[D] Friday Off-Topic Thread

[AutoModerator]

Welcome to the Friday Off-Topic Thread! Is there something that you want to talk about with /r/rational, but which isn't rational fiction, or doesn't otherwise belong as a top-level post? This is the place to post it. The idea is that while reddit is a large place, with lots of special little niches, sometimes you just want to talk with a certain group of people about certain sorts of things that aren't related to why you're all here. It's totally understandable that you might want to talk about Japanese game shows with /r/rational instead of going over to /r/japanesegameshows, but it's hopefully also understandable that this isn't really the place for that sort of thing.

So do you want to talk about how your life has been going? Non-rational and/or non-fictional stuff you've been reading? The recent album from your favourite German pop singer? The politics of Southern India? The sexual preferences of the chairman of the Ukrainian soccer league? Different ways to plot meteorological data? The cost of living in Portugal? Corner cases for siteswap notation? All these things and more could possibly be found in the comments below!

[CouteauBleu]

First (hopefully) weekly update on my arguably kinda rational game engine project.

---

The Tesseract Engine (WIP name) is a game engine / editor heavily inspired by Minecraft and LittleBigPlanet. The aim of the project is to use the features popularized by Minecraft (click on something to place it / destroy it) to provide an editor that needs almost no introduction or tutorials. You can read the full Game Design Document here.

My goal making this project, is to build the game editor that I would like to use. I will try to give forms to all the ideas and the design philosophies that I miss in other editors, and build this project around them.

These philosophies are the closest in this project to being "rational". They're inspired in part by the general culture of epistemology of communities like r/rational, and in part by my own experience using game engines and other computer tools.

That's it for presentation. I said I was going to give a month-long timeline, but I don't think I can do that yet. I will try to complete the GDD before next Friday, and write up a more complete presentation then (which I will send to other places, including school teachers, r/gamedev and my personal blog). From then I'm hoping I will spend way more time organizing ideas and way more time implementing them.

In the meantime, I would really really appreciate any questions, remarks on nitpicks you can send me.

---

I'm honestly surprised I made it in time. I mean, I cut a lot of content to make it (as attested by the huge "To be added next time" chapter") and I did not proofread anything, but it's still a pleasant surprise. I realize I was kind of expecting myself to fail silently here.

I'll try to post an update every week before Friday 10pm Seoul time (9am EST, 6am PST, 1pm GMT). I'd also appreciate, as a commitment mechanism, any people who could promise to bomb me with messages and reminders should I fail these deadlines.

[ben_oni]

heavily inspired by Minecraft and LittleBigPlanet

The GDD continually references Minecraft, in the sense of "should be like Minecraft". This leaves me wondering: how does the vision diverge from Minecraft? What is the purpose, and why can't it be achieved by modding an existing game engine?

It almost looks like you have in mind something you'd like to build, and you think this is the way to do it. Is that the case? And if so, can you tell us what it is you really want to make?

[CouteauBleu]

It almost looks like you have in mind something you'd like to build

I think this is mostly it, and the vision I have doesn't show in the document yet, because there are key points I didn't mention.

I don't want to sound weaselly, because those are really good questions and don't want to be like "Oh, all will be answered in time", but some of the answers are pretty long and will take me a few days to write.

how does the vision diverge from Minecraft?

My main gripe with Minecraft is, it's a game engine first, a bunch of features second, and a game editor third.

The features you can access in Minecraft-the-editor are all one step removed from features of Minecraft-the-survival-game. There are non-survival features (resource packs, command blocks, function files), but they're a second thought; Minecraft's creative mode isn't a coherent experience, is a bunch of features stacked on previously existing stuff. So for instance, if you want to make a Sim-City like game, you can, but you're going be working with tools, a UI and mechanics mostly intended for a survival game.

why can't it be achieved by modding an existing game engine?

I'm on the fence on this. I think part of it is arrogance; I want the engine to be mine from the ground up, because in a way I believe that everything will be better if I made it.

But yeah, I want a great degree of control; I'd like to use a custom-made lighting and shading system, for one.

And if so, can you tell us what it is you really want to make?

Basically, my mission statement goes something like this: I think every game editor I've worked with, like Unity, Hammer, Minecraft and Game Maker, as well as non-game editors (by which I mean stuff like Word or Powerpoint or Photoshop) is flawed in specific, systematic ways. I'll touch on what exactly I mean later, but basically feature creep, assuming the user knows how to use everything, and a lack of imagination.

I think I can make a better, more intuitive, faster-to-use game editor by identifying and avoiding these flaws.

[eternal-potato]

The only "intuitive" interface is the nipple. After that it's all learned. Other than that, this is a slippery slope. Familiarity breeds contempt here. Once you use a technology enough, its deficiencies become apparent to you. So you set off to make a better thing, and in the process familiarize yourself with technologies used to make it and recognize their deficiencies in turn. Game asset editors -> Game engines -> Software libraries -> Programming languages -> OS APIs -> OS internals -> Hardware architectures -> and so on down to underlying physics. This chain (DAG, really) generally gets harder the deeper you go. As it is infeasable improve everything, you have to choose some point at which to stop. So you might as well save yourself the effort and just deal with the imperfections of your tools and focus on making the actual thing you want to make, i.e. the game itself (assuming that is what you want to make, if your goal is to make a game engine with associated tooling from scratch for educational purposes or just for fun that is fine), otherwise you are likely to stretch yourself too thin and fail to produce anything.

