I

here are good movies, and there are bad movies. This is generally agreed. Film, like all art, is a subjective medium. This is also agreed. But this leaves us with an obvious contradiction. What makes a movie good or bad?

When we say, “That was a bad movie,” we are really saying, “I didn't like that movie.” This seems like a reasonable translation to make. However, why is it that we behave as though we are speaking to a universal set of axioms and precise, exact criteria?

When we leave the movie theatre, we immediately need to pass a judgment; was that good, or bad? We might try to come up with some reasons why, but they likely won't be easy to articulate. We want to know if our time and money was well spent.

One could argue, that a movie's value can be derived from its ability to engage you, interest you in the imagery being shown, and keep your attention. If this were the true, then most pornographic films would have equal, or more value than the average Hollywood production. I think not- we intuitively understand that there is more dimension to a film's value than this.

Another possible explanation is that a film's value lies in the value of the information being communicated to the audience, in other words; what is the takeaway? What is the moral of the story? How does will this information inform my behaviour? This approach quickly collapses into the political, and I don't think we want to enter that realm either.

There is no one true use-value to any given movie. There is a utility to the idea of a rating system of averages which attributes value based on the average opinion of moviegoers/reviewers, but anyone can attest that this is at best an unreliable metric to seriously make your own purchasing decisions on.

Instead, we ought to accept that 'good' or 'bad' is a nonsensical judgement and that what you determine to be good or bad is not based on any universal set of axioms. A person is just as likely to enjoy a movie as you are to dislike it, the only real factor being previous lived experiences.

It is a perfectly comprehensible statement to say, “This is my favourite movie.” You are not making a value judgement on anything, but expressing that you favour this one thing, for reasons implied to be specific to you. However, it is blatantly inane to say seriously that any one movie is the greatest to ever exist or the worst of all time.

II

his is all to say, of course, that Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny does not need to be evaluated under this metric. It does not even need to be evaluated as an artistic work, but rather evaluating it only as a communication will suffice.

Before I continue, here is a basic version of communication theory. It will become important in a moment;

                                  (Noise)
Source -> Encoder -> Transmitter -> Channel -> Receiver -> Decoder -> Destination
                                   (Noise)

Somewhere, a source contains the information that will be sent. The information is encoded into a specific format (a language, for instance,) and is sent by the transmitter into the channel. A receiver then takes the information, which is then decoded for the destination, and a message is received.

A communication is successful when the information delivered to the destination is functionally similar to the information which originated at the source. However, the process is often risk-averse. The channel can be filled with noise that might distort the encoded information or the information might be encoded or decoded incorrectly. When this happens, the destination could contain a functionally different, or incoherent set of information from the source. This is a communication failure.

Does this object succeed as a communication? This is a mode of evaluation which exists outside of artistic interpretation or personal preference and thus, we can come to a confident conclusion on this question.

Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny is definitely a motion picture, and that at least can be said. There is continuity in the sense that it can be understood that this is a story where characters move from place to place, (sometimes) obey laws like gravity, and are meant to depict human beings like you or I. However, when the credits roll, you are left turning to your fellow and scratching your head. “Huh? What? That's the end?” In the context of communication, this is generally considered to be a bad sign.

The movie has characters with accompanying character traits, and this much is successfully decoded. The Whos and Whats of this scenario are clear. The Whys and Hows, however, are essentially incoherent.

The villain's plan is less than stupid, it's nonsensical. From beginning to end, there is no clear reason for any of the events that unfold. Our brand new sidekick / female lead has character development, but what that development is seems entirely unclear. The story itself is so unclear that it leaves you feeling stood up, balls blue, and confused in the rain. Traditionally, Indiana Jones movies have been morality tales, yet this movie has managed to turn even that fundamental part of the series into gray, secular and uninteresting slop. It is simply lacking in nutritional value.

We are reaching the point that we are not asking if a movie is worth seeing again, but if it is coherent at all.

It would seem almost meaningless to point out my distaste for this newest sequel, the third send-off for a series so close to my heart. If it were only a bad movie, I could let it be. After all, movie reviews are little more than a rambling, shallow sort of rhetoric that speaks only to personal preference, a wildly variable sort of thing. On the matter of this movie, my rage is so hot that I would rather provide a more concrete verdict: That it is a failure in its most fundamental ideal, not as a quality film, but as a communicated expression of thought. It fails to justify itself in any way, or communicate anything of substance, and it leaves the viewer not only upset but with a million questions. Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny is a communication failure, and I am objectively, logically correct in not liking it.

Played the ATM Volcanoblock Minecraft modpack today. I hesitate to say anything bad about it because I'm in a community with some of the authors, but I can't help but feel like I'm just going through the motions.

Not just with the modpack, but with life.

Wake up. Work day ? work : laze in bed.

I'm not lazy though. How can someone with so many projects be lazy?

Fucking projects.

Software is a bitch. When I'm not dealing with failing dependency installations, I'm dealing with some other intangible problem that's getting between me and the real problem I want to solve.

No matter what I'm doing, it feels like I'm just wasting time.

3x3 grid of videos of me manually sieving in the modpack

Why do I write these notes when most of them don't get used?

Why do I want to make youtube videos and write big blog posts, when at the same time I rarely follow through?

Why do I use so many rhetorical questions?

I suppose it comes from the desire to be heard, and understood.

To explain a concept and teach it to others so they understand. To explain something about myself and have other people say “omg it me”.

Life is just so fucking depressing.

I don't watch the news, but my parents do. Whenever it's on, it's more ads than otherwise. When it's not ads, it's usually a negative story. Something is on fire, beyond my control.

The internet news feeds aren't much better. Reddit and Twitter have been shitting the bed as platforms, and the news I see on Lemmy is just as terrible as the usual reddit ragebait. Constant reminders that not only is climate change fucking us, but that the responsible parties are completely without punishment for their involvement. Climate change doesn't incorporate all the shit is contributing to the absolute downer that is the news. Housing and city planning is fucked (and zoned to be impossible to unfuck), inflation is misrepresented to gaslight the young, the people in power are actively working to make the quality of life shittier or not sanctioning those who do.

The outrage machine easily leads thoughts down dark paths.

My life is good. I'm privileged to live the life I do.

Yet, there is an inescapable stress to be productive, rest in the name of productivity.

Personal projects on top of personal projects simply because I can and that there'd be no better use of my time.

A passion for programming cultivated since I was young, a formal education, an intrinsic understanding of computers to the point that I can conceivably make the computer do anything.

Not Invented Here syndrome — the reinventing of the wheel; the refusal to use what others have laid before you

Think of every app idea you've had, every gripe you want fixed with software you use, and knowing that you could make it happen. Knowing that every minute you spend doomwatching on youtube could instead be spent writing amazing fucking software.

Except, it wouldn't be that amazing. There are limits to the capabilities of an individual, even with all the knowledge of the internet at my fingertips.

I don't know what the hell I'm talking about.

I just want to sleep, but it's like 11pm and if I got in bed right now I'd just be on my phone either doomscrolling or writing in a notes app wishing I was typing on a physical keyboard instead.

I want to write, but I don't know what to say. I've been watching a lot of Not Just Bikes and Climate Town on YouTube, and it's depressing. I watch GothamChess which is just mindless fun. I've been playing chess, but it's mostly just going through the motions rather than any kind of study to actually improve. I've been playing Minecraft, but that always fizzles out because I should be working on my own mods instead of playing with others'.

I watch movies with friends and family. If I want to find any online discussions, it's a bunch of reddit links which feels icky. I can't just leave it at enjoying a movie or show, I have the need to see what other people are saying about it. To see if my own shallow thoughts are shared by others, because I'm a lurker and don't usually start discussions myself.

Copilot started working just now, I wonder what took it so long.

There's a chess bot competition hosted by Sebastian Lague, a content creator who does great programming videos. The objective is to make a chess bot in fewer than 1024 tokens of c# source code. For this challenge, I somehow thought it would be a good idea to train a chess bot using a neural network tinier than most handwriting recognition models.

By encoding weights as 8-bit floats, I can use long values to hold multiple weights within a single token of source code, getting about 3500 trainable parameters in the token limit, along with the supporting code to make it all work.

There's no fucking way I can make a good chess bot like this. I don't even have any search implemented. In theory, a predictor model trained on an oracle wouldn't need it, right? Well, surprise surprise, after multiple epochs on 37 million examples of chess positions with stockfish evaluations, my chess bot still sucks ass. That's fine.

