3 ms·
> Clowns only ask that you take a limited amount of cotton candy Actually, this is wrong. Rather, there are 'safe' candy tiles and 'unsafe' ones. You can take
by a1369209993 3y ago
> Clowns only ask that you take a limited amount of cotton candy
Actually, this is wrong. Rather, there are 'safe' candy tiles and 'unsafe' ones. You can take a unlimited[0] amount of safe candy, but taking even a single unsafe tile can potentially result in immediate circus. (That's what makes it 'unsafe'.)
0: Well, it's "limited" to however much [safe] candy is actually present, but that's not what "limited" means in the context you used it. You can safely take all of the safe candy that is there to take.
- gs17 3y agoNo, "limited" means the same thing in the context I used it, there is a limit to how much you can take, the limit being the safe tiles. If you really want to be pedantic, the amount is always "limited" because maps are finite.
- a1369209993 3y agoThe phrase "that you take a limited amount" implies that the amount taken is the primary determining factor. For example, that (at least approximately) taking four tiles is always safe, regardless of which four, and taking four hundred is always unsafe, even if each individual tile could have been one of the aformentioned four safe ones. But (DF) candy doesn't work like that at all; each tile is either completely safe, or has a noticable (if not always large) chance of having a circus tent behind it, completely independantly of any safe tiles, and only dependant on other unsafe tiles in the minesweeper sense (ie, that you sometimes know there's a circus tent behind either tile A or tile B, but not which).
- gs17 3y agoThen your issue is with "amount", not "limited". Still no reason to be so pedantic, I would recommend you try to learn to be less literal if you can.