Covid (3/n)
Mar. 16th, 2020 08:46 am( Read more... )
Covid-19 in UK
Mar. 15th, 2020 10:44 amETA: There are a bunch of corrections in comments here and on FB, I don't have time yet to try to update the post interactively.
( Read more... )
( Read more... )
Friday Five
Feb. 7th, 2020 05:49 pmhttps://thefridayfive.dreamwidth.org/91873.html
1. Can I do simple sewing repairs? Kinda. I can sort of sew a button or a turnup. Mum showed me how, and a few friends have refreshed the knowledge over time, but I get stressed about it and can't do it well.
2. Can you change a flat tire? Yes, I'm pretty pleased this usually works now. Oh wait, you mean, for a car? No. In a decade or so of driving I've had approximately one flat tire which was on the hard shoulder where I wouldn't have felt very safe changing a tire by myself anyway, so I just pay for RAC. It's a pain to wait for them, but I just don't expect punctures often so it never felt like a necessary skill. And I didn't want to learn, never use it, and then have to trust my life to the skill unexpectedly.
3. Can you plan and cook a simple meal? No, if it's simple I'll just do it, and if I plan it it'll get complicated :)
4. Can you rewire a lamp? Probably. I did an electronics a-level and rewired a plug once or twice and generally know how to connect heavy duty wires to connectors. But I've never actually done any electrical work.
5. Am I saver or a spender? Complicated. I'm fortunate enough to live day to day without needing to closely watch bank balance, but I get stressed about saving or spending anything left over... But when not encumbered by past stresses (e.g. with time in a new routine), I'm pretty good at switching between, and I think that variety is useful.
1. Can I do simple sewing repairs? Kinda. I can sort of sew a button or a turnup. Mum showed me how, and a few friends have refreshed the knowledge over time, but I get stressed about it and can't do it well.
2. Can you change a flat tire? Yes, I'm pretty pleased this usually works now. Oh wait, you mean, for a car? No. In a decade or so of driving I've had approximately one flat tire which was on the hard shoulder where I wouldn't have felt very safe changing a tire by myself anyway, so I just pay for RAC. It's a pain to wait for them, but I just don't expect punctures often so it never felt like a necessary skill. And I didn't want to learn, never use it, and then have to trust my life to the skill unexpectedly.
3. Can you plan and cook a simple meal? No, if it's simple I'll just do it, and if I plan it it'll get complicated :)
4. Can you rewire a lamp? Probably. I did an electronics a-level and rewired a plug once or twice and generally know how to connect heavy duty wires to connectors. But I've never actually done any electrical work.
5. Am I saver or a spender? Complicated. I'm fortunate enough to live day to day without needing to closely watch bank balance, but I get stressed about saving or spending anything left over... But when not encumbered by past stresses (e.g. with time in a new routine), I'm pretty good at switching between, and I think that variety is useful.
Daily Diaries
Jan. 19th, 2020 05:17 pmI resolved to post some "typical day" entries to DW. Once a month. But I'm way behind so you get a big summary!
Typical Previous job: Wake up 8-ish. Sometimes sleep alarm for 20min. Drive to work for 9ish or sometimes 9:30. Eat tesco chilli for lunch. Drive home. Sometimes go out in evening, but parking and not drinking is inconvenient.
Typical "between jobs" day. Naturally wake up about 8:30. Go to bed midnight if I'm in the middle of things, but 11 or earlier ideally. Follow fairly usual breakfast/lunch/dinner routine. Spend a lot of time trying to do "all the things" which may be a mistake.
Dance Larp Day: train to london. I have lots of time -> oops, a bit late. Find lovely people marshalled by friend and her friend. Dance a 20s NYE party plot. Home on train. Sleep.
Typical new job: Wake up 8-ish. Cycle to work. Arrive 9:30 ish. Maybe squeeze in some useful stuff at home first. Lunch from shops near station. Cycle home, or stop off at TBC gym or pub meet. Similar bedtime.
Typical Previous job: Wake up 8-ish. Sometimes sleep alarm for 20min. Drive to work for 9ish or sometimes 9:30. Eat tesco chilli for lunch. Drive home. Sometimes go out in evening, but parking and not drinking is inconvenient.
Typical "between jobs" day. Naturally wake up about 8:30. Go to bed midnight if I'm in the middle of things, but 11 or earlier ideally. Follow fairly usual breakfast/lunch/dinner routine. Spend a lot of time trying to do "all the things" which may be a mistake.
Dance Larp Day: train to london. I have lots of time -> oops, a bit late. Find lovely people marshalled by friend and her friend. Dance a 20s NYE party plot. Home on train. Sleep.
Typical new job: Wake up 8-ish. Cycle to work. Arrive 9:30 ish. Maybe squeeze in some useful stuff at home first. Lunch from shops near station. Cycle home, or stop off at TBC gym or pub meet. Similar bedtime.
Apocalypse World Difficulty Classes
Jan. 19th, 2020 05:00 pmI know what the rules ARE, but it's taken me a long time to start to understand how apocalypse world action resolution differs from DnD.
DnD, you typically roll a d20, add relevant skills, and compare to a difficulty class set by the GM according to guidance about the sort of thing being done.
That has a bunch of features which aren't immediately obvious. For instance, all the characters vary in ability between "average human or slightly below" and "best you can be at this particular level". You could have a character who's world-class at something unrelated to adventuring, but you'd need ad-hoc rule to say what bonus they got for it. In most editions of DnD, adventurers can still be bad at things that aren't their competence, like the fun of a heist movie when the wrong character has to try to be stealthy or disguised, but in 4e, their skill is capped below more like a heroic adventure where everyone is fairly good at everything.
I still have a problem that if the characters are regularly doing things that normal human don't (even things that SOME humans do like "picking locks"), the GM is sort of behind the game at choosing an appropriate DC. Is this mostly impossible? Or really impossible? When characters do something impossible are they just that good or is it magic or something else? But everyone else seems ok with this.
In apocalypse world inspired systems, there's no difficulty class. You roll 2d6, and get a classic bell curve and 7+ is always "yes, but" and 10+ is always "woo, yes!"
That means, things you're good at, you get a +1 or a +3 (which matters a lot in a bell curve) you succeed at most of the time, and things you're bad at, you fail most of the time. Which sounds natural. But that implies, you only try things which are "average" difficulty for the sort of characters you are. Everything else has to be "the GM tells you you can just do it automatically or can't do it at all". Which is probably sensible. It probably SHOULD be like that. It guides the GM into "fun" resolutions. But I think I and many people find it confusing because it's never explained how that's important.
It's also to note that some systems the "things you're good at" are things like "being strong" or "being intelligent" and other systems it's things like "saving people" or "being dangerous". Which makes quite a difference. I think the system shines more with the more abstract/narrative abilities.
Both systems also get bodged with a bunch of rules for when characters can help each other and when tools are useful, when that makes a task trivial, when it increases the chance of success without increasing the maximum possibly achieved, when it gets a flat bonus to the roll...
A lot of these things are things a GM can sensibly just wing as it goes along but I'd *like* a system that helps that sort of improvising, rather than just assuming the GM will know when to use the system and when to ignore the system.
I've been thinking about systems a lot recently but now I'm thinking about more lightweight roleplaying, the best way of coping if you want a "roll a die every half an hour" type situation, but without making character abilities irrelevant.
DnD, you typically roll a d20, add relevant skills, and compare to a difficulty class set by the GM according to guidance about the sort of thing being done.
That has a bunch of features which aren't immediately obvious. For instance, all the characters vary in ability between "average human or slightly below" and "best you can be at this particular level". You could have a character who's world-class at something unrelated to adventuring, but you'd need ad-hoc rule to say what bonus they got for it. In most editions of DnD, adventurers can still be bad at things that aren't their competence, like the fun of a heist movie when the wrong character has to try to be stealthy or disguised, but in 4e, their skill is capped below more like a heroic adventure where everyone is fairly good at everything.
I still have a problem that if the characters are regularly doing things that normal human don't (even things that SOME humans do like "picking locks"), the GM is sort of behind the game at choosing an appropriate DC. Is this mostly impossible? Or really impossible? When characters do something impossible are they just that good or is it magic or something else? But everyone else seems ok with this.
In apocalypse world inspired systems, there's no difficulty class. You roll 2d6, and get a classic bell curve and 7+ is always "yes, but" and 10+ is always "woo, yes!"
That means, things you're good at, you get a +1 or a +3 (which matters a lot in a bell curve) you succeed at most of the time, and things you're bad at, you fail most of the time. Which sounds natural. But that implies, you only try things which are "average" difficulty for the sort of characters you are. Everything else has to be "the GM tells you you can just do it automatically or can't do it at all". Which is probably sensible. It probably SHOULD be like that. It guides the GM into "fun" resolutions. But I think I and many people find it confusing because it's never explained how that's important.
It's also to note that some systems the "things you're good at" are things like "being strong" or "being intelligent" and other systems it's things like "saving people" or "being dangerous". Which makes quite a difference. I think the system shines more with the more abstract/narrative abilities.