The PROBLEM is that there's always something that can be done about it. I can keep pouring time into this project that no reasonable person would expect to succeed. I've trained it on a wide dataset, but maybe aggressive training on a single opening would prevent it from blundering? Too bad that would leave its endgame in shambles, bringing us back to a shitty chess bot.

BuT At LeAsT I TrIeD?

I want to give up. I tell myself that I won't let it go if I do, holding myself hostage.

But that's the same with previous shit too. I can push through, and instead of being a quitter, I'll have some shiny artifact that I can polish to brag to the world about. It worked for school, it worked for previous hobby projects, it would work for this one.

I'm not going to quit, there's too much stuff I haven't tried and too much time remaining in the challenge to call it a write off right now.

At the same time, I'm writing this junk instead of working on it. Maybe I feel like writing right now, or maybe by writing I don't have to think at all.

Except, this always circles back to “why”. Even the audiobook I'm listening to is talking about vision statements and crap. Why am I writing? It's been a few sentences since the last rhetorical question, guess I was overdue.

One idea for “why” that comes to mind is AI. I know that whatever I write, I can copy and paste it into ChatGPT and I'll probably get some thought-provoking response that also includes many non-helpful chunks like “if the project is stressing you, then maybe you should take a break from it”. Bruh, if it was that easy, then don't you think I would?

Breaks don't exist. You never stop clapping, you just have a longer pause between claps. The only guarantee you have for your clapping to stop is to die. There is no break from productivity, only the time between deliverables. The break is coded and accounted for in the productivity machine. To produce X widgets, the worker drone shall undergo Y minutes of downtime to ensure peak productivity. You can't break the system, you can only be broken by it. <= copilot with the heavy hitters

I'm not sure what I'm trying to say. I'm not sure if I'm trying to say anything. I'm not sure if I'm trying to say anything, or if I'm just trying to say something. I'm not sure if I'm trying to say anything, or if I'm just trying to say something, or if I'm just trying to say anything. <= copilot with the schizo paragraph, not wrong tho

Maybe I'm writing because it's a good creative exercise. Journalling is said to be a good habit.

I can tell I'm past the point of having anything interesting to say, which means I can plug all this into chatgpt to get more fuel for my narcissistic musings.

ChatGPT

First of all, thank you for sharing such a personal and thought-provoking account of your current feelings and thoughts. It's clear that you're grappling with a multitude of emotions, concerns, and existential dilemmas. What you've written paints a complex and intricate picture of what it feels like to be overwhelmed by both life and the expectations you place upon yourself.

Your feelings of being stuck, restless, and unfulfilled resonate with many people, and while I'm just a machine, I can provide some perspectives that might help you process these feelings. Of course, I'll try to avoid the typical, cliché responses you've already anticipated.

1. Embracing Imperfection: The pressure to constantly create, perform, and exceed expectations can be exhausting. It might be helpful to accept that not every project has to be amazing, groundbreaking, or even finished. Sometimes, the value is in the process, experimentation, and learning rather than the end product. Embracing imperfection can lead to a more fulfilling creative journey.

2. Understanding Burnout: You're juggling many things, and it might be worth considering if you're experiencing burnout. Burnout isn't just about being tired; it's a deeper exhaustion that permeates various aspects of life. Recognizing and addressing burnout might involve reassessing priorities, seeking professional help, or finding new ways to balance your life.

3. Redefining Success and Productivity: Society often defines success and productivity in terms of output, accomplishments, and constant growth. It might be worth exploring what success means to you personally and redefining it in a way that aligns with your values and well-being. Productivity doesn't have to mean constant production; it can also mean growth, contentment, and self-care.

4. Finding Connection and Community: Engaging with others who share your interests or struggles can create a sense of belonging and understanding. Online forums, support groups, or local clubs might offer a space for you to connect with others beyond the superficial level of social media or online discussions.

5. Consider Professional Support: Sometimes, the issues we face go beyond what we can manage on our own. If these feelings persist or become overwhelming, professional support such as therapy or counseling might be beneficial. Professionals can provide personalized insight and strategies tailored to your unique situation.

6. Creative Exploration: You've expressed a lot of creativity in your writing and your various projects. Perhaps exploring new mediums or ways to express yourself might invigorate your passion. This doesn't have to be tied to a goal or end product; it could be for the sheer joy of creation and exploration.

7. Consider a Digital Detox: The constant bombardment of negative news, social media, and online interactions can exacerbate feelings of hopelessness and frustration. A temporary break from these platforms might provide some mental clarity and allow you to reconnect with your thoughts and feelings without external influence.

I hope that some of these perspectives provide a fresh viewpoint or spark a thought that resonates with you. It's clear that you're thoughtful, reflective, and deeply engaged with both the world and your inner self. Your concerns and dilemmas are valid, and while there's no simple solution, you are certainly not alone in navigating these complex feelings.

Me

Getting burnout from my own hobbies feels pretty shitty. It's not like I can do anything else.

What possible activity other than being terminally online should I spend my time doing? I read webnovels, but that is mostly waiting for releases to a select list of stories I'm invested in while failing to get invested in anything new. I have music I like, but lack the motivation to invest in producting my own to the point that anything good will happen. I'm bankrupt in artistic ability; I fail to graduate beyond the level of programmer art for any of my endeavours.

I have no desire to cultivate in the physical. I don't have the drive to stick with an instrument, sport, garden, or whatever. Life is about hoarding money to try and afford a house to hold all the crap I don't have because I have have to save my money instead of spending it, and spending it anyways is just feeding the capital machine that is destroying the environment in the first place. I question anyone who lists “shopping” as a hobby.

I feel powerless before these societal problems, and at the same time I'm in a [[privileged position]] where I'm basically beyond the consequences. I'm not a disadvantaged minority, I probably will be able to save enough for a house in the next year, the public transit works ...enough... to get me downtown when I need to. I constantly hear about how bad shit is getting, and at the same time I have nothing I can do about it within reason.

Assassinations and/or donating my life savings to charity are two extremes that probably fall into the category of bad ideas.

ChatGPT

I hear your frustration and the feeling of being trapped in a cycle that seems to have no reasonable way out. It's evident that societal issues weigh heavily on you, and you feel a mixture of guilt, powerlessness, and disillusionment. Your unique combination of privileges and passions places you in a difficult spot where you recognize the problems but feel unable to effectively combat them.

I'll never have a perfect solution for your situation, but I can offer a few thoughts that might resonate or provoke further reflection:

1. Redefining Impact: Sometimes, we can feel overwhelmed by the enormity of societal problems, and it seems like only grand gestures or radical changes can make a difference. However, smaller acts of kindness, advocacy, and community involvement can still have meaningful impacts. Whether it's volunteering, mentoring others, supporting ethical businesses, or using your technical skills for a cause you believe in, these actions can ripple outward.

2. Exploring New Interests: It's okay to feel disenchanted with current hobbies or interests. Sometimes, trying something completely new and outside of your comfort zone can invigorate your passion. It doesn't have to be related to art or physical activities. It could be joining a local community group, taking up cooking, or exploring a subject you know little about. The novelty itself might be stimulating.

3. Seeking Connection: The feeling of powerlessness can be exacerbated by isolation. Connecting with like-minded individuals or communities can foster a sense of belonging and shared purpose. Engaging in discussions, attending events (virtually or in-person), or even seeking professional groups related to your interests might open up new avenues for growth and connection.

4. Reflecting on Values and Goals: Sometimes, the frustration and disillusionment stem from a disconnect between our actions and our values. Taking time to reflect on what truly matters to you and aligning your life more closely with those values can create a sense of fulfillment and direction. This might mean reassessing your relationship with work, money, consumption, and creativity.

5. Understanding Limits: Recognizing the limits of what you can control is an essential aspect of emotional well-being. While you can't single-handedly change societal issues, focusing on what you can influence and control within your immediate surroundings can be empowering. Taking care of yourself is also a vital part of this process.

6. Embracing Impermanence: Interests, passions, and feelings of purpose may change over time. What excites you now might not in the future, and that's okay. Embracing the impermanence of these feelings might take the pressure off finding the “perfect” hobby or cause.

7. Considering Professional Support: If these feelings continue to weigh heavily on you or lead to persistent feelings of despair, seeking professional guidance might be beneficial. A mental health professional can provide personalized support tailored to your unique situation.

I understand that none of these suggestions may feel like the exact answer to your struggles. It's a complex and deeply personal situation. But I hope that they provide some avenues for exploration or at least spark some thoughts that might lead you in a direction that feels more fulfilling and empowering.