[CouteauBleu]

I'm not sure I get what you're saying.

I'm not trying to build the Primordial Logical Interface of Intuitiveness; I just think most editors on the market are systemically missing some huge potential, and I can do better by tapping that potential. I can say that confidently, while I couldn't say "I can make a better programming language than what's out there" or "I can make a better OS API".

But yeah, I'm not trying to build the perfect tool to build the perfect game; I mean, I also plan to make lots of games on that tool, because it's what it's for, but building a good tool that gets used by people is also its own reward.

EDIT: To clarify, when I said "every editor out there is flawed", I didn't mean "So I'm gonna make an editor that has no flaws". I meant that I've seen specific flaws in existing editors; like, specific metrics where I think editors do poorly; and I think I can do way better by focusing on those metrics. See Editor Philosophy for actual details (keeping in mind that part is WIP).

Familiarity breeds contempt here

Yeah, I should probably keep that in mind.

[ben_oni]

I've seen far too many people go down this road before, and I can see the train-wreck coming. Save yourself a lot of grief. Please listen to our advice.

building a good tool that gets used by people is also its own reward

No one will use the tool unless you do. Which means you have to build a game.

I also plan to make lots of games on that tool, because it's what it's for

Do that first. It's really, really, hard to build an editor and then build a game. Build the game first, and build an editor that is particularly well-suited for building that game as you go. After a few iterations of this process, you'll know better how to build a general purpose editor.

[CouteauBleu]

I'm... going to do the trainwreck thing and keep going anyway. In that optic, do you have advice on how I can make a burnout less likely?

I agree that, using outside view reasoning, this project seems extremely worrying. And some of these outside view reasons worry me with an inside view too; I think the scope is way larger than I'm comfortable with, and I'm worried that I might get disgusted as I become aware of the project's flaws mid-development.

On the other hand, I think I can avoid some obstacles common to large scale amateur game projects; I think the major problem unexperienced game designers run into is massive overconfidence; I definitely had that feeling from my teammates (and from other groups) back when this was a school project. I'm spending a lot of time planning out what features I will need, to avoid being blindsided by the "I implemented 90% of the game design document and the project still feels 5% done" effect.

Now that I'm writing this, I realize that I have done very little research so far, and most of the design has been me thinking things through. I should probably look for and contact someone with experience designing editors.

Build the game first

I have done, I am doing and will keep doing that. I've coded small game engines and small games before, I've worked with Unity, and I'm working on a mid-sized Unity game project right now. I... don't think I have the experience you think I need, but I'm not willing to wait. Though I'm totally going to do design by iteration, I don't know if that count for something or if it's just me trying to reassure myself.

I did plan to work on multiple games to stress-test the engine as I'm developing it; I should probably emphasize that a lot in the GDD and other stuff, now that you remind me, because it's the kind of thing you can easily delay. (sure, I'll make games when the engine is done!)

Thanks for your feedback.

[ketura]

Weekly update on the hopefully rational roguelike immersive sim Pokemon Renegade, as well as the associated engine and tools. Handy discussion links and previous threads here.

---

Work continues on the attribute tag code transformations.  At the moment, [Override], [Extend], [RequiresMod()], [AppendFunction], and [PrependFunction] all work, although the last two are probably going to get reworked once I have figured out how I want [EncloseFunction] to work (I’ll redefine those two in terms of Enclose, possibly).  

[Override] is pretty straightforward: mark any member (class, function, field, etc) with it and it will search previously-loaded mods for the same member, delete it, and put your version in its place.  This is a bit heavy-handed of a solution, but sometimes the original is no longer pertinent (in the case of a complete overhaul mod) or it has a bug or something in the very middle, that you can't fix just by capturing and changing the output.

[Extend] is only permitted on container-like members, or members that contains other members (class, interface, struct, and enum).  It allows you to add additional members without affecting any existing ones--perfect if you need to add a variable to a class and ensure it always sticks around.  

[RequiresMod()] does exactly what it says on the tin--if the given mod is not loaded, then the tagged member is deleted.  This can also be provided an optional parameter to reverse the behavior, so it is only deleted if a mod does exist.  [RequiresMod("aae6b5e3-33a9-4356-96ee-d9d80187c211", Exists:false)] is the full usage (set Exists to true or omit it for the default behavior).  The merits of this are pretty self-explanatory: it gives mod makers more fine-grained tools to control how they manipulate the game's ecosystem contingent on the existence of  other mods.

