You must log in or register to comment.
“First one […] with the most […] wins”
Those are not good rules if you want a clear competition. What if the second one to arrive has the most food?
Advance to the next round
Then the first one did not arrive with the most food.
First with the most, to me, means the tie breaker is time. If you are tied for the most be second, you lose. It’s a very weird statement though because the important past (with the most) is buried deeper in.
There are speed runs that do things like this. They try to optimize for most/least of something and fastest to do it wins. They often result in extremely long runs though. An example that comes to mind is a Zelda game where they found that there’s a bugged animation that skips a frame and Link moves backwards EVER SO SLOWLY while it happens. So you can open a chest, wait a long time (as in multiple minutes) and Link will go through a door he shouldn’t have. Imagine this scenario. You can beat a Mario game in an hour and skip all coins except one, but someone finds a method that takes 30 hours but collects no coins. That one wins because it collected less. I think they call them max% and least% or something.
I love these comics. Sometimes they are so unhinged
This would make an amazing task on Taskmaster.
This is great, but it would never work with any of the dogs I’ve ever had.
I’ve always been very thorough with the way I train animals, to the point that they do not eat until given the command “Good Job, go ahead.” They would even wait patiently with treats on their nose.
If a dog doesn’t understand you are in control over when and what it eats, a dog will not listen to you in pretty much any circumstance. It’s the foundation for well trained animals.
The Dogntlet
