• iortega@lemmy.eus
    13·
    2 years ago

    That’s true. I made slow jumps on right one too.

    Although, technically, you could jump in the wall if you ever go between one of those columns.

    • electrodynamica
      4·
      2 years ago

      Although, technically, you could jump in the wall if you ever go between one of those columns.

      Yeah they are different because you could exploit the game mechanics and box clipping. You can also double jump if you land a little short in the first one but it doesn’t work in the second one.

      • Redpandalovely @midwest.socialOP
        2·
        2 years ago

        I’m not a gamer at all so it’s interesting to hear this from a gaming perspective. I didn’t see it from that view. Additionally, there are perspectives in this thread different from mine and yours. It gets us a thinking and I like to see the different directions. I underestimated the thought provocation of this post.

  • Ephera@lemmy.ml
    8·
    2 years ago

    I’m very much still in the phase of “understood a new concept, so sees it everywhere”, but I’m having to think of the Trolley Problem for this one.

    For those who don’t know the Trolley Problem at all, the first paragraph here should explain what you need to know: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem

    And well, basically, when you ask people how they would decide in this classic Trolley Problem situation, most will respond that they would pull the switch, i.e. taking an active part in killing one person, but saving the other five persons.

    Now, there is a different postulation of that scenario, which goes like this:

    As before, a trolley is hurtling down a track towards five people. You are on a bridge under which it will pass, and you can stop it by putting something very heavy in front of it. As it happens, there is a very large man next to you – your only way to stop the trolley is to push him over the bridge and onto the track, killing him to save five. Should you proceed?

    So, you’re still taking an active part in killing one person for saving the other five persons, yet most people will now decide the other way around.
    So, yeah, effectively the same result, but presumably because it’s a much more direct role in the killing of that one person, it’s psychologically very different.

    • roastpotatothief@lemmy.ml
      41·
      2 years ago

      The example I know is where you take a random healthy man. Then you find five people who are waiting for different organ donations. Is it right to kill that man and harvest his organs, to save the five.

      I find it a much more insightful example.

      • Ephera@lemmy.ml
        1·
        2 years ago

        Yeah, that is definitely a lot less of a contrived example, although I’m guessing, it’s a less popular example, because you would definitely not make that decision on your own…

    • AgreeableLandscape@lemmy.ml
      2·
      2 years ago

      IRL, it’s also possible for there to be stronger winds when there are fewer obstructions, especially with an open staggered configuration like this, you can get winds in directions directly opposing your movement that would be a lot weaker than the closed configuration, namely winds blowing right to left that would have been completely blocked. It took a bit, but I figured out that it was what my brain was thinking while looking at it.

  • roastpotatothief@lemmy.ml
    52·
    2 years ago

    The second one is zoomed in, to make it look worse. Being able to see that there is solid ground on the left is important.

    • Xerah@beehaw.org
      5·
      2 years ago

      Pretty sure it is not zoomed in. Mario looks the same, text at top looks the same, and blocks look the same. I could throw this into photoshop and overlay the blocks and texture of the ground in the 2nd image, money on it being the same.

      I agree that seeing ground and having the blocks be built up on the ground is psychologically more reassuring.