Congrats on the game! Did you ever do game jams at all with the original idea or was this a larger project from the start?

And a more realistic-adult question lol: how did you handle not having insurance from your workplace after severance?

Thank you! I absolutely suck at game jams. Like, really bad. Ballionaire is the one time a gamejam (https://itch.io/jam/eggjam-20) went right for me (good idea, microscopic scope) - you can see a video from about ~10 days into development here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CwIwcGewZME

Normally I either scope way too big, or scope small and lose motivation because the idea is too itty bitty to maintain motivation. I have no idea how to hit the sweet spot more frequently. Some people are just really good at this, but not me.

For insurance: private insurance via ACA/Obamacare. I had savings.

Computer Club in Seattle, anyone?

There are welcoming hackerspaces around for those with the eyes to find them ;-)

I'll throw my hat in that ring too

Dang, just sold my house that had an ADU that would have been perfect for the purpose.

+1. Would love to talk about self-hosting with other people interested in the hobby

I'd be interested if it existed...

The Connections Museum staff might be a starting point.

The extreme scenario:

I live in a home surrounded by miles of fields. There is no one within miles to hear me scream. Without a gun, anyone could come by my home, kill me, rob my home, and be gone before the police would even show up, if I even had a chance to call them. If I didn't call the police, they could literally move in and stay for months before anyone would notice.

The reason this does not happen is because everyone has a gun. Everyone knows I have a gun. If I see you coming on my property, I WILL shoot you. You don't know if the first shot will be a warning shot, birdshot, buckshot, or a 5.56×45mm NATO. You might get lucky and I might not spot you. Or you might be crippled for life. Without guns, crime is free. With guns, crime doesn't pay.

That's a scenario surprisingly common in rural America, parts of Appalachia, and other very low population density areas.

Now, I actually live in a dense city. There's a police station a few hundred yards away from virtually anywhere I might go. There are security cameras everywhere, thanks to Ring, Wyze, and friends. The city has a ShotSpotter system.

Crime rates are low, and more guns don't make me (personally) safer. Most of my neighbours want to ban them. However, I can understand there's a bias there.

As a footnote: If it were possible to hold clear conversation, I think there are solutions which work for everyone. However, people talk across each other.

> The reason this does not happen is because everyone has a gun.

Probably not. The reason we're not permanently locked in a life or death battle against each other is that very few humans like committing violence. It's a pretty terrifying view of the world to think that all that's preventing someone from perpetrating a home invasion on you is the threat of violence.

> very few humans like committing violence

How many people commit violence, and how many people are victims of violence, are two very different things. You could live in a society where only 1% of people commit violence, and yet the remaining 99% are living in fear, because each of them was repeatedly a victim of violence.

But if you have 1% of people ready to initiate violence, and let's say 3% of people willing to use violence in self-defense, suddenly life becomes much safer for you, even if you are among the remaining 96%. Not because the bad guys would hesitate to hurt you, but because they are likely get in trouble before they get to you.

People often confuse these two numbers. For example, they look at some statistics and think "20% of women report having been victims of domestic violence... oh, that means that 20% of men must be violent abusers", and they don't realize that the statistics also include some violent men who abused five or more partners each, so the actual number is probably much smaller than the 20%.

Without wading into the "good guy with a gun" debate, tl;dr: almost no humans want to effect the level of violence required to execute a home invasion, even if the risk of being shot is zero. A big deal is made about guns as deterrents, but the simpler answer (and the one that explains why it's also safe in rural areas of other OECD countries with gun control) is that humans just aren't that violent--when there's enough to go around anyway. That's all I'm saying here.

> The reason this does not happen is because everyone has a gun. Everyone knows I have a gun. If I see you coming on my property, I WILL shoot you. You don't know if the first shot will be a warning shot, birdshot, buckshot, or a 5.56×45mm NATO. You might get lucky and I might not spot you. Or you might be crippled for life. Without guns, crime is free. With guns, crime doesn't pay.

Your perceived safety might be higher because you have a gun. This absolutely does not correlate with reality, extensive literature has looked at the perceived/real safety measure. Very rich resource linking peer reviewed research: https://www.americanprogress.org/article/debunking-the-guns-...

Anchoring it to your reality though, have you ever shot anyone invading your property with your gun to act as counterfactual? How many people in your area shot invaders? What about accidents and misuse? I do not mean to minimize your experience and how safe you must feel, but it would be naive to close a serious matter like this with just your perception.

So the problem with a survey like this is that it does not break out among the scenarios I listed:

1) Rural, minimal police, minimal government, large plots, no collective security.

2) Dense, urban, heavy policy, significant government, right housing, extensive collective security.

Indeed, it focuses on the latter. Virtually all of the addresses, photos, and stories talk about cities, or at least towns.

I don't want to over-post so I'll answer the other comments too:

1) Violence does not require more than "very few humans" to "like committing violence." The point of security isn't to protect against the typical individual but the violent outlier.

2) Most violent individuals aren't sophisticated. What's more, one instance of violence has little impact. Serial violence does. If an individual robs one house, that's not enough to live off of. If an individuals robs houses regularly, in an area with guns, they will be shot. That's a pretty good deterrent.

For gun safety to move forward, both sides need to understand each other, and everyone needs to address the major issues of gun advocates, such as:

1) Day-to-day safety (on the scale / in the settings I described)

2) National safety (if Jan 6th had worked, and we had a coup; if China invaded; etc.)

3) Rule-of-law (we do have a 2nd amendment, and changing that would require an amendment)

Otherwise, it's simply a push of more guns versus less guns, with idiotic laws being shoved through opportunistically on both sides.

Your scenario _sounds_ convincing, but does it really work? Surely an attacker has a massive advantage in the element of surprise. If you see them coming (short of some sophisticated surveillance system), it's because they were impatient.

Or I have a dog.

I mean, treats addiction and increases health risks for non-diabetic people. GLP-1's results on cardiac mass reduction look very convincing. Fairly sure we are not solving systemic addiction with a drug in our lifetime.

You do understand several countries have solved this, right? Several "third world" countries even. This business argument reeks of the inability to understand how shitty healthcare has been planned and executed in this country.

Exactly. Not every website needs to be at the top of SEO (or LLM-O?). Increasingly the niche web feels nicer and nicer as centralized platforms expand.

This sounds like they are a bit desperate and need to do price exploration.

Buddies are desperate, fr