sounds like a meta-verse with a kind of "game context module" that creates /toggles constraints and features for each user / player.
ive been whiteboarding something similar to this. My scope is geared more towards round-based game loops rather than entire world building but I think the technical implementation would be very similar.
I think there's a lot of potential in connecting traditionally single-player activities, so the core game loops work well without depending on a lot of people being online like MMO's.. but it still benefits greatly from having more people on, so it has snowball potential.
Something I had in mind (which this thread has showed me wasnt original haha) was like an RTS and FPS 1+5 v 1+5 mix. There is a typical 1v1 RTS match against an opponent, and then in the middle of the war is a 5v5 FPS match. The FPS players and RTS players are not sharing any win conditions, but are on same teams. for example, fps players might be confined to a subsection of the RTS map
I kept getting hung up on creating meaningful interaction. It seems like a really cool feature to me, if it could be developed for free.. but i couldnt find a way to justify having a less polished version of either of the game types without the interaction becoming too dominant. In other words, if my gameplay isnt really impacted by the other game types then im just playing a worse version of some game. Alternatively, if it significantly impacted by the other game modes - i become dependent on things far outside my control.
this tension might actually relax a lot by moving out of the context of round-based games and into a persistent world-building context, but that scale / scope is also significantly larger too.
Isolate the things that grow nonstop, and remove necessary items from isolation when they can be organized appropriately. There will always be more available than you can consume, and I find that pulling the right things from the never ending streams to be more of a game than it is a fully executable chore
This has to happen first. Automation will put them out of work way faster than the UBI system will come online - and that is assuming the UBI system is not completely stonewalled to begin with.
As soon as we know the work is definitely automatable, we should start pushing for UBI. Once people who do not want to work leave the workforce, everything will get better.
I think people get so wrapped up in the concept of "free loaders" that they overlook how sandbagged our economy is by forcing those same people to engage with it.
We dont cull the weak anymore, which is fantastic, but they are still weak. We need to care for them and get them out of the way of people trying to accomplish things.
>many of these fatal accidents are because people are driving too fast
because is not a word i agree with in this sentence. If what you say is actual truth then we should reduce the speed limit to 30mph everywhere, including highways, to reduce head-on collision deaths. Because speed is the most important factor right?
It cant be how we hand out drivers licenses like candy and blame everything but the driver's decisions and awareness in critical moments.
Failure to reduce speed before taking dangerous actions is the issue. Not going fast in general. If you want to enforce top-speed as a means of indirectly controlling the risk of people failing to reduce speed appropriately.. then you need to set the top-speed to the safest speed for all driving activity.
It is barbaric that we keep pulling over people going fast on an empty road and pretend that is helping enforce people to stop making blind turns and lane merges at unsafe speeds
This is an enforcement issue. People need to get pulled over for blocking / hogging the passing lane.
I believe New Jersey actually enforces it a bit. I was often warned to avoid the left lane because police would use passing lane laws as an excuse to target my out-of-state plates. Could have also been complete hearsay though
I'm not gonna hold my breath. We don't even pull over people for stopping at clover leafs (which is way more egregious and dangerous than being the slow guy in any given lane).
Usually not like right on the corner, parking aside if there is more than one lane a truck in to your left can easily block sight lines when trying to take a right turn or trying to pull out of a parking space.
I think the issue is assuming people who get scammed are at fault for something, just because a more paranoid person would have avoided the scam.
Regulation will not stop me from selling a potato for $100. it will stop me from selling a regular potato for $100 while claiming it cures cancer.
Buying a potato for $100 would be dumb, and nothing stops me from doing it
Buying a cancer-curing potato for $100 is not dumb. Believing a potato can cure cancer because someone else is publicly selling it to me that way in full view of the entire world is not dumb. I would think "oh wow, something about this potato must be cancer-curing because surely this guy knows that if he scams me in front of the public then the public will hold him accountable."
this is about as logical as saying "just because we signed a contract doesnt mean I need to uphold my end of the contract. you should have known I wasnt going to be able to fulfill my end of our agreement"
I agree with personal responsibility but not at the expense of communication.
Imagine if every single person who moved a package was required to open the package and confirm the contents. It may be the only way to accept personal responsibility for its contents, but it's dumb. I am telling you what the contents are and if I am lying to you then I need to be held accountable. Especially if the contents are dangerous and I told you they are safe.
Yes but the thing is that you know that this "asset class" is unregulated - in fact it's one of its strongest selling points and one of the traits people tout as a benefit - it should be abundantly clear that "non-scams" are the exception not the norm.
If I write "i owe you a billion dollars for your 64 diamonds" on a minecraft sign you shouldn't be surprised if I don't hold up my end of that.