Both systems also get bodged with a bunch of rules for when characters can help each other and when tools are useful, when that makes a task trivial, when it increases the chance of success without increasing the maximum possibly achieved, when it gets a flat bonus to the roll...
A lot of these things are things a GM can sensibly just wing as it goes along but I'd *like* a system that helps that sort of improvising, rather than just assuming the GM will know when to use the system and when to ignore the system.
I've been thinking about systems a lot recently but now I'm thinking about more lightweight roleplaying, the best way of coping if you want a "roll a die every half an hour" type situation, but without making character abilities irrelevant.
Playing with inexperienced GMs
Nov. 24th, 2019 06:25 pmA few times I've noticed I seem to have a problem playing with inexperienced GMs. It feels like I shouldn't, I usually feel excited to engage with the bits they're good at, and happy to handwave rules away.
I think part of it is just, an inexperienced GM is just always going to have a bumpier game, and even less smooth with a bunch of players they're not already familiar with. But it feels like I get on worse than other people, and I wasn't sure why, so I did some introspecting.
I think my problem is, I'm happy to play with different rules, when they're something someone consciously knows, and can explain or be asked about. But I'm not good at situations where I don't know what I can do and what I can't. I'm the same with board games, or buying things in shops: I'm happy with any particular set of rules if I can work out what they are in advance and go along with them. But if I have a fireball spell, and the GM's never adjudicated one of those before, even if I have the spell description and a variety of "how people usually treat this in practice" at my fingertips, I still don't know, will the GM want to follow the rules literally, or go by GM's intuition for how many enemies it affects, etc, even before you get into edge cases like "do you target a square or a point". And I don't want to provide too much info and overwhelm the GM or make them feel like I'm rules-lawyering.
Or to put it another way, I'd be happy to play a game where we've explicitly said either "lets follow the move-attack-act-move rules exactly" or "lets not overthink it, don't complicate a turn basically do one attack and we'll handwave how much movement you get", but if we haven't said, I find it hard to "fit in" with what we've converged on.
Basically the right model is, "take simple actions, try to follow the more complicated rules once, if it gets bogged down, don't do it again". But my brain doesn't cope with that. It feels like, I shouldn't have got it "wrong" even once, even if "wrong" isn't against any agreement, just going too much by the book when no-one else was and it didn't really matter. And it feels wrong avoiding things which are "allowed" by the official rules, if we haven't explicitly agreed not to.
I have a similar problem with board games with people from different board game cultures: I'm happy to agree any variation to the printed rules, but I'm slow at picking up, "we never explicitly said so, but we just don't do that, it feels too mean" (even if I agree with it).
And now I SAY that, I don't know why I hesitate so much. I think I usually have a fair idea what someone else is going to think is reasonable. So I can go with that, and what happens is a little better or worse than I expect, that's fine, and sometimes I guess wrong what they considered reasonable and they think my proposed fireball isn't reasonable or is suicidal, I can say, "oh, ok, can I do something else, then".
I think the problem was, my head pretends like, I'm "entitled" to any amount of asking for clarification, but "oh, can I take that back" feels like asking for a favour I'm not entitled to. And I don't know why, because it's probably a lot more accurate to say, you're entitled to 1/N of the GM's time, whatever that ends up being taken up with, so get the most fun/effectiveness/whatever you can with that time. Which involves guessing "what interpretation is ok" and then rolling with whatever the GM says, and proposing differences only if it seems to really matter.
Basically, treating a social situation the way I (eventually) learned to treat any other uncertain situation, of accepting that I needed to take best guesses factoring in how much time I spent thinking, the way I (eventually) did with board games where the best strategy wasn't obvious from the start, or life where you have to guess as best you can what's most important when you can't ever have the time to know for sure.
Or in other words, I know the DnD social protocols ok, but I was missing a lot of "normal" social protocols...
I think part of it is just, an inexperienced GM is just always going to have a bumpier game, and even less smooth with a bunch of players they're not already familiar with. But it feels like I get on worse than other people, and I wasn't sure why, so I did some introspecting.
I think my problem is, I'm happy to play with different rules, when they're something someone consciously knows, and can explain or be asked about. But I'm not good at situations where I don't know what I can do and what I can't. I'm the same with board games, or buying things in shops: I'm happy with any particular set of rules if I can work out what they are in advance and go along with them. But if I have a fireball spell, and the GM's never adjudicated one of those before, even if I have the spell description and a variety of "how people usually treat this in practice" at my fingertips, I still don't know, will the GM want to follow the rules literally, or go by GM's intuition for how many enemies it affects, etc, even before you get into edge cases like "do you target a square or a point". And I don't want to provide too much info and overwhelm the GM or make them feel like I'm rules-lawyering.
Or to put it another way, I'd be happy to play a game where we've explicitly said either "lets follow the move-attack-act-move rules exactly" or "lets not overthink it, don't complicate a turn basically do one attack and we'll handwave how much movement you get", but if we haven't said, I find it hard to "fit in" with what we've converged on.
Basically the right model is, "take simple actions, try to follow the more complicated rules once, if it gets bogged down, don't do it again". But my brain doesn't cope with that. It feels like, I shouldn't have got it "wrong" even once, even if "wrong" isn't against any agreement, just going too much by the book when no-one else was and it didn't really matter. And it feels wrong avoiding things which are "allowed" by the official rules, if we haven't explicitly agreed not to.
I have a similar problem with board games with people from different board game cultures: I'm happy to agree any variation to the printed rules, but I'm slow at picking up, "we never explicitly said so, but we just don't do that, it feels too mean" (even if I agree with it).
And now I SAY that, I don't know why I hesitate so much. I think I usually have a fair idea what someone else is going to think is reasonable. So I can go with that, and what happens is a little better or worse than I expect, that's fine, and sometimes I guess wrong what they considered reasonable and they think my proposed fireball isn't reasonable or is suicidal, I can say, "oh, ok, can I do something else, then".
I think the problem was, my head pretends like, I'm "entitled" to any amount of asking for clarification, but "oh, can I take that back" feels like asking for a favour I'm not entitled to. And I don't know why, because it's probably a lot more accurate to say, you're entitled to 1/N of the GM's time, whatever that ends up being taken up with, so get the most fun/effectiveness/whatever you can with that time. Which involves guessing "what interpretation is ok" and then rolling with whatever the GM says, and proposing differences only if it seems to really matter.
Basically, treating a social situation the way I (eventually) learned to treat any other uncertain situation, of accepting that I needed to take best guesses factoring in how much time I spent thinking, the way I (eventually) did with board games where the best strategy wasn't obvious from the start, or life where you have to guess as best you can what's most important when you can't ever have the time to know for sure.
Or in other words, I know the DnD social protocols ok, but I was missing a lot of "normal" social protocols...
There was an article recently about how "eye-contact" was used to indicate turn taking in conversation, which led to a lot of reactions. But I didn't actually read it and I'm not sure how much it was talking about what I think of as "eye contact" (mutual face-looking however briefly) and how much it meant "looking at someone's face". And I realised I wasn't totally sure if I did that instinctively, or if I didn't do it at all.
I'm going to describe how I perceive things, and then ask people both neurodivergent and neurotypical what their experience is. And then maybe talk what else goes into who's turn it is. And some cultural differences.
Eye contact
I'm used to being aware of how much someone wants to speak, from cues like "shifting in their chair", "leaning forward", "having an expectant expression", up to and including "starting to talk and getting cut off" or (occasionally) asking for a chance to talk. And I think my brain has some magic neurotypical dust that does some sneaky cross-correlating with things like "did they do that when someone just said something they're likely to want to say something about" and "does it happen more than once" and just generally distinguishing miscellaneous shifting about or other expression changes from "wanting to speak".
My experience of... presumed normal people, is that these are all heuristics with a reasonable amount of flex in them. People misinterpret. People notice signs slowly. The "system" such as it is works when this communication *mostly* works it doesn't need to work reliably. Some people are particularly good at noticing. Some people can notice, but are bad at noticing, or bad at caring, or pessimistic that they'll actually be interested in what someone says.
So, my experience includes "being aware of someone's face cuing they might want to jump in and speak". But not a sort of mutual recognition, of "ok, message received". Now I describe this, I think this happens subconsciously: if someone looks to being paying attention to me and other people while they're talking, I'll subconsciously assume that they'll know if someone else wants to speak and be less concerned about it; and I will hopefully notice if someone is eager to speak, and subconsciously orient on them more to indicate "I'm interested in you shortly".
But I'm not sure that's what happens, because I think it's partly subconscious or automatic. And I think it works well enough without as long as people know each other well enough to expect they'll all get a chance to talk.
But now I'm saying all that, I'm really interested in what other people think. Does that sound right? Or does that sound like I've completely missed what everyone else does? Or somewhere between?
Other turn taking and cultural differences
What I described above is basically a lowest level handshake protocol for "who's turn to talk next". I think the biggest cultural difference is, some groups expect people to interrupt much sooner, like, as soon as you get the gist of a sentence, jump in to show support, and others much later, like, let someone develop several paragraphs and be sure they're done done before trying to interrupt
And there's also stuff like, who should speak next, which is going to be too long for this post. I think I'm average-ish at that. I do keep being confused, but I think that's because the actual protocol DOESN'T really work. And maybe a bit I don't notice status enough?
