• Announcements

    • Robin

      Welcome!   03/05/2016

      Welcome, everyone, to the new 910CMX Community Forums. I'm still working on getting them running, so things may change.  If you're a 910 Comic creator and need your forum recreated, let me know and I'll get on it right away.  I'll do my best to make this new place as fun as the last one!
Sign in to follow this  
mlooney

NP Thur April 23 2020

Recommended Posts

... she's THIS MUCH smaller than the bunny girl? ... oh, wait, she didn't have same height before either.
Also surprised she's still at first level of everything and WTF does she wear? Why didn't she bought some better clothes already? Actually, why doesn't she already HAVE some better clothes? ... oh. Wait. Her clothes change with her UNLESS she's on first level which she is. This may be only clothes available in level 1 size.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Pharaoh RutinTutin said:

My wealth levels are below zero, this may be the primary reason

... are you playing fable as a challenge without using the rent system?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, hkmaly said:

... are you playing fable as a challenge without using the rent system?

I think he's playing Life.

I hear you need a really good graphics card for that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Scotty said:

I think he's playing Life.

I hear you need a really good graphics card for that.

Not really. I'm currently playing the text version.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Scotty said:
19 hours ago, hkmaly said:

... are you playing fable as a challenge without using the rent system?

I think he's playing Life.

Oh. That's REALLY hard game. The main problem is you don't get manual for it, and it's not because it's self-explaining.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, hkmaly said:

Oh. That's REALLY hard game. The main problem is you don't get manual for it, and it's not because it's self-explaining.

The rules seem to keep changing as you level up, and there are a lot of cheaters too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Scotty said:
11 minutes ago, hkmaly said:

Oh. That's REALLY hard game. The main problem is you don't get manual for it, and it's not because it's self-explaining.

The rules seem to keep changing as you level up, and there are a lot of cheaters too.

Are they? Hard to say if you don't know what the rules are.

(Funny how this answers BOTH your sentences. The gravity seems constant all the time, and there isn't that much people capable of cheating it, for example ... )


Oh, and another hard bit: It's not clear what is the main objective of the game. Granted, the same is true for Minecraft for example ... but lot of people don't like it there either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, hkmaly said:

Are they? Hard to say if you don't know what the rules are.

(Funny how this answers BOTH your sentences. The gravity seems constant all the time, and there isn't that much people capable of cheating it, for example ... )


Oh, and another hard bit: It's not clear what is the main objective of the game. Granted, the same is true for Minecraft for example ... but lot of people don't like it there either.

I mean more along the lines of cheating for wealth and power.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Scotty said:
56 minutes ago, hkmaly said:

Are they? Hard to say if you don't know what the rules are.

(Funny how this answers BOTH your sentences. The gravity seems constant all the time, and there isn't that much people capable of cheating it, for example ... )


Oh, and another hard bit: It's not clear what is the main objective of the game. Granted, the same is true for Minecraft for example ... but lot of people don't like it there either.

I mean more along the lines of cheating for wealth and power.

Which brings two important questions:

First, is wealth and power really between the objectives of the game? Lot of famous people don't think so ...

Second, is that really cheating or is the game supposed to be played like this? Remember that it's not cheating just because you don't like the way someone plays ...

(There is related question: is Life supposed to be cooperative game or is it mostly PvP?)

Note that Ginsberg's Theorem states:

You can't win.
You can't break even.
You can't even quit the game.

Freeman's Commentary adds:

Every major philosophy that attempts to make life seem meaningful is based on the negation of one part of Ginsberg’s theorem. To wit:

Capitalism is based on the assumption that you can win.
Socialism is based on the assumption that you can break even.
Mysticism is based on the assumption that you can quit the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/24/2020 at 7:36 PM, hkmaly said:

Is Life supposed to be cooperative game or is it mostly PvP?

Wolves vs coyotes. Wolves do better if there is sufficient resources to sustain the cooperative population. Coyotes do better where resources are sparse, and they do not have to share. Hence coyotes are associated with desert environments.

Wolves also do better in areas such as the arctic where prey is large, even though it has desert like characteristics. You don't find coyotes in the arctic; the solitary hunters are either huge and can take down a moose on their own, or smaller and can survive on tiny prey.

Also lions vs tigers. Most cats are solitary hunters. Lions do well in Africa with much prey at their disposal.

