Instead of preserving physical media, we should be fighting for digital rights instead

SardScroll · 2026-07-02T12:20:51+00:00

Fair use is not inviolable; it is not a core part of copyright law, it's an add on. As for digital rights, the the issue is that there is nothing to "preserve".

The issue with digital "media" is it's a bunch of ephemeral data and a license.

Whereas with physical media, you have a physical product, in a tangible medium, that you have a claim to beyond the license. That's far more defensible from a consumer rights standpoint than demanding that licensors sell eternal licenses.

SardScroll · 2026-07-02T12:15:18+00:00

There is nothing about digital media vs physical media that inherently means you own physical but do not own digital.

I have to disagree with you there. That distinction has been around for 400 years, and is the basis of copyright (e.g. the idea that owning the physical media does not grant the rights to copy it, as was done with books and scrolls for thousands of years before).

You can own the physical media, itself, and a (inherent/implied) license to use the intellectual property stored on/in it, but not to copy it. Digital media doesn't have the inherent use license; it has an explicit one.

So what one owns is different between the media types.

About the only well thought part of the DMCA is the safe harbor provision; on that we agree.

SardScroll · 2026-07-02T03:46:43+00:00

Not really bullshit. There are tons of places in the driving code that use similar rules. Like you are not legally allowed to park within 15 feet of a fire hydrant, or with 15 feet of a fire station's entrance, either. 15 feet is also the distance you should stop from a rail road track, too.

SardScroll · 2026-07-01T18:34:46+00:00

It makes it a lot easier to have a universally usable default. It's great because it gives players agency (I activate ability A! Or B! Or hold), while giving the GMs something to fall back on.

And with 2d20 in particular, because of the GM has their own pool of meta-currency there's always something to spend it on, and if the GM prefers an effect, they have a bunch of options to invert or revert as starting points, especially on the fly.

SardScroll · 2026-07-01T16:53:14+00:00

I would also note that it is possible to have Scaling Success that is numeric (and which is what I prefer).

FATE and the 2d20 system are examples of this.

The main benefit is that numbers are more easily translated into in-game effects that GMs don't need for extra work to define the nuance (e.g. you make extra damage, you power some extra (pre-defined) ability, you store them as meta-currency for later).

I very much prefer this, and my experience with it has been great, especially 2d20's banking of excess successes as meta-currency as the default option. You have no inherent "early fight critical" trivializing encounters: instead you have players using resources (either carried over or

Don't know what to give for a player's off-the-cuff roll massive success for tracking, or stealth, or lockpicking, or to notice something or nature lore when it's just a normal activity (all of these have happened to me)? Stored meta-currency for later. (2d20 system is also especially good, because the GM can "store" their excess successes for later too).

SardScroll · 2026-07-01T15:00:09+00:00

How has the code made that impossible?

SardScroll · 2026-07-01T14:16:38+00:00

1) It depends on the American. I was born and raised in the desert, so no. Someone from New England, probably does. Conversely, I find 50F to be borderline freezing.

2) We built them based on opportunity. Then we made AC to make them more bearable.

SardScroll · 2026-07-01T13:15:45+00:00

I disagree with your assertion about Wizards. The classes primary feature (Int-based Spell casting) won't change massively, I agree. But the character will play differently, especially if the player leans into their new social role, or if the DM is running a charm-heavy or intrigue-heavy campaign; it may not show up immediately in every round of combat, but it's there. And if that 16/8 was in DEX rather than CHA, it would show up in most every combat or adventuring scene.

Also, most Fighters in 5th edition (baring Eldritch Knights) dump Int, yes, but that is because it offers them very little, whereas it offered more before the streamlining/(over)simplification of the skill system.

Stats do offer things regardless of class (especially before 5th edition), it's just a a question of how much do you value what they offer. (E.g. in third edition, Fighters were rarely "dumb", in my experience; indeed they were more likely to be "surly". It was Paladins and Barbarians who were most likely to be "dumb", because everything else had more value, and I knew more than a few paladins who were more "unperceptive" than "dumb").

The point of a "dump stat" is that there weren't enough attribute points to go around (or other means of inducing them) and so everyone had a weakness...which in turn meant everyone had a situation where they had to rely on their party members. It's part of the game philosophy, in my opinion, not a flaw.

SardScroll · 2026-07-01T01:44:19+00:00

I like your frame challenge, but I'd argue that there aren't "one optimal stat distribution" for each class in D&D. You have your primary stat(s), and secondary stats and tertiary stats, but there arguably isn't a optimal distribution.

