Consider the case (CASE ONE) in which there is only one blue-eyed person. You probably agree that he leaves the first night, since he sees no one else with blue eyes and therefore knows the Guru is referring to him.
Now, if there are two blue-eyed people (CASE TWO), they each see the other, and say "what if I have non-blue eyes? Well, that would mean that guy doesn't see ANYONE else with blue eyes. Therefore, he'll leave tonight." And when the other guy doesn't leave the first night, they each know he must be able to see someone else with blue eyes (that is, they know CASE ONE is false) so they leave the 2nd night.
That one alone isn't too hard for me to wrap my mind around, and right away we've got a situation where two guys, though they both knew the Guru's statement was true regardless of their eye color. The generalization to N people leaving the Nth night is still a little tricky to think about, but I do promise that it works. And, in fact, the nonzero information transfer can be examined and quantified very precisely -- it's just difficult because it involves a lot of nested hypothesizing.
I've spent an awful lot of time on this puzzle, discussing it with anyone from friends to random slashdotters to math and CS Ph. Ds. It's a great puzzle, and I'm sorry if I'm not explaining my answer completely enough -- if you're still in disagreement, email me and I will go over it in more detail (I have some long explanations from various angles that I've written over the years that I can forward). I do assure you, though, that my answer is correct.
Having just reread American Gods, let me just say that I totally forgot what a superb author Gaiman is. I highly recommend this book -- I bought it, on a whim, on the recommendation of a shouting crazy guy in a bookstore. It was a good choice!
And I commend him for this mp3 thing. I think that a night or two ago I switched sides on the DRM issue. I was on the fence -- it seems like it's hard to do anything but let the digital world happen, but, you know, hopefully (RIAA greed aside) people should be able to get money for their work.
But last night, I found myself curled up with comfy blankets, half a bottle of rum, a DVD, and this beautiful, brilliant, and generally amazing girl I had recently met. This was a new DVD she had brought over, bought straight from a store. I put it in my computer, tried to play it, and saw a message about failed authentication. None of my players worked. They all said that the DVD could not be played because of DRM. One player asked me to go and send a long page of identifying information before watching the DVD.
We never got to watch the DVD. We found an appropriate replacement among my pirated movies and the night was salvaged. But I think that may have marked my "Fuck the MPAA" turning point. Suddenly I sympathize with the "fuck off and don't tell me what to do with my data" contingent.
So I wholeheartedly approve of Neil's mp3 release, even if I don't know how it will work as a business model given rampant piracy. But keep the MPAA, the RIAA, and Mr. Gaiman out of my pants.
Surely they all already know that the Guru can already see a person with blue eyes, as they can see a person with blue eyes, and the Guru isn't blind?
You've hit precisely on why the problem is so difficult -- what you say is true. They all knew that the Guru's statement was true before she made it. HOWEVER: The Guru's statement still changed things.
What it did was change what would happen in the base case of NumBlueEyesPeople=1. Everyone on the island knows that this case is not true, but it still affects their reasoning! Saying "it's important because it's used in the induction" is true, but sort of weaseling out, because it doesn't seem to address how it relates to the actual situation. The reason it does affect the situation is that it changes things not in the current situation, but in a hypothetical situation in the minds of the people in a hypothetical situation in the minds of the people in a hypothetical situation in the minds of the people in a hypothetical situation in the minds of the people in a . . . [repeat 100 times]. It adds information in the 100th layer of hypothetical situations (specifically, the ones that arise from blue-eyed people on each layer saying "Let's suppose I have brown eyes . .."), but because these hypotheticals become so far removed, we assume they can have no affect on the situation.
This is hard to wrap the mind around. If you've been through the induction, as it seems you have, and you know the answer but aren't satisfied regarding how the information is flowing, I recommend drawing a "tree of hypotheticals" mapping what a person in every group is thinking. Start with a blue-eyed person, and show the two possibilities that they see: a branch for "I have blue eyes" and a branch for "I do not have blue eyes." Then, consider each of those branches as an island unto itself, and draw the branches for people in that situation.
After you've drawn the 100 branchings, you'll find an island with a single blue-eyed person, and you'll see that this person is able to leave the first night because the Guru gave him the information he needed. When this person doesn't leave the first night, it allows the people one branching back to determine which hypothetical is true, and they leave the 2nd night. And so on and so on, the Guru's statement 'rolling up' the tree one night after another. When you draw the tree, focus on the branches where the blue-eyed person says "What if I have brown eyes?". This is the one on which the rolling up happens.
