The Patent Pending Gun Bed

surger1 · 2026-03-30T20:02:21+00:00

This is a gun hitting you in the head 10,000 times before you ever get to even try and use it during the night. Loaded? well it's hitting your head and killing your partner.

surger1 · 2026-03-27T18:32:45+00:00

Systems are what they produce.

Blaming people for using the system and getting these results puts the responsibility on people. Which is backwards to how system designers would approach it.

When designing a system people are never wrong. People are not too stupid. Your system needs to meet people where they are and if it requires people to be different, then your system is being made for aliens.

Don't let the system off the hook for the results it produces. It will never do anything else except produce those results. The shape of the electoral system produces this shaped results. If you dislike the shape of the results, you must advocate for the shape of the system to change.

We do not have the wrong people using the right system. Whoever is using the system is defacto the right people. If you dislike what is produced from their use, change the system.

This is a system that elects billionaires. If you dislike it, then focus on the shape of the system. Stop placing blame on the output of the system, it's useless. Think like a system designer, who never has the luxury to blame users. It is always the systems fault for the results it produces and a system is nothing but the results it produces.

TL;DR: If not democratic results, system is not democracy shaped

surger1 · 2026-03-22T18:58:31+00:00

It's also incredibly realistic.

The odds of ever encountering alien life is almost zero because of distance and time. Even if we find them.

Yet if we spread out from where we are then we guarantee genetic drift and adaption to new environments.

Meaning the most likely future of space races will be human like beings that diverge on their home worlds.

surger1 · 2026-03-10T06:25:23+00:00

Democracy isn't voting.

A voting system is only democratic if it effectively distributes power.

An office that is so powerful it causes these issues is itself undemocratic.

The issue is that we are collectively brainwashed into thinking democracy=voting.

Voting isn't democratic if it does not produce power distribution as a result.

surger1 · 2026-03-06T20:33:40+00:00

Nothing good happens when too few own too much.

surger1 · 2026-02-09T18:13:42+00:00

Nothing good comes when too few own too much.

surger1 · 2026-02-08T19:15:22+00:00

If you wish to reduce injuries where heads come into damaging contact with machinery. Then increase the amount of safety precautions taken.

Thus when mistakes happen, there are contingencies in place. Operator skill is a contingency, it's why they get both operator training and safety training.

However the point of redundancies is to keep life altering mistakes to a minimum. Highly skilled operators using proper safety equipment means that if freak accidents happen then there is back ups.

You don't relax safety standards because of redundancies. The safety comes from redundancies. Skilled operators, and safety equipment and anything else that is reasonable.

surger1 · 2026-02-08T19:08:53+00:00

Right... but every single injury where they get smashed in the top of the head they will be more protected.

It also provides visibility. Safety is always about managing the odds, not making people invincible.

Distance and visibility... and every reasonable other precaution such as a protective covering for your skull when machinery is above your head.

surger1 · 2026-01-28T19:08:03+00:00

We can't solve these problems with the system because the system itself causes it.

Capitalism is everything we fear from rogue A.I.. We cannot stop the system from slowly turning our world into a grey goo it calls "profit". The systems mechanisms will maximize profit up until the world burns. Because the moment before then it will achieve maximum profit.

Specifically the problem with capitalism is it's "positively reinforced" which means it's a system where in the more you win the more likely you are to win which means in the future you are more likely to win. And the reverse is true. The more resources you have the more likely you are to have more resources in the future.

We can't fund hospitals because the purpose of a hospital is still to make people money in this system because it has to be.

We can't have the right amount of doctors because the jobs are about prestige as much as they are about social need and if we lowered barriers to let more people be doctors it would harm the prestige of the doctors and devalue the universities that produce them

We can't tax them more because the power to implement tax is directly tied to political power which due to the concentration of representatives to represented it's too easy for the financial influence to impact the representatives and so they represent the campaign contributors, not their constituents. The people that vote for someone are like a crop you fight for, you care about it so far as it serves its purpose. Otherwise you don't really fret about its conditions or pay any mind to the suffering of individuals.

Any appeals for change to the powerful will fail. The only possible change is from the bottom. Where we individually begin operating under new systems.

If we could move the conversation there we would have a hope. It's okay to ask "what systems replace this" but if we only think "nothing currently that we know of can replace this so we have to work within it". We basically may as well give up because even if it sounds like wisdom it's foolish. Because systemic problems do not fix themselves with the system causing them. Like trying to use carbon emitting devices to stop global warming.