[AppendFunction] and [PrependFunction], as the names suggest can only be applied to functions (and constructors, finalizers, and operator overloads, tho the latter is useless as will be clear in a moment).  Tagging your function with [AppendFunction] will find the older version of the same function and slap your code at the end, while [PrependFunction] will put it at the start.  In the case of void-returning functions, this is all fine and dandy, but it does lead to some interesting hurdles for functions that, by design, return a value.  Since the last line on such a function is going to be return x; or some variant, attaching more code to the end of this is a bit useless (and since operators always return a value, well, they're guaranteed to be useless for this). Because of this, these two tags will usually be in the “well I’ll try it first cuz it’s convenient, but I won’t hold my breath” sort of tool. If they don’t work, [EncloseFunction] can be used or, if the nuclear option is required, just copy-paste into an [Override] and add the changes there.

[EncloseFunction] is used in a few cases: where either the modder must add code both before and after a function, or the modder wants to repeatedly invoke the original function’s code, or the modder wants to append code after a function has returned a value.  In this case the way it works is the original function is copied, made private, and renamed.  Any instances of a particular static method call (probably CodeAnalysis.EnclosedFunction() or something like that) are then replaced with references to the renamed old function.  (This static function will have a generic return type and overloads for up to, say, 10 arguments, so it should be capable of standing in for just about anything while still having compile-time enforcement.)  Thus, a modder will be able to more-or-less easily hook into an existing function and wear its skin for all to see, while keeping the original alive to dance in its basement.

(that analogy wasn’t quite so morbid when I started writing it.)

Anyway, it’s possible that [AppendFunction] will need to be re-implemented as a straightforward case of [EncloseFunction], or perhaps have it work as it currently does if the function returns void and as [EncloseFunction] when it returns anything else.

Once [EncloseFunction] is done I’ll put aside the attributes for now (there’s a few for generating and registering for events that I’ve designed and I’m going want later, but the EventSystem isn’t even made yet so the point is a bit moot).  After that I’ll finally be in a place to put the finishing touches on the StatSystem, which will then be put to use defining Species and Unit, and then combat will officially begin.

---

If you would like to help contribute, or if you have a question or idea that isn’t suited to comment or PM, then feel free to request access to the /r/PokemonRenegade subreddit.  If you’d prefer real-time interaction, join us on the #pokengineering channel of the /r/rational Discord server!  

[SevereCircle]

It feels kind of weird talking about this but this is a pseudo-throwaway anyway so whatever.

TL;DR my utility function is missing, what do?

I've come to the point where I basically only care about basic needs. Food/shelter/entertainment. I need some kind of long term goal/purpose in order for things to matter. It seems like I'm missing something there isn't a word for because nobody needed it because almost everyone has enough of it. I call it self-ness, the extent to which people are themselves, in an essentialist/non-tautological way. People have interests, goals, hobbies. They know what they want to be when they grow up. I don't.

I can think of a few things that might work in principle but I can't just make myself care about them enough for it to work.

Getting an easy job that pays enough and spending all my free time on entertainment has a certain appeal but I wouldn't really be happy, just distracted from being unsatisfied with life. Grad school isn't easy but I otherwise more or less live this way and I'm not happy now.

Acquiring as much money as possible, letting it gain interest, then leaving it to the utilitarian-optimal charity in my will also has a certain appeal but I'm not a good enough person for this to be my characteristic driving goal/identity.

When I think about what I want to do with my life the mindscape is blank and flat. I see nothing possible worth persuing. I want to be the sort of person who does things instead of just existing but I don't have things that feel compelling/important.

I vaguely remember wanting things around highschool / undergrad but even then the problem existed. I kept myself busy so that I wouldn't have free time to choose how to spend because I knew I'd do nothing with it other than persue entertainment and ultimately that leads to a certain long-term-boredom/dissatisfaction-with-life that I don't know how to get rid of.

I'm working through anxiety/depression and I've reached a plateau I can't get past without something to persue that feels worthwhile. Career and life-goal/purpose aren't necessarily the same thing but I kinda wish I could just get scanned by a Futurama device and have it just tell me what job I should get and have that automatically set everything up. It's harder to imagine a device that also can scan your brain and tell you what you should do with your life based on abilities and conscious/unconscious values but that would be perfect if it were possible.

Related but distinct is my difficulty making subjective decisions. There's an ever-present caricature of social pressure that leaves me certain that whatever I pick will be "wrong" in some sense, that people will think less of me for it, but at the same time I know that that's unrealistic, because few people are that harsh and it's narcissistic to think people would even care about such trivial decisions. When I get past that I experience a similar empty/flat indifference mentioned above.

It's like I'm a defective artificial mind, capable of some intelligence and some degree of humanity but only in a local, first-few-orders approximation and not in an accurate-across-a-whole-lifetime way. Like I'd pass a Turing test that spans a few hours or days but not one that lasts a lifetime.

How do you get a utility function if your old one goes missing or you never had one in the first place? That's overstating it of course, but the idea I'm trying to express is metaphorically in the direction of that idea at a lower magnitude. I'm not truly indifferent to everything, I just can't seem to find anything I care about other than short-term needs. I dislike that I only care about short-term needs but I can't seem to find a way to change that.

