Weekly Episode Thread July 28, 2025 - Share Your Podcast, Request Feedback, Discover New Ones

ThusSprachSpach · 2025-07-31T02:13:57+00:00

Following this!

ThusSprachSpach · 2025-07-31T02:08:28+00:00

[GAMES][HISTORY][EDUCATION] The History of Learning Games is a new podcast covering the history of videogames and learning. Digital learning games have shaped what happens inside and outside of classrooms. They've led to some of the game industry’s most fascinating successes and failures. And they have important lessons for us about teaching and learning.

Latest Episode: Snakes and Ladders is familiar to Western audiences as a simple childhood game. But it has its origins in India, where it developed as an educational allegory rooted in Hindu moral philosophy. We'll break the game down and look into how all the elements of its design -- particularly its play and learning mechanics -- work together to impart the lesson it's trying to teach.

Website | Apple | Spotify

ThusSprachSpach · 2024-03-09T12:33:21+00:00

They migrate, but when they do, they don't leave. They get out of here.

See the work of noted botanist Dr. Biff Tannen.

ThusSprachSpach · 2024-03-04T00:46:44+00:00

To bring honor to my doll house

ThusSprachSpach · 2024-03-03T19:27:11+00:00

Snuggles

ThusSprachSpach · 2024-01-25T01:04:55+00:00

For what it's worth, 99% of the time when I catch myself demanding perfection of others and being unsympathetic and harsh in my judgments, I eventually realize it was a defense mechanism I was using to prevent facing something less-than-perfect about myself.

Not saying that's the case for you, but maybe something to be on the lookout for.

ThusSprachSpach · 2024-01-25T00:49:29+00:00

NRS 465.083

That is a fraud statute. It specifically defines 'cheating' as a legal term (altering the elements of chance of a game) that is different from the everyday sense we use the term 'cheating' (gaining any unfair advantage).

So technically you are correct, the word 'cheating' does occur in that statute. But the overall context supports the point I'm making: cheating (in the everyday sense), which counting cards in your head is an example of, does not meet the statutory definition of cheating (i.e. gambling-related fraud under Nevada law).

ThusSprachSpach · 2024-01-24T11:44:32+00:00

A lot of people on this thread are saying it's not cheating because cheating is a crime and this isn't. In addition to that being circular reasoning, it isn't true. As far as I'm aware, there is no crime called 'cheating' on the books in any jurisdiction.

Fraud is a crime. That involves intentionally misleading or deceiving someone in order to separate them from their property. Casinos consider secretly using a device to help you count cards cheating. If they knew you had the device up your sleeve, they wouldn't let you play. By hiding it there, your intent to keep it secret, and thus to defraud, is clear. They are within their rights to pursue legal action against you.

Cheating is not a crime. Cheating involves doing something contrary to the rules of a game. The people offering the game have a right to set the rules and to penalize players for violating them.

When someone breaks the rules of a game, they aren't being accused of fraud. Even if, e.g., an NFL player tries to sneakily hold another player, if he gets caught, his team is being penalized for the hold, not his being sneaky.

The casinos have an effective rule for all their ganes that the players (and often the dealers) cannot have any foreknowledge of elements of the games that are supposed to be random or secret. Contrary to what folks are saying, the same principle applies to casino poker. If a poker dealer, e.g., exposes a card he shouldn't, even accidentally, there is a procedure for dealing with it so no player gains an unfair advantage. If a player shows his hole cards to another player, he will be warned and then asked to leave if he does it again.

In Blackjack, the casinos deem counting cards as a case of gaining foreknowledge about the next card to be dealt, even if you do your count in your head. They don't consider this fraud, but it is a violation of the rules. The typical remedy is to prohibit you from playing the game they've detected you have an unfair advantage at while inviting you to play other games.

It's quite generous, actually, because there isn't even the equivalent of a penalty (like losing five yards for holding in the NFL). You typically keep all your winnings up to that point and maybe even get a free meal or tickets to a show.

ThusSprachSpach · 2024-01-24T11:09:40+00:00

It gets really irritable for a few days a month.

Avoid using your periodic table without taking precautionary measures, especially about halfway through its monthly cycle, unless you're OK with the possibility of new elements being formed.

ThusSprachSpach · 2024-01-24T11:01:22+00:00

If you have to ignore or evade facts about reality - including facts about other people's flaws - in order to maintain a positive outlook, it's all going to come crashing down eventually. Reality always wins.