Regulation has almost nothing to do with it. Regulation is a means to make accountability scalable. you could write a never ending list of possible regulations, but the ones we settle on are the ones we need due to the ways people end up abusing a lack of regulation. It does not absolve the abusers of accountability.
The more a community holds itself accountable without regulation, the less regulation the community needs. If people always avoided unregulated assets because of your logic - we wouldnt have any regulated markets today.
Non-scams are the norm where I come from and with the people I interact with. Maybe it is cultural. Some cultures held people accountable for their bullshit and some didnt... and now the expectations for responsibility are different. "you should expect to get scammed" vs "if you find a scammer we will deal with them"
>If I write "i owe you a billion dollars for your 64 diamonds" on a minecraft sign you shouldn't be surprised if I don't hold up my end of that.
If you take my 64 diamonds, deny me a billion dollars, and then refuse to give the 64 diamonds back.. that is theft. In minecraft, I would then proceed to remove your health bar, take what I want from you, pour lava buckets on your house, etc. And you should not be surprised by that.
Abusing a lack of regulation causes chaos, and hinders the ability of communities to grow stronger. Weak communities enable unnecessary suffering. There is an ethical responsibility to make an example out of people who manipulate communication to scam others. It is one of the few things nature allowed us to have to enable building communities in the first place.
If scamming is currently the norm, then it is currently hunting season.
Regulation or lack of it doesn't fundamentally change contract law. So, it's not the same thing. People who say financial markets shouldn't be regulated are not saying you shouldn't be able to litigate.
I dont think sharing URLs with state is that relevant anymore. If I want to share something I am looking at that has state dependencies, I take a screenshot. I dont, or ever, expected the ability of a URL to take someone anywhere but the home page or top level sub-directory
If I refresh the page and my state is lost, that is expected behavior to me.
If I do not like the state of the page, I can refresh the page and start over.
It is frustrating when I refresh the page and literally nothing happens, and now I need to go into the URL and delete a bunch of shit in order to refresh my state.
It is WAY more important to me to be able to quickly build any state from scratch. I do not ever want to be 10 minutes into building some specific state on your website. I do not care how well you handle it because I dont trust it to persist anyway. I do not want to trust it to persist.
Focus your energy on improving the navigation of your site or build state into the site itself. Let me save search criteria terms into a named list associated with my account if it's important. I want to be dependent on the URL for as little as possible, even indirectly.
Because that would be destroying history. Filling in a fire-made gap with something new is no more intrusive to the building than a restoration that bears all the hallmarks of this era anyway.
It is no more a destruction of history than to intentionally make it different than it was. It isnt ideal to need to repair it, but the more we can preserve the effect on our senses (sight) of the original the better.
If you fundamentally alter the way it looks, it is no longer a historical reference. It is something new, albeit with an interesting history / story.
If you redesign it, you should also rename it.
When something is repaired to the best of our ability, the future can look back on it and understand the context that we were trying to make it as it was - and all the hallmarks of this era will be identifiable as the minimum amount.
If we redesign it, we make it more about us and our current time. the future will likely be able to redesign it better, so it's just going to look like an ugly patch that is way too extra.
If we prefer to make the building about us and our current time, we should just destroy the entire thing and rebuild it from scratch as a full redesign.
The idea that we can make preservation repairs will be exposed as a fallacy a few decades after we've tried, when it becomes clear that our objectivity at the time was just regular hidebound contemporary trend following. Might as well embrace it and make something cool.
ive been whiteboarding something similar to this. My scope is geared more towards round-based game loops rather than entire world building but I think the technical implementation would be very similar.
I think there's a lot of potential in connecting traditionally single-player activities, so the core game loops work well without depending on a lot of people being online like MMO's.. but it still benefits greatly from having more people on, so it has snowball potential.
Something I had in mind (which this thread has showed me wasnt original haha) was like an RTS and FPS 1+5 v 1+5 mix. There is a typical 1v1 RTS match against an opponent, and then in the middle of the war is a 5v5 FPS match. The FPS players and RTS players are not sharing any win conditions, but are on same teams. for example, fps players might be confined to a subsection of the RTS map
I kept getting hung up on creating meaningful interaction. It seems like a really cool feature to me, if it could be developed for free.. but i couldnt find a way to justify having a less polished version of either of the game types without the interaction becoming too dominant. In other words, if my gameplay isnt really impacted by the other game types then im just playing a worse version of some game. Alternatively, if it significantly impacted by the other game modes - i become dependent on things far outside my control.
this tension might actually relax a lot by moving out of the context of round-based games and into a persistent world-building context, but that scale / scope is also significantly larger too.