Opinions? Experiences? Observations?
I'm going to describe how I perceive things, and then ask people both neurodivergent and neurotypical what their experience is. And then maybe talk what else goes into who's turn it is. And some cultural differences.
Eye contact
I'm used to being aware of how much someone wants to speak, from cues like "shifting in their chair", "leaning forward", "having an expectant expression", up to and including "starting to talk and getting cut off" or (occasionally) asking for a chance to talk. And I think my brain has some magic neurotypical dust that does some sneaky cross-correlating with things like "did they do that when someone just said something they're likely to want to say something about" and "does it happen more than once" and just generally distinguishing miscellaneous shifting about or other expression changes from "wanting to speak".
My experience of... presumed normal people, is that these are all heuristics with a reasonable amount of flex in them. People misinterpret. People notice signs slowly. The "system" such as it is works when this communication *mostly* works it doesn't need to work reliably. Some people are particularly good at noticing. Some people can notice, but are bad at noticing, or bad at caring, or pessimistic that they'll actually be interested in what someone says.
So, my experience includes "being aware of someone's face cuing they might want to jump in and speak". But not a sort of mutual recognition, of "ok, message received". Now I describe this, I think this happens subconsciously: if someone looks to being paying attention to me and other people while they're talking, I'll subconsciously assume that they'll know if someone else wants to speak and be less concerned about it; and I will hopefully notice if someone is eager to speak, and subconsciously orient on them more to indicate "I'm interested in you shortly".
But I'm not sure that's what happens, because I think it's partly subconscious or automatic. And I think it works well enough without as long as people know each other well enough to expect they'll all get a chance to talk.
But now I'm saying all that, I'm really interested in what other people think. Does that sound right? Or does that sound like I've completely missed what everyone else does? Or somewhere between?
Other turn taking and cultural differences
What I described above is basically a lowest level handshake protocol for "who's turn to talk next". I think the biggest cultural difference is, some groups expect people to interrupt much sooner, like, as soon as you get the gist of a sentence, jump in to show support, and others much later, like, let someone develop several paragraphs and be sure they're done done before trying to interrupt
And there's also stuff like, who should speak next, which is going to be too long for this post. I think I'm average-ish at that. I do keep being confused, but I think that's because the actual protocol DOESN'T really work. And maybe a bit I don't notice status enough?
Opinions? Experiences? Observations?
Making Puzzles in DnD/RPG actually fun
Nov. 5th, 2019 03:01 pmIt's such a classic of exploration and adventure narratives, that the characters encounter some kind of puzzle or riddle as a break from combat. People actively want puzzles.
But it's hard to do satisfyingly in a roleplaying game. Or in a novel, for that matter, though that's a different question.
We know roughly what a bad puzzle looks like. The GM reads it out. The players discuss it a bit. The player best as puzzles talks it over with a GM and eventually proposes an answer. No-one is in character. The other players don't really do anything.
I talked about this before, but a few more puzzle rooms have come up in my Labyrinth campaign so I wanted to talk more about what worked and what didn't.
What makes a puzzle that works well?
Like other encounters, the session should move forward whether the party succeeds or fails. That means the puzzle either needs to be something they can get past even if they don't solve it. Or sometimes, not essential to the main quest so they can just leave, but even then, that's rather a letdown, it's more exciting if it's too risky to stay, not too boring. The puzzle should come to some sort of resolution. Ideally, even if they fail, they'll find out what they should have done in a natural way, so they feel like they tried and failed, rather than it just always being a mystery.
Ideally failure should look like, "oh no, they had a fight the golem" or "oh no, they lost the gold they had to wager" not "they didn't find out what the prize was, they just go away never knowing". The players going away without finding what's there is ok sometimes, but you need to build sufficient trust that their decisions about what's too dangerous actually matter for them to care and not just feel like it's completely random.
The party should interact with it, in character. Always with roleplaying situations, provide things for the party to do. Ideally there'll be an NPC there they can TALK to and find out more. Or they can get relevant information history rolls, or detect magic spells. Or the whole puzzle is in the middle of a fight, and they have to multitask. Or there's some other risk of taking damage, so there's always a cost.
And just, there should be a bunch of stuff there. Not just a big empty space and a riddle carved somewhere. But decoration. A bunch of levers to pull. Some sort of emotional stakes. The more the party interact with it, the more they'll care. Ideally the party are invested in each step. If bad things come directly from the party's actions, they can feel like, "at least where figuring it out", whereas if they occur randomly the party can just be confused.
But also, while Character abilities should help, make sure they don't usually instantly solve the puzzle. Like other encounters, it's good that they can sometimes completely bypass it with one good use of a spell or ability -- that rewards them for having it. But ideally it will let them find the answer, not just ignore the puzzle.
If you have players who enjoy puzzles, they probably want to understand it. That means, not just get past it, but understand why/how a solution is correct. Make sure that you have answers. Likewise ask "why is this there" because your players might ask. "A mad wizard did it", is fine, but have in mind what sort of thing. What sort of mistakes might they have made? What would they care about? Understand how it works, mechanically, or magically, and if it's been triggered before or not, and the story behind it. The players might surprise you with a way of finding out, and then you'll have something helpful ready-made to give them.
An ideal puzzle might:
* Have a lot of interesting parts
* Tie into the lore of the world somehow
* Have a clear reason for being there (either set up as a puzzle on purpose, or that the players need to figure out an unlabelled device)
* It's clear how it works. The characters don't HAVE to play by the puzzle's rules if they can bypass it somehow
* But they shouldn't be able to do so routinely
* Clever approaches can solve part or all of the puzzle, but "finding out the answer through cleverness" is more satisfying than "not needing to find the answer"
* There should be tactical trade offs affected by the character's abilities and personalities, e.g. who's going to take the risky position? Which position is most risky?
* As much as possible, have something where the players can experiment, but there's a cost, and smart players will get the answer quickly and slower or unlucky players will get there a little later, but not never. E.g. less "if you get it wrong, you fail forever", more "you can have as many tries as you like, but each wrong answer you get zapped/have to fight something".
It's also good to allow a safety-valve, i.e. if the players get frustrated or confused, have some "official" way of letting them get hints, maybe at a cost. Or just to go away and research and come back. Some positive course of action other than "we don't know".
But it's hard to do satisfyingly in a roleplaying game. Or in a novel, for that matter, though that's a different question.
We know roughly what a bad puzzle looks like. The GM reads it out. The players discuss it a bit. The player best as puzzles talks it over with a GM and eventually proposes an answer. No-one is in character. The other players don't really do anything.
I talked about this before, but a few more puzzle rooms have come up in my Labyrinth campaign so I wanted to talk more about what worked and what didn't.
What makes a puzzle that works well?
Like other encounters, the session should move forward whether the party succeeds or fails. That means the puzzle either needs to be something they can get past even if they don't solve it. Or sometimes, not essential to the main quest so they can just leave, but even then, that's rather a letdown, it's more exciting if it's too risky to stay, not too boring. The puzzle should come to some sort of resolution. Ideally, even if they fail, they'll find out what they should have done in a natural way, so they feel like they tried and failed, rather than it just always being a mystery.
Ideally failure should look like, "oh no, they had a fight the golem" or "oh no, they lost the gold they had to wager" not "they didn't find out what the prize was, they just go away never knowing". The players going away without finding what's there is ok sometimes, but you need to build sufficient trust that their decisions about what's too dangerous actually matter for them to care and not just feel like it's completely random.
The party should interact with it, in character. Always with roleplaying situations, provide things for the party to do. Ideally there'll be an NPC there they can TALK to and find out more. Or they can get relevant information history rolls, or detect magic spells. Or the whole puzzle is in the middle of a fight, and they have to multitask. Or there's some other risk of taking damage, so there's always a cost.
And just, there should be a bunch of stuff there. Not just a big empty space and a riddle carved somewhere. But decoration. A bunch of levers to pull. Some sort of emotional stakes. The more the party interact with it, the more they'll care. Ideally the party are invested in each step. If bad things come directly from the party's actions, they can feel like, "at least where figuring it out", whereas if they occur randomly the party can just be confused.
But also, while Character abilities should help, make sure they don't usually instantly solve the puzzle. Like other encounters, it's good that they can sometimes completely bypass it with one good use of a spell or ability -- that rewards them for having it. But ideally it will let them find the answer, not just ignore the puzzle.
If you have players who enjoy puzzles, they probably want to understand it. That means, not just get past it, but understand why/how a solution is correct. Make sure that you have answers. Likewise ask "why is this there" because your players might ask. "A mad wizard did it", is fine, but have in mind what sort of thing. What sort of mistakes might they have made? What would they care about? Understand how it works, mechanically, or magically, and if it's been triggered before or not, and the story behind it. The players might surprise you with a way of finding out, and then you'll have something helpful ready-made to give them.
