Adventure mode fits all the common criteria for being a roguelike:
* Permadeath * Procedurally generated world/levels * One character * strictly turn-based.
Fortress mode fails criterion 3 and 4, and is such in the same pseudo-roguelike genre as Faster Than Light (roughly). Whether you consider that a roguelike, is a a matter of quibbling about definitions.
but at the heart nethack is a memorization and risk minimization game.
Yep, and this is why it's not a very good design. In a good roguelike, decisions should be situational: there should be different approaches you can take, and risk/reward tradeoffs so that a good played can take chances when behind, and play it safe when ahead. Nethack has very few meaningful strategic decisions. Crawl/DCSS had the right idea when they aggressively stripped "no-brainer" and counterintuitive decisions from the game.
(Among the counterintuitive things in Nethack that I remember: Level scaling, i.e. you don't want to get your level too high too early. All priests, even the priest of Moloch, you can donate to for divine blessing without your god getting pissed at you)
These days, you can pretty much skip nethack... Rogue and Hack were the originals. Nethack was a modest extension of Hack, which had a brief injection of popular culture tropes before being abandoned by its dev team in about 2003. For the progression of the roguelike genre (conservative or extended) , it hasn't directly mattered in a long time. The only modern game I can think of that draws directly on Nethack lore is Spelunky.
More important roguelikes for today's games: Dwarf Fortress, Linley's Dungeon Crawl/DCSS
And not much thinking, as your goal isn't to minimax your build.
What roguelikes are you playing? The entire appeal of roguelikes, as I see it (and that includes pseudo-roguelikes which have random worlds and permadeath but aren't turn based) is that you have to actually optimize, actually get better in order to progress: learn which things are good, which ones are situational, which ones are mostly bad. And it's not enough to get the good things, you have to get a picture of the risk/reward ratios too, so that you take less risk when you're on a path to winning, and more when you aren't. Such considerations are largely absent in non-roguelike RPGs.
Bluffs are for when you are already desperately losing
Well, North Korea is, in most meaningful senses. But it's not so much bluffing, as it is giving the impression that you're crazy and could do anything. Same strategy some people advocated in the cold war, same strategy many leaders in the violent criminal underworld use. Crazy people are feared, that fear earns respect of a sort.
Well, the thing about a Black Hole, its main distinguishing feature, is it's black. And the thing about space, your basic space colour is black. So how are you supposed to see them?
Yup. "with NO INTERNET TO TELL ME WHAT I COULDN’T DO".
Well guess what, for most of human history there was no internet telling people what they couldn't do. Auerbach should be more worried that his daughter will find a novel designer identity(*) on Tumblr, than that she likes some aspects of her traditional one.
(*) They're like designer drugs, only that... um. Actually, they're just like designer drugs.
If everyone gets the option to rate one post per day, they can afford to spend some time thinking about it, avoiding that trap.
If everyone gets the option to rate every post, ratings will be dominated by those who use the right every time - vote on everything. Surprise surprise, people who spend one second per post won't be especially thoughtful. Thus, they will abuse it as an "I don't agree" button vastly more.
Responsible people's judgements take too long time. They just can't compete with impulse voters. But if you limit voting to random comments, (or limit voting privileges in some other way like slashdot does), you avoid a lot of that problem.
The moderation itself is vastly superior on slashdot compared to reddit. It's just that it matters very little for comment visibility since they inexplicably fail to use the information in sorting. There are many ways to fail.
Ah yeah, a scheme you just cooked up yourself, without justifying it. Never mind that it has terrific abuse potential, and even in the long term relies on a fixed, privileged few (the reviewers) being fair.
People blamed Japanese cars eclipsing American ones on cultural differences too. But fact it, it was an American business theorists, W. Edwards Deming, who was the father of Japanese car manufacturing's business practices. And if you look at his preaching, you'll see - well, that it is preaching, in a sense. There is a distinct moral tinge to it, directed almost exclusively at leaders.
Deming was an avid Episcopalian and psalm writer. Turns out is was a light codification of "protestant work ethic" in business language which worked for Japanese car industry, not any innate collectivism.
