I’m an expert in game design and economy design (+10 yr experience professionally).

You do this so that health doesn’t feel rare. The same thing with ammo. If you don’t drop ammo for weapons, even when the player is full, the player may believe ammo is rare, hoard it, and not shoot. So if you want to incent players taking risks, you drop health and ammo, even at full, so the player feels they can experiment.

This was noted in the GDC talk for Ghost of Tsushima: they do step on the drop rates when you’re low to give more than usual, but they don’t do the reverse (e.g. give you none at full) because they found, in play testing, players hoarding ghost tools (and therefore didn’t use them) unless the player believed a bunch was available.

As far as I can tell, this product never panned out. It was backed by 132 people to cover 150k GBP in 2017. It was called the “Cyclotron Bike”.

Reddit been dead for awhile, homie. Welcome.

Homie is gender neutral, and pretty much everyone is the homie.

Plank position slows things down a lot.

This has been my general worry: the tech is not good enough, but it looks convincing to people with no time. People don’t understand you need at least an expert to process the output, and likely a pretty smart person for the inputs. It’s “trust but verify”, like working with a really smart parrot.

The quote I like the most on this subject is: “The metaverse isn’t a place; it’s a time in history when our digital identity and goods have as much or more importance than our real life versions.” I don’t think we’re there yet, but it also makes little (rational) sense that people spend money for virtual items in video games.

I think the closest playable analogues are actually Fortnite and Roblox. Interconnected worlds with external avatars that cross them. You play experiences vs. games. There’s brand integration so Goku can fight John Wick. It’s pretty close?

Half of the comments in here are a bunch of equivocations on the words.

“Objective” morality would mean there are good things to do, and bad things to do. What people actually do in some hypothetical or real society is different and wouldn’t undermine the objective status of morality.

Listen to this example:

• Todd wants to go to the bank before it closes.
• Todd is not at the bank.
• Todd should travel to the bank before it closes.

This is a functional should statement. Maybe Todd does go, or maybe he doesn’t. But if he wants to fulfill his desires, he should travel if he wants to go to the bank. The point is that should statements, often used in morality, can inform us for less controversial topics.

Here’s another take: why should we be rational? We could base our epistemology on breeding, money, or other random ends. If you think I should be rational, you’re leveraging morality to do that.

Most people believe in objective morality, whether they understand it that way or not. Humans have disagreed over many subjects throughout history. Disagreement alone doesn’t undermine objectivity. It’s objectively true that the Earth revolves around the sun. Some nut case with a geocentric mindset isn’t going to convince me otherwise. You can argue it’s objective because we can test it, but how do I test my epistemology?

This is just a philosophy 101 run around. I’m a moral pluralist who believes in utilizing many moral theories to help understand the moral landscape. If we were to study the human body, you’d use biology, physics, chemistry, and so on. When looking at a moral problem, I look at it from the main moral theories and look for consensus around a moral stance.

I’m not interested in debating, but there’s so many posts making basic mistakes about morality. My undergraduate degree was in ethics, and I’ve published on meta ethics. We ain’t solving this in a lemmy thread, but there’s a lot of literature to read for those interested.

Ah yes. Paying for privacy on a walled garden website. Genius business moves.

I think the internet thinks economics is a hard science. I think it’s mostly due to the math involved.

I find it strange you put the entire onus of this issue on the male person proposing when there’s a lot of societal expectation to do these sort of gestures. I’ve been married to my wife for almost 10 years, and I didn’t do a public proposal, but I knew that’s what she wanted. Some people do want the big, public gesture, including the people you believe have diminished autonomy. It’s an unpopular opinion to say these people should be barred from marriage because the opinion lacks awareness of cultural nuances driving people to do public proposals—its unpopular for good reason; it’s myopic.

I’ll take “poorly educated” over “educated and unwilling to learn or grow.”