I was going to ask what he thought of nmap porn, but then I realized the link I was using was from nmap's own site! Apparently they condone this sort of thing.
Come on, Fydor, admit it. Like most of us, you don't really care about coding, you just do it to get girls.
The answer is that the information is transferred for a hypothetical situation that is relevant to their thinking. If you told me "You robbed a 7-11 on March 7th", I may already know that what you have SAID about the world is true, but your statement does give me new information -- namely, that YOU know that I robbed a 7-11 (uh-oh).
The reason it doesn't look like the guru gives them information is that the information is only relevant to each of these 100 people on the 99th or 100th layer of a tree of hypotheticals. The relevant information is this: "If there is only one blue-eyed person on the island, he will have enough information to leave on the first night."
But each person, looking at the situation, will consider hypothetical possibilities for the state of the island. And each of the people in those hypothetical possibilities will in turn make up their own hypotheticals, and so forth. And after 100 layers of nested hypotheticals, each person assuming "what if my eyes are not blue?", you reach the hypothetical in which there is one blue-eyed person. And the Guru's statement allows the truth of that hypothetical to be determined. This starts a chain reaction 'rolling up the hypotheticals', in a way, one level a night. On the 100th night, they have rolled all the way up, and the truth value of the original hypothetical by each of the 100 blue-eyed people, "What if I do not have blue eyes", is determined -- false.
The second one is nice enough. Answer: Every n-th second, launch a missile from square plus-or-minus 2^n (2,4,8,16,32,64,128 . ..) (alternating the plus and minus) in the direction of the origin (zero)
I don't understand what the problem is in the first one. You hook up the battery at the bottom to two random wires, then go to the top and try the bulb on every pairing of two wires (and each polarity). That's almost two million tests, but it said take as long as you want up there.
Oh, woe is me. I have a perfect logic puzzle, but was unlucky enough to be otherwise engaged when this story was posted. (By the way: a soft couch, a carefully selected DVD, half a bottle of rum, and a girl. Guess which element to this excellent scenario was fucking ruined by copy protection? I'll give you a hint: I may have just switched sides in this movie piracy debate. Fuck the RIAA. It was a perfectly legal store-bought DVD. Fuck them all.)
But anyway, logic puzzles. This logic puzzle is excellent. I've had it up on my site (http://www.xkcd.com/blue_eyes.html), and after I got boingboing'ed I got a lot of email about it, so I've been able to tweak the wording to get rid of most of the confusing stuff, leaving only the logic. It's extremely subtle; I've never seen anything like it.
Here's the puzzle:
A group of people live on an island. They are all perfect logicians -- if a conclusion can be logically deduced, they will do it instantly. No one knows the color of their eyes. Every night at midnight, a ferry stops at the island. If anyone has figured out the color of their own eyes, they [must] leave the island that midnight.
On this island live 100 blue-eyed people, 100 brown-eyed people, and the Guru. The Guru has green eyes, and does not know her own eye color either. Everyone on the island knows the rules and is constantly aware of everyone else's eye color, and keeps a constant count of the total number of each (excluding themselves). However, they cannot otherwise communicate. So any given blue-eyed person can see 100 people with brown eyes and 99 people with blue eyes, but that does not tell them their own eye color; it could be 101 brown and 99 blue. Or 100 brown, 99 blue, and the one could have red eyes.
The Guru speaks only once (let's say at noon), on one day in all their endless years on the island. Standing before the islanders, she says the following:
"I can see someone with blue eyes."
Who leaves the island, and on what night?
There are no mirrors or reflecting surfaces, nothing dumb, It is not a trick question, and the answer is logical. It doesn't depend on tricky wording, and it doesn't involve people doing something silly like creating a sign language or doing genetics. The Guru is not making eye contact with anyone in particular; she's simply saying "I count at least one blue-eyed person on this island who isn't me."
"Blog" is a silly word, and if you repeat "blog" that many times, it starts to sound really funny.
In a few short lines, the word "Blog" is used 8 times.
Blog blog blog blog blog blog blog blog.
Which actually reflects the general media attitude of 2003 or so pretty well.