And why did he go to Japan? Because no one would listen in the USA. Something something prophet without honor...
Nuclear power has benefited from the near bottomless source of government funds that is called "dual use technology". You know what Sweden, India, Switzerland, Pakistan, Israel and North Korea have in common? They all pursued civilian nuclear power as a pretext for starting a nuclear weapons program. Yeah, that's right, even dumpy old Sweden wanted the bomb, and lied to the world and their own public about it. (They did change their minds, though). That's why everyone assumes Iran is lying. They know they lied.
Same with space exploration. Same with the internet. The way to get research funding in the US (and in lots of other countries) is to suggest that the technology has military relevance - with bullshit if necessary. "This kind of computer network will be very useful after a nuclear war! *snort*"
This is, IMHO, the real argument against nuclear power. Development of solar panels and windmills weren't funded for fifty years over clandestine military budgets. God knows where they'd been today if they were. With nuclear, on the other hand, there's every reason to think that the low-hanging fruit has been picked, and picked clean.
No, wild vegetation doesn't behave very much like a cornfield, that's the point. An oak tree binds up carbon for much, much longer. Thus you don't get the same wild swings.
There's another effect. That is that the one side is already doing something pretty evil, and they know it. That makes it easier for them to be evil in their PR activity too. If you've decided to root for the bad guys for some reason, you're probably not going to worry about fighting clean.
It's no coincidence that astroturfing really took off with the tobacco industry.
Add to that the increasing hard dependencies, like with window managers that expect systemd to offload session management and login onto and I'm not sure how feasable holding out on systemd is anymore.
Well, this is developers voting with their feet, isn't it?
More likely multiple graphs, since "skills" are abstract categories, and abstract categories are made things that ever knowing subject creates for themselves, with only approximate overlap between them. So what I mean by "interpreted language" and what you mean by "interpreted language" are going to overlap substantially, but we will draw the edges of our attention differently. Some borderline cases you will call "interpreted" and I won't, and vice versa.
That's a problem ten times more subtle than the problems they already have. I wanted to see if they had the skill "four-part choral harmonisation". It's art, right? But right away there's a problem. Performing music is a performing art, but writing music is not a performing art. They put composition under art-performing art-music-composition, and what's under composition?
Only one thing. Score reading. Which is obviously not a more specific skill of composition.
the whole thing about trading favourable reviews for sex
Ah, that thing. Tell me, where is it? I gave you the link, so now please tell me where exactly he says it.
(Hint: he doesn't. Nowhere in it does he say anything about reviews at all. This was a masterful case of the "denying something else" media narrative strategy, the equivalent of strenously and truhfully denying that you murdered anyone when what you're accused of is theft. You can only pull it off if the media is really on your side.)
Who are you who have insight into the ultimate motivations of harassers?
I have as a basic assumption that men are no better than women, and vice versa. If there's some way of being evil that's dominated by one sex, then you can assume that is not for lack of evil in the other sex, but rather that they have some other way of living out their malice.
It's a doctrine of faith in some circles, that you should not only believe the victim, but not question the victim's interpretation of events. If she says the motive of her harassers is that she's a woman, then you're a monster for questioning that (even if the "harassers" deny that it was harassment, and assert other motivations for it.) This is obviously and blatantly abused in "social justice" circles on the internet.
Let's NOT take gamergate as an example. Let's take the Requires Hate drama instead - there you have identity feminists on both sides, both sides claiming to represent the true, unsubjugated, authentic feminism, defender of all minorities. There's this hate blogger, Requires Only that you Hate, who has a long history of "criticizing" fantasy authors, stalking them for years, saying they deserve to be raped by dogs and have acid thrown in their faces etc. She used to get away with it for a long time. Why? Because she always claimed to "kick upwards". If you're a man, you're obviously fair game. If you're a white lesbian feminist, you're fair game too. If you're an asian, you're still fair game if you are "diaspora". You're mixed race? well fuck you, appropriating scum! Don't you dare write about your minority parent's culture!
