08-20-2016, 10:01 AM
(08-17-2016, 06:02 PM)Acmeisto Wrote:(08-17-2016, 09:27 AM)Shannon Wrote:(08-17-2016, 09:17 AM)Ricardo Wrote: Ok instead of ballsed-up lets say that he failed to make the improvements as intended on v2.2 due to some apparent oversight
Incorrect. I made plenty of improvements. There was one mistake, and I knew ( too late) that the conditions were going to put me at risk for something going astray. Models showed it too. But I made a promise to release before I knew about those conditions. I was raised to always keep my promises. I knew I would get flak for it no matter what I did, so since I also knew that no harm would come of it, I released and kept the promise I made.
But many improvements were made, even if you didn't notice them.
What were these conditions?
I heard there were some conflicting goals?
This was already explained multiple times. One of the statements in 2.2 that had the goal phrasing was not switched from 2.1 goal phrasing to 2.2, and it created a situation in which there was a conflict in terms of having the goal interfere with itself. Not going to see much happen in a situation like that.
Subliminal Audio Specialist & Administrator
The scientist has a question to find an answer for. The pseudo-scientist has an answer to find a question for. ~ "Failure is the path of least persistence." - Chinese Fortune Cookie ~ Logic left. Emotion right. But thinking, straight ahead. ~ Sperate supra omnia in valorem. (The value of trust is above all else.) ~ Meowsomeness!
The scientist has a question to find an answer for. The pseudo-scientist has an answer to find a question for. ~ "Failure is the path of least persistence." - Chinese Fortune Cookie ~ Logic left. Emotion right. But thinking, straight ahead. ~ Sperate supra omnia in valorem. (The value of trust is above all else.) ~ Meowsomeness!