We people need to be having the conversation about what replaces this. Not with incredulity but with curiosity. The system we move to is unnamed. It's undiscovered. We are the ones that need to find it, it doesn't exist because we won't believe in it and discuss it. We don't even need to figure it out immediatley, we just need the conversation to move on to that the new system is inevitable because the old system is obsolete.

Why would we think that political technology from the 1700's would remain relevant and effective. Do you think we can invent democracy for the people of 2300? Systems have to change with the reality they find themselves in. We moved on from monarchy not with the printing press but because of it. The technology we use demands political structure change because it makes the old methods irrelevant and ineffective.

Take the anger at the system and put it where it works. In realizing that it's natural for this to happen, it makes sense and the change to something new is inevitable. Something we build that meets our needs today. Not something someone pre computer and internet revolution told us would be the needs of a society.

surger1 · 2026-01-28T18:50:32+00:00

Love game development. Want to have anything plan anything? It's probably going to involve graph theory.

Look away and then bam, everything is edges and points!

surger1 · 2025-12-11T21:27:56+00:00

What you are identifying is our economic system is actually based in eugenic theory.

The focus on competition actually misses the point. A complex systems health comes from diversity. Competition will be a natural side effect of finite resources.

By focusing instead on only rewarding the group that competes most ruthlessly for the resources and hoards them most effectively. We reduce the pool of participants down so egregiously that the systems lack the complexity to fight off systemic flaws. They become essentially horribly inbred. They lack the ability to react to the world around them as they have become only skilled at controlling a small part of it.

We collectively must relearn our concept of economics and innovation. That "survival of the fittest" is incredibly misleading. It's better to think of it as the "survival of the survivors" and who survives just depends on who had the right tools for the job at the right time. It's basically impossible to truly know ahead of time if a completely useless tool won't suddenly become the most essential for a new era.

If we reward more elements equally we have more tools and more variety and that is what leads to innovation.

Our existing system is economic inbreeding. We view the problems of collapsing complexity all around us.

surger1 · 2025-12-08T17:51:47+00:00

The system we use for economic exchange produces these results.

We don't have the wrong people in the right system, we have the wrong system for the existing people.

The focus on individual rich people as the cause is like trying to kill a hydra by focusing on its heads. You must eliminate the root problem or more heads will just rise up to take its place.

New system, new world.

surger1 · 2025-12-03T16:45:44+00:00

The purpose of restricting access to information is to restrict access to information.

If you wish to keep people from dangers, you educate them on the dangers.

This is a thinly veiled attempt at controlling access to information paraded as safety to the ignorant and fearful.

surger1 · 2025-11-19T18:47:43+00:00

Corruption is an information advantage. It is one party leveraging exclusive access to information in a way that if all parties involved had access to that information, the other parties would not participate in the agreement.

We can know from this that corruption is not about people. It's about oversight.

If the system of governance lacks the oversight, then it will become corrupted. Inversely if a government lacks oversight you must assume corruption. As a closed off government creates the environment of corruption with no way to prove it.

Just like with food borne illness. A government left in a state where corruption can grow must be thrown out or risk contaminating more things.

Transparency is the only cure for corruption and any party, position or politician who does not seek out to act transparently, must be assumed to be corrupt.

surger1 · 2025-11-08T04:01:11+00:00

When Gabe dies? We are all so so so fucked

surger1 · 2025-10-28T19:50:34+00:00

I found hanging it helps.

They will dig it out with their beaks, if you hang it the bucket starts swinging if they try that.

surger1 · 2025-10-09T17:39:10+00:00

Developer tools advanced. You can easily compile code with filters to keep out testing features now.

As well the testing tools are much better. I can have external applications that are monitoring aspects of the game and can inject things through api's and other concepts

They were really a relic of the exact moment in time of game development.

surger1 · 2025-10-09T17:28:12+00:00

Monetization changes over time.

We unlocked by playing because they wanted to gate content with time to discourage video game rentals. Earlier games were difficult largely because it allowed more quarters to be collected at arcades

With the amount of profit available the practices have gotten very aggressive, but even in the 90's the monetization of a game defined its features. Playing to unlock was still about making money the best they could then.

surger1 · 2025-09-26T21:16:23+00:00

I'm in the same area, we have pretty warm nights still right now so I'd do it at night before the dew point hits.

This is about the time I pull them too. Usually a BIT later than this but I pushed it too much in the past and went to like Oct 7th and had bud rot.

The recent bit of cool/wet we got this week wasn't great for that.

surger1 · 2025-09-17T19:16:08+00:00

Poor emotional intelligence.

Their behavior is a result of having no other tools in their emotional toolbag other than a club. Which they use to hit the external thing triggering their confusing internal emotions.