Now, she was "doxxed". Her identity (or rather, her literary pseudonym, as opposed to the blogging one) was exposed by a friend of hers - she is a well-known Thai writer - and people started assembling the pieces. It looks like she has systematically targeted competitors. Especially competitors in the niche of "writing for the oppressed". More and more people come forward with stories of whisper campaigns she's waged, open hostility, stalking for years, online community after online community that has went down in flames from her warfare. And she has been at this for almost 15 years.
How? By saying the right things, with unshakeable conviction. By using the social justice people's own rule about "tone policing" - that you're not allowed to protest against the ways an "oppressed person" lashes out at her "oppressors". For over a decade she's played them like a fiddle, for personal gain and personal satisfaction. The social justice people's beliefs have a hole in them wide enough that a psychopath can drive right through it with a truck and set up shop. The "cheap moral glow" of siding with someone righteously proclaiming their oppression, was a tool she used to build an army that could make a talk radio host green with envy, to sic on people who fell afoul of her or competed with her.
I've said "her" throughout. But technically, we don't even know that. So even for the purpose of protecting/advancing minority women, the SJ crowd's own principles fail disastrously. There's no reason to think Requires Hate even believed in the rhetoric she was spouting.
Now, I said let's not use Gamergate as an example. But let's, now. Most of anti-gamergate missed one rather important thing: the initial post was a callout of a similar nature.
The ex-boyfriend of Zoe Quinn had story to tell about infidelity, emotional abuse and cynical career promotion - he told it because he had come to the same conclusion that the social justice folks in SF/Fantasy now believe about Requires Hate - she may not even believe those things, she certainly uses them with extreme cynicism for selfish ends.
That's the kind of ad-hoc solution that doesn't work, and people have actually been using math to find better ones. Go tell it to your dope fiend buddies.
Slashdot Mirror
When I introduced it to my then girlfriend, she eventually ascended three times. I only ever managed two.
Actually, most people who hate roguelikes will probably hate FTL. The most controversial feature of roguelikes is permadeath, and FTL has it.
DF is a roguelike too.
Adventure mode fits all the common criteria for being a roguelike:
* Permadeath
* Procedurally generated world/levels
* One character
* strictly turn-based.
Fortress mode fails criterion 3 and 4, and is such in the same pseudo-roguelike genre as Faster Than Light (roughly). Whether you consider that a roguelike, is a a matter of quibbling about definitions.
Yep, and this is why it's not a very good design. In a good roguelike, decisions should be situational: there should be different approaches you can take, and risk/reward tradeoffs so that a good played can take chances when behind, and play it safe when ahead. Nethack has very few meaningful strategic decisions. Crawl/DCSS had the right idea when they aggressively stripped "no-brainer" and counterintuitive decisions from the game.
(Among the counterintuitive things in Nethack that I remember: Level scaling, i.e. you don't want to get your level too high too early. All priests, even the priest of Moloch, you can donate to for divine blessing without your god getting pissed at you)
These days, you can pretty much skip nethack... Rogue and Hack were the originals. Nethack was a modest extension of Hack, which had a brief injection of popular culture tropes before being abandoned by its dev team in about 2003. For the progression of the roguelike genre (conservative or extended) , it hasn't directly mattered in a long time. The only modern game I can think of that draws directly on Nethack lore is Spelunky.
More important roguelikes for today's games: Dwarf Fortress, Linley's Dungeon Crawl/DCSS
What roguelikes are you playing? The entire appeal of roguelikes, as I see it (and that includes pseudo-roguelikes which have random worlds and permadeath but aren't turn based) is that you have to actually optimize, actually get better in order to progress: learn which things are good, which ones are situational, which ones are mostly bad. And it's not enough to get the good things, you have to get a picture of the risk/reward ratios too, so that you take less risk when you're on a path to winning, and more when you aren't. Such considerations are largely absent in non-roguelike RPGs.
Oh, that's OK then.
Yes. They have shown themselves willing to do stuff like kidnapping film directors because the dictator liked them, kidnapping random japanese people for amazingly little in the way of reasons.
