Thanks for the advice.
I think this is something I would enjoy doing even if no one played it. I'm not necessarily looking for thanks, but I also recognize it would be a massive waste of resources - which could be spent on a project people find useful. It's also a multiplayer game, so without players, it would be truly pointless.
I think I'll go through with it though; if there's general curiosity, there's a chance.
Good points. I'll include the link in the post and ask over in the pokemon community.
Ironically, in my (limited) experience, the core pokemon fandom tends not to be interested in VGC.
This is why "fake it till you make it" should've been bullied out of existence.
What is this guy even saying? No one talks like that.
It's like being a cashier and saying "we are currently zeroed on our balances 🤓" , lmao. Not only do you not have enough info to make this claim (ever), but you were beyond incompetent with the failure.
How is this "whataboutism"? They gave instances for every one of your hypotheticals.
I do think that Hamas and Houthis are generally vile human-beings and that the West should not be cheering for the Shia muslim faction. But it is also true that they represent freedom fighters to some - especially those in Palestine currently being murdered (genocide) so Israel can have more living space
You make great points, and I will not necessarily refute any of them. This is why I said prior that I wanted a bunch of mathematicians to work towards a solution to this. There are many small and careful considerations that have to be made.
I think a heuristic (simplified model) may work better than trying to flat out solve it. As I said, this is not to refute, just a thought.
First, the problem is fundamentally chaotic (as you've said) there is no point in trying to accurately predict (solve) the outcome. Choosing "properties" that tend to be consistent, and then basing "success" off of those may be the more practical option. What these "properties" are would depend on consensus - models have elements you deem important, which may not actually be (as you've said). This is just something that needs RFC - hence needing a group of mathies.
Secondly, whatever the solution turns out to be needs to actually be do-able for the average joe. If there is a straight up solution, and it turns out to complex, I think it would be less valuable than a simple-to-do heuristic. If people don't follow up it's just worthless - and seeing how long it takes people to do very simple things, we'll be waiting hundreds of years.
I'll read the two articles you linked (I've read the abstracts) but it'll be a slow burn.
I just find it extremely interesting that these same people (which is a majority of the voting bloc) do not have serious opinions on infrastructure, lawlessness, security, and water pollution. These are all more pressing and immediate issues - but the trans girl had more of an effect on their vote than literal heavy metals poisoning their water.
We agree here, but the word "process" implies consistency. If there is no consistency, then it is just hysteria or maliciousness - both of which are inexcusable.
As I said prior, we agree so, it is pointless to reason with the hysterical, malicious, and stupid. But why are we not referring to them as what they are?
To say it another way, stupid cannot be explained (that's the whole point) - so why explain it? It makes it seem as if there is some form of depth to their thoughts (there isn't) - which rationalizes them. Every time we do that, we waste more of our limited resources.
It has been 2025 years since the death of Christ, and we still do not have a functional economic system!
No matter what angle you look at it from, it's insanity.
I think this is a "walk and chew gum" situation. We can do both.
For the sake of transparency, I am not a Dem. But I do find it beyond criminal that Dems (even if it's grassroots) has not whipped up an organization to both threaten a third-party AND primary Dems.
This also gives Dems diversification in strategy. The opposition will now have to counter two potential threats while protecting home-court. It really makes too much sense.
But unfortunately Dems are allergic to winning. This is not even to shit on you (you are probably not a Dem whip), but just an observation I've had. It's always 0 or 100, and highly telegraphed strategy. No precision, no timing, no urgency - just losers.
The problem is that people think they can outwit the fundamentals.
You need to vote EVERYTIME - even if it's pointless - because you need to complete the tit-for-tat exchange. If you do not complete the exchange, then you have lost all of your leverage. This is negotiation 101.
Even if you don't vote Democrat, you need to vote for someone - you cannot abstain, this is always the worst option. Voter suppression is obviously a different story, but if you're choosing not to vote, you are not suppressed.
TL;DR people are not good with money. There is no point is arguing finances with people that do not know basic math.
So what the conversation devolves to is "stable" vs "experimental" and very few people will choose to be experimental with their health.
The best way to shift favor would be for it to be required to show the cost of insurance on every check (it is currently a hidden fee). This way, when "hooman see big number" removed from gross pay they may reconsider.
True on all accounts
I would like a "federated" and open battle simulator. I would also like some viable alternative to pokemon for turn-based monster battling (the only one I know of is Temtem, and it's not doing well). Pokemon could also pull the plug on "Pokemon Showdown" at any moment. Though they are benevolent today, they may not be tomorrow.
I'm not really looking to compete with Pokemon, it just has a game-mode that inspired the project. Kind of like "World of Warcraft" and "League Of Legends" - they are not competitors at all, but LoL wouldn't exist without WoW.