No, right now you probably have no opinion on the subject. And depending on context are perfectly willing to entertain either or neither. The world will be a much better place when people stop having opinions on things just because someone asked them to pick a team.
A reasonably mature thinker holds beliefs in terms of Bayesian estimates, and as Dennet says, one should always be willing to entertain evidence that contradicts your current Bayesian estimates. That doesn't mean you don't have beliefs.
> Like, people must remember which candidates they voted for in the past, right?
I have noticed that in myself, but I have observed in some people it takes the form of “I didn’t shift, the party did”.
They aren’t completely wrong either, political parties like the people that comprise them are constantly changing. But if you aren’t careful to avoid fooling yourself it’s not too hard to do.
You have to be some kind of madman to make a game in straight C. The controls being what they are is kind of fitting. I mean, it might be a prank, but like QWOP and Getting Over It, I think it's just the product of a certain kind of mind. I'm not going to be able to finish this, but I admire the craft of it.
> You have to be some kind of madman to make a game in straight C.
....why? A significant chunk of commercial games released were done in C (maybe not 'straight", as they might plug into Lua or Python); and probably the majority of open source games were.
C is fairly straightforward to develop games in, and is one of the realms it excels in; so I have no idea why you'd feel this way.
I don't get your latter point either. Both Lua and Python's (the two most common scripting interfaces) native interface is in C. There's no reason they would plug into C++ any better.
> The quiz thing is mostly exhaustion at the idea of people who don't bother to learn anything having a say.
I hear you, I feel that frustration as well. Myself, I've come the long way around to deciding that, those people need to be included anyway. And a robust system of democracy should work even with their input. Maybe at the lowest level, all voters get a "I'm happy"/"I'm unhappy" button, and signals of greater interest unlock more options and details. But I think gatekeeping is fundamentally undemocratic, and if you are going to make it harder to vote you need a better reason than "they don't seem to care".
We want more hands on the wheel, not fewer. If they don't seem to know or care, that's our problem, not theirs.
> I've come the long way around to deciding that, those people need to be included anyway.
Isn't that the point? At least from my POV, it's completely meaningless unless literally everybody is included. So yes, I'd include children, the mentally-infirm, and definitely convicts.
Think about how "universal"[0] enfranchisement came about: it has been a series of grants of influence/power, in layers, starting at the top. Barons demanded more say, and less arbitrary treatment, for themselves. They didn't get it, until they used force. Women were treated as we now treat terrorists, when they demanded a fair say.
The whole purpose of electoral systems is to deter people from trying to actually take power. So not including what you call "these people"[1] is a serious mistake.
[0] It's not universal, anywhere. Of course.
[1] The phrase "these people" is often used when othering a group of people. For example, it seems to spring easily to the lips of some Conservative politicans in the UK, when discussing immigration. It's sort of a trigger phrase for me.
> At least from my POV, it's completely meaningless unless literally everybody is included. So yes, I'd include children, the mentally-infirm, and definitely convicts.
I'm generally okay with criteria that are truly evenly instituted, such as age limits. I'm also okay with denying genuine transients the right to vote. These can become problematic at points, so I believe in limiting the limits. But you don't have to include literally everyone.
I would generally include convicts, and especially ex-felons, but I would never include anyone who has maliciously denied someone else the right to exercise the franchise (e.g. murderers, some kidnappers).
But this isn't gatekeeping. Everyone can vote, nobody is getting turned away at the polling station.
We won't know who got marked down for not answering correctly "Who was our first president". It might be busy professionals who don't have time to study (look at the CFA exam). It might be underprivileged minorities, which is a legit concern. It might be that it's evenly spread out who bothers and who doesn't.
> I would add that any law passed must have a relatively short sunset clause. This forces us to reconsider laws periodically to make sure they're still relevant.
I like this idea in theory, and I'd love to find a way to implement it. But I think we'd find ourselves in a situation where we either spend a ton of time rubber-stamping all the "good laws", or we end up not having laws for stuff people all agree on and don't waste time rubber-stamping because why bother with the effort if everyone abides by the law anyway ... until decades later we get another guy doing a bunch of destabilizing horseshit because it's not technically illegal.
