May. 10th, 2017

jack: (Default)
Abi got me into Clickie Zoo (Tironium Tech/Idle Tycoon). A while back I completed the main series of achievements. There's a few achievements for specific things which I haven't bothered to fill out.

But I spent a while fascinated by how big I could get the numbers.

The top level gives 1 gem every 15 seconds (gems are premium currency used to buy various permanent upgrades). I don't think there's any way of increasing that. I've upgraded most of the permanent upgrades as much as I can.

The passive income seems really small compared to what I get elsewhere, even with all of the in-game and permanent upgrades I can easily get. So I could throw more resources into it, but I don't *think* it's going to exceed other ways of making money.

For a long time, breeding animals was the best way of making money. My previous high water mark involved breeding the top animal and selling it to expand its enclosure so I could breed it more, and using temporary boosts to increase its breeding rate, and "fill a random enclosure" until I got lucky and it was the top one.

But now I upgraded the "animal sell price" permanent improvement to where it's more than the buy price, and after getting the net gain for a single round trip to about 10% of the sell price, just spending a few seconds clicking "sell buy sell buy" gets more income than waiting for animals to breed.

Unfortunately, with the top animal, you can only buy/sell in units of 100,000 which is much more than I got any other way, but when you get more money than that, the rate you gain money is limited by the amount you can buy at once, not the amount of money you have. (Although, expanding the enclosure size to >100,000 is really quite expensive too).

Right now the best actions available seem to be:

1. Just waiting for the 1 gem every 15 seconds income, and ploughing it into some permanent upgrades (whose price steadily gets more expensive).
2. Buy/sell trading the best animal to accumulate more cash.
3. Using buy/sell to build up a new zoo and sell it for gems. (This gets gems faster because you're not limited by the size of the enclosure so much when you can keep moving on to the next animal. The gems you get are logaraithmic in zoo size, so building up a small zoo repeatedly is about as good as one big zoo.)

And the goals I wondered if I'd reach are:

1. Go up from 1 Nonillion dollars to see if the game has an abbreviation for 1 decillion (or in fact, see how far it goes before running out if it were possible).
2. Increase birth rate to 100% and see if it crashes/goes infinite. Unfortunately, it seems like even if the birth rate is 100x what it starts at, that might not be that lucrative compared to sell/buy, when I originally hoped that would be the most lucrative thing.

However, I'm not sure there's any good way to reach those than what I'm doing, and getting there that way would be a grind-fest of months, so I'm thinking I will shortly declare myself officially done with the game :)

ETA: Oh yes, you can also trade animals for gems, but only once every two hours, I don't think that's enough to make a difference.
jack: (Default)

Almost everything Scott posts is interesting, even when I disagree with it. Sometimes I decide I absorbed an important idea anyway despite superficial disagreements. Sometimes I decide he's just wrong, but said interesting things along the way.

Here he describes a case where a student group invited a couple of deliberately controversial speakers as a pro-free-speech point. This is probably a bad idea for a variety of reasons, whether it was well meant or not. But he and I were thinking of the details about *why* it was a bad idea.

Was that effectively pro free speech whether or not it caused harm in other ways?

His point was, separate to which ideas *should* be covered under free speech, deliberately choosing controversial ones uses up people's tolerance and moves us a notch closer to associating free speech with mostly being used for horrible things and make everyone dislike it.

And I'm sort of torn. Because on the one hand, that sounds completely true. Things that are sufficiently harmful are NOT covered under free speech (morally or legally depending on culture or country), and this is deliberately expanding that category by making potentially-harmful things a lot more of a problem.

On the other hand, defending horrible things as legal if undesirable feels like it sets a standard for free speech: we know other speech is ok, because we allow this.

Did it cause harm in other ways?

Everything above is true whether you chose speakers you personally sympathise with but don't want to say so, or speakers you massively disagree with but want to engage with. However, there's definitely an awful trend that when talk about free speech, they don't mean "lets invite some communists" or "lets burn some american flags". No. They mean, "lets find some supposedly-intellectual research which has been seized on by a rallying cry by the alt-right".

People attacked by the alt-right have done MORE THAN THEIR FUCKING SHARE of being attacked with little recourse. If you're convinced that inviting speakers who are incredibly threatening to a certain proportion of people on campus is necessary, can you at least choose some DIFFERENT subset? Invite some revolutionaries who want to guillotine people with inherited wealth. Invite some over-the-top animal rights types who want to bomb all non-vegans. Or, preferably, find views which are *controversial* but not *immediately threatening* to make your point with.

I originally tried to list some views which were very controversial to the point I can easily imagine protests etc about them, but (a) from all over the political spectrum and (b) not personally threatening. Some of which I secretly agreed with, some of which I hated. But I decided that would just cause a worse argument right now.

No we actually want to hear them, we're not just being controversial for the sake of it, honest

Scott talked about, if you actually *want* to hear a speaker, you should use different criteria than if you're trying to air controversial views. If you're being controversial on purpose, I feel you need a greater weight on "not harming people" in addition to "does this help or hurt freedom of speech".

But if you really want to hear a speaker, even one I find vile, I generally don't think banning them is that useful -- provided you do sensible things like, advertise to people who actually want to hear them, and for fuck's sake don't try to make it at some mandatory event, or even some organisation-wide event, to show you just want to have a speaker, not that you want to force a speaker on people who will be harmed by it. Most of the "bans" have been because people have been deliberately bullying people they expect to object, not because they were genuinely trying to have a quiet meeting and then got invaded by protesters.
jack: (Default)
Since I started work in bar hill (about 3 months now, eek!) I've been going to the gym here twice a week.

I think I have very slowly started to improve again. I have a long way to go to regain my previous best. I'm not sure if the improvement is due to more reliable running with treadmill, or due to doing weights more strenuously as well.

The paradox of improvement seems to apply to many other parts of my life as well. I'm not happy unless there's something I'm working towards. If I'm failing I'm not *happy*, but if I have *no* pressure, I'm listless in a different way.

I have been slowly learning how to vary the amount I intend to do each day. Some days that's "get changed, reply to emails, go to bed" and sometimes it's quite a bit, but if there's some connection between what I intend and what I do, I feel a lot better, regardless of the actual amount.

I still find it very hard to fit things in though. Ideally I could do things like housework in the edges and gaps, 5min here and there, but it doesn't usually happen as well as it might. Every so often I try to set good habits, and things improve a certain amount, but still short of what would be better.