I enjoyed the humor and the ending, it reminds me of some DOS games I grew up with. Nice work Neal :)
Clicker games can be considered banal, but when there is an interesting unexpected story or comedy behind the progressions, they are fun little pieces of art.
Two games I have played in the past of this ilk are Spaceplan [0] and Nodebuster [1], both of which only take around an hour or so to progress through. Fun and interesting like Neal's game.
The maintenance costs on this would be enormous! I sail regular old boring wind powered boats, and I have to admit, if I could afford this I'd probably buy it!
Saying that though, I have no idea how it would work legally in ports. I'm guessing you'd have to stay on surface in most territorial waters without some kind of crazy custom private clearance.
I live in Australia and I don't reckon authorities would be very happy if you decided to submerge in the middle of Sydney Harbour!
I tried to hit the 600 post limit by scrolling through my feed quickly, after about 2.5 minutes the tweets I was being shown were mostly the same ones but on a loop. I kept scrolling for another 3 minutes and yeah, it's like the last 100 odd tweets shown over and over and over.
Which honestly is an ironic metaphor for the platform as a whole.
Anyone who has one of those has a disproportionate amount of wealth obtained almost certainly at the expense of others.
The reality is that anyone earning over 70k a year is earning more than thier fair share of society's production.
We only produce a fixed amount of GDP, which when divided by population makes for a fairly small number even excluding children.
Yachts are hella expensive, with even the cheapest used sail boats costing more than a new car and an "ok" used one being 200k+
That not middle class shit, that's rich people shit. People earning 65 k a year and raising 2 kids can Never afford that, unless they are neglectful, go bankrupt to do it etc.
People need to stop using Elon level wealth as the metric for rich.... That's not rich, that's Obscene. Rich is anyone earning over 100k a year. That's Extreme privilege having nearly 2 shares of GDP while how many have to have less than a fair share to get you there? Yea....
I'm kind of with you on the yacht thing especially with the pricier ones (not sure you've looked hard enough for bargains, tired-looking but seaworthy 22-26 footers can be had for less than 10 grand, or so ive been told by someone who lives on one) but you lost me at the 70k number.
Not because it's too high or too low but because it's just so arbitrary. 70k in Glasgow is a very comfortable income, 70k in Tacoma Washington is just about enough to get by. In San Francisco there are indigents living (primarily) on the street whose income and benefits technically sum higher than 70k. And if any not-yet-indigent tried to move to San Francisco on that income they would soon join them.
I've always felt a scaling factor proportional to the extremes of individual difference makes the most sense here. Ideally the highest earning income possible in an economy should be somewhat proportional to the scale of capability in any given individual within it. I could acknowledge that people exist who might be five, possibly even 10 times as productive as I am when all of their merits are considered.
But there's no way in hell someone is 100 times, or 1,000 times or 10,000 times more productive or valuable and contributor to the world as me (or anyone), at least on the scale of individual capability. Without , that is, the benefit of some amplification apparatus that they happen to have at their disposal.
But it's pretty hopeless to get upset about these things. As a species we've hit some sort of ceiling long ago on efficiently allocating resources and rewards to ability. For example we'd much rather pay 30 bucks a week to give ourselves permission to dream about becoming millionaires, and as a reward watch yet another schlub (who like all that have come before him will do nothing of any consequence with the windfall) collect a two billion dollar paycheck - of our money - instead.
Implicit in my statement is that I'm speaking to averages but there is the simple fact that the only reason costs are higher is because markets raise prices to the result of supply and demand not because of some force outside our control
It's only because the average incomes are higher that costs are higher. Drop those wages to a normalized value and suddenly the market corrects as it reaches price equilibrium through bilateral supply and demand.
What country are you in? I have YouTube Premium and I don't get _any_ ads at all from YouTube, only the sponsored segments from creators directly (and no, NordVPN, I don't need a VPN, yes I know you exist).
Why should they? YouTube Premium literally says ad-free.
Not my problem how Google moderates their videos. They’re pretty efficient in demonetizing videos or entire channels for a couple of swear words or god forbid a nipple somewhere, but taking a mental dump in my head with some useless shit that I don’t care about is apparently fine.
Yes sponsorblock, which I cited above. But at this point, why pay for YouTube premium? If I have to install sponsorblock, I might as well install uBlock origin and get a better user experience for free.
The point is, uBlock origin is supposedly not going to work with the new system. You claimed that there "will be no way to avoid ads", which is strictly untrue. Youtube Premium + sponsorblock is the counterpoint.
Youtube won't take my money even if I wanted to give it to them. I've got no credit card nor the desire to get one, and it's the only payment method accepted.
The sponsored segments as in advertising that creators have negotiated directly? I have YouTube Premium and that's the only type of ad I get, I don't get anything else.
When a free experience can do better than the premium experience, your product have a problem.
I’m not even sorry about SponsorBlock, creators still get their money, I don’t have to watch the sponsored segment, and advertisers have no way to know I didn’t watch it. So it’s zero impact on the creator, big impact on my sanity.
> advertisers have no way to know I didn’t watch it
Actually per-segment viewership gets tracked by YouTube and displayed in the YouTube creator tools. I wouldn't be surprised if those statistics get used when negotiating deals with sponsors.
Yeah, it's unquestionably tracked what exact portions of a YT video your browser actually loads and plays. All playback is controlled by JS and there's no reason YT doesn't hook into those actions and record metrics of every play/pause/seek/mute/etc. user action (in addition to actual network requests made by the browser).
Templated output means you could build flexible user interfaces to interact in novel ways beyond a mere text input. What I find absolutely incredible right now is that any novel idea I have about "it would be nice if you could do X" is only taking a few days to reach any mainstream tech news source. I used to think the same thing about RubyGem ideas in the late 2000s, and within 6 months a useful package would come out. I put it down to many people consuming the same information at the same time coming up with the same ideas. It's happening much faster this time. 12 months from now who knows what's going to happen!
Clicker games can be considered banal, but when there is an interesting unexpected story or comedy behind the progressions, they are fun little pieces of art.
Two games I have played in the past of this ilk are Spaceplan [0] and Nodebuster [1], both of which only take around an hour or so to progress through. Fun and interesting like Neal's game.
[0] http://www.spaceplan.click/ [1] https://store.steampowered.com/app/3107330/Nodebuster/