We are based on the cooperative hunting wolf model and extended family agricultural model. Even as specialists, we expect to be able to trade and mutually thrive. socially, we need interaction with others to stay mentally healthy, Off the grid self sufficient hermits live a lonely, austere life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Darth Fluffy said:

Off the grid self sufficient hermits live a lonely, austere life.

How do they have time to notice that they're lonely while making so many smug Ewe Toob videos about the rest of us are fools for not living Off-The-Grid?

Edited by Pharaoh RutinTutin
Spelling

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Darth Fluffy said:

Coyotes do better where resources are sparse, and they do not have to share.

Google Coyote and Badger some time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, mlooney said:

Google Coyote and Badger some time.

Interesting. So two loners learn to cooperate for mutual benefit.

We have something similar here in NC; we have coyotes, but they are not solitary. Actually, nor are they pure coyotes. They can have red wolf, and they usually have dog mixed in. They pack hunt. The dog gives them a lack of natural fear, so they are dangerous.

I've seen coyotes in NM that were about the size of a beagle. I saw one in California, outside Griffith Observatory that was much larger, German shepherd or wolf sized. Coyotes that size are a good reason to carry a firearm in the wild.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Pharaoh RutinTutin said:

How do they have time to notice that they're lonely while making so many smug Ewe Toob videos about the rest of us are fools for not living Off-The-Grid?

To be fair, they are having the same level of social contact I am during this social distancing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Darth Fluffy said:

We have something similar here in NC; we have coyotes, but they are not solitary

Coyotes being in the eastern states is a fairly new thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Darth Fluffy said:

Wolves vs coyotes. Wolves do better if there is sufficient resources to sustain the cooperative population. Coyotes do better where resources are sparse, and they do not have to share. Hence coyotes are associated with desert environments.

Wolves also do better in areas such as the arctic where prey is large, even though it has desert like characteristics. You don't find coyotes in the arctic; the solitary hunters are either huge and can take down a moose on their own, or smaller and can survive on tiny prey.

Also lions vs tigers. Most cats are solitary hunters. Lions do well in Africa with much prey at their disposal.

This is PROBABLY not relevant to most users of this forum. :)

13 hours ago, Darth Fluffy said:

We are based on the cooperative hunting wolf model and extended family agricultural model. Even as specialists, we expect to be able to trade and mutually thrive. socially, we need interaction with others to stay mentally healthy, Off the grid self sufficient hermits live a lonely, austere life.

While there are still people who hunt or work in agriculture, even they usually get most of their food the current standard way: by buying it in supermarket.

And social interaction doesn't need to be cooperative.

People who live self-sufficiently off-the-grid as hermits are rarely considered "winners". They might see it differently themselves, sure.

The real example of PvP is not hermit. It's person who maximizes their profit, mostly at the expense of other people. Can be business owner, politician, but even actor ... important thing is they are rich. Lot of people consider them "winners", even if they also see it as a problem which needs to be solved.

Meanwhile, the example of cooperative person is scientist who is making progress for our whole civilization. Lot of people also consider famous scientist "winners", although many of them didn't really get rich. Of course, it's not just scientists, but in science the progress is usually easiest to see.

Now, obviously, what lot of people think is not really good measure ... but it IS measure. Maybe the real "winners" are people who are most popular.

Genetically speaking, the winners are people with most descendants. This is rarely considered correct answer today ... possibly because it's hard to measure, as just having enough kids don't say much.

Also, almost all people considers humans as species winners. That might not be correct by itself, there is definitely species with more members, species inhabiting more of earth ... but if we make the assumptions and look at that, we must note that it was not our genetic which got us that position. It was our technology, our civilization. Maybe the winners are not the ones who spread their genetic material most, maybe the winners are the ones who spread their IDEAS most. This is different from the popularity, as lot of popular people won't spread any ideas and lot of popular ideas don't have known author.

But all of that might not be relevant. In lot of games, the real goal is not winning. It's to have fun. Even Life can be played that way.

So, what it is? When can we say that we are playing Life well? When can we say we lost?

Like, obviously, there is the death ... but, so far everyone died. Some died earlier, some later, but it's not obvious that the ones who lived longest played better. Practically NONE of mentioned criteria of winning consider length of life significant. Not only lot of most popular actors and musicians died young, it is often said that dying young is NECESSARY for actors and musicians to get real popularity. On the other hand, obviously, it's generally considered bad to leave unfinished work. And, well, some people are very unlikely to finish their work before death even if they would live forever.