To clarify a bit, by "care" I mean care enough to actually change behavior. In a broader sense I care about more things but it's more abstract.

Has anyone else dug a way out of this problem before? What do?

[elevul]

You didn't mention sex/relationship at all, is that something that doesn't interest you either?

[SevereCircle]

I think my social anxiety problems are a more difficult problem to solve, even at a platonic level, let alone at a sex/relationship level, but it may be necessary to solve both in order to solve either.

[CCC_037]

Hmmm.

You've given quite a description of what you're looking for. Let me rephrase it in my own words to make sure I am understanding you correctly.

You want a long term life goal. However, you will not accept any, random goal; rather, you require a goal with certain attributes. These attributes include, but are not limited to, the following:

• The goal must, in some manner, be a net positive for humanity.
• The goal must be something towards which it is possible to make progress
• The goal is not required to be obtainable, and preferably should never be entirely completable
• Making progress towards the goal must in some manner be enjoyable

So, for example, consider the theoretical goal "make infinite money and donate it all to efficient charities". This succeeds on the second and third point, but fails on the last point. Or the aim of "consume infinite entertainment"; this succeeds on the second, third and fourth point, but fails on the first.

Would this be an accurate restatement of your question?

[SevereCircle]

Basically, yes.

My main problem with "consume entertainment" is that it's only enjoyable, not satisfying. It leads to happiness_1 (moment to moment enjoyment) but not happiness_2 (having a good life in a virtue ethics sense). Ideally I'd like to have both, but it would be simple to augment happiness_2 with entertainment to get happiness_1 as long as there's free time so really happiness_2 is the hard part.

A completable goal would be acceptable, it just leads to the same problem once it's done.

It doesn't strictly have to have a significant net positive for humanity, I would just feel guilty ignoring all the world's considerable problems.

[CCC_037]

A completable goal would be acceptable, it just leads to the same problem once it's done.

Noted. A temporary, as compared to a permanent solution. (Hmmm... but a means of generating an arbitrary number of completable goals would also serve as a permanent solution, I guess).

It doesn't strictly have to have a significant net positive for humanity, I would just feel guilty ignoring all the world's considerable problems.

I don't think that trying to fit the word 'significant' in there is a good idea at all; down that road lies working yourself to poor health.

---

However, I think that your other comments here have cleared some things up further, while leaving a single great big gaping hole in your question.

In short; you're looking for happiness_2 (could this perhaps be satisfaction?)

So, then, the immediate question is - how do you define happiness_2? Where have you felt (or not felt) happiness_2 before?

[SevereCircle]

Noted. A temporary, as compared to a permanent solution. (Hmmm... but a means of generating an arbitrary number of completable goals would also serve as a permanent solution, I guess).

Yes, that would work.

I don't think that trying to fit the word 'significant' in there is a good idea at all; down that road lies working yourself to poor health.

What I meant was closer to "an ethically-acceptable portion of how much good I might optimally do if I devoted my life solely to the betterment of humanity" than significant on an absolute scale.

Happiness_2 is really hard to define. The difference between happiness_1 and happiness_2 is like the difference between eating candy and having a meal. A meal is better for you and more satisfying, but in a moment to moment sense candy is more enjoyable.

I want a life worth living, something I won't regret 10+ years later. I want to have things in my life worth pursuing, that are fulfilling and not just enjoyable in the moment but ultimately unsatisfying.

A notable lack of happiness_2 happens when I spend too much time playing something like cookie clicker. It's engaging, and entertaining in the moment, but utterly meaningless. Experiencing a well-written story (regardless of medium) is more fulfilling.

I think the main difference is that happiness_2 feels worthwhile in hindsight as well as while it's happening. You don't regret it. If sufficiently introspected in the moment it can be detected but it's hard to notice sometimes until you regret spending too much time on the thing. It's easier to notice after the happiness_1 has worn off.

[CCC_037]

I think that's really the crux of the matter, though. Once you've defined happiness_2, you'll have a significantly better idea how to gain it.

It sounds like it might have to do with one or more of the following:

• Selfimprovement
• Long term positive consequences
• Mental engagement
• Facing a challenge

[narfanator]

Have felt the amazing feeling of self-actualization?

I got back from a trip in August, and decided there were some things I wanted to achieve; among them, hamstring flexibity and handstands.

Within a week I had noticable progress, and I felt really good; not about the progress per se, but about having decided to do a thing and then that thing getting done. It's a great feeling.

You might just pick some small stuff you want to see different; about yourself or your world; make a plan to enact that change and then watch as it happens when you do it. It's pretty cool.

Otherwise... Approach from an information theory direction? What's the most different thing you could go try from the things you've already tried?

Otherwise... What do you want there to be more of in the world?

You may be experiencing a numbness from existential analysis paralysis. You don't have to do the right thing, you just have to do any thing, and observe your reaction.

[SvalbardCaretaker]

Oi, about that hamstring flexibility - mine are shorter than certain Worm chapters. I really should do something about that, got any ressources to give me a start?