</ot>
Anyway, I was going to argue that (speaking of a blog article about blogs about blogs), blogs are just descending horribly into sarcastic navel-gazing devoid of substance. Then I thought about traditional media and remembered that I get my news from The Daily Show. Ouch.
Before we get too excited about personnifying software, the idea of giving it motives and the will to self-replicate, the romantic image of itinerant programs wandering around computer systems doing good for people, I have two words:
There are so many issues like this -- there was that questionable BigHack paper about the illegitimacy of digital copyright in the first place, and so many questions of intent that really haven't been addressed. I'm glad to see that . . . you know, I don't care right now.
I know it's a big deal, freedom of speech and information in the digital age, but sometimes I just get tired of it all. I'll care again tomorrow, probably. But right now . . .
Anyone who was on the verge of switching before now have virtually no reason not to
Yeah. I was debating -- I'm really glad to see an alternative to Firefox, which after a year or so of heavy use I'm not that happy with. (Memory leaks/hogs and horribly sluggish UI response were the two main reasons). Going back to Maxthon after that Firefox year was like a breath of fresh air, and it has most of the extensions available (minus, I guess, some of the webdevel stuff). Maxthon is based on the IE core (although you can switch it to use Gecko for rendering).
I'm quite happy with Maxthon, actually, so the more I think about it, the more Opera would need to offer something pretty impressive to get my vote. I suppose I'll check out what it's got.
Re:And if you're just looking for games..
on
Millions of Games
·
· Score: 2, Funny
Since millionsofgames appears to be slashdotted, I guess there's nothing to do but convert this thread into a NEW millionsofgames!
None of these fancy-schmancy social information tools are anything that we can't recreate with our own slashdot moderation system! In fact, with enough work, I believe we can build a full gaming engine out of comment threads.
I vote that we put the next red pixel at (14,220). If you disagree, moderate accordingly.
That's what I'm sayin', Google should just invade. Except the paranoid guy in me is getting kinda worried about them. I do hope they're not evil or anything.
P.S. Congrats on the "to to"; next use "that that". It seems that that is bad on first glance but it's definitely proper speech. But there might be some simple rule. MYSTERIES OF GRAMMAR.
Speaking of grammar this is the second random place I've run into you today outside of Dinosaur Comics. I found your Page of Robot Lesbian Erotica and said "hey this writing looks familiar." And lo.
I think what people would want more is a way to exclude blogs from regular Google searches - is this an option?
(b) Actually, when are they going to index Livejournal and make it searchable? It doesn't have to be part of the main page -- I understand if you don't wanna search livejournal, but I do. You could do it via the calendar pages, but searches for things on livejouranl are currently really impractical. It sucks that the only way for me to search even my OWN crap is to wget the whole thing from the calendar page and then grep.
I'm not convinced it's worth it to make your passwords vary lowercase and caps, as far as security from a brute-force attack goes.
It seems you can get the extra bits by adding two extra alpha chars to the end of your string and not have to memorize case. And losing the numbers is an even better trade-off, if you find them hard to remember as well (perhaps you do passwords phonetically). The numbers thing is up in the air for me but I'm pretty convinced that varying case instead of adding a bit to length is a bad technique for creating lots of random bits.
And just in case someone comes back with "Knoppix can write to NTFS if you use the NTFS driver from windows", I've used a LOT of versions of Knoppix and I've NEVER gotten that to work correctly.
Me neither.
In fact, the documentation was unchanged from 3.3 to 3.7 but in 3.7 the options they referred to were GONE. They said to click on a particular setting that was absent, they referred to nonexistent files, etc. Hopefully this was fixed in 3.8 but I don't have high hopes.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm sorry, but this is incorrect.
Consider the case (CASE ONE) in which there is only one blue-eyed person. You probably agree that he leaves the first night, since he sees no one else with blue eyes and therefore knows the Guru is referring to him.
Now, if there are two blue-eyed people (CASE TWO), they each see the other, and say "what if I have non-blue eyes? Well, that would mean that guy doesn't see ANYONE else with blue eyes. Therefore, he'll leave tonight." And when the other guy doesn't leave the first night, they each know he must be able to see someone else with blue eyes (that is, they know CASE ONE is false) so they leave the 2nd night.
