Media mistakes

I click on it but nothing happens.

Found an app, but different rules, like a crossword, but each word is 1, 2, 3,...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Printed Mail, article about Angelina Jolie:
But the actress is 'looking forward' to entering her fifth decade, saying 'I feel that I'm going to hit my stride in my fifties.
Click to expand...
Elsewhere the article says she's 45.

(The lack of a closing quote is not an error - the quoted passage continues beyond the above.)

At least they said "actress" - too many times the term "actor" is used despite the subject being clearly female.
 
Today's so-called "2-star" Kurosu required one application of the harder inference to make headway. Give it a go:

Code: 
 ———————————————————————
|   |   | X | X |   |   |
|———|———|———|———|———|———|
| O |   |   | X |   |   |
|———|———|———|———|———|———|
|   |   | X |   |   | O |
|———|———|———|———|———|———|
|   |   |   |   |   |   |
|———|———|———|———|———|———|
| X |   |   |   | O |   |
|———|———|———|———|———|———|
|   | O |   |   |   | O |
 ———————————————————————

BH Rating: ●︎●︎●︎○︎○︎ (I've revised this - I'm saving one star for Kurosu which only require counting!}

Rules:
Black Hole said:
The object is to complete the 6x6 grid with X's and O's, so that all rows and all columns contain exactly three X's and three O's, and there are no horizontal or vertical runs of three adjacent X's or O's.
Click to expand...

Black Hole said:
Counting: if there are already three X's in a row or column, you know the rest must all be O's (and vice versa).

Easy Inference: if there are two X's adjacent in a row or column with an adjacent blank, the blank can be filled with an O (and vice versa).

Easy Inference: if there is an X _ X, the blank must be an O (and vice versa).

Harder Inference: X _ _ _ _ X must become X O _ _ O X (and vice versa); X X O _ _ _ must become X X O _ _ O (and vice versa); X _ _ _ X _ must become X _ _ _ X O (and vice versa).

I'm not certain I've covered every possible situation, but I don't think there's anything more complicated to a Kurosu than that - it's only a case of being observant, and in the worst case realising the logic I've listed as "harder inference".
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
I don't know who "they" are, because the people living at the time had no concept of BC and AD, but historians in antiquity certainly seem not to have had a concept of zero... so: yes.
 
Trev said:
So did they go from 1 BC to 1 AD with no year zero?
Click to expand...
In the Roman empire, I believe they gave dates as so many years into an emperor's reign.

Don't forget, Europe had no concept of zero then, nor negative numbers. Johnny Foreigner had to educate us about that much later, Trev. Roman numbers had no zero.

The AD concept was invented by a monk in about 500CE. It was approximate, as there were censuses in -8, -6, -4 and -2 BCE. He reckoned he was in AD DXXXIII. It was much later than that when Gregory standardised the calendar.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
CE = "Common Era" (what you would know as AD) and BCE = "Before Common Era". The point is that not all the world believes in Christ as the son of God (and incidentally nor do I, but still use BC and AD out of habit).
 
Last edited:
You would need to be in your mid twenties or more not to have met those at school.
 
Scrat said:
Don't forget, Europe had no concept of zero then, nor negative numbers. Johnny Foreigner had to educate us about that much later, Trev. Roman numbers had no zero.
Click to expand...
I can defend that - it isn't natural to count the first of anything as zero, and years are a count rather than a measurement.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top