As I said, very complicated game.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, hkmaly said:

This is PROBABLY not relevant to most users of this forum. :)

While there are still people who hunt or work in agriculture, even they usually get most of their food the current standard way: by buying it in supermarket.

And social interaction doesn't need to be cooperative.

People who live self-sufficiently off-the-grid as hermits are rarely considered "winners". They might see it differently themselves, sure.

The real example of PvP is not hermit. It's person who maximizes their profit, mostly at the expense of other people. Can be business owner, politician, but even actor ... important thing is they are rich. Lot of people consider them "winners", even if they also see it as a problem which needs to be solved.

Meanwhile, the example of cooperative person is scientist who is making progress for our whole civilization. Lot of people also consider famous scientist "winners", although many of them didn't really get rich. Of course, it's not just scientists, but in science the progress is usually easiest to see.

Now, obviously, what lot of people think is not really good measure ... but it IS measure. Maybe the real "winners" are people who are most popular.

Genetically speaking, the winners are people with most descendants. This is rarely considered correct answer today ... possibly because it's hard to measure, as just having enough kids don't say much.

Also, almost all people considers humans as species winners. That might not be correct by itself, there is definitely species with more members, species inhabiting more of earth ... but if we make the assumptions and look at that, we must note that it was not our genetic which got us that position. It was our technology, our civilization. Maybe the winners are not the ones who spread their genetic material most, maybe the winners are the ones who spread their IDEAS most. This is different from the popularity, as lot of popular people won't spread any ideas and lot of popular ideas don't have known author.

But all of that might not be relevant. In lot of games, the real goal is not winning. It's to have fun. Even Life can be played that way.

So, what it is? When can we say that we are playing Life well? When can we say we lost?

Like, obviously, there is the death ... but, so far everyone died. Some died earlier, some later, but it's not obvious that the ones who lived longest played better. Practically NONE of mentioned criteria of winning consider length of life significant. Not only lot of most popular actors and musicians died young, it is often said that dying young is NECESSARY for actors and musicians to get real popularity. On the other hand, obviously, it's generally considered bad to leave unfinished work. And, well, some people are very unlikely to finish their work before death even if they would live forever.

As I said, very complicated game.

It is a complicated game. You can be alone in the midst of a crowd, or be well connected even though isolated.

Having a lot of kids does not make you a winner, it makes your genome a winner. You genome is just using you, quite literally. It does not give a rats ass about any of your issues, whether you have pleasure or success, except in as far as i advances its agenda.

Winners and losers, huh? John G. Kemény and Thomas E. Kurtz designed Dartmouth BASIC back in the early sixties. It offered interactive programming on the universities timeshare system. They are not entirely unknown, but they are by no means major celebs. I'm not even sure if they are still alive. 

As was the custom, the source was available to peruse. It was appropriated some years later and translated for 8 bit micros. You may know the people that did this, Paul Allen and William Gates III, they formed a company to distribute the software, and gave no credit to the actual authors. They and their company are widely know, and Bill Gates is held up as a paragon of generosity, in spite of being somewhat of an @$$#013 about the concept of ownership and propriety. Is he a winner? Are Kurtz and Kemény, playing the scientist role here, losers?

Like the recently deceased Kenny Rogers should have said, every card's a winner, and every card's a loser.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Darth Fluffy said:

Winners and losers, huh? John G. Kemény and Thomas E. Kurtz designed Dartmouth BASIC back in the early sixties. It offered interactive programming on the universities timeshare system. They are not entirely unknown, but they are by no means major celebs. I'm not even sure if they are still alive. 

As was the custom, the source was available to peruse. It was appropriated some years later and translated for 8 bit micros. You may know the people that did this, Paul Allen and William Gates III, they formed a company to distribute the software, and gave no credit to the actual authors. They and their company are widely know, and Bill Gates is held up as a paragon of generosity, in spite of being somewhat of an @$$#013 about the concept of ownership and propriety.

What he did with QDOS also wasn't nice, and Tim Paterson didn't exactly became famous ... however, he himself used CP/M-80 manual ...

(I would believe Wikipedia when it says that Kemény is dead.)

3 hours ago, Darth Fluffy said:

Is he a winner? Are Kurtz and Kemény, playing the scientist role here, losers?

Yes, that's the question. Kurtz and Kemény helped our civilization. Bill Gates only helped himself, to gigantic amount of money. But which one played Life the way they should?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, hkmaly said:

What he did with QDOS also wasn't nice, and Tim Paterson didn't exactly became famous ... however, he himself used CP/M-80 manual ...