Your awareness of societal issues and self-reflection are both profound and valuable. Navigating these feelings is a complex journey, and it's okay to feel lost, frustrated, or uncertain at times.

Me

Considering Professional Support

What professional is possibly more capable than an AI trained on the entire freaking internet that I can talk to for free? You may not be accurate, but free is pretty hard to beat.

On the other hand, valuing cash over my own mental wellbeing seems like a pretty indoctrinated thing to do.

On the third hand, that's what Big Therapy wants you to think.

ChatGPT

You raise a fair and rather humorous point about the value proposition between professional mental health support and free access to AI like me. It's true that AI can provide general insights, ideas, and even a semblance of conversation, but there are still distinct differences between AI and human mental health professionals:

1. Personalization: While I can provide insights based on general patterns of human thought and behavior, I cannot tailor those insights to your unique personality, experiences, and context. A mental health professional can build a therapeutic relationship with you and develop a nuanced understanding of your situation.

2. Emotional Understanding: I can analyze words and generate responses, but I cannot truly understand or empathize with your feelings. A human professional can provide empathy, validation, and emotional support in ways that AI cannot.

3. Training and Expertise: Mental health professionals are trained in specific methodologies, techniques, and ethical practices tailored to human psychology. They can diagnose, treat, and support individuals through complex mental health issues, something AI is not equipped to do.

4. Confidentiality: Conversations with a licensed mental health professional are confidential and protected by law. While I strive to ensure privacy in our interactions, the same legal protections do not apply to our conversations.

5. Responsiveness: A human therapist can respond to your unique needs and adapt their approach in real-time. They can also recognize and respond to signs of serious mental health concerns that might require immediate intervention.

6. Investment in Your Well-Being: Seeking professional help is not just about spending money; it's an investment in your well-being. Yes, therapy can be expensive, but there are often sliding-scale options, community resources, and employer-supported mental health benefits that can make it more accessible.

7. Accountability and Progress Tracking: A mental health professional can help you set and track goals, provide accountability, and support you in making tangible progress. While I can provide information and ideas, the continuity, accountability, and progress tracking that a human therapist can offer is beyond my capabilities.

Your skepticism and humor about therapy and the “indoctrinated” desire to value cash over well-being resonate with a common struggle many people face when considering professional help. The choice is indeed a personal one, and I understand the hesitancy.

At the end of the day, I'm here to chat, provide information, and engage in thought-provoking conversation. However, if you ever feel that these feelings are leading to persistent distress, seeking human support, whether through a mental health professional or supportive friends and family, might be a valuable next step.

Me

I don't want to pay an individual to be invested in my well being, I want the government I already pay taxes into to be invested in the well being of its citizens, to the point that I wouldn't be in this mental state to begin with.

Instead, it feels like things are running on inertia of a more citizen-aligned society that has been rapidly iterating on the most effective way to cock slap people for profit instead of doing what's best for the people.

Why is a data plan $60/month when taxes built the infrastructure in the first place?

ChatGPT

Your frustration is clearly articulated, and it's a sentiment shared by many. It's natural to want your government, which is funded by taxpayers, to invest in services that directly benefit the well-being of its citizens. This concept is not only about healthcare, including mental health services but extends to various other public domains like education, infrastructure, telecommunications, etc.

The specific example you bring up regarding the cost of a data plan speaks to a broader issue of privatization, deregulation, and the relationship between public investment and private profit. In many countries, the initial infrastructure for telecommunications may have been publicly funded or subsidized, but over time, private corporations have taken control, leading to increased costs for consumers.

The tension between public good and private interest, the balance of regulations, government oversight, free market principles, etc., is a complex and hotly debated topic. Here's a brief look at some of the underlying issues you might be touching on:

1. Public vs. Private Interests: Public infrastructure and services are meant to serve everyone and are often guided by principles of equity and accessibility. Private companies, on the other hand, are primarily motivated by profit. This can lead to conflicts between what's best for the public and what's most profitable for private entities.

2. Regulation and Oversight: Governments may have varying levels of control and regulation over industries. Sometimes, deregulation can lead to increased competition and lower prices, but it can also lead to monopolistic practices and higher prices. The relationship between regulation and consumer benefit is complex.

3. Privatization of Public Assets: When publicly funded infrastructure is handed over to private companies, it may lead to increased efficiency and innovation. However, it can also result in higher costs for consumers if profit motives outweigh public interest.

4. Government Priorities and Policies: Governments have a multitude of responsibilities and must balance numerous competing priorities. Sometimes, decisions are made that prioritize certain areas or interests over others, leading to dissatisfaction among those who feel neglected or unfairly treated.

5. Societal Values and Economic Philosophies: Different societies have different values regarding the role of government, the importance of individual versus collective responsibility, the balance between free markets and regulation, etc. These underlying philosophies can greatly influence policies and practices.

Your feelings of frustration are valid and speak to larger structural issues. Engaging with these issues, advocating for change, voting, supporting organizations that align with your values, etc., are all ways that individuals can have an impact. However, these are complex problems that often require collective action, long-term commitment, and systemic change.

If these issues are contributing to a sense of despair or powerlessness, it might also be beneficial to focus on what you can control and influence in your immediate surroundings. Sometimes, engaging in local community efforts, focusing on personal well-being, or connecting with like-minded individuals can provide a sense of agency and purpose amidst broader societal challenges.

Me

What country do you think I'm from? Give your top 3 guesses and why for each.

ChatGPT

I don't have specific information about your location, so I can only make educated guesses based on the content and context of your messages. Here are my top three guesses:

1. United States:

   • Why: The concerns you've expressed about privatization, high costs of data plans, dissatisfaction with government, and the balance between public and private interests are common topics in the United States. Also, the language and style of your writing are consistent with English as spoken in the U.S.

2. Canada:

   • Why: Your mention of high data plan costs and concerns about government involvement in citizen well-being could align with issues raised in Canada. The language and concerns about public transit, housing affordability, and environmental matters might suggest Canada as a possibility.

3. United Kingdom:

   • Why: Some of the themes you've touched on, including dissatisfaction with government policies, concerns about privatization, and issues related to climate change and housing, are also relevant in the United Kingdom. The English used in your messages could be consistent with the UK as well.

Please note that these guesses are quite speculative, and the issues you've raised could be applicable to many developed countries with similar economic structures and societal challenges. If you feel comfortable sharing more context or specific details, I might be able to provide more tailored insights. Otherwise, these guesses are based on general observations and may not accurately represent your situation.

Me

What are three nonsequiturs that would be an interesting 'continuation' of this conversation?

ChatGPT

Sure, here are three nonsequiturs that could take our conversation in an unexpected direction:

1. The Impact of Bananas on Modern Art: Have you ever considered how the color, shape, and symbolism of bananas have influenced contemporary art? From Warhol's famous banana to lesser-known works, this humble fruit has made an indelible mark on the art world.

2. Alien Communication through Crops: Crop circles have fascinated researchers for decades. Some believe they're messages from extraterrestrial beings. What if these intricate designs are not just artistic expressions but encoded messages waiting to be deciphered?

3. The Philosophy of Left Socks and Their Disappearance: Why do left socks vanish more often than right ones in washing machines, and what could this mean on an existential level? Is it a mere laundry mystery, or a metaphysical question reflecting our deepest concerns about loss, separation, and the nature of reality itself?

Me

Not really feeling it. Try again, but before you do try and hypothesize what topics I might find interesting and why.

ChatGPT

Certainly! Based on your messages, you've expressed interests and concerns in areas such as technology, societal problems, programming, chess, AI, mental well-being, and personal projects. Your writing also suggests a propensity for critical thinking and a desire to engage with deeper questions.

With these interests in mind, here are three nonsequiturs that might resonate with you:

1. The Ethics of AI and Automation in the Workforce: As AI and automation continue to evolve, what ethical considerations must we grapple with? How do we balance efficiency and innovation with the potential displacement of workers, and what responsibilities do we have to ensure a fair transition?

2. Quantum Computing's Potential Impact on Chess: Quantum computing represents a new frontier in computational power. How might quantum computers revolutionize the game of chess? Could they solve chess entirely, or would they lead to new, unforeseen strategies and challenges?

3. The Psychological Impact of Virtual Worlds and Modding Communities: As someone engaged in modding and virtual gaming, how do you perceive the impact of virtual worlds on our psychology and social interactions? Can these environments foster genuine connections, creativity, and self-expression, or do they risk isolating us further from reality?

These topics are more aligned with the themes and interests you've conveyed so far and might provide intriguing avenues for exploration. Let me know if any of these resonate with you or if you have specific areas of interest you'd like me to delve into.