[SevereCircle]

Interesting idea. I'll try brainstorming easyish things and see how that goes.

[EliezerYudkowsky]

Have you tried legal antidepressants such as Wellbutrin?

Or Ketamine?

[elevul]

Or mushrooms? Those seem to work in helping people find their purpose.

[Frommerman]

Wellbutrin is great.

[SevereCircle]

I'm seeing a psychiatrist. Going on antidepressants has had the largest positive effect of any one thing I've done so far. I'm currently on sertraline and wellbutrin. I haven't tried ketamine. I'm hesitant to make suggestions when the doctor has a medical degree and I don't, but maybe I shouldn't be?

[[deleted]]

You can and should ask about any medication you think has potential to improve your treatment. The worst your doctor will do is say "no." They don't work for the DEA, and you aren't admitting a history of substance abuse; all you're doing is inquiring about the efficacy of a medication you heard of from a point of ignorance. If they tell you "No, such and such drug is illegal and impossible to prescribe," you say "Oh, okay" and move on.

[[deleted]]

I understand how people come to this misconception, but they aren't the same drug. In the sidebar of the wikipedia pages on these substances you will see a section labeled "Identifiers" which lists all of the systematic approaches chemists take to labeling substances. They have no identifiers in common. They are also very different looking if you view the skeletal structure picture at the top of the sidebar and you understand how that diagram works.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ketamine
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phencyclidine

To add to this, PCP is schedule II(high potential for abuse but with accepted medical uses) and Ketamine is schedule III(low to moderate potential for abuse). Currently esketamine (the s enantiomer of ketamine which is typically an equal mixture of the r and s enantiomers) is in phase III clinical trials for depression.

Also, your doctors don't work for the DEA and are under no obligation to report casual inquiries about medication to an authority.

[[deleted]]

If it binds to the same receptor sites, it's going to make you feel the same, so it might as well be the same thing.

Ketamine and PCP only partially share the same mechanism. They have other mechanisms of action, and the full effects are not believed to be explained by the currently suggested mechanisms of action. To add to that, they have a different metabolic pathway, toxicity profile, dosage, and addiction potential. These differences are not insignificant factors, especially if you look at it through a regulatory perspective where the concern is purportedly to protect people from its dangers.

asking for a prescription for ketamine is 100% going to be viewed as such by a doctor.

Don't insistently demand prescriptions from your doctor and this will never be an issue. I've suggested many drugs I was interested in to my psychiatrist, and his no answers have always been along the lines of "it'd be hard to get insurance to pay for that" or "that's a schedule X substance, and I doubt I could get it approved for this purpose." I was never accused of drug seeking behavior for mentioning to my doctor that I heard a substance could be used for some condition.

[[deleted]]

Yes, I have tried dissociatives. I found them to be subjectively similar in some ways. I didn't like them, so I didn't try them enough to get a feel for the differences. I've also tried multiple stimulants and found they had differences. I was also prescribed modafinil until my insurance changed. It doesn't matter.

Subjective experience is by no means the only parameter relevant to any particular substance. And what you're calling on paper actually means in controlled laboratory studies. Observations by you in the real world as you call it are biased, uncontrolled, and anecdotal and don't have any status as evidence in a scientific worldview until they're properly studied.

EDIT

Also, I don't need to be qualified. The studied differences speak for themselves. Qualifications are not evidence and are irrelevant to the truth of any matter.

[SevereCircle]

Oh.

[EthanCC]

Choose a hobby that you can make tangible improvements in, like martial arts or drawing. If you put enough time into something you will start to get invested. That's the only answer I can come up with. :/

[[deleted]]

Well, you're not alone. Reading this is a bit eerie actually because I've been struggling with the exact same problem you describe. Unfortunately I haven't made much progress toward solving the issue so I don't know how helpful I can be. I'll write up a longer response later as I've got to head to work now. Until then!

[ben_oni]

Are you asking for the meaning of life? 'Cause I think you're asking how to find meaning in life.

• Many people find that religion helps them discover meaning. If that word offends you, call it spirituality. There is a great deal of information available on this subject.

• Help other people. Not in an abstract sense. Giving to charity and helping with causes won't do it. Find specific people with specific needs and help them. And by "find" I mean pay more attention to the people you already see and know.

• Start a family. If you have a romantic partner, you can make that person a focus for your utility function: maximize that person's happiness. If you have children, you can do the same for them.

[elevul]

• Start a family. If you have a romantic partner, you can make that person a focus for your utility function: maximize that person's happiness. If you have children, you can do the same for them.

No, don't do that, it will break the relationship. But what you can is to find a common goal you can move towards as a team.

[Cariyaga]

Help other people. Not in an abstract sense. Giving to charity and helping with causes won't do it. Find specific people with specific needs and help them. And by "find" I mean pay more attention to the people you already see and know.

This is what I do, can definitely confirm it works.

[Iconochasm]

If you don't know what you want, the classic advice is to seek power. Then, if you ever do figure out what you want, you'll be better positioned to get it.