An ideal puzzle might:
* Have a lot of interesting parts
* Tie into the lore of the world somehow
* Have a clear reason for being there (either set up as a puzzle on purpose, or that the players need to figure out an unlabelled device)
* It's clear how it works. The characters don't HAVE to play by the puzzle's rules if they can bypass it somehow
* But they shouldn't be able to do so routinely
* Clever approaches can solve part or all of the puzzle, but "finding out the answer through cleverness" is more satisfying than "not needing to find the answer"
* There should be tactical trade offs affected by the character's abilities and personalities, e.g. who's going to take the risky position? Which position is most risky?
* As much as possible, have something where the players can experiment, but there's a cost, and smart players will get the answer quickly and slower or unlucky players will get there a little later, but not never. E.g. less "if you get it wrong, you fail forever", more "you can have as many tries as you like, but each wrong answer you get zapped/have to fight something".
It's also good to allow a safety-valve, i.e. if the players get frustrated or confused, have some "official" way of letting them get hints, maybe at a cost. Or just to go away and research and come back. Some positive course of action other than "we don't know".
Friday Five: Gender differences
Oct. 11th, 2019 08:35 amhttps://thefridayfive.dreamwidth.org/90602.html
1. Do you think you are treated differently because you are a man or woman?
Obviously lots. I think you know what I think, and the same for the next two questions.
I find it really strange imagining what woman-Jack might be like. I don't know how much that's my own conception of gender, and how much it's just that even if I'm the same, SO MUCH about how society treats you is different.
Although ironically, I think some of the things I have problems with, like being taken seriously, are things often made problems for women. Except people didn't just look at me and treat me like that, it's how I act, when many people have the same problem however they act.
4. Do you think women should take men's last names when they marry? Why or why not?
I think everyone should have the choice to do what they want with their name. I think trying to mandate anything doesn't help.
I think if you're going to have children, the real question is "what surname do the children have" because you have to choose a single name per child and double-barrelling only postpones the problem. And then one or both parents choose to change their name to match or not.
There's a benefit in everyone having one name, for simplicity, and showing a genuine commitment to the family as a long term thing. But since there's enough families that aren't "two opposite sex parents, and some children", I think society will just eventually have to get used to that not being the case, and then everyone can do what they like.
I think the only stable solution is something like, "every parents choose which surname they prefer". I think trying to stick to a system will just not work.
But in answer to the question, the old status quo of "the man doesn't change his surname, the woman does, and we've never heard of any other combination of genders" is -- obviously -- sexist, and damaging, even if it works out ok for many individual couples.
5. Do you think a woman will be President of the United States in the near future?
Under the circumstances I really freaking hope so! Anything other than Trump is needed so urgently :( But I don't know how likely it is. It feels like we have enough creditable non-male primary candidates that it will happen sooner or later. But I don't know if there's anyone who will get there this election or the one after. Warren is getting more popular, but I find it hard to believe anyone with detailed proposals and a commitment to changing worrying trends will actually get anywhere :(
1. Do you think you are treated differently because you are a man or woman?
Obviously lots. I think you know what I think, and the same for the next two questions.
I find it really strange imagining what woman-Jack might be like. I don't know how much that's my own conception of gender, and how much it's just that even if I'm the same, SO MUCH about how society treats you is different.
Although ironically, I think some of the things I have problems with, like being taken seriously, are things often made problems for women. Except people didn't just look at me and treat me like that, it's how I act, when many people have the same problem however they act.
4. Do you think women should take men's last names when they marry? Why or why not?
I think everyone should have the choice to do what they want with their name. I think trying to mandate anything doesn't help.
I think if you're going to have children, the real question is "what surname do the children have" because you have to choose a single name per child and double-barrelling only postpones the problem. And then one or both parents choose to change their name to match or not.
There's a benefit in everyone having one name, for simplicity, and showing a genuine commitment to the family as a long term thing. But since there's enough families that aren't "two opposite sex parents, and some children", I think society will just eventually have to get used to that not being the case, and then everyone can do what they like.
I think the only stable solution is something like, "every parents choose which surname they prefer". I think trying to stick to a system will just not work.
But in answer to the question, the old status quo of "the man doesn't change his surname, the woman does, and we've never heard of any other combination of genders" is -- obviously -- sexist, and damaging, even if it works out ok for many individual couples.
5. Do you think a woman will be President of the United States in the near future?
Under the circumstances I really freaking hope so! Anything other than Trump is needed so urgently :( But I don't know how likely it is. It feels like we have enough creditable non-male primary candidates that it will happen sooner or later. But I don't know if there's anyone who will get there this election or the one after. Warren is getting more popular, but I find it hard to believe anyone with detailed proposals and a commitment to changing worrying trends will actually get anywhere :(
Belated Friday Five: A bit of everything
Oct. 6th, 2019 11:39 am1. If you were President of the United States, what would be your top 3 things that you would like to change?
Jesus fuck. I don't know where to start. High on my list would be:
* Stop invading foreign countries on spurious pretexts
* Fix the electoral system. Most importantly, elections shouldn't be under the control of partisan officials, and there shouldn't be so many loopholes allowing dodgy money to buy elections. Hand count ballots instead of paying swinging sums of money for "scan all the ballots and then say the party who bought the machine won" machines. Have, enough voting stations there aren't queues, have them at times people can get to them.
* Abolish the death penalty, bring murderous police to account.
* Invest in non-fossil-fuel energy with the same fervour previous pursued in wars and moon landings.
* Fund public transit enough people want to actually use it.
* Free healthcare for everyone, whatever you want to call it. Yes, food and housing too. I'm honestly right there with internet access too.
* The constitution is a pretty good idea! I like the rights! But there's some pretty good rights we have in Europe, maybe you'd like those as well?
* While we're abolishing whole industries, maybe the IRS should just work out how much tax you have to pay and then take that much automatically rather than forcing you to guess, taking twice as much, and then fining you. If you absolutely have to have them take 10% more and then refund it, make it optional.
* This doesn't rise to the level of the others, but maybe be a bit less creepily cultish about the flag?
* And I mean, things like open borders, but that applies to every country.
But I'm not sure how to pick three. Do they have to be ones congress will allow, or can I just do them? That would probably determine it, which ones I can do as president.
Of course, right now, just "not being Trump" would be incredibly good even if I didn't achieve anything at all.
2. If you had to survive off of one specific type of food, what would it be and why?
I really don't know! I used to be completely content to just eat one thing for ages, but now I find myself seeking at least some variety. I need some carbs, but 100% carbs is too much. A fair bit of protein. I often make "rice with veg heavy sauce and cheese", if that's one thing, that's probably ok.
3. If your life were a play, what would it be (tragedy, comedy, drama, etc.)?
Wow, I don't know. I kind of screwed up a lot of things but muddled through somehow. It doesn't seem funny enough for a comedy. Or a tragedy. It's not dramatic enough for a drama. It's just life.
4. What community is your favorite and why?
Don't have room for this one as well!
5. When did you realize you were finally an adult and how did it make you feel?
...When? It feels more like a process. I never really felt "ready" for life. But at some point I realised I'd picked up enough adulting competence compared to 20 year olds it was ridiculous to deny. But I still feel behind a lot of people.
Jesus fuck. I don't know where to start. High on my list would be:
* Stop invading foreign countries on spurious pretexts
* Fix the electoral system. Most importantly, elections shouldn't be under the control of partisan officials, and there shouldn't be so many loopholes allowing dodgy money to buy elections. Hand count ballots instead of paying swinging sums of money for "scan all the ballots and then say the party who bought the machine won" machines. Have, enough voting stations there aren't queues, have them at times people can get to them.
* Abolish the death penalty, bring murderous police to account.
* Invest in non-fossil-fuel energy with the same fervour previous pursued in wars and moon landings.
* Fund public transit enough people want to actually use it.
* Free healthcare for everyone, whatever you want to call it. Yes, food and housing too. I'm honestly right there with internet access too.
* The constitution is a pretty good idea! I like the rights! But there's some pretty good rights we have in Europe, maybe you'd like those as well?
* While we're abolishing whole industries, maybe the IRS should just work out how much tax you have to pay and then take that much automatically rather than forcing you to guess, taking twice as much, and then fining you. If you absolutely have to have them take 10% more and then refund it, make it optional.
* This doesn't rise to the level of the others, but maybe be a bit less creepily cultish about the flag?
* And I mean, things like open borders, but that applies to every country.
But I'm not sure how to pick three. Do they have to be ones congress will allow, or can I just do them? That would probably determine it, which ones I can do as president.
Of course, right now, just "not being Trump" would be incredibly good even if I didn't achieve anything at all.
2. If you had to survive off of one specific type of food, what would it be and why?
I really don't know! I used to be completely content to just eat one thing for ages, but now I find myself seeking at least some variety. I need some carbs, but 100% carbs is too much. A fair bit of protein. I often make "rice with veg heavy sauce and cheese", if that's one thing, that's probably ok.
3. If your life were a play, what would it be (tragedy, comedy, drama, etc.)?
Wow, I don't know. I kind of screwed up a lot of things but muddled through somehow. It doesn't seem funny enough for a comedy. Or a tragedy. It's not dramatic enough for a drama. It's just life.
4. What community is your favorite and why?
Don't have room for this one as well!