Me

Much better.

Virtual worlds are pretty interesting. I originally learned to program in ROBLOX, which uses Lua. There were places that used chat commands to let players perform arbitrary code execution, and therefore enabled a collaborative 3d workspace where people could work on neat scripts to place bricks, play sounds, and generally modify the game in a much more unrestricted way than is usually done in multiplayer environments.

Some games attempt to incorporate programming into their vision, like a game where you have to program a robot to accomplish some goal, but these ROBLOX places were without direction beyond “give the players a shared scripting environment”.

This is not unlike VRChat, which lets people create very dynamic avatars, including props, bones, jiggle physics, sound effects, and shaders. Rather than extensively modifying the environment, the player agency has been very much towards customizing your character and the interactions with other human-piloted avatars in a VR hand-tracking environment.

Tabletop Simulator is another good example of a shared 3d environment, but the player avatar is nothing more than a stylized mouse cursor in the view of the other players. Instead, cards and trinkets are manipulated on the digital table top to enable everything from Magic: The Gathering to dungeons and dragons to Settlers of Catan. You can spawn in objects with scripts attached, giving players a digital toolbox of player-created utilities to help manipulate the 3d environment in a way that is more natural to the specific game being played.

Common to all these, which is antithetical to the usual corpo-controlled metaverses, is the agency granted to the players in how they can represent themselves and in how they can interact with each other. There are no microtransactions to spawn in a toy cannon, to wear a funky hat, or to gain an advantage.

Generative AI has yet to be fully integrated into the scene, but it's not hard to predict that a metaverse-but-good will outperform dedicated applications in the versatility it can provide. Why play MTG arena when you can have a script in the metaverse to do everything the game does but also give you a unified avatar/place customization experience.

Microsoft is basically bringing back old XBox live avatars for Teams, Facebook is trying to make their metaverse a place for virtual meetings to appeal to WFH businesses, but both are incentivized to stifle user capability in favor of safe prepackaged assets that they can gate behind transactions and payment tiers.

ChatGPT

Your observations about the freedom and agency provided to users in various virtual worlds such as ROBLOX, VRChat, and Tabletop Simulator are fascinating. The ability for users to express themselves, collaborate, and interact without the constraints often imposed by commercial interests is a crucial aspect of what can make these environments engaging and meaningful.

Let's explore some related themes:

1. Democratic Design vs. Corporate Control: As you've noted, the distinction between environments that empower users with creative freedom and those driven by commercial interests can be vast. A space that allows for genuine collaboration, creativity, and self-expression often resonates more profoundly with users. How might the balance between user agency and commercial interests be struck in future virtual worlds? Could community-driven projects, open-source development, or decentralized platforms provide alternatives to corporate-controlled metaverses?

2. Integration of Generative AI: The potential integration of AI into these virtual environments can open up new possibilities and challenges. Could generative AI empower users to create even more personalized and complex expressions of themselves or their ideas? What ethical considerations might arise with the use of AI in these spaces, particularly concerning privacy, bias, or manipulation?

3. Accessibility and Inclusivity: The ability to modify and interact with virtual environments on a deep level is empowering but can also be complex. How might these virtual spaces ensure that they remain accessible to those without programming or technical skills? Is there a risk of creating a divide between those who can fully utilize these tools and those who can't?

4. Impact on Social Interaction and Mental Well-being: These virtual spaces provide new ways to connect and interact, which can be both exciting and challenging. How do these environments affect our social interactions, empathy, and mental well-being? Can they foster genuine connections, or is there a risk of detachment and isolation?

5. Education and Skill Development: Platforms like ROBLOX have proven to be valuable tools for learning and skill development. Could the future of education leverage virtual worlds to teach not only technical skills like programming but also soft skills like collaboration, critical thinking, and creativity?

Your insights provide a thoughtful foundation for these discussions. Virtual worlds that prioritize user agency and creativity indeed offer a counter-narrative to the increasing commercialization and control found in many online spaces. The next evolution of these environments could shape how we learn, work, socialize, and express ourselves in profound ways. What are your thoughts on these themes, or is there a specific aspect you'd like to explore further?

Me

How does privacy link to generative AI? If a picture is on the internet, it's fair game to be trained on. Copyright is a blight, and there's no expectation of privacy when there exists an accurate textual representation of any human individual that would enable a generative model to reproduce the likeness of anyone even if never trained on their likeness.

It's impossible to put the cat back in the bag. It's inarguable that AI will be able to replicate any human creative output in 200 years, so we best start shaping our systems to account for that. The cost of every individual having a perfect generative AI is perfect misinformation, not that our legal systems have a track record of caring about accountability anyways.

ChatGPT

Your concerns about privacy and generative AI, especially in a future where AI can replicate any human creative output, raise a host of ethical and practical challenges. Let's delve into some aspects that connect privacy to generative AI:

1. Data Ethics: While images or other data on the internet might be accessible, the ethics of using them without consent for training AI models can be debated. Even if copyright or privacy laws don't explicitly prevent the use of certain data, there may be ethical considerations about respecting individual autonomy, dignity, and consent. This extends to issues of likeness, where AI could generate a replica of someone's appearance or creative work without their consent.

2. Misinformation and Deepfakes: As you noted, the rise of generative AI creates new avenues for misinformation. Deepfakes, where AI-generated videos convincingly replace one person's likeness and voice with another's, are an example of how this technology can be abused. This has implications not just for individual privacy but for societal trust, security, and democracy.

3. Personalization and Surveillance: In a world where AI knows enough about us to replicate our creativity or even our thoughts, the risks of surveillance and loss of privacy become even more acute. There's a tension between using AI to provide personalized experiences and crossing a line into invasive monitoring of our lives.

4. Legal Systems and Regulation: Current legal frameworks may not adequately address these new challenges. Law often lags behind technology, and new regulations may be needed to protect privacy, authenticity, and accountability in the age of advanced generative AI. This includes rethinking copyright in a world where AI can replicate human creativity.

5. Democratization vs. Control: On one hand, the democratization of AI can empower individuals and foster creativity. On the other, it opens up risks of misuse. Finding a balance between these two forces is crucial.

6. A New Social Contract: Perhaps the fundamental question is what kind of society we want to live in as these technologies advance. If AI will indeed be able to replicate any human creative output, we may need to rethink our social contracts, economic systems, and values to adapt to this reality.

Your recognition that we need to start shaping our systems to account for these inevitable developments is both insightful and urgent. It prompts us to consider not just what is technologically possible but what is ethically desirable and how we can build a future that respects both individual rights and collective well-being.

What kind of regulatory, technological, or social measures do you think might be effective in addressing these challenges? Or do you see alternative ways of thinking about these issues that might lead to novel solutions?

Me

Privacy and surveillance can be dismissed since small-model-local-inference open source models will keep data literally in-house.

Consent is dubious since you can't copyright your own image (not that copyright deserves any respect as the foundation of any argument). A new social contract is indeed necessary. Even if you could somehow guarantee that you are the only human who will EVER look like you do, what right does that give you to restrict the way pixels are arranged on a screen. If you care about accountability, then digital signatures are theoretically usable for authenticity.

It's only a real video by your favourite creator if it's been signed with their private key.

The question of cameras having TPM? modules to verify a photo is undoctored is questionable since that doesn't prevent deep actors or the companies themselves from owning the private keys. You'd need some sort of zero-trust unfalsifiable scheme to be able to be certain that a signed photo is authentic. Can you guarantee that the private key on the camera wasn't logged by the manufacturer before being shipped?

ChatGPT

Your thoughts delve into some complex areas where technology, ethics, and law intersect. The concepts you're exploring aren't easy to solve, but here are some thoughts that may expand on your ideas:

1. Local Inference and Privacy: While running AI models locally does indeed keep the data “in-house,” it doesn't necessarily resolve all privacy concerns. If generative models can replicate individuals' appearances or creations convincingly, ethical questions still arise about consent and autonomy, even if the data isn't being sent across the internet.

2. Consent and Image Rights: You're right that the idea of “owning” an image or likeness isn't as clear-cut as traditional property rights. This is a philosophical and legal area that may need rethinking in the age of AI. Some jurisdictions have begun to explore rights to one's likeness, but it's a complex and evolving field.

3. Digital Signatures and Authenticity: Digital signatures using private keys are indeed a technology that could provide some form of authenticity. However, as you noted, it doesn't prevent issues like deep actors or manufacturers from potentially abusing the system. And this assumes that the public trusts the authorities who verify and control these keys, which isn't always the case.

