[HN Gopher] Show HN: Test your shape rotation skills ___________________________________________________________________ Show HN: Test your shape rotation skills Hi all, hope someone enjoys (or not) my weekend project. See how many matching pairs you can find in two minutes. This is written in C++ and built to WebAssembly with Emscripten. The code is at https://github.com/0xf00ff00f/rotator Author : 0xf00ff00f Score : 272 points Date : 2022-02-20 19:19 UTC (3 hours ago) (HTM) web link (0xf00ff00f.github.io) (TXT) w3m dump (0xf00ff00f.github.io) | barrkel wrote: | IMO this would be more enjoyable if the shapes were more | different morphologically, and fewer (ideally no) close pairs | which differ only in the length of a segment by a single block. | | After the first couple of wrong guesses (though I'm pretty sure | one guess was correct - could be the bug | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30408567) I started to count | segment lengths rather than relying on mental shape rotation. | fenollp wrote: | ESC freezes it on Chrome on Linux. | 0xf00ff00f wrote: | Oh, this one is an easy fix - thanks for letting me know. | Shadonototra wrote: | great idea but the UX is very poor, it's not intuitive at all | moralestapia wrote: | Finally, that semester of topology has paid out. | princeb wrote: | did a similar assessment when i was conscripted into the | singapore armed forces - guessing it was a way to filter people | into the air force pilot program. | [deleted] | stevage wrote: | I found this interesting, played for a bit, but at no point did | it feel like fun to me. Just felt like hard work and reminded me | how bad I am at this task. | | (I do really like other shape matching games, just not in 3d | apparently) | hexman wrote: | 10 shapes 12 sec/shape (2nd try, no brute-force, mobile) | | 16 shapes (3rd try) | | 18 shapes (4th try) | | 24 shapes (5th try, no brute-force) | | P.S. I had 7 years of art school in addition to engineering | exikyut wrote: | -> 7 | | _(Notices this comment)_ "...Hmph!" _(Tries harder, focuses)_ | | -> 12 | | -> 10 | | :( | | Nothing like neural training, eh? Hmph :) | | Now I'm curious what you think of | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30409693. | kelseyfrog wrote: | I'm in the same ballpark: 21 2nd try, and 18 3rd try. I've sort | of always known that I've had good spatial reasoning, and this | is one way to confirm it. I tend to think about most problems | spatially, even molding things like code and social relations | into this medium, because it's my strongest skill. I also tend | toward the hyperphantasia side of the spectrum. I'm curious if | other highscorers also tend toward hyperphantasia. | | If the site is recording telemetry on scores, but it would be | fantastic to have a percentile rank at the end. | Graffur wrote: | Wow, that's impressive. After figuring out the game I got 8 | shapes which I thought was good! | jyscao wrote: | You're the shape rotator of shape rotators. | | I only managed to break 10 after about a dozen tries.. | whatshisface wrote: | Is this the singularity? | hexman wrote: | idk bad in wordceling | acid__ wrote: | Does anyone else feel their brain "heat up" when doing intensive | thinking like this? | hexman wrote: | Yes :) | brotchie wrote: | +1 | cousin_it wrote: | Thanks a lot for making this! Really exciting and difficult game, | makes my mind tired. I just got 16 several times in a row, seems | like that's my level, will try tomorrow to see if it improves | after sleep. | modernpink wrote: | 12 matches on my first go. Not very impressive, but likely an | indicator of my middling IQ. | omnicognate wrote: | That's impressive to me. I got 4 on my first go, 6 on my second | and I doubt I'll be going much higher without significant | practice. I find it extremely hard and made several wrong | atttempts in addition to being slow. | ionwake wrote: | Please forgive me for being cynical but it feels like he is | boasting especially as he starts talking about intellect then | downplaying it. | | Just my take but maybe I'm just jealous ! I could only get to | 6 shapes. | blhack wrote: | 11 shapes! This is a fun game. I think it's testing something | other than shape rotating though. | steve_adams_86 wrote: | So cool, I love this! | | I'd love to play around with it, but I don't see a license at a | glance. If I were to make a variation of this, would I be allowed | to share it with attribution to this version? | larusso wrote: | Very cool indeed. One can get quite lucky from time to time when | some forms are not rotated quite too far from each other or other | forms are simply too different. Very nice idea! | throwaway73838 wrote: | This sounds interesting. Will it be available on mobile? | PuddleOfSausage wrote: | Works fine on mobile for me. Fun game! | 0xf00ff00f wrote: | It should work on mobile browsers (though I haven't tested | yet). | layer8 wrote: | I only see a tiny "code" link on iOS, rest of the page is | blank (gray). | ithkuil wrote: | Tried on Android chrome. I select two shapes which I'm pretty | sure match and nothing happens. The only thing on the screen | is a "code" hyperlink. Is there supposed to be a "accept" or | "go" button or something? | 0xf00ff00f wrote: | There's no "accept" button, it should move to the next set | when the two correct shapes are selected. But as someone | else pointed out in this thread there may be multiple | matching pairs - looking into it. | Lio wrote: | Works well on iOS on iPhone. | | I like it. Great fun, thanks. | drivingmenuts wrote: | Seems to have an issue in Safari on iPad - there's no way to | submit my guess. The shapes highlight but then nothing | happens. The timer just keeps running. I'm pretty sure I've | selected correctly. | 1270018080 wrote: | It's hard when part of a shape is hidden even with the rotation. | anyfactor wrote: | First game | | - I briefly go through each shapes | | - Anchor on a particular shape | | - Check other shapes based on that shapes | | - Realize the number of cubes is the distinguishing factor not | the shape itself | | - Exclude the first focused shape from future comparison | | - Try to compare 2 shapes randomly | | - And after 4 clicks of match attempts I find a match | | 2nd Game | | - Go through the first 2 rounds with ease as they were | essentially in the same row or the same column | | - Second game I get confused as the obvious matches aren't | obvious | | - I time out | | - I didn't even notice how the timing worked in the first game | | 3rd game | | - I try to count the number of blocks between each 'lines' of | shapes | | - But for shapes that have 3 or more turn of these lines matching | them is very difficult | capableweb wrote: | First game | | - I quickly glance each shape | | - Select the ones that "feel" more similar. | | - Scored 13 on my first run | | Sometimes I think thinking less is better. Same for a lot of | sports, things that require careful motor control and fast- | pacing. | keithnz wrote: | yeah, I was similar, my brain just told me the right ones, I | didn't really have to work it out. | jb1991 wrote: | Wow, the scrolling does not work at all for me on macos, using FF | or Safari. | stygiansonic wrote: | Very nice. One nitpick: it would be nice if the outlines turned | from red to green (in addition to the other feedback already | provided) to indicate a match. | jcims wrote: | I think this is the first time I realized that wasm wasn't just | some kind of funky javascript. | | Fun game! | dataangel wrote: | I wish it showed you the right answer when you lose. A few times | I have sworn there are no matches ;_; | sudosysgen wrote: | Pretty weird, the first two are consistently way harder for me! | They take 20+ seconds each, and then the subsequent ones take | only 3-7 seconds. In my third try I managed 14 shapes, 8.33 | seconds per shape, on my first I did 7 - it's pretty clear that | you can train yourself to get a lot better. | | Also, once, there were two matching pairs, but only one was | accepted, I'm pretty sure. | soheil wrote: | It's easy to just guess a few times and get it right. At least | wrong guesses should have time penalty. | jack_riminton wrote: | Very cool! I feel I'm a bit rusty on rotating shapes, I got 5 | right in the time (1st and only attempt) | [deleted] | yablokoffya wrote: | Just played 5 times, super cool although UX is a bit vague in the | first session. What's the max matches you have? | sudosysgen wrote: | I managed 14 after a couple of tries, I feel like if I | continued anymore I'd end up procrastinating my entire day! | eternityforest wrote: | I'm amazed that some people can actually rotate objects. | | On of the reasons I don't drive is for fear of driving directly | into traffic, if I make a mistake figuring on which lane is "on | the right side" of the new perspective when turning. | | Mental rotation is one of the very top causes of mistakes for me | and I've learned to always be on the lookout for it, and assume | my conclusion is wrong if I find myself doing it. | sudosysgen wrote: | In the end I found it way better to not rotate the shapes but | use my intuition to match pairs then verify by counting squares | and checking chirality. Actual rotation takes me like 10-15 | seconds but the intuition+check technique is more like 4-5 | seconds. | boppo1 wrote: | Needs to place you on a bell curve against prior completions. | svet_0 wrote: | Small bug: occasionally there are multiple matching pairs, | although only 1 works (screenshot: https://ibb.co/JpRp0Pm) | | Additionally, the