Yes, that is the one. Let's see what solvers have to say whether these are dups or not.

I am not exactly sure what kata you mean exactly, but I remember some kata about Mancala\Sungka\Kalah\Bantumi: Sungka, Pot-tentially the Greatest Mancala Kata. As far as I know, all of them are distinct games, all coming from the common family of Mancala games.

Having said that, I do not know how existing kata, and the games themselves, are close to each other, and whether they are close enough to be considered dupes/repetitive. It's possible, I just haven;t solved the kata.

This game has been done before on Codewars.

I just tried it and it doesnt work. Why did it not get invalidated?

sexy!

Fixed. Moved from preloaded to both test suites.

somebody explain this why my actual output is wrong here?

friends = [["Bob","participative"],["Ann","participative"],["Blaze","participative"],["Jake","uninterested"]]
quote = "Whatever."
index = 0

expected = "Jake told me that Blaze told Jake that Ann told Blaze that I told Ann 'Whatever.'."
actual = "Jake told me that Blaze told Jake that I told Blaze 'A classic movie quote!'."

: expected false to be true

ok

Got it, thanks

The first soldier in line adopts Stan's cadence of 1 after 1 step already.

Soldiers at the ends of the line are influenced only by their single neighbor and adopt that neigbor's cadence.

How to get 1 out of 5 values in 2 steps, subtracting 1 each?
Or did I somehow misunderstand the task?
{"initial":[5,1,1],"steps":2,"stan":1,"ollie":2}
expected [ 3, 1, 1 ] to deeply equal [ 1, 1, 1 ]

A lot of katas are trivial. By your logic we shouldnt have anything below 6 kyu

There's a difference between "simple and easy" and "trivial". Trivial is making a single stdlib call into a kata, and yes, those kata should not exist in my opinion ( other opinions may be available ). I wouldn't necessarily class this kata as trivial, but it wasn't me saying it it.

I am happy ( enough ) with the one character increase of the limit. Thank you!

Thanks for sharing your reasoning, Kacarott. I understand the technical reasons for creating a new challenge, especially with drastic performance changes. However, I still believe that, whenever possible, we should aim to improve and update existing challenges, and encourage the community to update their votes and feedback. This would help us maintain a high standard of quality and foster a culture of continuous improvement.

I agree that the quality and accurate ranking of the challenge are most important. My concern was less about "free points" and more about recognizing the community's ongoing engagement. Perhaps we could explore better ways to notify users about significant updates and encourage them to revisit and re-evaluate challenges.
Ultimately, I hope we can find a balance that both ensures challenge quality and values community input.

I disabled MRI 2.5 for Ruby.