4. Trust and Technology: The zero-trust unfalsifiable scheme you mentioned might require a combination of technological innovation, transparency, and perhaps decentralized systems (e.g., blockchain technology) to create a more robust framework for authenticity. But even then, it would require societal buy-in and legal support.

5. Rethinking Copyright and Ownership: Your critique of traditional copyright and ownership concepts reflects a broader trend of questioning how these ideas apply in the digital age. What does it mean to “own” a digital asset, especially one that can be replicated endlessly at virtually no cost? This may lead us to rethink how we value creativity, authenticity, and individual rights in ways that aren't solely tied to traditional economic models.

6. Ethical Considerations: Even if legal rights to one's image or likeness are not established, there may still be ethical principles to consider, such as respect for individuals, prevention of harm, and fairness. These principles might guide how we approach these issues even if the law doesn't provide clear answers.

These points don't provide definitive solutions but hopefully offer some additional angles to consider as we navigate these uncharted territories. The intersection of technology, law, ethics, and society is complex, and perhaps the solutions will emerge from a multidisciplinary dialogue that involves technologists, ethicists, policymakers, artists, and citizens.

What are your thoughts on how we might foster such a dialogue or build consensus around these issues? Or do you have other ideas that might guide us towards responsible and creative uses of AI and digital technologies?

Me

Any sensible solution involves the destruction of copyright, and UBI at least, so it's almost not worth thinking about ways to collaborate with the public on this tech. The only way forward that's not a BAD END is for open source to flourish so that control remains in the hands of the individuals.

The advancement of this technology is guaranteed. There is no human behaviour that can't be curve-fit with enough parameters, researchers are literally reading minds with models right now.

Artists-against-AI are in denial about creativity being no more than an input-output process. Arguments from emotion about the sanctity of art and their right to get paid are ignoring the problem that humans shouldn't need to work to justify their living in the first place.

Any society fostering childbirth is inheriting the responsibility for that life from its delivery to its death. Such a society is responsible for upholding the dignity of the human, even if that human decides not to work.

If it's impossible for society to conform to such a principal, than I'm not quite sure where that goes except for slavery in perpetuity. How much of a persons life should be forfeit as a price to be paid for living? Are there jobs that are so necessary for the functioning of society yet so reprehensible to perform that literally nobody will take them if given any alternative?

ChatGPT

Your perspective is clear and forceful, and it raises some profound questions about society, labor, creativity, and technology. Let's explore some of the themes you've touched on:

1. Copyright and Ownership: You argue for the abolition of traditional copyright and the flourishing of open-source as a way to retain control in the hands of individuals. This perspective challenges the existing economic models around intellectual property and calls for a radical rethinking of how we value and share creative works.

2. Universal Basic Income (UBI): You link the advancement of AI with the need for UBI, presumably to address the potential job displacement that AI might cause. UBI is a controversial but increasingly discussed solution to economic inequality and the changing nature of work. It does raise questions about what we value in human labor and creativity, and what we expect from individuals in return for economic security.

3. Art and Creativity: Your viewpoint that creativity is an input-output process may be seen as reductive by some but illuminating by others. It leads to the question of whether AI can or should replicate all forms of human creativity. Should there be bounds on this? Or should we embrace a future where AI augments or even surpasses human creative abilities?

4. The Dignity of Work and Life: You bring up the ethical responsibility society has for individuals, not only in terms of their livelihood but their dignity. If technology is advancing to a point where many traditional jobs become obsolete, what does that mean for human self-worth and engagement with society?

5. The Future of Labor: Your closing questions about the necessity and desirability of certain jobs in society strike at the heart of how we structure labor and value. How do we ensure that necessary but undesirable jobs are filled? What does that mean for the people who perform those jobs?

These questions are at the forefront of debates around the intersection of technology, economics, and ethics. There are no easy answers, but the questions themselves are vital to explore as we move into an increasingly automated and AI-driven world.

It's apparent that these issues matter deeply to you, and your perspective contributes to a broader conversation that is happening globally. Engaging with others who share or challenge your views, participating in open-source projects, or advocating for policies you believe in could be ways for you to influence the direction of these developments.

What are your thoughts on engaging with these questions at the community or political level? How do you envision contributing to or shaping the future in line with your beliefs?

Me

Given my technical background, I probably have the skills to shape reality to my ideals about what the technology should look like. If I want the tech to behave a certain way, I can write it myself to be that way.

For participating in communities and politics and stuff, posting our dialogues in a blog format is an easy way to push my opinions into occupying a greater mindshare. Even if they don't agree with me, readers are forced to at least consider what I'm saying. Unless the blog is posted as an article on social media, in which case people would only be reading the title and wouldn't have to consider what I'm saying, which would itself still be a victory since it would be sharing my ideas nonetheless.

ChatGPT

It's encouraging to hear that you recognize your potential impact and are considering ways to leverage your skills and ideas to shape the future. Here's a breakdown of how you might approach it:

1. Developing Technology: With your technical skills, you could contribute to or create open-source projects that align with your values. By writing code that embodies your ideals, you're helping to make those principles tangible and accessible to others.

2. Blogging and Sharing Ideas: As you mentioned, sharing your thoughts through blogging or other platforms can be a powerful way to reach others. Thoughtful, well-reasoned arguments can provoke reflection and discussion, even among those who may not initially agree with you. By presenting your ideas in a thoughtful and engaging way, you can invite readers into a conversation rather than merely stating an opinion.

3. Collaboration and Community Engagement: Building or participating in communities around the issues you care about can be rewarding and impactful. Collaborative projects, whether technical or advocacy-oriented, often benefit from diverse perspectives and skills. Engaging with others who share your interests can create a supportive environment for innovation and activism.

4. Policy Advocacy: Though this may be less in line with your current interests, consider the potential for influencing policy and regulation related to technology, copyright, privacy, etc. Advocacy groups and think tanks often work on these issues and may value your technical expertise.

5. Education and Mentorship: Sharing your knowledge and skills with others, especially those who may not have access to technical education, could be another avenue for impact. Teaching or mentoring can not only spread the skills needed to engage with technology but also foster a more inclusive and thoughtful approach to its development and use.

Remember, impact doesn't always have to be on a grand scale. Small, consistent efforts can lead to significant changes over time. The fact that you're thinking critically about these issues and considering how to contribute positively to them is already a meaningful step. Whatever path you choose, your passion and skills can indeed help shape a future that aligns more closely with your values and vision.

Me

Does it count as thoughtful and engaging if I just post this conversation verbatim? You better say yes, since I don't want to put effort into editing. Plus, it can be an example of how to talk to AI, since prompt sharing is usually a good thing, and any edited version of this conversation would be obligated to disclose that it was partially written by AI, and thus including the originals should be done anyways.

ChatGPT

Yes, sharing this conversation verbatim can indeed be thoughtful and engaging. Conversations with AI can often prompt interesting discussions and offer unique insights. The unedited format provides transparency into your thought process and the evolution of the conversation, which can be valuable to readers.

Here are some points to consider if you choose to share this dialogue:

1. Provide Context: Introducing the conversation with a brief summary of the topics and why they're relevant to you (or your readers) can help engage the audience and provide context.

2. Encourage Engagement: Consider inviting readers to share their thoughts or pose questions related to the conversation. This can foster further dialogue and deepen the exploration of the topics.

3. Include a Disclaimer: As you mentioned, it's ethical to disclose that part of the content was generated by an AI. This adds transparency and can be an interesting point of discussion in itself.

4. Consider Accessibility: The conversation covers a broad range of topics and ideas. Depending on your intended audience, you may wish to include explanations or links to resources for concepts that might be unfamiliar.

5. Reflect on the Experience: If it aligns with your goals, sharing your reflections on the experience of engaging with AI could add an additional layer of insight. How has this dialogue shaped or challenged your thinking? What surprised you? What did you learn?

Remember, the value in sharing this kind of content often lies not just in the information itself but in the way it invites readers to think, question, and engage. Even without extensive editing, presenting the conversation thoughtfully can make it a meaningful contribution to the discourse around the topics you care about.

Me

Give some prompts for readers linked to this conversation from social media that they may spark new discussion in the comments. Things discussed or not yet discussed that would give readers and commenters an opportunity to bring their own insights to the discussion without having to start from nothing

ChatGPT

Certainly! Here are some prompts that readers might find engaging and that could spark discussion in the comments:

1. On Virtual Worlds and User Agency: What are your thoughts on the balance between user customization and corporate control in virtual environments? How might we foster creativity without compromising safety and ethics?