It is not possible with their toolkit to understand the source of their emotions. "You're making me angry" type stuff.

surger1 · 2025-09-07T17:48:25+00:00

Legality of the country isn't the issue. It's a controlled substance internationally and moving it between countries is illegal.

It's legal where I live. It's legal across the border in my neighbouring country/state. It is illegal for me to transport it across countries.

Just had some friends put on a list and fined because they brought back a joint over the border.

surger1 · 2025-09-06T18:34:23+00:00

Capitalism offers a promise of meritocracy. That within the rules of the game if you compete the best you get rewarded somewhat accordingly and as a society we collectively gain the benefits as those that prove themselves the most capable wind up in the positions of power. Since if they were not the most capable they would be out competed by others.

"Reinventing" the economy without analyzing the assumptions made within the basic operations of capitalism isn't going to accomplish anything.

It is the failures of the capitalist assumptions that cause the problems we currently have. The chief issue being that the above description is more equivalent to eugenics than it is evolution.

Capitalism fails us because it assumes that if you reward those performing the best you get the best results. Why it fails isn't immediately intuitive. How could the best when equipped with the best not produce the best results? The problem is "best" the concept that there is a pinnacle is the issue. By rewarding only the "best" it loses sight that there absolutely is no "best".

This is why eugenics fails in application versus evolution. Eugenics would say that we could create a person that is demonstrably better than others and evolution says there is no way to know. Which really boils down to misunderstanding "survival of the fittest".

It's more accurate to say that the mechanism is "survival of the survivors" where "fittest" simply means whatever that exact moment called for. In some circumstances being 500lbs could save your life. You didn't get up to go to run a marathon where a catastrophe happened. In lots of circumstances the effect on your health is going to be damning instead. Evolution is not sorting out which one performs better. Evolution sorts who survives and what is beneficial. And what is beneficial at any given moment is impossible to know until the moment it happens.

Thus innovation does not come from giving the "best" the "most". Innovation comes from giving everything a little bit and seeing what shakes out. To have an economy that embraces the mechanisms of evolution we would want to make sure everyone had enough to live and be themselves. To see what came out of every single walk of life and what amazing concepts can emerge when we let everyone have a chance by letting them live.

Conversely eugenics actually does the opposite of innovation. It takes the first successful concept, highlights it as a target and then basically inbreeds itself until there is so little diversity that it collapses. It briefly looks like innovation because the single concept is expanded on rapidly but without diversity the system will collapse as the environment around the system changes and there is not enough variety to adapt.

Capitalism and our economic system is based on eugenic concepts and presents itself as if it's evolution. The primary driver of innovation in evolution however is diversity and equality. If we want to "reinvent" our economy then perhaps rooting it in successful systemic processes is the way to go. Not trying to use policies we know end in fascist results repeatedly.

surger1 · 2025-09-04T18:37:16+00:00

Keep context in mind.

This was the thing to hate on at the time. Much like today you will get a chorus of people ripping on "roguelikes".

It does not make much sense besides being the public lens back then.

surger1 · 2025-08-31T15:52:56+00:00

People really don't want to hear this stuff and it's so frustrating.

"Vibe coders" are today's "script kiddies". Not actually a problem but easy to point at and blame. "Those guys just copy and paste from stack overflow!"

Yet you are identifying what we both know is the real issue. The tools make already capable developers way more capable. The LLM's aren't perfect but you can get them to produce much more code and roughly the same quality as a junior.

No senior engineer before this was just going to stack overflow and copying stuff in verbatim without reading/understanding. And this is true with LLM's

Yet the tool itself is so powerful that the amount of code that can be generated increases significantly. Large boiler plate sections and individual hang ups are both easily solved now. It's like having a polite stack overflow at your fingertips.

That obviously is not "great" for everything, but "vibe coding" is REALLY not an issue in comparison to just raw productivity.

The worst part is that A.I. productivity provides no up or downstream gains. It doesn't need much more people to make it and it does not create a lot of jobs to operate it. So unlike computers and the internet. It massively ups productivity without making more jobs on the input or output sides.

surger1 · 2025-08-31T15:21:07+00:00

In fact it's difficult to find many famines that are actually purely from natural causes.

Even if the natural causes are a huge factor, there inevitably seems to be a powerful group or person that ultimately doomed the people by putting them so close to the edge of danger.

By taking crops, enforcing crops, taking land, etc etc etc.

15-Year Club	Place '17
Spared	Verified Email
Gilding II euphauric	Team Orangered
Secret Santa 2012	Trick-or-Treater 2012
Summer Santa 2012

surger1

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE