I played it as a cold war kid and was fascinated by it. Mid 80's, post War-Games, this game blew my mind. It simulated the world.
The lesson I remember was that conflict in the Cold War was not zero-sum. One side would win and one side would lose. There were (in this game) no win-win outcomes. But - and this is the key point - the value of each win or loss was unequally felt. For the US to back down in Indonesia was disappointing. To back down in West Germany was fatal.
Oh - and also the notion of graduated escalation & de-escalation. Playing the game well requried using escalation wisely. Sometimes you escalate (a bit) to see how they respond & judge the value of a conflict to your opponent. Sometimes you escalate (a lot) to signal to your opponent that a given conflict is very serious to you.
I don't know if I ever had _fun_ playing the game - but of the hundreds of games I played as a kid this one stuck with me.
All this with something like 64k of memory - brilliant!
> The lesson I remember was that conflict in the Cold War was not zero-sum. One side
would win and one side would lose. There were (in this game) no win-win outcomes.
But -and this is the key point - the value of each win or loss was unequally felt. For the
US to back down in Indonesia was disappointing. To back down in West Germany was
fatal.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but it's not clear to me how this describes something obviously non-zero sum. Independent losses can have different values in a zero-sum hand game; what matters is whether each win is proportional to the corresponding loss. If the USSR winning in West Germany was only a small win, that would demonstrate it was non-zero sum due to the size of the loss there for the US, but I don't think the magnitude of the outcome in Indonesia would relate to that at all.
"To all those who supported our campaign, I'm humbled by the faith you've
placed in us. To all of those who did not support us, let me say this. Hear me
out as we move forward. Take a measure of me and my heart. If you still
disagree, so be it. That's democracy. That's America.
The right to dissent peaceably. Within the guardrails of our republic, it's
perhaps this nation's greatest strength. Yet hear me clearly: disagreement
must not lead to disunion. And I pledge this to you, I will be a president for all Americans, all Americans. And I promise you, I will fight as hard for those
who did not support me as for those who did."
Not being snarky - most social media content is also essentially someone saying “here I am!” (Near a beach, near food). Maybe ravens share some existential angst with humans. Or maybe they are just more physically spread out and need to keep in touch.
I love this question! I got curious about how ancient people interpreted stone tools. When did humanity first realize “cavemen” had come before?
I saw this guy on youtube talking specifically about this topic. Im no historian but i felt like he gave it a serious grounded exploration (no ancient aliens!)
Lake Michigan is BIG. The location of this thing isn't public but Chicago is closer to Cleveland than the middle of Grand Traverse Bay. Washington DC and NYC are closer together than Chicago and G.T.B.
I'm no expert in the Great Lakes but I'm surprised they found something that far north that old. From a little reading the glaciers were retreating from that area around the same time frame. I guess +/- 1,000 years is a big deal.
There are a bunch of cool signs of the precursor to Lake Michigan around Chicago from the time when the lake was "capped" in the north and drained to the south. Blue Island and Stony Island were real islands. Ridge road to the north marks where the shore once stood. Pretty cool to imagine.
Also the Mount Forest Island [0] in the Palos area of Chicago! This used to be an ancient island. It's also not far from Site A/Plot M Disposal Site [1] which contains buried radioactive waste from Chicago Pile 1/2/3 nuclear reactors and first home of Argonne National Laboratory [2].
Interesting. I grew up in Roseland, and there was a hill east of Michigan Ave. going down. I always thought that was from Lake Calumet which used to be a lot bigger.
Where I live in Oak Park, there is a ridge on the appropriately-named Ridgeland Avenue, which marks the shore of the ancient Lake Chicago. I think my current home would have been in marshy shoreland.
Edit: Just looked at the article, and see that Ridgeland avenue is listed as one of the shoreline areas in the article.
Or add some debug logging? 5 days into a revenue-block bug, if I can't repro manually or via tests, I would have logged the hell out of this code. No code path or metric would be spared.
I'd argue that a suite of tests that exercise all reasonably likely scenarios is table stakes. And would have caught this particular bug.
