Nah. Muphry is Murphy’s grammatical cousin.
‘‘If a grammar mistake can be made, it will, and in the most obvious and/or stupid way possible.’’
Muphry’s Law: “When a person criticises another’s editing or proofreading, there will be a mistake of a similar kind in that criticism.”
2 Likes
Depending on spell check there. I want to go back in time and stop the people who changed the meaning of the word “they” to mean a single person or more then one person. They wanted to have a gender neutral word instead of using he/him until the sex is known.
There is and was a word for that. the word is “it”. Idiots.
No, no it isn’t.
If anyone invents a spell checker that checks you use the correct word rather than just a word, it probably wont work.
Fixed.
There must be some equivalent to Godwin’s law for grammar:
As the length of a thread approaches infinity, the conversation will, without fail, turn to discussing the grammatical mistakes of people posting to the thread.
Corollary: The people critiquing the grammar of others in said thread will, eventually, with great irony and without fail, include a spelling or grammatical mistake of their own.
3 Likes
Surely on this forum most conversations approach or start at infinity? 
LOL!!! 7890
This was what I was shooting for roughly. Since the I-Novae engine seems to be rather good at generating entire planets, it would be daft to place all the vegetation manually.
However, I’m curious what the effects might be of including ways of placing everything procedurally, but providing options for local tweaking? I suppose the moment you change something manually, it has to be saved separately and can’t necessarily be generated through the standard algorithms?
By this logic, what kind of options might procedural generation be able to provide for vegetation (as a case-study)? I can imagine options composition (types of trees) and density, as well as location according to geographical features…