Well, North Korea is, in most meaningful senses. But it's not so much bluffing, as it is giving the impression that you're crazy and could do anything. Same strategy some people advocated in the cold war, same strategy many leaders in the violent criminal underworld use. Crazy people are feared, that fear earns respect of a sort.
Well, the thing about a Black Hole, its main distinguishing feature, is it's black. And the thing about space, your basic space colour is black. So how are you supposed to see them?
Yup. "with NO INTERNET TO TELL ME WHAT I COULDN’T DO".
Well guess what, for most of human history there was no internet telling people what they couldn't do. Auerbach should be more worried that his daughter will find a novel designer identity(*) on Tumblr, than that she likes some aspects of her traditional one.
(*) They're like designer drugs, only that... um. Actually, they're just like designer drugs.
If everyone gets the option to rate one post per day, they can afford to spend some time thinking about it, avoiding that trap.
If everyone gets the option to rate every post, ratings will be dominated by those who use the right every time - vote on everything. Surprise surprise, people who spend one second per post won't be especially thoughtful. Thus, they will abuse it as an "I don't agree" button vastly more.
Responsible people's judgements take too long time. They just can't compete with impulse voters. But if you limit voting to random comments, (or limit voting privileges in some other way like slashdot does), you avoid a lot of that problem.
The moderation itself is vastly superior on slashdot compared to reddit. It's just that it matters very little for comment visibility since they inexplicably fail to use the information in sorting. There are many ways to fail.
Ah yeah, a scheme you just cooked up yourself, without justifying it. Never mind that it has terrific abuse potential, and even in the long term relies on a fixed, privileged few (the reviewers) being fair.
People blamed Japanese cars eclipsing American ones on cultural differences too. But fact it, it was an American business theorists, W. Edwards Deming, who was the father of Japanese car manufacturing's business practices. And if you look at his preaching, you'll see - well, that it is preaching, in a sense. There is a distinct moral tinge to it, directed almost exclusively at leaders.
Deming was an avid Episcopalian and psalm writer. Turns out is was a light codification of "protestant work ethic" in business language which worked for Japanese car industry, not any innate collectivism.
And why did he go to Japan? Because no one would listen in the USA. Something something prophet without honor...
Nuclear power has benefited from the near bottomless source of government funds that is called "dual use technology". You know what Sweden, India, Switzerland, Pakistan, Israel and North Korea have in common? They all pursued civilian nuclear power as a pretext for starting a nuclear weapons program. Yeah, that's right, even dumpy old Sweden wanted the bomb, and lied to the world and their own public about it. (They did change their minds, though). That's why everyone assumes Iran is lying. They know they lied.
Same with space exploration. Same with the internet. The way to get research funding in the US (and in lots of other countries) is to suggest that the technology has military relevance - with bullshit if necessary. "This kind of computer network will be very useful after a nuclear war! *snort*"
This is, IMHO, the real argument against nuclear power. Development of solar panels and windmills weren't funded for fifty years over clandestine military budgets. God knows where they'd been today if they were. With nuclear, on the other hand, there's every reason to think that the low-hanging fruit has been picked, and picked clean.
No, wild vegetation doesn't behave very much like a cornfield, that's the point. An oak tree binds up carbon for much, much longer. Thus you don't get the same wild swings.
Honest question LynnwoodRooster: Are you, in any way, paid for promoting particular views?
There's another effect. That is that the one side is already doing something pretty evil, and they know it. That makes it easier for them to be evil in their PR activity too. If you've decided to root for the bad guys for some reason, you're probably not going to worry about fighting clean.
It's no coincidence that astroturfing really took off with the tobacco industry.
There's got to be at least a novelty toy hidden in this idea.
The reviews of the hotel are almost certainly being outrage spammed already. What's interesting is the reviews before this.
Well, this is developers voting with their feet, isn't it?
That's a problem ten times more subtle than the problems they already have. I wanted to see if they had the skill "four-part choral harmonisation". It's art, right? But right away there's a problem. Performing music is a performing art, but writing music is not a performing art. They put composition under art-performing art-music-composition, and what's under composition?