I'm not talking about 100% branch coverage, but 100% coverage of all happy paths and all unhappy paths that a user might reasonably bump into.
OK maybe not 100% of the scenarios the entire system expresses, but pretty darn close for the business critical flows (signups, orders, checkouts, whatever).
Sure, hindsight is 20/20, but a bunch of these comments are replying to the assertion "And I can't think of one non-contrived reason to do it" (have a single test case with multiple subscriptions). That's the assertion I think is totally weird - I can think of tons of non-contrived reasons to have multiple subscriptions in a single test case.
I wouldn't pillory someone if they left out a test case like this, but neither would I assert that a test case like this is for some reason unthinkable or some outlandish edge case.
Have a look at stripe API. You don't delete subscriptions. You change them to free plan instead / cancel and then resume later. This for would not result in deletion of the entry. You also can update to change the billing date, so no overlapping subscriptions are needed. Neither test would result in the described bug.
There are only 12,000 coal miners in WV. Only 45,000 in the whole US. Obviously there are a large cast of others supporting the miners directly and indirectly (e.g. truck drivers, manufacturers of mining equipment, etc).
There are 341 million other Americans that have an interest in where our energy comes from (and what goes into our atmosphere).
(I'm all for generous support for any American facing major disruption because of macroeconomic changes btw. Getting rural places a fair share of national prosperity is a national problem)
There's an old video game called Seven Cities of Gold wherein you play a european explorer poking about the new world. It has procedurally generated game worlds, and claims to use some plate techtonics. I don't remember if you could actually circumnavigate the world, but it gave a great experience of gradually uncovering an absolutely massive map, packed with things to see. Designed for platforms with SERIOUS technology constraints, the author packed a LOT of game play. Given the historical subject, it also offers up some serious topics for thought / conversation.
LOVED that game when I was a small child, even if it went over my head and I had to play together with an older neighbour. It came with 10 other games in a CD when my father purchased our first CD-ROM reader, together with a Soundblaster. The memories! Thanks for the memory lane trip!
I have little fear about AI generating propaganda. It's cheap to write a crappy article and fake a photo or two - or choose a real photo but twist the story around the photo.
What I worry about is "artificial / generated consent". You read some upsetting story, and your skeptical brain holds it at arms length. Then you read commentary in a forum you trust and you see message after message of thoughtfully worded support for some position. I think reading gobs of "informed real people" commentary is far more persuasive - and subtly so - than reading an article from someone you KNOW is pushing a specific perspective.
I like to believe I'm an independent thinker, but a big part of my process is to seek out many different points of view and judging which feel well supported and well reasoned. Consensus DOES play a role in my judgement forming. If consensus is easily faked, yikes.
>I like to believe I'm an independent thinker, but a big part of my process is to seek out many different points of view and judging which feel well supported and well reasoned.
Ultimately that's the best most people can do short of intensive 'independent' research on most topics which outside of your personal expertise generally isn't entirely possible (even if you have good research skills, there's time limitations.)
>Consensus DOES play a role in my judgement forming. If consensus is easily faked, yikes.
Even prior to widespread AI tools this has been a strong method in information warfare, that's why it's detrimental to not show dislikes/downvotes in rating systems, it can make a far greater consensus appear to exist where there is far more disagreement among a topic.
As far as I'm concerned, the removal of those metrics are to enforce that specific purpose.
I played it as a cold war kid and was fascinated by it. Mid 80's, post War-Games, this game blew my mind. It simulated the world.
The lesson I remember was that conflict in the Cold War was not zero-sum. One side would win and one side would lose. There were (in this game) no win-win outcomes. But - and this is the key point - the value of each win or loss was unequally felt. For the US to back down in Indonesia was disappointing. To back down in West Germany was fatal.
Oh - and also the notion of graduated escalation & de-escalation. Playing the game well requried using escalation wisely. Sometimes you escalate (a bit) to see how they respond & judge the value of a conflict to your opponent. Sometimes you escalate (a lot) to signal to your opponent that a given conflict is very serious to you.
I don't know if I ever had _fun_ playing the game - but of the hundreds of games I played as a kid this one stuck with me.
All this with something like 64k of memory - brilliant!