I tried it when it was posted on the Polycount forums and got a 4. I came to the conclusion that it's probably dependent on both the user and his monitor in equal amounts. Interestingly enough, almost everyone who tried it there and didn't get perfect had missed in almost the exact same area as me. A group of four colors in the teal-to-blue area. Some people also missed some in the reddish-orange part, also, but the majority of all misses were in blue-teal. I wonder why that is.

Those trick questions bother and amuse me equally. Because they're meant to trick someone into giving a false answer, the question itself tends to be equally incorrect. In this case, there's little relation at all between the four actors; bomb, banana, tree and monkey. It's actually quite plausible for there to be a banana in the tree, or perhaps below the tree, since it is strongly suggested that the monky is in fact headed for a banana, yet is climbing a tree. But the question itself is flawed because of how vague it is. There is no way of answering it correctly, even ignoring the whole banana tree issue.

It's like asking this: It's raining outside. Rox is writing a far too analytical post about something trivial because he has absolutely nothing better to do. How long before he gets wet?

There's an obvious relation between the factors, but absolutely nothing to determine the answer. In the original question, the only thing you actually know is that there is a tree that will explode, and a monkey is climbing it. I'm writing a post, and it's raining. What the question fails to imply is that I'm sitting inside a house, so I'll likely never get wet. Similarly, the trick question fails to mention anything about time, or if the bomb is even set with a timer or fuse to begin with, so there's no way at all of answering it correctly. Since all answers should therefor be assumed incorrect, it's kinda pointless to point out that there's no such thing as a banana tree - when it's clearly stated that the monkey is, in fact, headed for a banana while in a tree.

And still, my post remains strawberry bush sized.

In my case, about a screen and a half's worth of scrolling.
Assuming, that is, that the monky is you and your post is the tree. It's about as tall as a tree.

Quote from: Rox on August 24, 2008, 09:27:11 pm

Luckily, I still have my faithful Pixelation Zoom, so it doesn't bother me. One of my favorite pieces of software!

Explain!
I'm hoping you have some magic solution that will let me keep FF3 and have clean zooming.

Heh. It's a piece of software that... someone.. wrote. Hold on...
BlackEye wrote it. Many ages ago. Before the first Pixelation zoom script was born! It's a little exe that opens up a tiny window that views what's over the mouse with an adjustable degree of non-filtered magnification. It's not as smooth and easy as, say, clicking to zoom. And the window is actually quite small. But that doesn't bother me one bit. The fact that I can use it anywhere, just like I have been since I first downloaded it whenever, and not just in a browser or a specific site, makes it worth it. And that its name is actually PixelationZoom.