Only one thing. Score reading. Which is obviously not a more specific skill of composition.
Ah, that thing. Tell me, where is it? I gave you the link, so now please tell me where exactly he says it.
(Hint: he doesn't. Nowhere in it does he say anything about reviews at all. This was a masterful case of the "denying something else" media narrative strategy, the equivalent of strenously and truhfully denying that you murdered anyone when what you're accused of is theft. You can only pull it off if the media is really on your side.)
Judge for yourself. No, not you serviscope minor, anyone else reading. (You're a lost case, as are most people who strongly committed to a position without researching it).
He dumped her, in fact.
Ah, he must have been guilty, otherwise he would not have been punished.
And no one says they are. But if you get an anonymous death threat,
1. you don't get carte blanche to assign the blame for the threat to any group or movement disagreeing with you, and
2. you don't get to conflate this with the "harassment" of people loudly disagreeing with you on twitter. It is not the same thing at all.
Who are you who have insight into the ultimate motivations of harassers?
I have as a basic assumption that men are no better than women, and vice versa. If there's some way of being evil that's dominated by one sex, then you can assume that is not for lack of evil in the other sex, but rather that they have some other way of living out their malice.
It's a doctrine of faith in some circles, that you should not only believe the victim, but not question the victim's interpretation of events. If she says the motive of her harassers is that she's a woman, then you're a monster for questioning that (even if the "harassers" deny that it was harassment, and assert other motivations for it.) This is obviously and blatantly abused in "social justice" circles on the internet.
Let's NOT take gamergate as an example. Let's take the Requires Hate drama instead - there you have identity feminists on both sides, both sides claiming to represent the true, unsubjugated, authentic feminism, defender of all minorities. There's this hate blogger, Requires Only that you Hate, who has a long history of "criticizing" fantasy authors, stalking them for years, saying they deserve to be raped by dogs and have acid thrown in their faces etc. She used to get away with it for a long time. Why? Because she always claimed to "kick upwards". If you're a man, you're obviously fair game. If you're a white lesbian feminist, you're fair game too. If you're an asian, you're still fair game if you are "diaspora". You're mixed race? well fuck you, appropriating scum! Don't you dare write about your minority parent's culture!
Now, she was "doxxed". Her identity (or rather, her literary pseudonym, as opposed to the blogging one) was exposed by a friend of hers - she is a well-known Thai writer - and people started assembling the pieces. It looks like she has systematically targeted competitors. Especially competitors in the niche of "writing for the oppressed". More and more people come forward with stories of whisper campaigns she's waged, open hostility, stalking for years, online community after online community that has went down in flames from her warfare. And she has been at this for almost 15 years.
How? By saying the right things, with unshakeable conviction. By using the social justice people's own rule about "tone policing" - that you're not allowed to protest against the ways an "oppressed person" lashes out at her "oppressors". For over a decade she's played them like a fiddle, for personal gain and personal satisfaction. The social justice people's beliefs have a hole in them wide enough that a psychopath can drive right through it with a truck and set up shop. The "cheap moral glow" of siding with someone righteously proclaiming their oppression, was a tool she used to build an army that could make a talk radio host green with envy, to sic on people who fell afoul of her or competed with her.
I've said "her" throughout. But technically, we don't even know that. So even for the purpose of protecting/advancing minority women, the SJ crowd's own principles fail disastrously. There's no reason to think Requires Hate even believed in the rhetoric she was spouting.
Now, I said let's not use Gamergate as an example. But let's, now. Most of anti-gamergate missed one rather important thing: the initial post was a callout of a similar nature.
The ex-boyfriend of Zoe Quinn had story to tell about infidelity, emotional abuse and cynical career promotion - he told it because he had come to the same conclusion that the social justice folks in SF/Fantasy now believe about Requires Hate - she may not even believe those things, she certainly uses them with extreme cynicism for selfish ends.
And is he right about that? Judge for yourself
That's the kind of ad-hoc solution that doesn't work, and people have actually been using math to find better ones. Go tell it to your dope fiend buddies.