That one alone isn't too hard for me to wrap my mind around, and right away we've got a situation where two guys, though they both knew the Guru's statement was true regardless of their eye color. The generalization to N people leaving the Nth night is still a little tricky to think about, but I do promise that it works. And, in fact, the nonzero information transfer can be examined and quantified very precisely -- it's just difficult because it involves a lot of nested hypothesizing.
I've spent an awful lot of time on this puzzle, discussing it with anyone from friends to random slashdotters to math and CS Ph. Ds. It's a great puzzle, and I'm sorry if I'm not explaining my answer completely enough -- if you're still in disagreement, email me and I will go over it in more detail (I have some long explanations from various angles that I've written over the years that I can forward). I do assure you, though, that my answer is correct.
Having just reread American Gods, let me just say that I totally forgot what a superb author Gaiman is. I highly recommend this book -- I bought it, on a whim, on the recommendation of a shouting crazy guy in a bookstore. It was a good choice!
And I commend him for this mp3 thing. I think that a night or two ago I switched sides on the DRM issue. I was on the fence -- it seems like it's hard to do anything but let the digital world happen, but, you know, hopefully (RIAA greed aside) people should be able to get money for their work.
But last night, I found myself curled up with comfy blankets, half a bottle of rum, a DVD, and this beautiful, brilliant, and generally amazing girl I had recently met. This was a new DVD she had brought over, bought straight from a store. I put it in my computer, tried to play it, and saw a message about failed authentication. None of my players worked. They all said that the DVD could not be played because of DRM. One player asked me to go and send a long page of identifying information before watching the DVD.
We never got to watch the DVD. We found an appropriate replacement among my pirated movies and the night was salvaged. But I think that may have marked my "Fuck the MPAA" turning point. Suddenly I sympathize with the "fuck off and don't tell me what to do with my data" contingent.
So I wholeheartedly approve of Neil's mp3 release, even if I don't know how it will work as a business model given rampant piracy. But keep the MPAA, the RIAA, and Mr. Gaiman out of my pants.
Surely they all already know that the Guru can already see a person with blue eyes, as they can see a person with blue eyes, and the Guru isn't blind?
."), but because these hypotheticals become so far removed, we assume they can have no affect on the situation.
You've hit precisely on why the problem is so difficult -- what you say is true. They all knew that the Guru's statement was true before she made it. HOWEVER: The Guru's statement still changed things.
What it did was change what would happen in the base case of NumBlueEyesPeople=1. Everyone on the island knows that this case is not true, but it still affects their reasoning! Saying "it's important because it's used in the induction" is true, but sort of weaseling out, because it doesn't seem to address how it relates to the actual situation. The reason it does affect the situation is that it changes things not in the current situation, but in a hypothetical situation in the minds of the people in a hypothetical situation in the minds of the people in a hypothetical situation in the minds of the people in a hypothetical situation in the minds of the people in a . . . [repeat 100 times]. It adds information in the 100th layer of hypothetical situations (specifically, the ones that arise from blue-eyed people on each layer saying "Let's suppose I have brown eyes . .
This is hard to wrap the mind around. If you've been through the induction, as it seems you have, and you know the answer but aren't satisfied regarding how the information is flowing, I recommend drawing a "tree of hypotheticals" mapping what a person in every group is thinking. Start with a blue-eyed person, and show the two possibilities that they see: a branch for "I have blue eyes" and a branch for "I do not have blue eyes." Then, consider each of those branches as an island unto itself, and draw the branches for people in that situation.
After you've drawn the 100 branchings, you'll find an island with a single blue-eyed person, and you'll see that this person is able to leave the first night because the Guru gave him the information he needed. When this person doesn't leave the first night, it allows the people one branching back to determine which hypothetical is true, and they leave the 2nd night. And so on and so on, the Guru's statement 'rolling up' the tree one night after another. When you draw the tree, focus on the branches where the blue-eyed person says "What if I have brown eyes?". This is the one on which the rolling up happens.
Watch the video. She's cuter than the stills look.
Fortunately, someone seeded a torrent of her and the night was rescued.
No-one learns anything when the guru speaks.
This is not true.
They learn something about what WOULD happen in a hypothetical case that is relevant to their logic, no matter in how roundabout a fashion.
I was going to ask what he thought of nmap porn, but then I realized the link I was using was from nmap's own site! Apparently they condone this sort of thing.
