There's an error in the documentation. What's the standard procedure to submit a pull request or bug report here? The docs subdirectory just links to the website and I couldn't find them in the gh-pages branch, either.
* There is an own creation algorithm for each game, sometimes including parameters like difficulty
* For every game there must be only one possible solution. This means that you never have to guess. Otherwise, it's a bug. For Mines (Minesweeper clone), this is an outstanding feature.
* The solution for almost every game is implemented with a respective solving algorithm. You can learn a lot from the source code.
* Each generated game comes along with a seed which you can share with others, or for a bug report.
* The project cross-compiles out of the box for many platforms, including Android, Windows and Web. And the resulting Windows binaries are tiny, because it does not use a bloated GUI framework.
* It provides a well-thought framework in case you want to add another game.
* Icons of the game are created on-the-fly during the building process
Two years ago, I had to clone a disk image from one UEFI notebook over to another identical one. Using gzip with output redirection to the device file (might also have been zcat or cat with gzip) did just not work. After days of unsuccessful attempts, I resorted back to dd with gzip. And believe it or not: Only with dd the disk clone was successful.
I came as far as comparing the image files, which were identical, but I did not have the time to compare the disks. So, this still is a mystery for me.
On a side note: If you ever need to do a full disk clone nowadays, I can only recommend clonezilla. Using FAI (Fully Automatic Installation) would be even better instead of doing image clones, but sometimes, that's not an option.
To clear things up: robots.txt can retroactively hide content from the archive. If it's changed back to allowing the archive's crawler, content from before the ban can be accessed again.
This is something I've always observed. But to be fair, there are many different types of pupils, especially on a high school. If you were to explain things in a way, that they actually mean something, some of your students would do really well, while the rest is unable to grasp the essence. Nowadays schools teach in a way that works for all: Just give recipes, and hope that a few students will motivate themselves to actually understand what they're doing. Or, let them do it for so long, that they get the idea the better, the more often they apply the recipe.
In my case I was one of the lucky few who actually understood derivations after the first class. At home, I thought about half an hour about it, and was able to tell the next "recipe" on the lesson plan. (Side note: Students get rewarded for memorizing algorithms, not understanding them. So even people who are "good in maths" are - even in college - not always good at understanding them.)
Now in university I'm still a bit disappointed. This could be because of my engineering course. We're still just being taught how to do what, but not in a descriptive way. This became extremely bad at differential equations. We weren't even told what differential equations are, and when you use them. It was a mere "you have this, then you have to do that". It seemed very difficult to me, but many other students had no problems. They told me because "it's just: you have this, then you do that".
Believe it or not, but I was in the middle of the article and then jumped to this tab. I wouldn't have continued reading it if it wasn't for replying to your post. You don't need that list, just think of one thing that's more important than making this list.
Remember that the list can't be the most important thing, as the success is not guaranteed.
Mmmm you're clearly not a procrastinator. By replying to my post with urgency, you indicate a tendancy to get things done, unless of course you didn't finish reading the article, in which case welcome to the club.
