TreadOnMe [none/use name]

  • 0 Posts
  • 274 Comments
Joined 5 年前
cake
Cake day: 2020年9月24日

help-circle

  • As someone who is a difficulty enjoyer, my large issue is when people claim that a game is ‘fair’. This is patently not true, especially for stuff like fromsoft (especially early fromsoft). Shit clips and glitches out, hit boxes are not where your expect them to be so where to dodge isn’t intuitive unless you just know. So it’s not ‘fair’. It’s unfair on purpose.

    But half of the fun is figuring out how to break it in such a way that makes it feel like you are being unfair to the game. When you crush the hardest difficulty through understanding and mastery of the mechanics and game knowledge.

    Nothing against those who just want to play through something casually though.






  • Well, typically, the Stalinist show trials are called such because a trotskyist group held trials for the individuals in absecentia afterwards that supposedly absolved them of their crimes, by throwing out all of their confessional testimony as being made under duress (which tbf it probably was). Literally holding show trials.

    That said, what the trotskyist group failed to do, of course, is place it in context to the kinds of trials that were taking place in the U.S. where they were based out of, was understand that what the USSR did was exactly the same level of evidence and scrutiny that was done in basically every other country for treason. The more I read about these old Trotskyist groups, the more I realize that they held the USSR to an impossible standard, while actively undermining it’s foreign policy in the countries they lived in, while not holding those countries to the same standards as the USSR in terms of them offering direct assistance. Basically, they were willing to do critical support for capitalist countries, but not for countries that called themselves communist. The worst kind of schemers and backbiters.





  • The political and organizational de-federalization of the U.S. is already well underway and we are really just starting to see the preliminary military conflicts with things like Trump actively threatening Chicago.

    If this leads to actual Balkanization has more to do with if the regions have strong identification with each other and themselves more than the federal government, which given how destabilized people’s identities are due to the internet is unlikely to manifest in that way. On the other hand, intense regionalization may occur as a reaction to internet generalization. For example, I have seen more people joke about Wisconsin retaking the Upper Peninsula of Michigan than ever before in the last couple of years, and quite often todays jokes are tomorrows policies.







  • Lol fair enough.

    I will say that your metalworking example proves my point, it’s just that what the metalworkers in Bronze Age Europe had different surpluses in different amounts to work with than those in Central America. It’s not like they knew about each other and were working towards some idealized goal. They were able to screw around with the existing surpluses they had access to. Like working with pure copper is cool unless you are looking for something that has the property of bronze or know that it exists, and unless you have created large surpluses of tin in your excavation of copper there is no reason to experiment with that kind of alloying.

    Agreed, it is reductionist. But my point wasn’t that all things are born out of surplus, just the vast, vast, majority and certainly the majority of social structures.

    And agreed, the major problem with games like Civ, Paradox, D&D etc is that you do technically have perfect knowledge of what is supposed to come next on the tech or level up tree. You have a level of accurate mathematical foresight that just doesn’t actually exist within real life experimentation. It is 100% gamer brain.


  • Literally look at any river civilization. Hell, even basic potlatch societies. It’s literally not even worth listing the examples, this is anthro 101.

    Natural surplus allows for complex social structures to develop, as more time can be spent socializing than on simple survival. In some cases, the environment this social complexity develops in lends itself to more complex segregation of labor, which leads to more surplus, which leads to more social complexity. The river builds the city, which creates the canals that grow the city.

    Social complexity precedes labor segregation, but labor segregation has a tendency to reinforce social segregation. Societies that collapse are mostly those that run themselves out of surplus, and are therefore unable to sustain social complexity which leads to a swift degradation of labor complexity.

    The belief that scarcity is the mother of invention directly comes out of neoliberal austerity politics. Most of the time invention comes from those who already benefit from the surplus, but are compelled through some social complexity to want more. Which of course, they know because they give all the resources to ‘productive individuals’, but they for some reason believe that if they limit the surplus, people will be spontaneously inventive.

    In this scenario, Group B is always under a state of natural surplus.



  • As far as we are aware, that isn’t how matter works, and perfect knowledge would have to operate within the confines of existing physics. You don’t just magically have lasers, and lasers don’t magically realign atoms into carbohydrates.

    As well, perfect knowledge only means perfect foresight if you think the world is completely deterministic. Otherwise it only gives you perfect knowledge of the percentages. Which is far more likely given the way quantum mechanics appears to work at the moment. Still incredibly powerful, I grant you.

    Correct, that is the whole point of the thought exercise, does the ability to have perfect knowledge defeat the ability to literally break conservation of energy and elimination of opportunity costs. In my opinion, it does not.

    Idk why you are bringing concepts such as ‘colonization’ into it. It is a game scenario, where they are both likely to become colonizers.There is no larger morality of genocide at play here. This isn’t real. You could just as likely say that Group B perfectly knows how to psychologically manipulate Group A, and uses that to farm them for unlimited resources. That would at least be a more compelling game outcome than ‘cotton candy asteroids’.