auto rotation itself is mostly confusing, could | be better to enable manual mouse rotation. | | Cool game nonetheless! | | Edit: The bug seems to be that shapes with different "DNA" can | still be isometric in some cases: | https://github.com/0xf00ff00f/rotator/blob/master/demo.cc#L4... | 0xf00ff00f wrote: | Ouch. Thank you so much for noticing this! Looks like I need a | more robust test. | blamestross wrote: | Ismorphism is hard to detect, even in reduced spaces. Really | hard in arbitrary graphs. | | For a "fast filter" generate the center of gravity for each | (just the average of the voxel points as doubles) and | abs+sort the resulting vector and assume they match if the | "Sorted Cog Vector" matches. It will have false positives | sometimes but no false negatives. | [deleted] | [deleted] | 0xf00ff00f wrote: | Great suggestion, thanks! | amelius wrote: | In chemistry, there is the problem of normalization of | molecule identifiers that looks like this problem. | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Chemical_Identif. | .. | phreeza wrote: | I encountered the same bug and it was also a donut kind of | shape, maybe something to do with the closing of the loop? | svet_0 wrote: | Probably. L-U-R-D is the mirror of R-D-L-U but not the mirror | of L-D-R-U, although isometric to both. | cptskippy wrote: | Ok so I'm not crazy. The shapes moving had me second guessing | myself trying to compare them. | Ericson2314 wrote: | This is great, but I wish length never mattered. Counting blocks | is drab, and length not mattering makes the equivalence class | more exciting, IMO. | ag8 wrote: | Looks great! Maybe add a small time penalty for guessing wrong? | It's currently way faster for me to try ~7 combinations (takes | about 5 seconds per round) than to honestly figure it out. | fsckboy wrote: | because of the "vanishing point" style 3d perspective it's | difficult for me to tell relative sizes of things, so I had to | frequently resort to counting bricks on the front leg vs the rear | leg for extra-dimensional-L pieces; it was more about that than | things like chirality. The result was, didn't really feel like a | shape matching game to me, felt like a brick counting game. I | guess in a certain way I was expecting something that felt more | like those "which cube matches this piece of paper folded up" | type matches | | Also, don't mind being timed to the nth of a second, but I'd | prefer a clock that was not so frenetic in my field of vision, | just showing seconds would be enough. | zuminator wrote: | Maybe an advanced mode where extra seconds are deducted for each | wrong pair guessed? And along with that the ability to skip a | turn for extra seconds deducted. That way, since brute force | would no longer be an option, you wouldn't find yourself getting | hopelessly stuck early on behind a particularly difficult set. | evanmoran wrote: | Nice. It's very fun and quite hard. | | If you are looking for tweeks consider calling it Shapdle and put | them in a row, and color yellow if close and green if right (only | slightly joking :) | faangiq wrote: | Wordcels can't cope with this. | jvandonsel wrote: | I understand that the shape motion is necessary to reveal hidden | parts of some shapes but it found it very distracting. A "freeze" | button would have been very helpful, | whatshisface wrote: | Sometimes the initial rotation hides a part of the shape. | | Also, I have always wondered if there's a way to translate these | shapes to strings for quick "mental algorithm" matching. | Something like, "5, left turn, 3, right turn..." | | I guess you'd need a normal form. The first turn can be defined | as always "right" or "left," and subsequent turns can be right, | left, up or down. The first turn that's "up" or "down," can be | defined as "up." That leaves two ways to read any shape, but | that's an uhh constant-factor overhead. :) | | (I can't think of a way to define a normal form reading direction | that wouldn't involve potentially reading an arbitrary distance | in before having to re-start the other way.) | musingsole wrote: | I think that's basically what I did, just without elevating the | forms to anything conscious. By the end, I was matching shapes | too fast to have actually counted much of anything -- some sort | of consolidated memory had started. | akomtu wrote: | A small improvement: use a vowel to encode turns, and | consonants to encode segment lengths. So each shape would be | encoded by a "word", e.g. "bakitux". Brains have dedicated | "word-processing units" and those are much faster than number- | processing units. | Teever wrote: | > Brains have dedicated "word-processing units" and those are | much faster than number-processing units. | | *In most people. | V__ wrote: | This is a fun little game. I find the small movements confusing, | though. Maybe a fixed camera (isometric?) would work nice. | ChuckMcM wrote: | That's a lot of fun, I'm sure pmarca loves it :-). Initial | rotation can result in feature hiding that is critical, perhaps | making the wobble selectable (easy = big wobble, medium = current | wobble, hard = no wobble) The follow on should be the folding one | (planar surface with dotted lines, pick the folded version) I | always thought those questions in IQ tests were put there so that | there would be some "easy" questions that everyone got right, but | found later my wife couldn't do them! | screye wrote: | Can't wait for blind to be like 'shape rotator score or GTFO'. /s | | It's a fun game. The difficulty does vary quite drastically | accross attempts. Occlusion in particular can be a pretty big | issue. | pininja wrote: | This is great! I work on visualizations all day and it's a real | skill to interpret size and angle of 3D shapes. 10 seconds per | shape on my first play through. I think I would have been a lot | worse if the shapes didn't move. | amar-laksh wrote: | This is brilliant! (Especially after the rotating puzzle post | yesterday, exactly what I needed!) Thank you! (I managed to get | 14 at 8 seconds but damn this is pretty hard) | | feedback: Sometimes the shapes get too occluded by it's own body. | Not sure bug or a feature. Also could be fun to increasing or | decreasing difficulty curve depending on performance | TrianguloY wrote: | Can someone post that rotating puzzle post from yesterday? I | think I missed it (and can't seem to find by searching) | amar-laksh wrote: | There you go: https://roonscape.substack.com/p/a-song-of- | shapes-and-words?... | mfashby wrote: | surprisingly difficult, only scored 1 the first try! | kebsup wrote: | A different version could be about rotating the shape to correct | position. A lot of times I've just eliminated impossible matches, | rather then seeing how they match. | ggerganov wrote: | Cool! | | Small issue I found - when I run this as native app, always the 2 | bottom-left shapes are the answer. | krick wrote: | Damn, that's surprisingly difficult. But I think I shouldn't be | allowed to brute-force answers (that's really tempting in the | current design) and I'd probably appreciate if shapes were | standing still, since the movement is distracting and barely | relates to the skill being tested. | otherme123 wrote: | -10 seconds if you fail a pair should work against brute force. | ravi-delia wrote: | I think they move so that they aren't accidentally covering up | crucial bits, and so you get a sense for them in 3d. I'd also | like it if they moved less, or had a pause button though. | holtkam2 wrote: | vvvvvvvv-----Scoreboard-------vvvvvv | boppo1 wrote: | 11 | holtkam2 wrote: | 10 shapes | renewiltord wrote: | I liked it, might I suggest some tiny things? | | - Turn selection outline to green on success | | - Show incremental progress (num matched) | aaron695 wrote: | nickpeterson wrote: | I'd be really curious to collect gender before testing, because I | feel like this is always one of those go to examples of the | difference and male and female brains, would be curious to know | if there is any substantial actual difference. | armchairhacker wrote: | I read in a psychology book that this is one of the (few) cases | where there's a big gender difference in intelligence: males | statistically do a lot better at this than females, and I | believe those with higher testosterone also statistically do | better. | MrsPeaches wrote: | Difficult to control for the effects of "building toys" such as | Lego being primarily marketed at boys. These types of toys help | train this kind of spacial awareness from an early age. | | See also early computers being marketed almost exclusively at | men and boys, potentially being the cause of a major drop off | of women in computer sciences in the 1980s: | https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2014/10/21/357629765/when... | alisonkisk wrote: | silisili wrote: | This brings back nightmares of mech eng school! I essentially | quit because of my inability to do such things :(. | greatwave1 wrote: | Waiting out for the wordcel version of this | jdminhbg wrote: | I believe The NY Times just bought it. | sudosysgen wrote: | You mean Wordle? | KaoruAoiShiho wrote: | It's a 4chan meme: | https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/cultures/wordcel-shape- | rotato... | | So this game going to the top of HN is likely part of the | meme where shape rotators strike back against wordcels after | wordle became popular, something like that. | sudosysgen wrote: | It's actually a Twitter meme by @tszzl on Twitter. It was a | 4-chan