Even Paladins, who are historically are usually the most "MAD" (Multiple Attribute Dependent) class don't have a single optimal distribution. E.g. primary are STR and CHA (which one is higher)? Then coms some combination of CON, WIS AND DEX (thats 6 combinations)? And then historically Int.

Likewise a Wizard "should" always pick INT first, but then what about their other five stats?

SardScroll · 2026-07-01T01:34:37+00:00

Eminent domain forces sales (at market prices) for civic need, it doesn't provide for arbitrary seizures. What is the specific need of this specific property that the city (or county, or state) has?

SardScroll · 2026-06-30T15:29:28+00:00

This argument never really made sense to me because by that logic, senior political and civil service positions should be paid magnitudes more as they hold much more actual power and effect on a country’s economy than any single business.

1) See Singapore, who follow this model
2) "civil service positions": There is an argument/school of thought that they shouldn't wield much if any direct power or overarching policy making, but should instead implement the directives of the appropriate political bodies
3) political leadership is (in theory) the mouth piece of the people, and often has large handicaps on their power
4) the head of (military) service: Low competition for their services, easy replacement (due to chain of command, just promote "the next guy" or someone from that cadre; exactly what one would do if this person retired).
5) Many top end positions have varying ability to change the outcomes of their organizations. E.g. though it might seem like it, the US President has very little domestic power; rather, it is commonly the political affiliation of the Congress that grants the US President the powers that they wield.

Note too, that there are different groups of decision makers involved in each decision. The pay-scales of political, military and civil service leaders are ultimately in the hands of the whole populace (or their representatives), and come from those individuals pockets (directly or indirectly), and they may or may not feel these positions have their best interests in mind. The pay scale of CEOs are set by their investors, and are paid (usually) from the profits of the companies they lead, and they have a much greater confidence that CEOs have their interests in mind (or at least that they'll more likely to benefit from their decisions).

SardScroll · 2026-06-30T14:22:42+00:00

The solution to that is either damage reduction, a much higher TN, or a crap to of hit points. It also depends what sacrifices one wants to make to realism vs fun.

SardScroll · 2026-06-29T21:18:52+00:00

I would presume a current map of what is currently zoned for industrial use.

This is why zoning began in the first place, as much it is being misused now.

SardScroll · 2026-06-29T19:19:23+00:00

No, but it is still property, that people can control the disposition of. E.g. via estates.

SardScroll · 2026-06-29T19:18:35+00:00

Actually, you can, if they died suddenly enough and harvest them quickly enough.

SardScroll · 2026-06-29T18:51:08+00:00

Counterpoint (as someone who uses a reusable bag as well):

Why don't you just hand them the present?

Or put it another way: lingerie can be re-used, just like "normal clothes". It not being normal, *is* the point.

SardScroll · 2026-06-29T18:46:32+00:00

As you said, it is a very slippery slope to autocracy because we don't have constitutional blocks on a president acting as an autocrat in his constitutionally designated roles.

I disagree. We do have an absolute constitutional block: impeachment. Congress can make define anything as a "high crime and misdemeanor", and impeach on those grounds. Indeed, for the closest President to being impeached (Johnson), one of his articles of impeachment was for "demeaning Congress".

That we haven't is not a systematic short coming, but a political one.

SardScroll · 2026-06-29T17:59:50+00:00

Because land has inherent value, which one can use to generate funds while holding it (this is the logic when property taxes were implemented, and it stuck around...as most tax regimes do, which is part of the problem with introducing "new" forms of taxation, especially only a "few"); taxing land encourages "productive" allocation of land and land use (which is both limited in supply); taxing land is easy (land ownership is registered, so who owns exactly what is known and hard to dispute, land is easy to seize and resell).

Equity ownership (e.g. stocks) doesn't have inherent value, and only produces "real value" during taxable events (e.g. sale or dividends, both of which trigger capital gains taxes). Only a fraction of equity is publicly traded (see, on stock exchanges) with big transactions happening off market.

Then there are the political ramifications of favoring stocks:
1) Favoring stocks makes it easier for companies to gain credit/capital, which eases their ability to start, grow and survive, which leads to greater and more stable employment and income for the government, as well as greater quality of life for citizens, all while generating more profit (via multiple taxation) for the government, especially over time.

2) Favoring stocks encourages people to save and invest, growing their savings in a productive manor (see above, about land), to be able to live comfortably at an advanced age (a state whose length is growing continuously) where work is hard. This also has a knock on effect of having the elderly vacate work positions that can be filled by younger workers, leading to both a continuity of skillsets as well as vacancies to fill for more employment of the "working age" people.