Come on, Fydor, admit it. Like most of us, you don't really care about coding, you just do it to get girls.
The answer is that the information is transferred for a hypothetical situation that is relevant to their thinking. If you told me "You robbed a 7-11 on March 7th", I may already know that what you have SAID about the world is true, but your statement does give me new information -- namely, that YOU know that I robbed a 7-11 (uh-oh).
The reason it doesn't look like the guru gives them information is that the information is only relevant to each of these 100 people on the 99th or 100th layer of a tree of hypotheticals. The relevant information is this: "If there is only one blue-eyed person on the island, he will have enough information to leave on the first night."
But each person, looking at the situation, will consider hypothetical possibilities for the state of the island. And each of the people in those hypothetical possibilities will in turn make up their own hypotheticals, and so forth. And after 100 layers of nested hypotheticals, each person assuming "what if my eyes are not blue?", you reach the hypothetical in which there is one blue-eyed person. And the Guru's statement allows the truth of that hypothetical to be determined. This starts a chain reaction 'rolling up the hypotheticals', in a way, one level a night. On the 100th night, they have rolled all the way up, and the truth value of the original hypothetical by each of the 100 blue-eyed people, "What if I do not have blue eyes", is determined -- false.
The second one is nice enough. Answer: Every n-th second, launch a missile from square plus-or-minus 2^n (2,4,8,16,32,64,128 . . .) (alternating the plus and minus) in the direction of the origin (zero)
I don't understand what the problem is in the first one. You hook up the battery at the bottom to two random wires, then go to the top and try the bulb on every pairing of two wires (and each polarity). That's almost two million tests, but it said take as long as you want up there.
Oh, woe is me. I have a perfect logic puzzle, but was unlucky enough to be otherwise engaged when this story was posted. (By the way: a soft couch, a carefully selected DVD, half a bottle of rum, and a girl. Guess which element to this excellent scenario was fucking ruined by copy protection? I'll give you a hint: I may have just switched sides in this movie piracy debate. Fuck the RIAA. It was a perfectly legal store-bought DVD. Fuck them all.)
But anyway, logic puzzles. This logic puzzle is excellent. I've had it up on my site (http://www.xkcd.com/blue_eyes.html), and after I got boingboing'ed I got a lot of email about it, so I've been able to tweak the wording to get rid of most of the confusing stuff, leaving only the logic. It's extremely subtle; I've never seen anything like it.
Here's the puzzle:
A group of people live on an island. They are all perfect logicians -- if a conclusion can be logically deduced, they will do it instantly. No one knows the color of their eyes. Every night at midnight, a ferry stops at the island. If anyone has figured out the color of their own eyes, they [must] leave the island that midnight.
On this island live 100 blue-eyed people, 100 brown-eyed people, and the Guru. The Guru has green eyes, and does not know her own eye color either. Everyone on the island knows the rules and is constantly aware of everyone else's eye color, and keeps a constant count of the total number of each (excluding themselves). However, they cannot otherwise communicate. So any given blue-eyed person can see 100 people with brown eyes and 99 people with blue eyes, but that does not tell them their own eye color; it could be 101 brown and 99 blue. Or 100 brown, 99 blue, and the one could have red eyes.
The Guru speaks only once (let's say at noon), on one day in all their endless years on the island. Standing before the islanders, she says the following:
"I can see someone with blue eyes."
Who leaves the island, and on what night?
There are no mirrors or reflecting surfaces, nothing dumb, It is not a trick question, and the answer is logical. It doesn't depend on tricky wording, and it doesn't involve people doing something silly like creating a sign language or doing genetics. The Guru is not making eye contact with anyone in particular; she's simply saying "I count at least one blue-eyed person on this island who isn't me."
And lastly, the answer is not "no one leaves."
Maybe in 20 years we can have auto driving cars that can make it so there is next to 0 car accidents.
This is problematic.
I'm sorry, but I just have to say:
"Blog" is a silly word, and if you repeat "blog" that many times, it starts to sound really funny.
In a few short lines, the word "Blog" is used 8 times.
Blog blog blog blog blog blog blog blog.
Which actually reflects the general media attitude of 2003 or so pretty well.
</ot>
Anyway, I was going to argue that (speaking of a blog article about blogs about blogs), blogs are just descending horribly into sarcastic navel-gazing devoid of substance. Then I thought about traditional media and remembered that I get my news from The Daily Show. Ouch.