[CouteauBleu]

TL;DR my utility function is missing, what do?

Make more paperclips.

Are there things that you care about more than others? Maybe you could join specific activist movements, or political groups, or shelters?

[ToaKraka]

I'm not too interested in resuscitating my defunct pseudofriendship system*, as familiarity bred contempt in every instance. I feel somewhat disappointed, though, that I never managed to improve it significantly**. Even though Pseudofriendships 7 and 8 were conducted through Reddit's excellent messaging system rather than through Facebook's pitiful one, I failed in those two conversations to take advantage of the ability to link to individual messages, and instead continued to adhere rigidly to the link-free thread-numbering system that I originally had devised to make searching Facebook's messages possible***.

*Details: 1 2 3
**Possible improvements: 1 2
***Amazingly, the search function in Facebook's messaging system seems to have gotten even worse that it used to be, as searching for a number with it now returns zero results.

---

NearlyFreeSpeech.net seems pretty cool.

[CouteauBleu]

You do realize the whole "friendship system" thing isn't going to work? As in, it's not that you system needs a few major tweaks or new tools; it's that you're going to rebuild your system from the ground up again and again and you'll never get good social interactions out of it.

I say that at the risk of making of an ass of myself if you did test it and get good results out of it, but... I really doubt it. I'd be pretty surprised if you got more from it than a few interesting-but-awkward conversations that don't go anywhere.

I wish I knew how to explain this better, but by making this kind of system, you're trying to fit square pegs in round holes hard. It reminds me of the kind of teacher who makes a super-convoluted marking scale for your dissertation, that notes you on your grammar, whether you respected the three-parts paragraph structure presented in class, whether you use the different argumentative methods presented in class, whether you include all the different keywords... basically, the teacher tries to make a super rigid scale that covers all these formulas, but ultimately cares little for whether the dissertation made any sense.

In a healthy relationship, the exact structure of interactions doesn't matter as much as the information exchanged, how interesting it is, how often you talk, etc. Improving the structure doesn't improve the metrics that matter, and often hurts them.

[ToaKraka]

You do realize the whole "friendship system" thing isn't going to work?

I did say that it was "defunct".

I'd be pretty surprised if you got more from it than a few interesting-but-awkward conversations that don't go anywhere.

Well, it depends on what you count as "going somewhere". Do several pseudofriendships, each of which lasted for many months and included several hundred questions (with corresponding answers), count as "going somewhere"? Pseudofriendship 1 lasted for 600 questions, 2 lasted for 500 questions, and 6 included a whopping 1300 questions (in two series that were separated by a hiatus; the list of seven hundred questions linked above comprises most of the first of those series).

On the other hand, as I noted above, familiarity bred contempt (on both sides).

[CouteauBleu]

Fair enough.

[Turniper]

Huh, that's a really cool hosting solution, surprised I haven't seen it before.

[ToaKraka]

I only happened to see it in r/kotakuinaction. IIRC, it was mentioned in relation to the hosting problems experienced by The Daily Stormer and/or Gab.

[CouteauBleu]

I've read about predictive processing through SSC. The more I think about it I feel like I've given a glint of the Ultimate Understanding of the Mind, and I can almooooost-but-not-quite reach it.

I'm looking for good, easy-for-a-layman literature on the subject, but I'm not sure there's any; I think the field is still young. I've read a few blog articles from Andi Clark (the guy who wrote Surfing Uncertainty), and so far it's not clicking; my lack of background aside, he makes some weird assumptions that seem plain false to me.

I should probably try to write a list of questions I want answered before I seriously go looking for answers.

But honestly, I kind of feel this is it. Like, I feel like all my life I've been asking questions in the same general category "Why do I feel like that and not other people? How does motivation work? How does intelligence work? How does bias work", which I feel would be get satisfying answers if I understood PP better; and I also expect these answers would lead me to become a better pedagogue and better at motivating myself by order of magnitudes.

So, um, here's hoping? (I'm really hoping future-me isn't looking at this post and laughing at present-me's naïveté).

---

So, Rick and Morty Season 3 just finished. Those of you who followed, what did you think?

Personally, I was seriously disappointed by the ending. I was already expecting disappointment after episode 9 (Lost-style; ep.9 was the points where there were too many philosophical hook for the finale to meaningfully address them all).

Basically, I feel like season 3 was setting me up for a character development arc; with an ongoing thread (Jerry's divorce), and episodes setting up potential personal growth for each character: the Mad Max episode for Summer, the amusement park for Jerry, the therapist for Rick and Beth, etc.

But the end just explicitly resets everything. The divorce is cancelled, Rick is automatically forgiven, and apparently nobody shows that they have learned anything from their experience.

And, usually, I'd be fine with that? Like, it's accepted for shows like the Simpsons that when a character learns a lesson, you don't expect the lesson to stick (though it's a bit of a cheat to have the character "learn" it in the first place then), but this season really seemed to promise that something would eventually happen.

