Try anything that's described as "Powered by the Apocalypse". It's an excellent foundation for rules-light role-playing games.
Urban Shadows was my intro into this style of play. Monster of the Week is also very good. But there a huge number of great games out there that are not D&D (which is really a bit clunky and overly complex, IMO).
You just have to make up your own - unless you want to!
My word count has hovered around 100k for most of my three years of writing and revising. This does sometimes run up against limits on Claude (or recently, with Opus 4.5, compaction) but in the past the whole thing has fit just fine as a plain text file.
Are you sure that's what customers want, or maybe it's what dealers want?
The check engine light tells you nothing. It tells your local mechanic nothing. Do you can't get the problem fixed easily or cheaply.
What it does, is force you to take the car to a dealer, who has the specialist, proprietary equipment needed to interpret the fault. And these gatekeepers will charge you a fat premium for that.
So no. I don't think this design choices are driven by a desire to serve the customer.
the check engine light tells you there's an OBD code available to be read. you can buy a reader for $20 on amazon, or your local hardware store, or i've even seen them at gas stations. you don't need "specialist proprietary equipment" that "gatekeepers charge a fat premium" for. this isn't magic.
most people take it to a mechanic instead, because that's what they'd rather do.
Not entirely correct. OBD only mandates emissions information to be made available in a standardized way.
There are plenty of proprietary codes that might set a malfunction light and not show up on an OBD reader, or not be interpreted by it.
(there are tools that reverse-engineer the proprietary protocols that can show those codes, but they aren't $20 - more like $200 and up)
I really don't see why you're defending hiding information. Even for someone who doesn't want to mess around and would just take it to a dealer, making the information available without the need for a code reader will not hurt in any way.
Even if I get the DTC codes out of the OBD - and then? Without the manufacturers service manual, I'm lost at interpreting the codes. For older cars, these manuals are somehow "obtainable" through "sources", but do not expect the manufacturer to help you out if, in fact, you are interested in fixing your own car.
The concept of "landlords do nothing while collecting passive income, therefore not creating any value but instead are just exploiting that they own the land" would be correctly described as "rent-seeking behavior".
This equally applies to any investment income wouldn't it? Dividend, loan interest would all be classed as "unearned income" by a certain economic theory I won't name that keeps causing people suffering a century later. Don't do that.
Investment is generally considered profit-seeking behavior (i.e. not rent-seeking). Building an apartment and renting it out is clearly profit-seeking behavior, but if you were continuing to rent it out doing the bare minimum to keep it from falling over 40 years later, that would be pretty clearly rent-seeking.
From this, we can conclude that there must be some point after an investment is made where continuing to benefit from it transitions to rent-seeking behavior.
Predatory loans were maligned as "usury" long before "rent-seeking" or Scary Marxists came along. For good reason. They're bad for society and the economy writ large.
Classing all loans as usury help Europe back for a long time.
I guess you could class some rent as predatory as well, allowing others to use your property for a fee is not necessarily predatory (unless you're of "property is theft" kind).
Criticising landlords is fine, but words (and phrases) have actual meanings, and the term "rent seeking" has literally no place in a discussion about landlords.
I am well aware of what the phrase means, and I re-read the Wikipedia article to be sure. Maybe you read the use of the word in a different way than I did, but I helpfully included my precise interpretation of it in my comment to clarify the meaning.
> the term "rent seeking" has literally no place in a discussion about landlords
Having "literally no place" is certainly a strong choice of words, particularity as it was introduced in this thread as being a inaccurate label to apply to landlords.
Personally, I first learned about the term applying it to Feudalism, in which the (land)lords' only contribution was their ownership of the land. That example alone seems to pretty handily disprove your claim of "literally no place", in fact it's specifically cited in the Wikipedia article as the Georgist interpretation of economic rent.
Your own wiki link disagrees with you, most of the article uses landlordism as the base-level example. You've just discovered how "rent seeking" is used as a more broad term to describe many phenomena, but they're still describing them essentially in the metaphor of landlordism.
> "Rent seeking" has nothing to do with landlords and tenants
They're orthogonal. In a competitive market, landlords earn no economic rent. In a market with supply restrictions, however, landlords will earn a return "in excess of the costs needed to bring that factor into production" [1].
This is almost never true. Leases come with a million stipulations, and they get to decide what you can and cannot do. It’s exclusive in the sense that the landlord can’t force other tenants on the place you’re renting.
His framing of individual-element mindset vs. grouped-element mindset is very clear sighted.
It's what frustrates me so much about Rust - the language puts so much focus and complexity onto something that you shouldn't be doing in the first place: allocating and freeing millions of tiny objects. You end up writing programs that spend half their time allocating, initialising, destroying and freeing elaborate trees of records, and devote half their memory to pointers.
reply