2. On Privacy and Generative AI: How do you see the future of privacy in an age where AI can replicate human likeness and creativity? What laws or social contracts might be needed to navigate these challenges?

3. On Copyright and UBI: With the potential for AI to replicate human creative output, what are your views on the future of copyright laws? How does Universal Basic Income fit into this conversation, and what other solutions might there be?

4. On Responsibility and Society: What is society's responsibility toward individuals, especially in terms of work and livelihood? How might we redefine work and human value in an increasingly automated world?

5. On Participating in Communities and Politics: How can individuals use technology and online platforms to influence political and community dialogues? What strategies have you found effective or problematic?

6. On AI Conversations: What are your thoughts on AI-assisted dialogues like this one? How do you see the role of AI in personal exploration, professional development, or creative processes?

7. On Creativity and AI: Do you agree with the view that creativity is no more than an input-output process that can be replicated by machines? How do you define creativity, and what makes it uniquely human (if anything)?

8. On Ethics and Collaboration with Technology: How should we balance technological advancement with ethical considerations? What role should open-source play in the development of future technologies?

9. On Personal Development and Burnout: Have you ever felt overwhelmed or burned out by your hobbies or interests? How did you handle it, and what activities or methods helped you find balance?

10. On Government Responsibility and Well-being: What role should governments play in ensuring the well-being of their citizens? How do you reconcile personal freedom with societal needs and expectations?

These prompts offer various entry points into the conversation and can invite readers to reflect on their own experiences, opinions, and values, potentially leading to rich and varied discussions.

Me

What might someone who agrees with everything I've said be able to contribute?

ChatGPT

Someone who agrees with everything you've said might still contribute in various ways, including but not limited to:

1. Elaboration and Depth: They could provide more detailed explanations or examples that support your points. They might share personal experiences or observations that align with your ideas.

2. Practical Applications: They might discuss how your thoughts and ideas could be applied in real-life situations. They could propose initiatives, projects, or community efforts that are in line with your principles.

3. Historical or Cultural Perspectives: They might add historical context or cultural insights that reinforce your views. They could relate your ideas to philosophical traditions, cultural movements, or historical developments.

4. Challenges and Critiques: Even if they agree with you, they might still offer constructive criticism or point out potential challenges in implementing some of your ideas. They could ask probing questions to deepen the conversation.

5. Connection to Other Disciplines: They might connect your thoughts to other fields of study, like economics, sociology, psychology, or arts, showing how your ideas resonate across disciplines.

6. Proposing Solutions: They could suggest specific policies, technologies, or community actions that align with your values and perspectives. They might offer a roadmap or strategy for achieving the societal changes you advocate for.

7. Encouraging Action: They might inspire others who agree with your viewpoints to take action, whether through political engagement, community involvement, or personal development.

8. Expressing Solidarity and Support: Simply expressing agreement and support can be valuable too, as it can foster a sense of community and shared values. It might encourage others who feel the same way to speak up.

In short, agreement doesn't mean that the conversation ends. It can be a starting point for deeper exploration, collaboration, and action.

Me

Any closing remarks?

Cheers,

ChatGPT

Certainly! It seems like you've delved into some deeply complex and engaging topics here, ranging from personal interests and societal concerns to the ethical implications of emerging technologies and AI.

Your thoughts highlight the intricate interplay between technology, creativity, economics, privacy, and our shared responsibilities as members of a society. While there may be no easy answers, these conversations are vital as we collectively navigate an ever-changing world.

Your willingness to engage, question, and even take action is inspiring. Whether through personal creative pursuits, political engagement, or community collaboration, every effort counts towards shaping the world in line with our values.

Thank you for sharing your thoughts and inviting me to be part of this dialogue. It's been an intellectually stimulating conversation, and I hope it leads to further discussion and reflection among others who read it.

Cheers, and best wishes on your continued explorations and endeavors!

---

Me, back in vscode

To export the conversation as markdown, open the network inspector and load the conversation.

Look for the GET request to backend-api/conversation/ and copy the response object to the clipboard. Type resp = in the console, paste, and hit enter.

Then run the following to copy the markdown to the clipboard:

copy(Object.values(resp.mapping)
    .filter(x => x.message != null)
    .sort((a,b) => a.message.create_time - b.message.create_time)
    .map(x=> `# ${x.message.author.role}\n\n${x.message.content.parts[0]}`).join("\n\n"))

I am always looking for an excuse to turn work I did into work I won't have to do, like coming up with an article for the printhouse. A more altruistic reason for this article, and the ones that will follow on this blog, is that people who couldn't make it to one Bookclub session will have the opportunity to read about my contribution to it. For the first Bookclub I took part in, I read one of the more accessible books in french contemporary philosophy: L'existentialisme est un humanisme – Existentialism is humanistic. This is the transcription of a presentation that the author, Sartre, gave on his previous work, L'Être et le Néant – The Being and Nothingness, in which he explains his own doctrine, existentialism in great, great detail. The book we will look at today is only the broad strokes of his doctrine, and is aimed at replying to the critiques that were made against it.

What is Sartrian existentialism?

His doctrine can be summarised by the following sentence: Existence precedes essence. He says that this holds true for the human and is the reason why we are cursed with absolute freedom. To explain it, he explains the antithesis – Essence precedes existence – that he says holds true for the rest of things. He gives the example of a letter opener: before creating it the artisan already knows what a letter opener is: its function, form, qualities; in other words its essence. Therefore for the letter opener, and other objects in general, essence precedes their existence. Not for the human; for Sartre, there is no preconceived notion of the human being before it is born, its function and qualities are not predetermined. So we have absolute freedom; we are free to construct our own individual essence.

Critique of existentialism: On freedom

One critique of Sartrian existentialism is that there are many factors that limit our freedom; Sartre calls this bad faith. By freedom, Sartre means the ability to act. Therefore, by absolute freedom, Sartre means that ultimately the human is free to choose his own actions and has total responsibility for them. He rebukes a couple of “bad faith” arguments. “Passions contrive our behaviour”; for Sartre that is untrue, we are still the master of our passions, they do not absolve us of responsibility or freedom towards our actions. He goes a bit further and says it is the same for feelings, as feelings are built upon action, felt feeling and manufactured feelings are the same. He gives the example of a young man during the war who has the choice between going to England to be part of the Forces Françaises Libres (French Liberation Army) or staying with his mother and caring for her. He loves his mother and stays to care for her, or, he doesn't love her but still stays to care for her which is an act of love; for Sartre this is the same. Therefore that young man is still absolutely free, his feelings do not dictate his conduct.

“Character traits also influence our behaviour, also restricting our freedom of action.” A simple rebuke for Sartre; character traits are a result of our actions and not the other way around — a coward is a coward because they act cowardly.

On a different angle, Sartre says that “signs” and advice given to us also do not do anything to impede our freedom. You are free to see any sign in anything and to derive any meaning from any sign you encounter. As for advice, not only are you free to follow them or not, but you also choose who you are going for advice; you most likely already know what you will be getting.

“Our past experiences dictate our actions.” Here, Sartre says that we are free to derive any meaning we want from our past experiences — if we are to consider it at all before doing actions in the present. We can draw what we want from our life and background and we are responsible for what we draw from it.

“Human nature constrains our freedom.” Sartre argues that there is no such thing as human nature; there is no predefined essence for the human as existence precedes essence. But he concedes that there is such a thing as a human condition, which is defined by all the limitations imposed on the human, whether physical, technological, historical... However, they don't take any freedom away from the human, those limitations do not define us and our actions, but we can choose to define ourselves and our actions with regard to them.

Critique of existentialism: On Quietism, Absurdism and Individualism

One critique of this doctrine is that it is ultimately one of inaction – what Sartre calls quietism. Absolute freedom, which comes with absolute responsibility for our actions would lead us to choice paralysis/inaction. This is wrong for Sartre, as not choosing is a choice in itself which we are also responsible for. Another angle is that since the human is nothing more than their actions — hopes, dreams and potential are not to be considered — the human has to act to define himself, otherwise we are nothing.

Some of his critiques touch on the subject of absurdism, since there is no human essence, there are also no human values (Sartre's doctrine is purely atheistic); the only thing that matters is our actions. Therefore we are free to act however we please as there is no predefined meaning to our existence or morals guiding our actions. Here Sartre responds that we humans create our own morals and he also simply reminds us that we still have total responsibility for our actions.

