It emphatically does not mean that. Tankies tend to shill for Russia and China (CCP), neither of which is communist or socialist. I don't even mean that in a "no true scotsman" way, they are literally market economies with astronomical wealth inequality.
I just thought "hur hur, Nazeem" and save scumming skill checks, dice rolls and tricky input in mostly singleplayer games, without any nasty precedence or concurrency issues. Extending it to multiplayer and also being inside the game seems, uh, complicated. I'll give it an undercaffeinated try:
Each player gets an individual "marker" they can place at their current time, and a function to restore the entire universe state to that point."Whose marker is when" seems like it needs to be part of that state. Otherwise, reverting and then having someone else reload a formerly earlier, now future/orphaned state... just sounds like a clusterfuck. Or it's unproblematic and just weird, I'm not sure.
Keeping memories across reloads would at least not happen "naturally", since everyone has their exact brain state reverted. You could just say it does for the purposes of the experiment, but it seems like it makes things more complicated.At least, remembering stuff through someone else's reload is right out: everyone on the planet quickly ends up with a bunch of memories that have no longer happened, and no way to tell what's what. Psych horror time!
Whoever saves first does get to revert everything since then, but assuming no memory retention, you could still safely shit talk your boss all day long, at least. If their checkpoint reverts yours, they will forget the rant, you can still revert. It would be further back than you intended then, but you would be blissfully unaware of that fact. Of course, you also wouldn't remember the rant, so it doesn't sound very cathartic either.
But, if memories are retained, Boss could reload on you - they now remember the rant and you don't, which sounds like a bad Christmas Party. While reloading would still be a win for you, you wouldn't know to actually do it, and could risk saving at a position where you've screwed yourself. Common risk of save scumming.
Saves, especially save states/quicksave. Some kind of way to tell you what is actually the correct answer, not just what someone thinks is, or wants to be, the correct answer. Enough predictability to give you a reasonable shot at things.
I'm seeing a lot of uncited claims. If these are just conjecture or opinion you could be clearer on it. If they're not, citing sources is probably a good idea.
I have absolutely no idea. "So how have you been doing since ruining my life? IV drug abuse? That's awesome, man, heard about that one through the grapevine and it gave me some... well, not joy, of course, but definitely a bit of grim satisfaction. Maybe there's something to this karma thing after all, eh?"
I'm not sure it's a specifically named one, but then again there are dozens, and they're hard to keep straight. In general it is (attempted) rationalization, hand-waving, and kinda... just a bad argument. It does not actually explain why that specific murder was "necessary" - only that it could've been.
The intent is to rationalize, but it might not get close enough to a real argument to pin down to a specific (in)formal fallacy.
I like this guy. If you're into retro computing, Ben Eater, who was mentioned in this video, has an awesome channel too: one of his video series involves making a computer from scratch on a breadboard using one of these bad boys (65c02, I think)
Probably not. But from their POV it's at least a competitor, albeit an insignificant one, and pushing too hard to "let people know" is... pretty much spam. They're used to handling spam and have mechanisms in place (fewer now, though. snort.)
Let me answer that with a book title: Life, the Universe, and Everything.