If not an automatic sunset, I would propose a different rule: for every law, we stipulate what statistical measures we thought would be improved by the law over some time period. Like "we think if kids are all fed at school, pass rates will increase 5%". Then check after 5 years to see if that happened, and we can decide what to do.
At the moment every law has an imprecise expected outcome and we never go back to think about whether the intervention worked.
I'm not saying use the stats mechanically to cancel the law if it fails, just that there ought to be a post-fact consideration of whether something worked.
This is great. Have some kind of "definition of success" with laws that will be used in the future to gauge their effectiveness. If the law isn't having the desired outcome, it gets repealed.
Truthfully, outcome based legislature would be quite a bit more readable too, as the outcome bit will spell out exactly the intention of the law.
It also doesn't have to spread it out over a particularly large area. If we are talking about the force of a punch from a good boxer, we only have to spread it over the area of the front of a boxing glove. That seems perfectly reasonable for a fabric layer soaked with a non-Newtonian fluid.
According to that page, BAE systems et al were using kevlar soaked in a solution of polyethylene glycol and silica nanoparticles.
All readily available online, if you can afford something like $200 per 2ml of silica nanoparticles. It would be amazing to see one of the YouTube channels that has tried making their own, just make the real thing.
I imagine a suit made of dripping wet Kevlar wouldn't be too comfortable though. John Wick would experience some chafing.
What would it be like for civilization to have evolved on a world with a moon (or other large natural satellite) in geosynchronous orbit. There’s just this … thing, in the sky, hovering over one spot. How sacred would that spot be to those people
Good one. The novel Courtship Rite by Donald Kingsbury had such a moon (the Scowlmoon) as part of the worldbuilding.
For another, imagine having a moon so big it can completely cover the sun... and just the right size and distance to only block the photosphere, leaving the corona visible without instruments. What a show that'd be, what wild myths the life there might make up.
I would guess there is some kind of normal distribution, it’s not like people dies or were fine, there were lots somewhere inbetween that took healthcare to save. The safety measures save people from dying, but also save the people who would have been only mostly dead.
Same friend was in a motorcycle accident where he hit his head on something so hard he broke his helmet. Had a mild concussion. Only other real injury was he broke a bone in his hand.
It’s for fun. It takes playing pieces most people have available, rules many are familar with, and makes a new game with just a few more rules. For fun.
I agree that more clarification is necessary for this to be adopted mainstream, however that didn't seem to be the intention of the article. i.e. 'fun' for 2 persons knowing each other is highly subjective.
Think of it the other way - some people find it fun just by throwing the dice in turns and whoever has the larger number wins. In this case, there's even a chance for whoever has the huge disadvantage (unlucky) to make a comeback. In cases where it's fatal, either those are added as exceptions e.g. re-roll, or accepted as auto-win. Not unlike some gambling games.
My friends and I had fun adding different rules to existing way of playing various games. We might find out later on that the rule might be incomprehensive, which we could either discard or adjust. It might also never be perfectly balanced. Either way we definitely had fun.
I take the article as more of a "story sharing" than a "new specification" for chess.
The bulk of the post is a description of the new rules with a small anecdote about why they were created.
It seems like the intention of the article was to share the rules. As such, we should be able to discuss those rules. And this person would like to know the reasoning behind the rules as that does give insight. Maybe the rule is counter to the actual goal of the rule and would be better served by another rule. Or to get rid of it entirely.
Because even chess hasn't always been chess. Chess has been developed over years and settled into its state after a lot of refinements.
Obviously you created it to be fun. And there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. And there's absolutely nothing wrong with trying. And there's absolutely nothing wrong with even making mistakes. Sometimes you just gotta try shit before you know what works and what doesn't.
I just didn't appreciate the guy's discussion terminating quip.
No, right now you probably have no opinion on the subject. And depending on context are perfectly willing to entertain either or neither. The world will be a much better place when people stop having opinions on things just because someone asked them to pick a team.