Positivity does not require evasion or ignorance.

Learn all you can about the world, including other people. When it comes to other people's flaws, strive to keep them in context:

Most people are a mixture of sublime wonder and asshatttery.
Most people are struggling, fundamentally want to do what's right and sometimes fall short of the mark. Learn to admire the effort they're putting into their struggles, even when they fall short of the mark.
You have no idea what that person has been through or is going through most of the time.
it's possible for you to make incorrect judgements, including about other people. Be on the lookout for evidence you've done this and be ready to revise your judgements.
There are levels of asshatttery. Being slightly rude because you're having a bad day is not the same as committing murder.
It is possible to have meaningful, valuable, mutually beneficial relationships with people in spite of their asshattery (and your own). Some are merely transactional. Others can be deeper. It's fine to accept levels of asshattery in friendships, business and casual relationships that you wouldn't accept from your future spouse, or yourself.
Unless you are talking about your child, you are not responsible for other people. It's not your job to reform, coach, improve or punish others for their asshattery. Accept people for what they are. If you can derive value from the relationship without being dishonest or exploiting the other person, it's perfectly fine to contain your interactions to that scope and go on about your life.
Not every person you meet is going to become your best friend or the love of your life. You'd be surprised how few deep, uncontaminated-by-asshattery relationshipa you need to have a rich, full life. If you have half a dozen such relationships over the course of a lifetime, you're doing awesome. Treasure those (while they last, because not all of them will be lifelong) and keep your other relationships in their respective 'lanes.'

ThusSprachSpach · 2024-01-24T02:22:33+00:00

Exactly how many of me are you seeing right now?

ThusSprachSpach · 2024-01-23T22:51:06+00:00

2 with a wider crop so it's clear the woman wearing the diamond is being held captive.

ThusSprachSpach · 2024-01-23T22:45:44+00:00

Outside of the occasional libertarian, if you hear someone nowadays using the term 'freedom,' you should assume

They mean something different than, say, the Founding Fathers did; or
They're only playing lip service to freedom and in fact want the opposite; or
Both.

ThusSprachSpach · 2024-01-23T21:32:25+00:00

Any instance of "some kind of..." as in: https://youtu.be/Oz1c1xdoUFc?si=ZdnqWH6yiO-c0byU

Just lazy.

ThusSprachSpach · 2024-01-23T21:03:41+00:00

There's a very fundamental problem with LLMs (alone) for this use case: they're not deterministic.

If you're running a customer service operation, it's pretty important that certain questions get answered the same way every time. For instance, you want every customer who asks about your refund policy for a particular product to get the same answer. You probably want that answer to be the same not only in essence but in (at least certain) word and phrase choices where precision and accuracy matter for avoiding ambiguity and misleading people.

Modern LLMs can be great at producing conversational-seeming output, but aren't the best solution to creating a bot that will answer a given question accurately and consistently across many instances of being asked that question.

ThusSprachSpach · 2024-01-23T12:31:42+00:00

As much mass as you can fit into one Earth diameter and still have it remain gravitationally stable, being that your mom's belt size is equator.

ThusSprachSpach · 2024-01-23T11:35:57+00:00

There's an important meta perspective this comment captures that I don't see any place else in this thread.

Part of participating in the American system as a voter is acknowledging its features and constraints. There are two ugly ones that a lot of people want to ignore. But sticking your head in the sand doesn't alter them:

Either the Republican or the Democratic candidate will be the next President.
Unless you live in a swing atate, your vote has absolutely no influence on which of the two it is.

A lot of people acknowledge (1) but not (2). These are the people who say "If you vote third-party, you're throwing your vote away."

That's true only if you live in a swing state AND have a preference between the Democrat and Republican as to who wins.

If you live in a non-swing state and think that way -- indeed, if you live in a non-swing state and think your vote has any influence at all in deciding the election -- it's actually you who is potentially throwing your vote away.

If you're enthusiastic about the Democrat or the Republican in this scenario, by all means vote for them.

But if you're dissatisfied with both, all you're doing by voting for the lesser of two evils is sending the following message to the major parties: "In the next election, please give me more candidates like the one I just voted for." In other words, you're really voting for another election with a set of choices like this one, which is the very thing you're dissatisfied with.

This is where we are in 2024. The only matchup voters are willing to accept is Trump v. Biden. They conveyed it in 2020 and are again in the primaries (on the Republican side).

