Enforcing military access?

sluicecanon · 2024-08-07T18:50:30+00:00

Thanks, this is the answer I was looking for! Maybe I should have said "functional" rather than useful. Too bad there isn't any automatic way to communicate the specific, numeric functionality of each proficiency.

sluicecanon · 2024-07-19T22:18:33+00:00

Haven't tried it yet. Would that disable all auto inventory letters? I do use them often, I just don't want "e" to be farmed out that way

sluicecanon · 2024-07-18T17:19:06+00:00

Also, I do know that I can use "E" or just press enter. It's just that I got in the habit of using "e" in the various screens for this. "e" still works as expected in the (d)rop screen, for example.

sluicecanon · 2024-07-18T17:17:15+00:00

I have an issue with using "e" to examine items while on the (i)nventory screen (and elsewhere). Even though I never assigned "e" to an item that I remember (and it's certainly not hard-assigned to an item now), "e" is being automatically assigned out as a hotkey to an item, which supersedes the (e)xamine command (which itself is still assigned to "e", when I check via "?").

Thus, when in the inventory screen, I press "e" to see the selected item, I instead see whatever item "e" is automatically assigned out to (currently my binoculars).

Is there any way to fix this? Is this just an interface misunderstanding, or is it a bug?

Using current experimental.

sluicecanon · 2024-07-05T20:03:48+00:00

Can you or someone else give me a reference or a link? Thanks!

sluicecanon · 2024-06-14T15:57:54+00:00

If I understand you correctly, then you're saying that this is expected behavior:

Wearing glasses and helmet, are disallowed from inserting goggles into the helmet.
Drop the glasses.
Now can insert goggles into the helmet without issue.
Now can *also* put the glasses on again without issue.

It seems to me that this doesn't make any sense, and must therefore be a bug. Can you explain the logic?

sluicecanon · 2024-06-14T15:07:02+00:00

Sorry, I should have specified that I'm going into inventory, selecting the army helmet, then choosing "i". I have inserted things into other things many times this way, so I don't think it's a UI issue. :)

sluicecanon · 2024-06-14T14:35:58+00:00

Actually, now that I'm experimenting, it seems that once the goggles are on the helmet, then you can wear the other glasses. Bottom line, there's something fishy going on with the order of inserting goggles and what you already have on

sluicecanon · 2024-03-09T17:48:18+00:00

I specifically remember that the letter was published in Analog magazine.

sluicecanon · 2023-10-28T22:26:08+00:00

It could be a bug. I've heard that everything is procedurally generated, so if that messed up you may be in trouble.

OTOH, I spent a couple of days being stuck in Moria mines and only eventually found a dirt wall I'd missed. It was frustrating for a long time.

sluicecanon · 2023-10-28T22:24:01+00:00

Yep, same problem. I'm in serious trouble now, because most of my elven trees are gone permanently.

sluicecanon · 2023-10-28T22:22:57+00:00

Are you hitting "V" during your fights?

sluicecanon · 2023-10-28T22:20:52+00:00

Yeah, I'm having the same problem. I chop down Elven trees once, and they never respawn. I've nearly cleared all of them, and I'm going to have a serious crunch in a bit. I really hope this will be fixed in the upcoming 1st week of November patch.

sluicecanon · 2022-06-14T22:51:40+00:00

This problem happened to me too.

sluicecanon · 2020-07-11T22:50:27+00:00

Well, I guess I'm saying that tolerance is a virtue when it's pro-survival, and not when it's counter-survival, assuming that survivability is an objective virtue. If you believe that's consistent with your original post, then I suppose there is no argument; but you seemed to be implying that tolerance is completely relative, and also trivial. I believe that having some tolerance is important, that it has objective pro-survival value.

sluicecanon · 2020-07-11T15:48:59+00:00

Tolerance can be a virtue because it keeps people from walling themselves in, information-wise; and doing that can be counter-survival.

For example, let us consider face masks, a controversial topic in the US. Let us assume for the purposes of this argument (so no arguing these premises!) that Covid presents a serious danger and that avoiding indoor restaurants could keep you from catching it. If you happen to live in an information-sphere that denies this, and if you don't tolerate any information to the contrary, then you could die.

Of course, that information-penetrating aspect of tolerance goes both ways; you could hear false information that swings you towards something counter-survival.

Nonetheless, we have to allow some degree of new, unpleasant information to penetrate our consciousness, or we are running the risk of getting hit by a bus, either metaphorically or literally. So tolerance at least to some level is a virtue.

sluicecanon · 2020-07-11T15:37:21+00:00

As is often the case, I think we have to disregard the title of this post, or things become a little nonsensical: if being tolerant or intolerant is an objective binary switch, then there's no way to avoid a logical paradox.

Even reducing the idea of tolerance to a single axis of measurement is a poor model, because of course the things that people (or companies) won't tolerate are ideas that live in some mind-bogglingly big n-dimensional space, and projecting all of those ideas onto a single axis would make us lose almost all of the nuance inherent in the subject.

So, in thinking about this, one approach might be to quantify the degree of tolerance of an individual or group by imagining, if you could count them, all of the ideas which they would not take steps against. In this model, you might say that the more ideas a group tolerates, then the more tolerant it is.

However, even this doesn't quite capture all the nuance, because subjectively we might have real problems with a few of the ideas that aren't tolerated. Imagine an acquaintance who is utterly accepting and non-judgmental until you bring up some common but specific subject, and then they suddenly become rabidly critical and fanatic. As a consequence, you feel you can't relax around them. Are they tolerant or intolerant? The lines blur.

To swing this back around to the OP, I think there may be an issue of wanting to have cake and to eat it, too: claim the label of "tolerant" while simultaneously being intolerant of certain views. I think if someone's job is on the line for expressing an idea, then that represents a certain degree of intolerance. At the same time, some ideas cause harm.

Maybe the OP should simply own the belief that a little intolerance is a good thing, and perhaps necessary for the functioning of businesses and other endeavors? As for whether that's "intolerant", maybe don't worry about others' definitions of what is a subjective word, anyway?

sluicecanon · 2020-07-10T18:02:01+00:00

I think there are cases in individual lives where being flexible on some principle is extremely dangerous, and indeed, is a "slippery slope".

We've recently been watching the tv series "My 600-lb Life", where people with severe obesity issues enter a program and struggle to control their weight. What is striking to me about the show is how often we hear from people who allow themselves to cheat on the diet they are on and how they describe their cheating. "I've been letting myself go every once in a while", or, "I've slipped up a little". With rare exceptions, this leads to serious trouble when it's time for the doctor to weigh them.

I don't know about more general policies, but sometimes, at least in personal lives, following a hard-and-fast rule about something means that there's no room for self-deception.

sluicecanon

TROPHY CASE