Bonzai Buddy is an example of helpful personnified network-traversing software taken too far. A spyware version of the Microsoft paperclip.
Before we get too excited about personnifying software, the idea of giving it motives and the will to self-replicate, the romantic image of itinerant
programs wandering around computer systems doing good for people, I have two words:
Bonzai Buddy.
There are so many issues like this -- there was that questionable BigHack paper about the illegitimacy of digital copyright in the first place, and so many questions of intent that really haven't been addressed. I'm glad to see that . . . you know, I don't care right now.
I know it's a big deal, freedom of speech and information in the digital age, but sometimes I just get tired of it all. I'll care again tomorrow, probably. But right now . . .
http://www.xkcd.com/drawings/copyright.jpg
Anyone wanna go out for a drink?
Why isn't this stuff being used as an emergency rescue material, to make ladders that can be telescoped up to the 30th floor of skyscrapers?
It's not that kind of ladder. It's a lot more like a rope.
Anyone who was on the verge of switching before now have virtually no reason not to
Yeah. I was debating -- I'm really glad to see an alternative to Firefox, which after a year or so of heavy use I'm not that happy with. (Memory leaks/hogs and horribly sluggish UI response were the two main reasons). Going back to Maxthon after that Firefox year was like a breath of fresh air, and it has most of the extensions available (minus, I guess, some of the webdevel stuff). Maxthon is based on the IE core (although you can switch it to use Gecko for rendering).
I'm quite happy with Maxthon, actually, so the more I think about it, the more Opera would need to offer something pretty impressive to get my vote. I suppose I'll check out what it's got.
Since millionsofgames appears to be slashdotted, I guess there's nothing to do but convert this thread into a NEW millionsofgames!
None of these fancy-schmancy social information tools are anything that we can't recreate with our own slashdot moderation system! In fact, with enough work, I believe we can build a full gaming engine out of comment threads.
I vote that we put the next red pixel at (14,220). If you disagree, moderate accordingly.
(Soldat is a lot of fun, though it is a download)
Moderation: +1, Chilling.
Check out HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Microsoft\Windows\Curre ntVersion\Explorer\UserAssist to see for yourself.
Interesting indeed.
(note: go into the subdirectories -- for me, the second one has TONS of stuff rot13'ed)
That's what I'm sayin', Google should just invade. Except the paranoid guy in me is getting kinda worried about them. I do hope they're not evil or anything.
P.S. Congrats on the "to to"; next use "that that". It seems that that is bad on first glance but it's definitely proper speech. But there might be some simple rule. MYSTERIES OF GRAMMAR.
Speaking of grammar this is the second random place I've run into you today outside of Dinosaur Comics. I found your Page of Robot Lesbian Erotica and said "hey this writing looks familiar." And lo.
(a) Whoa, hey, Ryan. Reader here. What is up?
I think what people would want more is a way to exclude blogs from regular Google searches - is this an option?
(b) Actually, when are they going to index Livejournal and make it searchable? It doesn't have to be part of the main page -- I understand if you don't wanna search livejournal, but I do. You could do it via the calendar pages, but searches for things on livejouranl are currently really impractical. It sucks that the only way for me to search even my OWN crap is to wget the whole thing from the calendar page and then grep.
I mean, that's what I pay Google to do!
I'm not convinced it's worth it to make your passwords vary lowercase and caps, as far as security from a brute-force attack goes.
It seems you can get the extra bits by adding two extra alpha chars to the end of your string and not have to memorize case. And losing the numbers is an even better trade-off, if you find them hard to remember as well (perhaps you do passwords phonetically). The numbers thing is up in the air for me but I'm pretty convinced that varying case instead of adding a bit to length is a bad technique for creating lots of random bits.
And people are already getting XP Pro when they don't need it in the first place, paying $100 extra without any idea of the benefits.
And just in case someone comes back with "Knoppix can write to NTFS if you use the NTFS driver from windows", I've used a LOT of versions of Knoppix and I've NEVER gotten that to work correctly.
Me neither.
In fact, the documentation was unchanged from 3.3 to 3.7 but in 3.7 the options they referred to were GONE. They said to click on a particular setting that was absent, they referred to nonexistent files, etc. Hopefully this was fixed in 3.8 but I don't have high hopes.