5. When did you realize you were finally an adult and how did it make you feel?
...When? It feels more like a process. I never really felt "ready" for life. But at some point I realised I'd picked up enough adulting competence compared to 20 year olds it was ridiculous to deny. But I still feel behind a lot of people.
https://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=4317
I feel like Scott's FAQ needs its own FAQ
Q. So, I heard on twitter there was some big news about quantum computing. Is that for bullshit?
A. Until now I've basically assumed all big announcements about quantum computing are bullshit and haven't been proved wrong yet.
Q. And this one?
A. Scott Aaronson thinks its for real and he's generally right about this sort of thing and not prone to quantum bullshit.
Q. So... wtf is "quantum supremacy"
A. This sounded like super bullshit to me, but according to wikipedia, it's a term for a quantum computer which can solve a problem no existing non-quantum computer can.
Q. So... that happened?
A. Scott Aaronson thinks so. The official publication hasn't happened yet.
Q. And this is... out of nowhere?
A. It sounds like no, actually, just that the number of qubits in quantum computers was slowly growing until through some engineering brilliance they reached the point of being able to do non-trivial calculations. But having a quantum computer which is actually better than a classical computer at SOMETHING is still pretty impressive.
Q. So... better at what?
A. Um... some contrived problem made up to specifically show that there's something quantum computers can do and classic computers can't.
Q. Oh. But, like, it really is, a problem you can try and solve on a classic computer and fail and try on a quantum computer and succeed?
A. Apparently so.
Q. Apparently?
A. That's basically the situation. No-one can PROVE you can't do it on a classical computer: no-one's even proved large travelling salesman problems or other NP-complete/NP-hard problems are impossible for classical computers yet. But no-one expects otherwise.
Q. Any other big caveats?
A. Apparently this particular problem is probabilistic, you sample the result N times and show it's more-likely-than-chance in the right answer.
Q. And how do you know what the right answer is? Is this a hard-to-find-each-to-check thing?
A. That's what everyone hopes to reach in future, but sadly no, apparently this is a "solve it in seconds on a quantum computer, then simulate the quantum algorithm in months of giant compute clusters on classical processors, check the results match"
Q. But then you CAN do it on a non-quantum computer. Wasn't the point to find a problem you can't?
A. Yeah. But (a) with this method, if they build a quantum computer even slightly bigger, it would be unmatchable, but then they wouldn't have any way of checking the answer and (b) if the method works and it is seconds vs months, everyone agrees that is quantum computers doing something useful.
Q. So, does this break crypto?
A. Not for a while yet. They'll need a fair bit bigger quantum computers to make that practical.
Q. But those are coming?
A. I don't know, but it sounds like it.
Q. And that breaks all crypto?
A. Of course not.
Q. It breaks all crypto we use in real life at the moment?
A. No.
Q. But?
A. It would break MOST crypto we use at the moment. Anything that lets you set up secure crypto without secretly sharing a key in advance.
Q. Wait, not just RSA, other systems too?
A. Apparently the same factoring works there too?
Q. But someone will come up with some crypto which quantum computers don't help against?
A. As I understand it, we expect that from a theoretical point of view, but people haven't actually got round to it yet.
Q. Do the NSA have a bigger quantum computer?
A. I really don't know. I think installing spyware everywhere is probably easier. But they're filled with ethics-flexible maths nerds who'd probably WANT to build a big quantum computer.
Q. So what are the next steps after this?
A. Quantum computer with more bits. Solving a less contrived problem or finding a problem to solve that can actually be checked. Working out how many extra quantum bits you need to account for errors from losing the coherence of your qubits (10% more? 1000000% more? somewhere between?). Eventually, getting a computer that can run Shur's factoring algorithm, and breaking existing cryptosystems in practice. Find a problem that's actually useful -- not sure what that is, but modelling some physical processes?
I feel like Scott's FAQ needs its own FAQ
Q. So, I heard on twitter there was some big news about quantum computing. Is that for bullshit?
A. Until now I've basically assumed all big announcements about quantum computing are bullshit and haven't been proved wrong yet.
Q. And this one?
A. Scott Aaronson thinks its for real and he's generally right about this sort of thing and not prone to quantum bullshit.
Q. So... wtf is "quantum supremacy"
A. This sounded like super bullshit to me, but according to wikipedia, it's a term for a quantum computer which can solve a problem no existing non-quantum computer can.
Q. So... that happened?
A. Scott Aaronson thinks so. The official publication hasn't happened yet.
Q. And this is... out of nowhere?
A. It sounds like no, actually, just that the number of qubits in quantum computers was slowly growing until through some engineering brilliance they reached the point of being able to do non-trivial calculations. But having a quantum computer which is actually better than a classical computer at SOMETHING is still pretty impressive.
Q. So... better at what?
A. Um... some contrived problem made up to specifically show that there's something quantum computers can do and classic computers can't.
Q. Oh. But, like, it really is, a problem you can try and solve on a classic computer and fail and try on a quantum computer and succeed?
A. Apparently so.
Q. Apparently?
A. That's basically the situation. No-one can PROVE you can't do it on a classical computer: no-one's even proved large travelling salesman problems or other NP-complete/NP-hard problems are impossible for classical computers yet. But no-one expects otherwise.
Q. Any other big caveats?
A. Apparently this particular problem is probabilistic, you sample the result N times and show it's more-likely-than-chance in the right answer.
Q. And how do you know what the right answer is? Is this a hard-to-find-each-to-check thing?
A. That's what everyone hopes to reach in future, but sadly no, apparently this is a "solve it in seconds on a quantum computer, then simulate the quantum algorithm in months of giant compute clusters on classical processors, check the results match"
Q. But then you CAN do it on a non-quantum computer. Wasn't the point to find a problem you can't?
A. Yeah. But (a) with this method, if they build a quantum computer even slightly bigger, it would be unmatchable, but then they wouldn't have any way of checking the answer and (b) if the method works and it is seconds vs months, everyone agrees that is quantum computers doing something useful.
Q. So, does this break crypto?
A. Not for a while yet. They'll need a fair bit bigger quantum computers to make that practical.
Q. But those are coming?
A. I don't know, but it sounds like it.
Q. And that breaks all crypto?
A. Of course not.
Q. It breaks all crypto we use in real life at the moment?
A. No.
Q. But?
A. It would break MOST crypto we use at the moment. Anything that lets you set up secure crypto without secretly sharing a key in advance.
Q. Wait, not just RSA, other systems too?
A. Apparently the same factoring works there too?
Q. But someone will come up with some crypto which quantum computers don't help against?
A. As I understand it, we expect that from a theoretical point of view, but people haven't actually got round to it yet.
Q. Do the NSA have a bigger quantum computer?
A. I really don't know. I think installing spyware everywhere is probably easier. But they're filled with ethics-flexible maths nerds who'd probably WANT to build a big quantum computer.
Q. So what are the next steps after this?
A. Quantum computer with more bits. Solving a less contrived problem or finding a problem to solve that can actually be checked. Working out how many extra quantum bits you need to account for errors from losing the coherence of your qubits (10% more? 1000000% more? somewhere between?). Eventually, getting a computer that can run Shur's factoring algorithm, and breaking existing cryptosystems in practice. Find a problem that's actually useful -- not sure what that is, but modelling some physical processes?
Conspiracy of Truths, Alexandra Rowland
Sep. 15th, 2019 10:27 pmI kept putting this off because it looked really good but there wasn't an ebook.
The cover
E.g. see on goodreads: www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/34328664-a-conspiracy-of-truths It's so beautiful, it somehow conjures the exact feel of the book, of illustrated manuscripts (even though there aren't any, it evokes a monastic tradition)
The premise
The main character is a Chant, belonging to an order of wandering story-tellers and lore-preservers. At the start of the book, he's been arrested for witchcraft in an overly-bureaucratic country he's never been in before, and constantly complaining how his trial is run.
The characters are amazingly vivid: his advocate who doesn't get on with him but takes his case because it's prestigious, looking for a boring cushy job, or looking to support her family, depending how you look at it; his assistant, young, earnest, well meaning, slowly learning the role of a chant; several rulers of the country, stern, or wavering, or mysterious, or flighty but cunning.
It's reminiscent of other books that bring a monastic tone into a fantasy world, even though the wandering chant has no connection to other chants.
The good
The way they describe the story telling, trying to keep the heart of each story, but being open about how the details vary according to the listener, and that they try to preserve as much good stories as they can, but they know the history will be lost.
It does an excellent job imagining a fantasy world that's not male dominated: there's three notable male characters, and at least eight women. Similarly, there's passing mentions to diseases which are not understood, but are recognisable to a modern reader, but the world doesn't have an unrealistic level of knowledge about them, but isn't just "you never meet people like that" either.
It's clear there's a variety of cultures in different countries with different mores about all these things, so it's not just "everyone has modern sensibilities", but also the book is set in a culture which isn't aggressively bigoted about things modern readers wouldn't agree with either, which is a nice balance.
The main character spends most of the time in prison, but the book manages amazingly well to tell his story, while also telling the story of the political upheavals in the country, mostly inadvertently triggered by him.
