100%! Not sure what this measures, but I've spent decades trying to gauge whether a design is one pixel off, or if some minor change has affected the layout of something. Maybe that was all preparation for slicing America in two using an Australia-shaped knife.
Only tangentially related: There was a great talk about Brilliant's custom diagramming language at last year's StrangeLoop conference: <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gT9Xu-ctNqI">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gT9Xu-ctNqI</a>
Funny that this comes up - a lot of times while watching YouTube I'll fidget by trying to highlight exactly half of the title. I check whether or not it's half by dragging the highlighted section over the other half. Glad there's a game for this now!
92% with 4 perfect cuts (messed up badly on the easy 12-sided shape). Don't know why, but it was a strangely fun exercise. "Brilliant" ad too (pun intended :D)
I was able to get the first five exactly with a bit of luck and think with a bit of thinking it should be possible to always land near 1% or 2%. But is there a good way to cut the cup, bird or map one without calculating it? I got lucky and got the cup exactly but I don't think I could get close without just beeing lucky on the bird and map onea.
How is the area computed? Are they counting pixels?<p>Constructive solid geometry, and then some sort of computer graphics algorithm for area?<p>Or is it an SVG, and they're doing some sort of complex integral? (<--probably not)
This was probably the best thing in the latest b3ta newsletter (one of those bizarre Barley-esque hangovers from the British internet circa 2004)
<a href="https://b3ta.com/newsletter/issue880/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://b3ta.com/newsletter/issue880/</a>
Is there any proof that doing this regularly helps with anything? Not necessarily making one 'smarter', but at least keeping dementia at bay for older folks? All I could find is that playing board games seems to help with cognitive decline, but this could also be the social part of it.
Six perfect cuts and two 53-47 splits (#6 and #8). For some shapes I was pretty analytical; for example #2 has 21 small squares, so I tried to first cover 11 squares then move it upward by a fifth of the unit. This approach apparently didn't work well for irregular shapes.
Did not seem to work with Firefox mobile for me. All I could do is continue without dragging. Turns out you get a score of 26% that way and a rating of "not half bad".
I was kind of surprised how good I (and a quick skim of the comment shows, most other people) are at this.<p>Conventional wisdom seems to suggest that people aren't terribly good at comparing volume when shapes differ, but perhaps that's only in three-dimensions.<p>Edit: 98% btw.
I was 95% accurate!
⬜
Can you do better?
<a href="https://www.brilliant.org/challenges/halfsies" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://www.brilliant.org/challenges/halfsies</a>
I was 96% accurate!
⬜
Can you do better?
<a href="https://www.brilliant.org/challenges/halfsies" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://www.brilliant.org/challenges/halfsies</a>
94% accurate with 4 perfect cuts. Biggest screwup was the last one, the rest were very close.<p>Fun game. Could easily see a more robust version of this with 50-100 levels doing pretty well.
wow, I was pretty proud of my 88% but then I saw all the comments here<p>Really neat way to advertise Brilliant. Reminds me of Google Doodles or something.
I was 93% accurate!
⬜⬜
Can you do better?
<a href="https://www.brilliant.org/challenges/halfsies" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://www.brilliant.org/challenges/halfsies</a><p>I win