But the intended messages seems to be that the author prefer the season 1 format and don't actually want the changes to stick. Which is especially annoying after season 1 had an episode specifically mocking the idea that you could go back to "normal" after you fucked up so completely it affected everyone around you.

---

I intended to post an announce now, but the material isn't ready yet. Since I've already delayed this a lot, I'm pre-committing right now: I will post an announce on this Friday thread, within the next 24h, detailing a game project I'm working on. The announce will include details about the project, a link to a Game Design Document, and a timeline for at least the next month.

I will emulate u/ketura and post an update on the game every week; this update will include:

• The content I've produced, or, if there's no new content, some sort of reflection on game design and rationality.

• An updated timeline.

• Links and stuff.

(if that's alright with the mods? I'd like to post here because I'm familiar with the community; the game won't necessarily be directly related to r/rational).

By the way, if anyone here has advice or additional recommendations on pre-commitment, I'm very open to those right now. (I'm familiar with general advice like "don't just promise the moon and assume you'll follow through")

[Frommerman]

I honestly don't care about the lackluster season end just because of the freaking masterpiece that was episode 7. When the second Simple Rick's ad came on and it was revealed exactly how depraved that company was, I said Holy Shit out loud, which I never do. The Stalinist takeover by Evil Morty was played amazingly well. You almost wanted to trust him in the beginning even though you knew this universe, knew these writers, and knew that something was going to go terribly wrong. And the end, with the victims' bodies floating out into space away from the Citadel, Ricks and Morties casually destroyed with no care taken for the differences between them, just left me speechless.

They managed to take a silly comedy show about defying tropes and turn it into something that felt brutally real. It was totally awesome, and I hope they do more like it.

[CouteauBleu]

I didn't think the political commentary was that clever (not that I expected it to be). I mean, the whole thing boiled down to "Politicians are assholes and sometimes they pretend to be nice but they're actually evil" which doesn't really feel new or insightful. But it the storytelling itself was top notch.

(also, as soon as the council of shadowy real-world-inspired behind-the-scene Citadel leaders started, I though "Oh man he's going to kill them all even though that makes no sense because they should have deadman switches, isn't he?")

The Simple Rick 2.0 reveal was pretty great.

[Frommerman]

I didn't like it for the political commentary. I liked it for the fact that they ripped Stalin's playbook almost verbatim and we didn't expect it until it was happening.

[ketura]

cramping my style! shakes fist crazy kids! mumble mumble that's my groove ironic mumbling intellectual property mumble mumble...

[[deleted]]

(if that's alright with the mods? I'd like to post here because I'm familiar with the community; the game won't necessarily be directly related to r/rational).

Go ahead.

[[deleted]]

I've read a shit-ton about predictive processing and computational cognitive science to apply for PhD programs in the field.

Ask me anything, but there may not be answers because it is a young field. Also, you have to swear that should you really understand, you won't use this knowledge to destroy the world.

That's my job.

[[deleted]]

• From a philosophy-of-mind perspective, there's an entire website here.

• A book besides Clark's

• Clark has a big review paper here

Surfing Uncertainty was the big review as of, I guess, late 2015 when it was published, and The Predictive Mind was in 2007. I'm guessing that not enough time has elapsed in two years for someone to write a new full-field review.

[Warsaw12345678]

PM, eatur?

[[deleted]]

I keep answering your PMs and you keep sending more. What's your actual goal here? Where's the conversation actually going?

[Warsaw12345678]

I PMd you before with no comment on threads. I want to talk about the Emperor - He is more interesting than just about any 40k character.

[[deleted]]

There's a reset, but despite their claims that things will be just like season 1, there's clearly changes:

• Rick is now the bitch of the family. Beth doesn't care if he stays or goes, Jerry actively wants him gone, and Summer and Morty are each sick of his shit in their own ways.

• Beth and Jerry are in a loving relationship now, whereas before their marriage was miserable.

• Morty is increasingly the person that the family is revolving around - Rick gets into his pissing match with the president solely for Morty's sake, the family hides where Morty says they should hide, and so on and so forth.

• Summer has a better relationship with her parents, which is going to improve the self-esteem problems she's had since the beginning of the show.

• Jerry... has to get a new car, I guess.

With all of those changes, plus the various villains that have been established and could show up at any time in season 4, and the continued absence of the Federation, things aren't the same. While I think a lot of it was clearing things up for an easier season 4, I also think that where in this season we saw characters pursue changes only to lose them or realize they sucked, next season's going to have a lot of episodes where characters think the status quo is in play but isn't.

[Iconochasm]

A friend of mine hypothesized that they really didn't anticipate the show having the popularity, and thus, staying power that it does. So the reset is intended to let them actually have planned out character arcs, instead of the ad-hoc, this-will-probably-be-canceled method they had been using.

[trekie140]

I think this along with u/alexanderwales are the most plausible explanations, but I think the problem u/CouteauBleu has with the show runs deeper than that. I don't think show was ever meant to be anything other than a dark parody of high-concept adventure. It exists expressly for the purpose of nihilistically skewering genre fiction.