The less good
Some things just didn't ring quite true. I didn't know enough to say if I was right, but I felt like the monetary system (including paper money, and a government controlled mint), the political system (kind of corrupt, but run on elections), and level of technology (I'm not sure) didn't all fit together quite right. And some of the politics felt a bit too pat when I looked back. But fwiw, they FELT right, the book wove a story where it all felt like a real place with real characters and things actually happening, not conjured into existence by authorial fiat.
The annoying
I often rant about annoying things in books I otherwise like, but this book wins my occasionally-awarded "some books don't have anything annoying about them but that doesn't mean they're perfect but no-one believes me until I exhibit some examples" award.
The cover
E.g. see on goodreads: www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/34328664-a-conspiracy-of-truths It's so beautiful, it somehow conjures the exact feel of the book, of illustrated manuscripts (even though there aren't any, it evokes a monastic tradition)
The premise
The main character is a Chant, belonging to an order of wandering story-tellers and lore-preservers. At the start of the book, he's been arrested for witchcraft in an overly-bureaucratic country he's never been in before, and constantly complaining how his trial is run.
The characters are amazingly vivid: his advocate who doesn't get on with him but takes his case because it's prestigious, looking for a boring cushy job, or looking to support her family, depending how you look at it; his assistant, young, earnest, well meaning, slowly learning the role of a chant; several rulers of the country, stern, or wavering, or mysterious, or flighty but cunning.
It's reminiscent of other books that bring a monastic tone into a fantasy world, even though the wandering chant has no connection to other chants.
The good
The way they describe the story telling, trying to keep the heart of each story, but being open about how the details vary according to the listener, and that they try to preserve as much good stories as they can, but they know the history will be lost.
It does an excellent job imagining a fantasy world that's not male dominated: there's three notable male characters, and at least eight women. Similarly, there's passing mentions to diseases which are not understood, but are recognisable to a modern reader, but the world doesn't have an unrealistic level of knowledge about them, but isn't just "you never meet people like that" either.
It's clear there's a variety of cultures in different countries with different mores about all these things, so it's not just "everyone has modern sensibilities", but also the book is set in a culture which isn't aggressively bigoted about things modern readers wouldn't agree with either, which is a nice balance.
The main character spends most of the time in prison, but the book manages amazingly well to tell his story, while also telling the story of the political upheavals in the country, mostly inadvertently triggered by him.
The less good
Some things just didn't ring quite true. I didn't know enough to say if I was right, but I felt like the monetary system (including paper money, and a government controlled mint), the political system (kind of corrupt, but run on elections), and level of technology (I'm not sure) didn't all fit together quite right. And some of the politics felt a bit too pat when I looked back. But fwiw, they FELT right, the book wove a story where it all felt like a real place with real characters and things actually happening, not conjured into existence by authorial fiat.
The annoying
I often rant about annoying things in books I otherwise like, but this book wins my occasionally-awarded "some books don't have anything annoying about them but that doesn't mean they're perfect but no-one believes me until I exhibit some examples" award.
Daily Diary: September 2019
Sep. 12th, 2019 10:37 amStill following the resolution of giving a daily diary for one day in the month.
I'm quite tired. I had a long thing last night that ended up running until about 1:30 or 2:00, and then I slept inconsistently too. I used to stay up that late all the time, but I don't know. So this morning I was tired, but I think my regular sleep routine.
Liv is living at home now, so we get up together! It's so nice to just have lazy getting up, hugs, tea and breakfast, etc. Except today I got up 20 min late. I have a radio alarm for 8:00 and usually get up then, or within 10-15 min at worst. So much better than I used to, when I used to sleep an alarm regularly.
Our house guest has found somewhere more long term, so we can be more relaxed about being dressed in the public areas of the house.
I usually check email and read daily webcomics while eating breakfast. There's some that update every day, some that update every weekday, one mon/wed/fri, one mon only, one mon/thu (but updates mid-afternoon our time and I somehow ended up thinking of the first update as tue).
And some chat with Liv. We try to chat a little in the morning but avoid too-interesting topics.
Then drive to work. A14 is constantly changing due to ongoing roadworks, but my commute is usually not impeded, except for all being 40mph, and sometimes a big queue leaving bar hill appears.
Day at work. Lunch break, with pot of something vege with cheese and bagel.
Tonight, gym. The last couple of weeks have been a bit disordered, so I'm still jogging but my stretches and weights have been a bit disruptive. Tue I swam, just a couple of lengths, but it was so nice. Need to keep that regular.
Then home, hopefully with few/no responsibilities tonight, but dinner, chat with Liv, maybe some reading or TV. Resisting the urge to do-all-the-things-I-haven't-had-time-for.
I'm quite tired. I had a long thing last night that ended up running until about 1:30 or 2:00, and then I slept inconsistently too. I used to stay up that late all the time, but I don't know. So this morning I was tired, but I think my regular sleep routine.
Liv is living at home now, so we get up together! It's so nice to just have lazy getting up, hugs, tea and breakfast, etc. Except today I got up 20 min late. I have a radio alarm for 8:00 and usually get up then, or within 10-15 min at worst. So much better than I used to, when I used to sleep an alarm regularly.
Our house guest has found somewhere more long term, so we can be more relaxed about being dressed in the public areas of the house.
I usually check email and read daily webcomics while eating breakfast. There's some that update every day, some that update every weekday, one mon/wed/fri, one mon only, one mon/thu (but updates mid-afternoon our time and I somehow ended up thinking of the first update as tue).
And some chat with Liv. We try to chat a little in the morning but avoid too-interesting topics.
Then drive to work. A14 is constantly changing due to ongoing roadworks, but my commute is usually not impeded, except for all being 40mph, and sometimes a big queue leaving bar hill appears.
Day at work. Lunch break, with pot of something vege with cheese and bagel.
Tonight, gym. The last couple of weeks have been a bit disordered, so I'm still jogging but my stretches and weights have been a bit disruptive. Tue I swam, just a couple of lengths, but it was so nice. Need to keep that regular.
Then home, hopefully with few/no responsibilities tonight, but dinner, chat with Liv, maybe some reading or TV. Resisting the urge to do-all-the-things-I-haven't-had-time-for.
Cash vs bitcoin vs banks vs what
Sep. 11th, 2019 01:01 pmCurrently we have:
Physical money
- partially traceable
- no way of undoing transactions
Bitcoin
- partially traceable
- no way of undoing transactions
- is destroying the planet
Traditional banking
- mostly user friendly
- transactions can be rolled back if there's fraud
- lets the government spy on you
- for weird historical reasons, "consumer protection" and "get credit for everyday use" are bundled together
New faux-banking (including both things like paypal and cryptocurrency exchanges)
- perform many of the roles of banks
- some of the convenient, some of the protection, but sometimes not
- race to see how fast existing banking legislation covers them
There's a natural two tier system. Banking is built on top of money (originally physical money, now electronic money). Most significant bitcoin transactions use an exchange, even though someone can in principle make the transactions themselves.
Bitcoin was an ingenious technical innovation which unfortunately made so much unneeded cryptographic calculation it significantly impacted global warming with farms of graphics cards :( Probably it won't last.
Likewise, as with many "disruptive" technologies, the new banking systems had some benefits (you can just send someone money by doing so, without giving VISA veto power over whether your purchase looks kosher or not) and many problems (they started deciding for themselves whether to claim your transaction was fraudulent and keep your money, and were a power grab by people hoping to put the power in the hands of random tech companies, instead of governments)
So, "traditional money and banks bad, new fake money and banks good" is not a convincing narrative.
But in my opinion, "the new systems are destined to fail, therefore everything is fine as it was before" isn't convincing either.
There are extensive problems. If you're a small organisation, can people make small purchases from you? In person yes. Online, only if it's socially acceptable and you give patreon or VISA N%. Can you travel without the government knowing exactly where you go? Only if the transport takes cash, or TFL start taking anonymisation seriously. New systems helped temporarily with some of those problems.
Anything similar to consumer banking will need regulation the way consumer banking does now for the same reasons. Fraud will happen and there needs to be answers. Sufficiently large transactions probably do need to be scrutinised by the government for illegal activity.
But it would be nice if there were a more systematic approach. If there was an easy "just pay cash" equivalent where you accept a small risk of fraud in exchange for convenience. Where transaction fees didn't make small transactions so hard. Where everything you'd ever done wasn't stored in a convenient database one damoclesian law change away from being audited for "is this person sufficiently 'our kind of people'". But I don't know how we get there.
Physical money
- partially traceable
- no way of undoing transactions
Bitcoin
- partially traceable
- no way of undoing transactions
- is destroying the planet
Traditional banking
- mostly user friendly
- transactions can be rolled back if there's fraud
- lets the government spy on you
- for weird historical reasons, "consumer protection" and "get credit for everyday use" are bundled together
New faux-banking (including both things like paypal and cryptocurrency exchanges)
- perform many of the roles of banks
- some of the convenient, some of the protection, but sometimes not
- race to see how fast existing banking legislation covers them
There's a natural two tier system. Banking is built on top of money (originally physical money, now electronic money). Most significant bitcoin transactions use an exchange, even though someone can in principle make the transactions themselves.