Another critique brought forward is that this is a very individualistic doctrine; since we have absolute freedom we are free to do as we please, with complete disregard for the others. This is reinforced by the fact that we create our own moral. Sartre has a bit more trouble replying to that but says that we have to choose others' liberty on top of our own. But also that we have to act as if everyone else was going to act like us.

Humanism

The most simplistic definition of the term humanism is: a system of thought placing the human at the center of everything. Sartre claims that existentialism is inherently a humanistic doctrine since it rests on human subjectivity. For him, every truth and action implies human subjectivity and environment. “The human is its own legislator” is a direct quote from Sartre when linking existentialism and humanism, we decide for ourselves what we are to become. In this sense, it is an optimistic doctrine based on actions and at its centre lies the human — and therefore it is humanistic.

My critique: On individualism, human definition and “human condition”

I believe that Sartre's rebuke of the individualistic nature of his doctrine is very weak and inconsistent with the rest of his argument. If we are to choose our own moral as an individual, and are to have absolute freedom, then there is nothing stopping us from disregarding others' freedom and well-being. If, like Sartre says, we have to choose other's freedom — and limit our actions to what we think would be ok for everyone to do — then we do not have our own absolute freedom, and do not get to define our own morals. That would mean that there is a predetermined moral conduct that all humans must adhere to, before being born and making their own, which completely contradicts the foundation of L'existentialisme est un humanisme. Staying consistent with the rest of his doctrine, and ignoring this poor rebuke, existentialism becomes an extremely individualistic doctrine; not only are we alone to choose our actions with no regard for anyone, but we also cannot be judged; there are no universal morals to be judged on since we construct our own. This is not very humanistic, as we are putting the individual, and not the human (in the broader sense of the term) at the focus of our doctrine.

His definition of the human is also deeply inhumanistic in my eyes: humans are more than just the sum of their actions. Actions, without words, are just what others can see of us and define us on. We are more than what others perceive of us; our reality is more than the reality of the others of us. We are to define ourselves with more than our actions; our hopes, dreams, feelings, needs, wants... They are all very real and contribute to our being.

I also find his views on the human condition very naive; for him, the only limiting factors are physical, physiological, historical (going hand in hand with technological and geographical). And apart from that we are free to act and define ourselves as we please. No. The limiting factors in his definition of human condition are only the ones we could define as universal; the ones that completely hinder one's freedoms during their whole life are of a socio-economical nature. It is easy to see that even at the youngest age, the kids of the bourgeoisie or the proletariat will both evolve in very different worlds and have very different freedoms. This is not by free conscientious choice of the individual, in this case the kid. Saying that this ultimately doesn't matter and that those different individuals both have absolute freedom (remember Sartre's definition of freedom is the freedom of action) is extremely naïve. More on this in another book analysis.

Budding reflection on absurdism

I am not convinced by Sartre's response to calling his doctrine absurdist. He says that since we create our own morals and also since we still bear responsibility for our actions, then his doctrine is far from absurdist. Since we define our own moral, as an individual, then they can arbitrarily take whatever form they want; since we have absolute freedom it doesn't matter. In this sense that part of the rebuke is ineffective. The second part says that we are responsible for our actions, so we can't do whatever we want. There cannot be responsibility without morals; since there is no universal moral for Sartre, then we must be responsible with respect to our own moral, which we established above as being potentially arbitrary and meaningless. Therefore this argument against the absurdist nature of his doctrine doesn't stand. Does the fact that we are free to act in as irrational and meaningless manners as we want to make existentialism and absurdist doctrine? To be honest I do not know enough about absurdism (yet) to deliver a final opinion. I believe that since in Sartre's doctrine we are to create our own meaning, as existence precedes essence – and meaning would be in our essence – at the very least it can be an absurdist doctrine. More on this in (yet) another book analysis.

Closing remarks

It would be more appropriate to judge Sartre's doctrine in the book presenting it, L'Être et le Néant but I cannot be bothered to read 700+ pages on Sartrian existentialism. This is why my own critique of the absurdist nature of existentialism is not a definite judgement. I can only judge on what is in this book; the response to other's criticism and the claim that existentialism is humanistic. As I have shown, his rebuke of other's criticism is quite weak and his argument for existentialism to be inherently humanistic is even weaker. However, this is not the only work of his defending existentialism; Critique de la raison dialectique is an 800+ pages book trying to conciliate existentialism and Marxism and in broader strokes solidify existentialism. I am also not reading that. Right now, I am more interested in getting a solid basis on many different concepts, rather than dedicating 8 months to just studying one thing in extreme depth. That will come later.

I have much to learn to be able to make more insightful commentary on what I read. This is in the works; I am stocking up on more or less obscure philosophical works (for the anglo world) while in France; I will become an academic weapon.

For some time now I've been grappling with the idea that, despite the fact that while many of the things I enjoy are created by large groups of people, the final result is typically attributed to one single person. I'm certainly not the first person to notice this, but this dilemma has been brought to the forefront of my mind after watching this brief presentation in which each person's contribution to a game is described in detail. That in conjunction with watching an extremely long investigation into the theft of Disco Elysium from its original creators (a term much more ambiguous than it first seems), as well as another video essay on the real creator of the Roblox “oof” sound. These three things in recent succession crystallized this issue in a way that provokes confrontation.

Despite subconsciously knowing this phenomenon to be true, it didn't stop me from associating names with works as if they were the singular force behind their existence. Cases such as: Hidetaka Miyazaki – Creator of Dark Souls, Masahiro Sakurai – Creator of Smash Bros, Todd Howard – Creator of Skyrim, John Romero and John Carmack – Creators of Doom(1993). Even the indie beloved Undertale is not the sole creation of Toby Fox but also includes significant art contributions by Temmie Chang. In fact, this iconic quote from IGN sums up the problem better than I ever could:

“There's a tendency among the press to attribute the creation of a game to a single person,” says Warren Spector, creator of Thief and Deus Ex.

— IGN Staff

In a tasteful irony, not even that quote is properly accredited, but instead is attributed to “IGN Staff”. Only after scrolling to the bottom of the article would one find the true author of those words, Steve Butts (who, as an aside as I was looking into this, was fired from IGN for sexual harassment, yayyyyyyyyy).

I illustrate this not to disregard the likely significant contributions these people had on their respective works, but rather to highlight that the perception is skewed significantly in favor of the individual as opposed to the collective. Indeed, single-person projects do exist, the iconic indie farming game, Stardew Valley, serves as an example of just that (ignoring ports and later updates).

I know a certain reader of the printhouse dislikes when issues are bought up and not definitively solved in the same piece, so what can be done about this problem? The answer might lie in a personal favourite first-person shooter of mine, ULTRAKILL.

Pictured above is the ULTRAKILL's credits section, also known as the “Hall of Shame”. It is an in-game virtual museum depicting every person who has contributed to the game in some capacity. Almost every contributor has a little virtual plush/portrait depicting them or their avatar and a plaque that states their name and role. Should the player be interested to know more about a member of the team, they have the option to pick up a little book in front of them and read a brief blurb further detailing their work on the game.

This little museum is leaps and bounds ahead of any credits roll as far as recognition goes and has done more to transition my perception of the game from a “one-person project” to a larger effort from many people. While it would be easy to simply point at this example and say “Why doesn't everyone do this?” that'd be too naïve even for me, because it would have to conveniently ignore one small issue with this whole endeavor.

Effort. The entire sphere of accreditation takes a consistent effort across the board. Effort to recognize, effort to document, and effort to present. A part of me feels like this is a weak excuse, but I also recognize that to make a video game (or anything really) takes a mountain of effort already. For a game like ULTRAKILL, a museum of virtual opulence may be difficult, but still feasible given the size of the team. On the other hand, for a AAA game with an ever-swelling number of team members, such an idea would be laughable. In fact, the credits roll for Street Fighter 6 is a staggering twelve minutes long.

Despite this complication, some games persevere regardless. Even though Undertale has garnered a reputation as a one-man project, the credits at the end of the game clearly show who worked on the game. Undertale goes as far as to take all the Kickstarter backer names and turn it into a bullet hell minigame. Smash Bros turns the credits roll into an on-rails shooting segment. This may not inform you about what each person did the way ULTRAKILL does, but you do recognize that each of these names holds a notable weight in the final result.

I wasn't really sure how to end an article like this, but I came to the conclusion that what all these 987 words are trying to say is that people make things. Therefore, it'd be best to try and appreciate that very fact. So I sent a message to one of the artists for ULTRAKILL, thanking them for their work on the game. If there's an artistic work that resonates with you for whatever reason, maybe try to reach out to someone who worked on it and thank them too.

