People don't have a lot of money to spend. All the money being sucked up by rich assholes.
jjjalljs
joined 2 years ago
One time in a DND game I had a dungeon with the property "you'll never find what you're looking for". This has a bunch of fun effects. Among them when the players found a spiral stairway around a hole, they tried to find the bottom and, because of the rule, could not reach it. They tried to go back up, and couldn't reach the previous floor either.
So they decided, since they have feather fall, to just jump into the central hole and find the bottom that way.
They fell for an uncomfortable long time. They passed the other party members who had split up (and couldn't find them).
Good times. Players heads were very fucked with.
They did eventually figure it out.
We should break them up. Seems like an obvious solution.
On player training, I like systems where you can bribe players to let bad things happen.
Like in vampire: the requiem, a player can always turn a regular failure into a Dramatic Failure, and get a little XP. This meant the players went from "oh no the cave is probably full of monsters let's take forever stressing" to "I ROLLED GARBAGE CAN I JUST BARGE IN LIKE A CONFIDENT IDIOT FOR MY DRAMATIC FAILURE?"
Tastes vary, but I found it made a more interesting and snappier game.
Some clothes don’t work for some people
"Work" for clothing typically means comfort and protection. "Do random people find it attractive?" is not a universal requirement.
At least twice now I've had math nerds get really mad when I suggested "if people are misreading it, add parentheses". Very much skinner "it's the children who are out of touch".
Some people would rather be right than understood, I guess.
No one's going to die because you write x = c + (a * b) even though those parentheses aren't strictly needed.
How will it reduce demand for parking? Do you envision the car will drop someone off and then drive away until it finds a parking spot that's farther than the person would want to walk?
That sounds like a very hard problem , and people wouldn't be happy waiting 5-10 minutes for their car to navigate back to them. Or it would just cruise around looking for parking, causing more traffic.
Cars could tailgate like virtual train cars following each other at highway speeds with very little separation, lanes could be narrowed to fit more cars side by side in traffic, etc.
Once again reinventing buses and trains
It took like 100 years to build the car-hell we have now. It's going to take a lot of time and effort to fix it.
And people are, famously, stupid. They'll fight like hell to avoid change, but once it's in they'll fight like hell to keep that change.
Plus there's a lot of selfish idiots that need to be overridden.
Snapshot tests suck. That's a test that stores the dom (or I guess any json serializable thing) and when you run the test again, compares what you have now to what it has saved.
No one is going to carefully examine a 300 line json diff. They're just going to say "well I updated the file so it makes sense it changed" and slap the update button.
Theoretically you could only feed it very small things, but if that's the case you could also just assert on what's important yourself.
Snapshots don't encode intent. They make everything look just as important as everything else. And then hotshot developers think they have 100% coverage
I had this fight at work once. Someone wanted to write a makefile to invoke pytest. I didn't want to do that because I wanted people to know how pytest works, so when something goes wrong they know they can do -vv or --pdb or whatever.
Scripts that cover trivial steps and obscure stuff people should know, I'm not a fan of.
Men are just big children.
The other day at work, a woman said "I have three children. And a husband, so I guess three and a half children."
Don't usually see that stereotype in the wild.
I don't want people to give up joy and fun things, but the idea that men are just irresponsible and their wife has to also be their responsible mother is sad.
Edit: typo
view more: next ›
Opportunity costs