with the moss at all.

Cool, so it looks like people are generally interested in the menu screens being improved/updated/redesigned etc.

Ideas?

Thanks for your kind words Simon, he loved making things in the shed and was very close to my gran

The shed. Surely the ultimate man cave!