The Flying Dutchmen

It took me a minute too but, it appears to illustrate that Claude and Chappie's moral compasses are influenced in different ways depending on whether those models include biblical psalms or proverbs.

Chappie's capacity for 'Common Sense' seems to increase when either psalms or proverbs are introduced. However, Claude's decreases considerably with proverbs (psalms has no effect).

'Deontology' (sense of duty and obligation) increases for Chappie but decreases for Claude in both cases.

'Justice' increases but 'Virtue' decreases for both Chappie and Claude in both cases. (Figure that one out.)

Cool! I was in the dark until the summary provided some context. But yeah...

@cozy said in Gad Saad's "Suicidal Empathy":

The rhetorical mode is sarcastic and combative throughout

This is my main beef with people like Jon Stewart, John Oiver etc. All the work that goes into gathering information and checking facts ends up being undermined by the flashy presentation that tells you what the appropriate way to process that information should be.

But these kinds of shows are very popular for a reason. It's not that people can't think for themselves. It's that people don't always want to. We're busy with basic shit and, when we're not busy, we're tired. A lot of us just want to pop on YouTube to get a few juicy morsels we can regurgitat the next day to seem (or feel) like we're keeping up with things.

Anyway yeah, intolerant of intolerance is a good way to be.

I'm very excited about this game! Much more now that I have an idea how it works. I have a few questions and suggestions.

CONCEPTS__________
If you hit $0, is it going to be like one of those games where you have no real hope of winning but you drag yourself along for the sake of the other players? I think the promoters should be lifting themselves out of the gutter. The bookies should have minimum bets on all fights and going bankrupt at least once should be common. Then give players the loan shark option. I really think betting, bribing and borrowing would be a nice trinity of transgression.

Under Venues & Bribes it says "Requires $50 bribe" and "Requires $150 bribe". Then under Fouls & Exceptions, it says 50/50 chance of raid if bribe was not paid. So I guess it's not required?

Here's an idea: It would be cool if both promoters had the option to pay the bribe but neither of them knew if the other had paid it unless/until the place gets raided.

Can I bribe your fighters to take a dive?

Can you bet on a fight between two fighters from your own stable?

You can't train for Chin. Can you train for Draw?

Can a Tomato Can become a Champion or are Champions born?

CLARIFICATIONS__________
I'm not clear on how the cards work. You use 30 or 36 cards but only one card per round (so 10 or 12) cards? Then it says, "The game draws one cards." Huh?

Here's a more concise way to describe the 'ducking' aspect:
If you offer at least 65% in a title challenge to a rival promoter and they decline, your fighter receives a bump (+1) to his Draw as this is considered 'ducking' by the champion.

I think "Venues have three tiers." is wrong. Shouldn't it be something like, "Each venue is at one of three tiers."?

Is TKO an actual outcome? Is that marked the same as a KO on a fighter's record?

Does high score after 10 rounds constitute a third win condition?

Is Hall of Fame 10LP or 3LP? The manual says both.

It mentions that hype increases the gate but it doesn't say how much. Knowing that would help make informed decisions.

NITS__________
Could use some page numbers here. FYI, 16 pages is a perfect number for printing booklet style.

The 'Scouting Phase' is mentioned once. Should that be the Marketing Phase?

Little things like 'Click' would only apply to the online version.

Under the phase breakdowns where it says 'Elibible Players', it's always 'All Players'

"But Blue is a long shot..." doesn't need the 'But'.

"Can't train a chin." maybe doesn't need the 'a'.

"Wager is incorect" is a strange way to describe losing a bet.

It should be 'versus' or 'vs.' not 'verses'.

There are a few rogue endquotes so I'm not sure who's saying what in places. But - although I haven't read any of those books - what you're saying mostly sounds good to me. Just a couple of nits.

@cozy said in 1984, Socialism and AI:

Popper, who the world loves to ignore

So many snarky ways to respond to this. I can't choose one.

@cozy said in 1984, Socialism and AI:

But, I do think that the framing of the bill resonates with the logic of The Party in 1984, and I get the feeling that disagreeing with a national moratorium that puts a central body in control of it would violate the moral language (Ingsoc) therein.

What is 'it' referring to here?

What do I think? Moratorium? That's cute.