(I would believe Wikipedia when it says that Kemény is dead.)

Yes, that's the question. Kurtz and Kemény helped our civilization. Bill Gates only helped himself, to gigantic amount of money. But which one played Life the way they should?

To be fair, they did a good job porting BASIC to micros, and deserve some legitimate credit for that. Their extensions for graphics and such were phenomenally useful. Had the Microsofties given credit where credit was due, I wouldn't have a complaint. Their reasoning was probably, "If we admit they had something to do with our product we may end up owing them money."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/24/2020 at 7:36 PM, hkmaly said:

Note that Ginsberg's Theorem states:

You can't win.
You can't break even.
You can't even quit the game.

I'm sorry if this spoils the somewhat goofy tone I'm detecting in this conversation, but if the game in question is "life", you most certainly can quit the game. It's just that part of the price is never playing it again (assuming reincarnation isn't a thing), and most people consider it a tragedy when someone chooses that route...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/24/2020 at 6:36 PM, hkmaly said:

(Note that Ginsberg's Theorem states:

You can't win.
You can't break even.
You can't even quit the game.

Freeman's Commentary adds:

Every major philosophy that attempts to make life seem meaningful is based on the negation of one part of Ginsberg’s theorem. To wit:

Capitalism is based on the assumption that you can win.
Socialism is based on the assumption that you can break even.
Mysticism is based on the assumption that you can quit the game.

 

2 hours ago, ChronosCat said:

I'm sorry if this spoils the somewhat goofy tone I'm detecting in this conversation, but if the game in question is "life", you most certainly can quit the game. It's just that part of the price is never playing it again (assuming reincarnation isn't a thing), and most people consider it a tragedy when someone chooses that route...

If you can quit the game and keep knowing that you have quit the game, then Mysticism is true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Darth Fluffy said:
20 hours ago, hkmaly said:

Yes, that's the question. Kurtz and Kemény helped our civilization. Bill Gates only helped himself, to gigantic amount of money. But which one played Life the way they should?

To be fair, they did a good job porting BASIC to micros, and deserve some legitimate credit for that. Their extensions for graphics and such were phenomenally useful. Had the Microsofties given credit where credit was due, I wouldn't have a complaint. Their reasoning was probably, "If we admit they had something to do with our product we may end up owing them money."

Well, they probably would.

Also, I don't have personal experience with how that BASIC worked. I know that there isn't much credit to be given for DOS, with possible exception of marketing. It's not good code - it has low maintainability and hardcoded assumptions, which was later proved when IBM was forced to do a hardware workaround for software problem when 80286 started appearing, not speaking about lot of less visible cases.

... hmmm  ... although, reading the details, probably the authors of CP/M are to blame ...

10 hours ago, mlooney said:
On 4/25/2020 at 1:36 AM, hkmaly said:

(Note that Ginsberg's Theorem states:

You can't win.
You can't break even.
You can't even quit the game.

Freeman's Commentary adds:

Every major philosophy that attempts to make life seem meaningful is based on the negation of one part of Ginsberg’s theorem. To wit:

Capitalism is based on the assumption that you can win.
Socialism is based on the assumption that you can break even.
Mysticism is based on the assumption that you can quit the game.

 

13 hours ago, ChronosCat said:

I'm sorry if this spoils the somewhat goofy tone I'm detecting in this conversation, but if the game in question is "life", you most certainly can quit the game. It's just that part of the price is never playing it again (assuming reincarnation isn't a thing), and most people consider it a tragedy when someone chooses that route...

If you can quit the game and keep knowing that you have quit the game, then Mysticism is true.

Exactly. If Mysticism is not true, they you can't quit the game, because there wouldn't be any "you" after you quit.

Which also explains why most people consider it a tragedy.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, hkmaly said:

... hmmm  ... although, reading the details, probably the authors of CP/M are to blame ...

Gary Kildall. I don't think it is a fair criticism. What made sense years earlier for nascent 8 bit systems with limited memory was not intended to be ported to larger systems. It didn't make sense when it happened, other than from a marketing P.o.V. CP/M was perceived to be the professional microcomputer system at the time, so to market micros to businesses, IBM wanted something close to being CP/M. They basically did not understand their market. There is no way that their system should have won out. The Atari ST was a much better architecture, but it was built like crap. The Amiga was years ahead of the competition. So was the Mac. "Snatched defeat from the jaws of victory" comes to mind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this