meme to add "-cel" to words, but the shape rotator | vs wordcel meme is from Twitter. | KaoruAoiShiho wrote: | You should read the article | sudosysgen wrote: | I did despite my better judgment. The 4chan part is just | adding "-cel" to words and doesn't form a direct lineage | to the modern meme. | exikyut wrote: | A totally different style of game which also seriously stretches | spatial reasoning: https://vladimirslepnev.itch.io/zigzag | | Inspired by Super Hexagon (remember that?), you need to | repeatedly tell a "snake" which way to go with the left and right | arrow keys... while the game viewport twists and rotates randomly | as it continually zooms out. | | GoOd lUcK. | | (It's from here, 1 month ago: | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29923707) | | I incidentally find I have to mute the background music, as I | really get into it (used to listen to it often!) and zone out... | welp | | (Also, for completeness - the APK link is sadly dead, but it | still lives on on the scary APK sites that are out there, and my | phone doesn't seem to mind it.) | oh_sigh wrote: | If you're recording stats, I would love to know the distribution | of correct guesses per game. | akomtu wrote: | That's brutal. On my first attempt I've matched only 2 shapes. | The naive approach is to match each pair, and with 15 pairs | total, that's gonna take time, even though you need to check only | 7.5 pairs on average. A better approach is to "hash" each shape | and find the duplicate hash in linear time, which is 3 | comparisons on average. The hash can be computed logically, by | counting turns the shape takes, or, after looking at hundreds of | such shapes, one should be able to "hash" shapes subconsciously, | and that will be a dramatic speed up. | | I suggest you make a similar problem: matching small isomorphic | graphs. I think that's what a lot of software engineeting is | really about. | sshb wrote: | Curious about group theory take on this. It seems that symmetry | helps to easily exclude multiple shapes at the beginning of each | round. | whatshisface wrote: | If you can turn one into the other with a single reflection, | then you can't rotate them. Two reflections, and you can. | rbobby wrote: | 12 matches, 10 seconds per shape. | hexman wrote: | Awesome! | chungy wrote: | I know it's not the point, but I find it way easier to just brute | force it. Got 31 pairs matched that way (three matches in the | last two seconds, even). | 8note wrote: | Makes sense, you have to wait to see enogh information to be | able to actually submit choices, vs being able to start brute | forcing immediately | cryptica wrote: | I consistently get around 8 to 10... I get approximately the same | performance if I try to use my gut to match shapes or if I | mentally rotate the shapes one at a time. The focal length | distortion is a bit too extreme for me. I would prefer if it the | shapes were a little bit more isometric-looking. | | With the current focal length distortion, shapes look as if | they're a few inches from my eyeballs so it's kind of hard to | visualize without counting the blocks. | sowbug wrote: | Would you please add keyboard shortcuts? Numbering 1-6 and | letting each key toggle a shape would suffice. Repetitive mousing | on a non-touch display can trigger RSI flareups. | microjim wrote: | Scored 7 my first go but that was aided by one or two that were | more or less had the same orientation and could spotted pretty | easily. | bemmu wrote: | I thought I'd be good at this since I do 3D editing all day, | but apparently not. In my first try I couldn't get even one. | Practicing some more I got up to 4 in a game. I wonder if this | game can distinguish between people who have rich mental | imagery and those who don't? | musingsole wrote: | You might have _too_ rich of a mental geometry framework such | that each shape was rendered more thoroughly, but not | necessarily in a way that helped compute matching objects. | 8note wrote: | When you don't know the shapes, you have to do lots and lots | of comparisons since you don't know what info you're missing | behind the shape. | | Once you do it a couple times, you can skip a lot of the | conparison | leto_ii wrote: | I would suggest also adding some sort of error counting into the | mix (perhaps allowing 3-5 lives in total, maybe with bonus lives | if you're fast or you get it on the first try). Right now it's a | bit too easy to semi-brute force shapes that are somewhat | similar. | | It would also be good to have increasing levels of difficulty. | Eventually you could add a leaderboard. | | As a side note, it's fun to see the amount of humble-bragging | going on in the thread right now ;)) ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-02-20 23:00 UTC)