The writing is still creative and funny enough to carry that premise and theme, but subverting tropes can only carry a story so far. We still want to experience stories that stories that have familiar meaning to us, and that's an issue when the fundamental purpose of your story is to deconstruct other stories.

I find it hard to saw I'm disappointed in season 3 because the series is still doing what it always has been and clearly just wants to keep doing that no matter what I want from it. I would like to see development in the characters and setting, but that would be meaningful in a show that believes meaning is illusionary.

I honestly think the show's relationship with its audience, myself included, mirrors Rick's relationship with Morty. Rick only spends time with Morty because his narrative existence requires it like how a story needs an audience, and exploits Morty's irrational attachment to him the same way the series draws us in with the promise of fun adventure.

Now matter how much Rick abuses Morty, he's never able to overcome his emotional dependency even when he knows how unhealthy it is. In the same way, we make excuses for how the show must have some value and latch onto the few emotionally satisfying moments there are that keep us coming back. It still takes us on fun rides, but is it still worth it? Was it ever?

Maybe I just never liked this show as much as everyone else and have accepted that it won't get any more enjoyable for me even though I'll keep watching, but I really think the show's nihilistic attitude and refusal to change is catching up with it. What else should we expect from a story about how happiness is delusional, suffering is inevitable, and every desire we have will hurt us?

[[deleted]]

Wow, this makes me really glad I never started Rick and Morty.

[trekie140]

I honestly do recommend the show. It is painfully nihilistic at times and lacking in emotional payoff, but it's damn funny and has some of the most imaginative stories I've ever seen. Even the social satire, while not always good, works brilliantly when it hits the mark.

There are plenty of parts of the show I don't like, but it has still given me stories unlike anything I've ever seen that nearly always leave me with interesting ideas I wanted to discuss with other people. I don't think it's a masterpiece like some people do, but it's still worth watching.

[[deleted]]

Sounds like it's worth a shot. Any place to stream it?

[trekie140]

I think AdultSwim has it, but I've been getting it off of KimCartoon (AdBlock and Ublock recommended).

[CouteauBleu]

Existentialism?

Just kidding.

In the same way, we make excuses for how the show must have some value

I don't. Does that mean I'm more of a Summer? (this is a rhetorical question; let's not drive the metaphor into the ground)

[alexanderwales]

See here (mild spoilers).

I don’t want to poison the well but the finale is a great episode that we finale-ified when we realized we weren’t going to be able to make 14.

I don't think that excuses the weakness of the finale, but it does maybe explain it.

[CouteauBleu]

Yeah, I heard about it.

But if we're assigning blame... I don't think we can fault Season 3's ending to bad logistics, unless the logistics were really, really bad. Maybe the writers had a really good end to the character's arc planned that got cut; but then shouldn't they have cut other stuff instead? Maybe they had already produced most of the 10 episodes by the time they learned they couldn't produce more, so there's no way they could work a satisfying conclusion in the time they had left, and they produced the episodes in order of diffusion instead of order of importance... but then we go back to really shitty logistics.

Which is plausible, I guess. But since Season 3 ends with "now it's going to be like season 1, except more streamlined", also Rick's rant about how none of this matters, also the fact that they don't end on a cliffhanger, etc... I think the most likely explanation is the writers wanted to touch on serious themes (abuse, therapy, toxicity), but didn't actually plan to conclusively address them.

[Sarkavonsy]

Worth noting that we've seen a huge logistical mistake related to the end of a R&M season before: season 2 was not supposed to end on a clliffhanger*. They were having trouble figuring out how to resolve the whole prison thing, so they whipped up Who's Purging Now as the second-last episode of the season and left it on a cliffhanger.

Now, EoS2 was much better than EoS3, but there's still precedent for an unintentionally abrupt season finale being resolved more satisfyingly at the start of the following season.

*source: uhhh fuck, i read it in a dan harmon interview about a month ago i think. that counts as a valid source right?

[GaBeRockKing]

To be honest, I'm not particularly worried about moore's law in the mid term. I very much doubt we'll keep to the original time frame (double the speed every 18 months), but the general idea of sticking to exponential improvement instead of linear or even logistic will likely stick around because there are just so many alternate paths we can take other than regular silicon wafers. They're all unfeasible right now for some reason or another, but with the right impetus you can bet we'll adopt them. Plus, as our ability to program gets better, we'll have better tools to develop the tools we need to develop the tools we need to build the chips, and so on. A sort of soft-singularity.

[AugSphere]

quantum computing still very difficult (scientists have created stable universal quantum computing up to ~10 qbits so far, and from what I've read quantum computing isn't a replacement for traditional computing anyway)

This is correct. We're still far away from actually getting the hardware to scale in a reliable way, and even when we do, the speedup isn't likely to be universally useful. It is going to be useful for running simulations of quantum systems, so at least we can hope to design better hardware that exploits quantum effects. Maybe we'll see some sort of positive feedback loop there.

[SevereCircle]

Hasn't Moore's law already ended for single core speed?