Bitcoin was an ingenious technical innovation which unfortunately made so much unneeded cryptographic calculation it significantly impacted global warming with farms of graphics cards :( Probably it won't last.
Likewise, as with many "disruptive" technologies, the new banking systems had some benefits (you can just send someone money by doing so, without giving VISA veto power over whether your purchase looks kosher or not) and many problems (they started deciding for themselves whether to claim your transaction was fraudulent and keep your money, and were a power grab by people hoping to put the power in the hands of random tech companies, instead of governments)
So, "traditional money and banks bad, new fake money and banks good" is not a convincing narrative.
But in my opinion, "the new systems are destined to fail, therefore everything is fine as it was before" isn't convincing either.
There are extensive problems. If you're a small organisation, can people make small purchases from you? In person yes. Online, only if it's socially acceptable and you give patreon or VISA N%. Can you travel without the government knowing exactly where you go? Only if the transport takes cash, or TFL start taking anonymisation seriously. New systems helped temporarily with some of those problems.
Anything similar to consumer banking will need regulation the way consumer banking does now for the same reasons. Fraud will happen and there needs to be answers. Sufficiently large transactions probably do need to be scrutinised by the government for illegal activity.
But it would be nice if there were a more systematic approach. If there was an easy "just pay cash" equivalent where you accept a small risk of fraud in exchange for convenience. Where transaction fees didn't make small transactions so hard. Where everything you'd ever done wasn't stored in a convenient database one damoclesian law change away from being audited for "is this person sufficiently 'our kind of people'". But I don't know how we get there.
Daily Diary: August
Aug. 12th, 2019 09:57 amA couple of friends started writing daily diaries in dreamwidth again. Sometimes that seems to work really well and sometimes it doesn't and I don't really understand the difference.
Anyway, I think my dreamwidth has suffered for lacking "what I did today" in comparison to "what I was thinking about". But partly, I don't have time to write that every day, and partly, I don't usually have the sort of "will Jack have the energy to go to the party? if he stays in, will he go out to the shop" tension I used to have, because my day-to-day life is much more settled.
So I decided a compromise was to write a slice of life for one day, but only once a month :)
Last time was in the midst of Dad's death, so I didn't write it up. It wasn't very representative anyway.
So, what about today?
I woke up at 8 with the radio alarm. That's been my standard for a while, but I've varied between procrastinating in bed for another 20 minutes, and leaping up promptly 5 minutes before. Liv got up with me which was really nice: it always used to be that she had to get up earlier to get to work on time.
My morning routine is usually "wash face, get dressed, have tea and toast". I'll shower in the evening because often I'm going to the gym anyway. And aim to leave for work by 8:45. That's been mixed as well, it used to often be 9:30 before I left, but recently I've been doing ok.
Then drive along King's Hedge's Road to A14, and to Bar Hill. Fortunately all the commuting traffic is in the other direction.
Then work until 5:30 or so, with approx an hour for lunch.
Tonight I'm hosting roleplaying. Group 2 in my Underlabyrinth world is on hiatus because everyone was v busy over summer, so I never really got to try the "two groups at once". And I've really enjoyed the campaign, but I'm thinking of bringing it to a finale is a couple of months. I've really enjoyed it though, I would like to run another, either in the same world or another.
Liv needed to skip tonight as it was the only time she could see ghoti. But Houseguest might sit in. Then there's the four other regular players. We'll arrive about 6:30, start about 7:00, finish about 10:00. Which pleasantly gives me a little but of time to relax/tidy before bed.
Anyway, I think my dreamwidth has suffered for lacking "what I did today" in comparison to "what I was thinking about". But partly, I don't have time to write that every day, and partly, I don't usually have the sort of "will Jack have the energy to go to the party? if he stays in, will he go out to the shop" tension I used to have, because my day-to-day life is much more settled.
So I decided a compromise was to write a slice of life for one day, but only once a month :)
Last time was in the midst of Dad's death, so I didn't write it up. It wasn't very representative anyway.
So, what about today?
I woke up at 8 with the radio alarm. That's been my standard for a while, but I've varied between procrastinating in bed for another 20 minutes, and leaping up promptly 5 minutes before. Liv got up with me which was really nice: it always used to be that she had to get up earlier to get to work on time.
My morning routine is usually "wash face, get dressed, have tea and toast". I'll shower in the evening because often I'm going to the gym anyway. And aim to leave for work by 8:45. That's been mixed as well, it used to often be 9:30 before I left, but recently I've been doing ok.
Then drive along King's Hedge's Road to A14, and to Bar Hill. Fortunately all the commuting traffic is in the other direction.
Then work until 5:30 or so, with approx an hour for lunch.
Tonight I'm hosting roleplaying. Group 2 in my Underlabyrinth world is on hiatus because everyone was v busy over summer, so I never really got to try the "two groups at once". And I've really enjoyed the campaign, but I'm thinking of bringing it to a finale is a couple of months. I've really enjoyed it though, I would like to run another, either in the same world or another.
Liv needed to skip tonight as it was the only time she could see ghoti. But Houseguest might sit in. Then there's the four other regular players. We'll arrive about 6:30, start about 7:00, finish about 10:00. Which pleasantly gives me a little but of time to relax/tidy before bed.
Piles of post
Aug. 11th, 2019 12:58 pmFor quite a long time I had quite a good system for post, after I set up a filing system a la David Allen's Getting Things Done. Basically, have a file for each company/org that sends you post. When you receive the post, put it straight into the file.
The secret is, if filing it is easy, then it's easy to just do, and if you're behind, you can file a bunch at once.
If there's stuff you need to DO, you can put that in a physical in-tray. Although I just filed it and used a virtual todo list instead.
But since I moved into this house I got behind. Mostly, I think, just that the filing cabinet slowly filled up, and then filing anything became a chore, and when my "willingness to file" fell below "amount of incoming" even a tiny %, then a backlog just slowly mounted up.
I had a few attempts, like separate files for "post to open", "post to process", "post to file". I used to be intimidated by post because I'd often have stuff I hadn't dealt with, and have urgent letters saying "you need to have done this by last year" (not because I had no money, but because I was bad at dealing with post). But one way or another it didn't help.
This weekend, I started a new set of files, basically the same but creating them new for stuff which is "current". And sorted most of the backlog. That was pretty easy. I found one or two important things I'd put aside. And nothing I'd forgotten I shouldn't have.
Because fortunately, my organisation was on top of things enough that a usual amount of reminders was more than enough to get me to do something.
In fact, I weirdly became someone who deals with important things, neither immediately, nor last minute, but a couple of weeks before the deadline, which is about perfect, and better than I ever expected to reach :)
PS.
At some point I need to go and throw out anything I don't need to keep from the old system to make more room. But that got less scary too, when I know realistically what I will need (bank statements, certificates) and what I won't need (all the extra bumf which comes in the envelopes)
The secret is, if filing it is easy, then it's easy to just do, and if you're behind, you can file a bunch at once.
If there's stuff you need to DO, you can put that in a physical in-tray. Although I just filed it and used a virtual todo list instead.
But since I moved into this house I got behind. Mostly, I think, just that the filing cabinet slowly filled up, and then filing anything became a chore, and when my "willingness to file" fell below "amount of incoming" even a tiny %, then a backlog just slowly mounted up.
I had a few attempts, like separate files for "post to open", "post to process", "post to file". I used to be intimidated by post because I'd often have stuff I hadn't dealt with, and have urgent letters saying "you need to have done this by last year" (not because I had no money, but because I was bad at dealing with post). But one way or another it didn't help.
This weekend, I started a new set of files, basically the same but creating them new for stuff which is "current". And sorted most of the backlog. That was pretty easy. I found one or two important things I'd put aside. And nothing I'd forgotten I shouldn't have.
Because fortunately, my organisation was on top of things enough that a usual amount of reminders was more than enough to get me to do something.
In fact, I weirdly became someone who deals with important things, neither immediately, nor last minute, but a couple of weeks before the deadline, which is about perfect, and better than I ever expected to reach :)
PS.
At some point I need to go and throw out anything I don't need to keep from the old system to make more room. But that got less scary too, when I know realistically what I will need (bank statements, certificates) and what I won't need (all the extra bumf which comes in the envelopes)
OK Maybe We Have Free Will 40% of the Time
Aug. 7th, 2019 04:39 pmDo we have free will?
Forget your preconceptions. If you ask, "what does it look like to have free will" or "what does it look like NOT to have free will", it rapidly becomes a lot more obvious what you actually mean by that question.
What does it mean to NOT have free will? Well, think of examples:
* Someone asks you to pick a number between 1 and 10. You felt free to choose any number! But it unbeknownst to you beforehand, it turned out that you were more likely to pick 7 than any other number
* You are trying to concentrate on something. But there's some delicious food / a person you're fond of / a persistent worry in your brain which keeps stopping you
* You're drunk, tired, too young, or otherwise impaired, and can't fully understand the options and have to choose between them based on a very limited understanding
All of those where you're TRYING to do something, but something stops you. Often something INSIDE YOUR BRAIN. And I mean, that bit is still you. "Being bad at choosing random numbers" is just as much a part of you as anything else.