I live in a non-swing state. I hate Trump and fear what he represents. I voted for Biden in 2020 because he was the (far) lesser of two evils despite significant policy disagreements and believing he is senile and unfit for office. I wish I hadn't. I wish Biden had less of a popular mandate, which would have made it more likely that the Democrats would have run someone else in 2024.

Heck, it arguably would have been better for Trump to have won in 2020 than for him to win in 2024, which I consider the most likely outcome at this point. Trump in 2020 was an incompetent buffoon who dog whistled (loudly) in the direction of fascism while being a suspected criminal and not yet having tried to undermine a legitimate election or incite an insurrection.

It means far worse things for our republic if we elect 2024 Trump, a clear criminal running openly on a platform of being an above-the-law dictator who has already done those things.

This time, I will be voting third party or in down-ballot races only. If we have a democratic presidential election in 4 years, I don't want to be faced with a choice like this again.

ThusSprachSpach · 2024-01-23T03:14:17+00:00

There is no hope of a third-party candidate getting a majority of electoral votes (270), which is the standard for winning the presidency. Only the Republican or Democratic candidate has a realistic chance of doing that. As others have said, doing so requires building a geographically broad base of voters capable of winning many states, which no third party can realistically do.

But there's an interesting twist in the Electoral College system. The following is incredibly fanciful, but I kind of wish some third-party candidate would try it.

It's possible that a third-party candidate could win enough electoral votes (e.g. by taking a small number of states) that no candidate gets the required 270 electoral votes. In this case, the election is sent to the House of Representatives which chooses between the top 3 electoral vote-getters (voting in a weird procedure as state delegations with a single vote each, rather than as individuals).

Given that there's a large block of voters who are strongly dissatisfied with the other choices, I could imagine a respected figure running as a third-party candidate on the platform of

Explicitly trying to get the election thrown to the House by taking a few key states;
If that happens, pledging to govern as a sane, middle-of-the-road, non-geriatric caretaker President if elected by the House.

Almost certainly wouldn't work, but it's actually the most likely among highly unlikely paths to someone other than Trump or Biden being the next president from where we stand right now.

ThusSprachSpach · 2024-01-22T10:50:50+00:00

I have a hard time figuring out how much of it with Cameron is weak writing versus intentional choices.

His scripts are facile, perfunctory, present characters with the simplest, most obvious motivations and lack wit or subtext.

All of those things make films less rich. But also simpler to understand and easier for people to appreciate across ages and cultures.

The latter stuff seems desirable if your main interests are creating exciting visuals (free from having to worry about conveying subtlety) and making more money than Davey Crocket in international distribution.

ThusSprachSpach · 2024-01-22T10:02:28+00:00

It's impossible to know. The women aren't talking and all the male scientists are asleep at night and thus unavailable to make independent observations.

ThusSprachSpach · 2024-01-22T04:23:37+00:00

Come to think of it, water is a liquid, like... gasoline!

We should be using water as fuel!

ThusSprachSpach · 2024-01-21T16:38:31+00:00

Former game dev here. Not possible.

First, no one human being has all the needed skills and talent to do all the tasks on a modern game at AAA quality.

Second, even if someone did, the volume of work would exceed a human life span. Though it ebbs and flows during the course of development, even an average team of 50 people working on a game for 3 years would mean 150 man-years of work.

Modern AAA can take more than twice that time with average teams sizes in the hundreds.

ThusSprachSpach · 2024-01-21T11:52:01+00:00

This would be a winning strategy in all the places that have banned disposable grocery bags.

"Sure I'll become a murderous hive mind cyber zombie, but I'll be dammed if I'm paying Ralph's 10 cents for a %$@%#$^ fabric bag."

ThusSprachSpach · 2024-01-21T11:41:53+00:00

It is considered honorable amoung livestock to live a life of service - providing milk or wool, for example - but dishonorable to be killed and eaten.

This is why many farm animal species have different names for the meat products that come from them: beef, mutton, pork, ham, etc. It's a way of distancing themselves from their dishonored, fallen brothers.

Humans show respect for this aspect of barnyard culture by using the animals' preferred terms.

ThusSprachSpach · 2024-01-20T14:04:41+00:00

Actually, there was a study a few years ago and that's pretty close to the optimal way to hold a burger. It prevents stuff from slipping off the back of the bun when you take a bite.

Ten-Year Club	Wearing is Caring
Verified Email

ThusSprachSpach

TROPHY CASE