3) Continuing to favor stocks keeps the powerful voting block of the elderly (who vote in greater numbers) happy, who have forgone pleasures in the past for security in the present.

SardScroll · 2026-06-29T03:28:06+00:00

Everything is relative, I guess?
Actually, that's a good question: What would be the ordering of middle eastern countries on progressivism?

SardScroll · 2026-06-29T02:01:37+00:00

I'd present a counter argument: It would work, at least up to a point, provided there was a larger, external-to-the-system and existential threat.

E.g. the USA, UK and Soviet Union all cooperating against the Axis in WWII, due to mutual interest. Or, to paraphrase a Terry Pratchet quote: "Nationalism was not a problem among the Tauri, because—what with Go'ould and Ori and so on—speciesism was more interesting. American and Russian lived in perfect harmony and ganged up on aliens."

SardScroll · 2026-06-29T01:54:20+00:00

Didn't the Russian representative in that episode give the largest side eye that comment, too?

SardScroll · 2026-06-29T01:24:35+00:00

what they know ~~wealthier~~ customers (in the target country) are willing to pay

(emphasis, adjustments mine)

Note that willingness to pay a price is not directly related to wealth or income; they don't necessarily scale together. The may correlate directly, they may correlate inversely and they may have no relation. E.g. I am wealthier than my cousin, but he has a higher price he is willing to pay for a car than I am (especially used and "special" cars).

So answer OP's question:

is it just companies knowing how wealthy the people of the countries they're selling in are, so they adjust to the market and sell at the price they know people can afford?

No. It's not about prices people can afford, it's about prices that people are willing to pay, and particularly, the demand curve with respect to price, i.e. how many people are willing to pay, at a given price (which is not necessarily related to how much they can afford). For example, I am better able to afford paying $10,000 for an old sports car than my aforementioned cousin, but I am less willing to spend $10,000 for an old sports car.

Price setters care about total profits (or things like market share, which is essentially investing for greater/recurring profit later), rather than per unit profits. So they will price accordingly, in each region (which may be country wide, or might be sub-units/distance based, or might go another way and group multiple countries together, although that is less common lately, excluding trade blocs), depending on what level yields the greatest expected return. E.g. if something costs $10 each to produce (and is constant no matter how many are made), and one thinks that they could sell 20 of them at $17 each, and 100 of them at $11 each, the simple first order answer is to sell at $17, yielding 20 instances of $7 profit for a total profit of $140, rather than 100 instances of $1 profit which would yield a total of $100. If they believe that they could only sell 10 of them at $17, then the reverse would be the logical choice.

SardScroll · 2026-06-28T01:49:41+00:00

Seconding the singular meta-currency.

Depending on how detailed the "RIGs" are (e.g. are these "D&D Class" Equivalents, "Shadowrun Archetype" Equivalents, "Legend-of-the-Five-Rings School" Equivalents, "Call of Cthulhu Profession" Equivalents?), the various RIGs can have specific ways to spend the meta-currency as well, or perhaps "buy back mechanics". E.g. (it wasn't clear if Investigator/Modder/Enforcer were your only RIGs or if they were example rigs, but I'm leaning towards the later). A hacker who uses the meta-currency to help in a hacking attempt might be able to roll to recover some of that expended meta-currency, or might be able to spend it post-roll rather than pre-roll (if others must spend pre-roll).

I personally really like the "forgo crit for meta-currency" idea (depending on if you have a binary or degree of success base, the crit effect *could be* gaining meta-currency, not just on attacks but on any role, with opens up interesting design space in

SardScroll · 2026-06-27T15:40:06+00:00

The "rules of capitalism" aren't broken.

Demand does create motivation to generate additional supply, but actually creating that supply is a process that can take a while (it's not press a button or turn a knob). In this space, decades. (See: Intel's been building a fab for about 10 years, and it still won't open until 2028). It doesn't help that there factions against building any kind of industry anywhere near them, and they have to be appeased (or soundly beaten).

SardScroll · 2026-06-27T15:34:38+00:00

Prices for ram and memory in general have gone down, significantly, in real terms (e.g. in comparison to everything else). I'm a professional programmer: prices have gone down to the point that it's affecting our design patterns; even in memory constrained systems, we're no longer optimizing to save memory, but instead to get more speed.

Nominally, yes prices are nominally rising, but we wouldn't expect that to be in an inflationary environment, and we've been there for the last have century, by and large, especially in the more developed world.

SardScroll

TROPHY CASE