I used to stop the argument there. That's who you ARE. It's still that 'you' choose. If you don't like that you're not a pure abstract reasoning machine, that's not a "don't have free will" problem.
I used to jokingly phrase it as a syllogism
Premise: You are actions are predicted by deterministic rules.
Premise: You control your actions
Conclusion: You ARE deterministic rules.
But that's not actually the whole story. Sometimes those "something in your brain stops you" happens more than others. Choosing to do something else instead of eating when you're hungry is HARD, but you usually can if you try hard enough. Some things are harder to suppress. And you can't choose to "not sleep" or "not breathe" by strength of will however much you try.
Sometimes more free will, sometimes less.
What about all those OTHER times. Everyone knows that sometimes something overrides your attempt to decide something. But the rest of the time, when it feels like you have a free choice, do you really?
Well, there's some other exceptions. But... we know a lot of the time, your brain is running on heuristics that produce weird answers like "the first choice offered" or "the choice most like what you remember from childhood". Even when we don't know that it's half-assing the analytical reasoning, it probably is some of the time. That's just who we are.
What about what when people say "no free will". Like, an implacable force forcing you to certain outcomes? Well, if you count the laws of physics, then yes, we already covered that. If you mean something else, then, "there's no way to tell, but probably not".
What about practical consequences? Well, yes, act like you have free will. And what about other people? Well, sometimes they do and sometimes they don't -- interact with them in ways that work, not ones that meet some theoretical standard of "fair".
Forget your preconceptions. If you ask, "what does it look like to have free will" or "what does it look like NOT to have free will", it rapidly becomes a lot more obvious what you actually mean by that question.
What does it mean to NOT have free will? Well, think of examples:
* Someone asks you to pick a number between 1 and 10. You felt free to choose any number! But it unbeknownst to you beforehand, it turned out that you were more likely to pick 7 than any other number
* You are trying to concentrate on something. But there's some delicious food / a person you're fond of / a persistent worry in your brain which keeps stopping you
* You're drunk, tired, too young, or otherwise impaired, and can't fully understand the options and have to choose between them based on a very limited understanding
All of those where you're TRYING to do something, but something stops you. Often something INSIDE YOUR BRAIN. And I mean, that bit is still you. "Being bad at choosing random numbers" is just as much a part of you as anything else.
I used to stop the argument there. That's who you ARE. It's still that 'you' choose. If you don't like that you're not a pure abstract reasoning machine, that's not a "don't have free will" problem.
I used to jokingly phrase it as a syllogism
Premise: You are actions are predicted by deterministic rules.
Premise: You control your actions
Conclusion: You ARE deterministic rules.
But that's not actually the whole story. Sometimes those "something in your brain stops you" happens more than others. Choosing to do something else instead of eating when you're hungry is HARD, but you usually can if you try hard enough. Some things are harder to suppress. And you can't choose to "not sleep" or "not breathe" by strength of will however much you try.
Sometimes more free will, sometimes less.
What about all those OTHER times. Everyone knows that sometimes something overrides your attempt to decide something. But the rest of the time, when it feels like you have a free choice, do you really?
Well, there's some other exceptions. But... we know a lot of the time, your brain is running on heuristics that produce weird answers like "the first choice offered" or "the choice most like what you remember from childhood". Even when we don't know that it's half-assing the analytical reasoning, it probably is some of the time. That's just who we are.
What about what when people say "no free will". Like, an implacable force forcing you to certain outcomes? Well, if you count the laws of physics, then yes, we already covered that. If you mean something else, then, "there's no way to tell, but probably not".
What about practical consequences? Well, yes, act like you have free will. And what about other people? Well, sometimes they do and sometimes they don't -- interact with them in ways that work, not ones that meet some theoretical standard of "fair".
It took me a long time to develop a normal amount of "doing necessary things". Partly I had problems getting started on things (from big projects to every day things like getting out of bed). Partly I resented learning a rote system that didn't fit what I prioritised, so I didn't learn a system of "do this amount of housework every day" routine that I might have benefited from. Partly I was very perfectionist, so it felt futile to do *some* when I still wasn't doing *all*
I've got a lot better in various ways. Partly I have built up routines for day-to-day stuff. I have through various different tricks/habits/self-therapy slowly de-mystified "getting started". But there's a lot I'd still like to improve on.
I used to survive by basically living a status quo that had terrible housework, and a lot of regular socialising, but almost none of what you might call "working toward things". So in some ways that worked well, but I didn't want to get to age 80 and discover that I still went to the pub twice a week, but had never achieved anything and still lived in a similar student-style flat to when I was in my early twenties. Although I mean, maybe I should have been happier with that trade off, but I wasn't. But because my brain is infested with counter-productive perfectionism, as soon as I started to get better at things, it felt like I needed to be getting better at things ALL THE TIME.
Ideally I'd have regular self-care time. And regular socialising with other people. And time for the creative hobbies I enjoy doing: writing, GMing roleplaying, designing board games, programming, etc. And time for self-improvement, time for self-therapy, learning to dress better, learning to be a more pleasant person to be around. And time for "we really should have done this at some point" chores. And now I'm adding to the list "activism" as the crises I'm living through have ever more impossible to ignore. And so on.
But that is... a lot. I probably *can't* do all of that. But I can't bring myself to officially decide not to bother on any of them.
I've been through several previous systems. Recently I've been trying out "no responsibilities sat" where I can do just nothing, or work on what I feel like, without feeling constrained by "what I feel like I should do" which often killed my motivation. And I added "overdue chores Sunday", not the entire day, but basically I'd try to do SOME chore/chores which had been lingering with me never finding time for it, without feeling guilt for whether it had been on the list for days or years.
I realised the reason those worked is that it didn't make so much difference if I did the self-care and chores a lot or a little, as long as there kept being SOME at a steady rate, but not so much they took over everything else, or so little that they never happened.
Partly, I made the effort to stop thinking of all the chores as "I'll catch up once and then I'll be a Functioning Adult TM" but instead, "if I do a little bit every week or so on necessary house-ownership care, or necessary body-having appointments, or buying things that we might need but were never urgent, then over time I will be mostly up to date on the important things". And new things will always arrive, but as long as the new stuff is added.
Now I'm seriously considering... should I do that for everything? Not so much have a dedicated day, as I don't know if I want to do all those things the same amount. But maybe have a shuffled list, where if I have some time, I can say, "pick one or two of these at random, work on one of those for a bit", to ensure, I keep doing SOME stuff on all of them.
What does everyone else do? Do you have a way of balancing so many demands? Or do you in practice live in a status quo of "if things keep going like this, then in 20 years I'll feel it went well", and responding to additional demands as they come up?
I've got a lot better in various ways. Partly I have built up routines for day-to-day stuff. I have through various different tricks/habits/self-therapy slowly de-mystified "getting started". But there's a lot I'd still like to improve on.
I used to survive by basically living a status quo that had terrible housework, and a lot of regular socialising, but almost none of what you might call "working toward things". So in some ways that worked well, but I didn't want to get to age 80 and discover that I still went to the pub twice a week, but had never achieved anything and still lived in a similar student-style flat to when I was in my early twenties. Although I mean, maybe I should have been happier with that trade off, but I wasn't. But because my brain is infested with counter-productive perfectionism, as soon as I started to get better at things, it felt like I needed to be getting better at things ALL THE TIME.
Ideally I'd have regular self-care time. And regular socialising with other people. And time for the creative hobbies I enjoy doing: writing, GMing roleplaying, designing board games, programming, etc. And time for self-improvement, time for self-therapy, learning to dress better, learning to be a more pleasant person to be around. And time for "we really should have done this at some point" chores. And now I'm adding to the list "activism" as the crises I'm living through have ever more impossible to ignore. And so on.
But that is... a lot. I probably *can't* do all of that. But I can't bring myself to officially decide not to bother on any of them.
I've been through several previous systems. Recently I've been trying out "no responsibilities sat" where I can do just nothing, or work on what I feel like, without feeling constrained by "what I feel like I should do" which often killed my motivation. And I added "overdue chores Sunday", not the entire day, but basically I'd try to do SOME chore/chores which had been lingering with me never finding time for it, without feeling guilt for whether it had been on the list for days or years.
I realised the reason those worked is that it didn't make so much difference if I did the self-care and chores a lot or a little, as long as there kept being SOME at a steady rate, but not so much they took over everything else, or so little that they never happened.
Partly, I made the effort to stop thinking of all the chores as "I'll catch up once and then I'll be a Functioning Adult TM" but instead, "if I do a little bit every week or so on necessary house-ownership care, or necessary body-having appointments, or buying things that we might need but were never urgent, then over time I will be mostly up to date on the important things". And new things will always arrive, but as long as the new stuff is added.
Now I'm seriously considering... should I do that for everything? Not so much have a dedicated day, as I don't know if I want to do all those things the same amount. But maybe have a shuffled list, where if I have some time, I can say, "pick one or two of these at random, work on one of those for a bit", to ensure, I keep doing SOME stuff on all of them.
What does everyone else do? Do you have a way of balancing so many demands? Or do you in practice live in a status quo of "if things keep going like this, then in 20 years I'll feel it went well", and responding to additional demands as they come up?