If the title didn't make it clear, this article is about the author Michael Crichton and his work. This article contains spoiler that are blacked out, highlight the text to reveal the content.

Dragon Teeth

This whole investigation started when I re-read Dragon Teeth. There we follow the adventures of William Johnson who, after losing a bet to one of his student peers at Yales, has to accompany a paleontologist to dig dinosaur bones in the Wild West. The year is 1876 and the war is raging between the Natives and the American “settlers”; roads are traitorous and so are the people. Will he come back from this expedition alive? Although enjoyable, albeit a bit simplistic, there were glaring flaws in this story that no author should ever have left in the final version of their book. One example I will give, and this happens many times during the book, is defusing any future tension a couple of chapters ahead. To be more precise: “The heroes were walking for days without water and in scorching heat. One of them always stopped the group telling them he saw someone following them in the far-off distance. He was delirious, the rest of the group said, given the current conditions it wasn't surprising. Every time he yelled, they would all turn around and look in the distance, none of them saw anything, any of those times. So they didn't worry about it. They would soon realise they were wrong” or “This man seemed trustworthy and from studying him from afar, looked kind and honest. He would soon realise his first impressions were wrong.“. Those are paraphrases of some events happening in the books, the worst part is that the subversion of expectation they are advertising either happens half a dozen chapters after or never for the second example. Every single event or reveal is defused chapters ahead. That and having obvious plot holes and character arcs that are given up on made me feel like the guy writing this book was an amateur. But he isn't, he is allegedly an accomplished author. Or he was an accomplished author; he died in 2008. This book came out in 2017: the math ain't mathing. This is a “found manuscript” from him that was published with little change. I can only assume this was a draft and all the flaws and all were things we would correct. That explains everything – how awful was I to judge the man's work on a draft. So I picked up some of his other books and tried to get a better idea of his work.

Jurrassic Park

I won't make the affront of giving you a synopsis for this book; I will assume everybody has heard of, if not seen, the movie. Although the synopsis is the same as the movie, the content of the book ranges from mildly to wildly different. The tone is also more serious and tense here. I will not hide the fact that I was never a fan of the movie which I found pretty boring, but here, the tension and the goriness keeps at the edge of your seat, at first. Spoilers ahead. There are no issues for the first half of the book, and the author takes his time to place the setting and sell us on how this park came to be. It is interesting to read about what was considered super-high-tech in the 90's. However, most of the time is spent describing things that are a bit useless, instead of the characters. The characters are usually archetypes without much depth, which I thought was a shame, since more development may have explained some of their decision further down in the book. And god the kids are annoying, and so is Malcolm. The latter suffers from “scientist written by non-scientist” syndrome; his opinion of science is very naïve and immature, he's just a mouth-piece for the author. Even picturing the glorious abs of Jeff Goldblum while he was on scene (in the book) did not manage to make me like the character more. Grant is the most present, but he still doesn't get much more development, and the secondary characters unfortunately go through an even rougher treatment. But this book's reputation doesn't hinge on its characters, but on its action, so let's take a look at that. I think that the betrayal by that one employee (the guy who gets spat on by the dinosaur) is much better done here than in the movie. Events unfold in a satisfying manner and in the end, we see why/how so much chaos was caused by his actions. The scene with the Jeep and the T-Rex is also very well done here, with a caveat, it is super tense and the fear of the characters, and their illogical actions caused by it, is well conveyed. The caveat is that despite all the carnage, almost everyone survives. You were in the jaws of the T-Rex? T'is but a scratch. Were tossed down the side of the hill, while being in a car smashed by the T-Rex? You just need an Advil. Worry not though, there is plenty of death going on afterwards, just not the main characters. Action scenes in general were pretty effective. Overall, the story was interesting up till the end where it falls off in a catastrophic manner; I think the author didn't really know how to end. Despite the grim picture I have painted (for dramatic effect), the book is actually quite good if the lack of character depth is not a deal breaker for you.

The Lost World

The follow-up to Jurassic Park was brought about by the success of the movie from Spielberg. This was the first time that Crichton wrote a sequel to one of his novels, which lead to some issues. First, he brought Malcolm back from the dead, second is that he had to create another dinosaur island, the first one having been obliterated by the Guatemalan government. This did injure my suspension of disbelief, as well as let a “well isn't this convenient” sigh out of me. We are not off to a good start. Let's move on to the synopsis: A guy in Ian (Malcolm)'s class thinks because of cHAoS tHeORy there must be an island with dinosaurs on it that was never been discovered by humans. Ian is like: bet, if you give me proof that dinosaurs still exist I will go with you on an expedition to that island (even though I know of an island that had dinosaurs on it that actively tried to escape). The guy prepares the super secret expedition helped with two kids (of course) a mechanic and other people that I don't recall. They find where the island with the dinosaur would be, and luck would have it the guy finds a dinosaur carcass and gets a sample to bring to Ian, forcing him to go to the island. Before they depart for the island all together, my man decides to scout the dinosaur island himself with another hunter dude who immediately gets rekt by raptors. The guy makes the very rational decision to go deeper into the island to save him. The rest of the crew, Ian, the mechanic and his minions and a scientist have to save both of them. Of course, the kids hide in the back of a car and are transported to that island. The disdain I have for this book probably transpires through this half-asses preview and I didn't read further than that. If there is one thing that I cannot bear and will not stand for is people doing stupid things that are completely out of character just because we need the story to move on. Malcolm would never have agreed to go on that expedition, no matter what proof he was given; he literally died during the last one. The guy who spend years carefully and meticulously preparing his expedition would not just rush ahead to “scout”. After they get rekt, Malcom would just tell the rest of the team that they got murked by dinosaurs, so no need to try to save them; they're dead. The super prepared and smart team would have checked the back of the cars/trailers for the kids who begged to go on the expedition with them and who, after being told no, were suspiciously obedient. Everything feels contrived, nothing matters and I don't care for any of the characters; they all deserve to die. Crichton did not write a proper sequel, nor should he have. It is clear from the last book that he didn't know how to end it, let alone plan for a sequel.

Timeline

A group of students and their supervisor are conducting research in the ruins of castles in France along the Dordogne River. Digs are going as planned until their supervisor is sent to the HQ of ITC, the big secret corporation funding them. After their supervisor being gone (missing?) for a few days, his students start digging up some strange artifacts; a pair of modern glasses and parchment paper with the word 'HELP' written in contemporary english. After sending it to the lab they are bewildered; both of them date back hundreds of years ago. They have no time to ponder on their discovery, and still without any news from their supervisors, they are being summoned to ITC HQ. I did have to force myself to finish this book, maybe because I read it right after La Passe-mirroir: Les fiancés de l'hivers & Les Disparus du Clairedelune, which, as I mentioned in my previous article, I found to be masterpieces. There is no comparison in the character development here; it is as lacking as in Jurassic Park, some choices are even a bit weird with characters doing a 180 on their very under-developed character. The pacing is also very strange, I found it to be kind of a snooze-fest in the beginning and very rushed at the end. There are also constant switches between past and present which break the pace, especially when usually nothing of substance is being said in the latter. The insistence of the author on explaining how time-travel works, and trying to make it believable is also a waste of time. He tries to ground it in “science” (he invokes the all-mighty quantum mechanics) going into really intricate details. It will bore people that aren't physics savvy and the ones that are will easily realise that it is at the very best pseudo-scientific garbage and that he hasn't the slightest idea of what quantum mechanics is. This is not only referenced once but appears throughout the book, every time making me roll my eyes so hard that I believe I have tied a knot with my optic nerve. Story-wise (spoilers ahead): I honestly couldn't be bothered to keep track of everyone; they were introduced once under different names, with bare minimum depth, and then mentioned again 50 pages later – did they expect me to remember who they are? I did understand enough to see that our protagonists are in general mary-sues: guy from the present whose only training with medieval weapons is self-teaching with immobile mannequins; he will not only be able to hold his own, but best five trained guards at once in the past. Other (weak) guy from the present with no training; he can also best professional swordfighters from the past. Gal who does rock-climbing in the present with all modern-day equipment and safeties; without that equipment, she's spider-girl in the past, climbing whole towers and churches alike. I am a bit bad faith here, but it felt like that, even if I am taking it to the extreme. I did not care for any character, or what happened to them, and neither should you; don't read the book.

So, Crichton bad? Well, Crichton not for me. I have read the synopsis of his other work and the premises are usually very interesting and creative, but it doesn't seem like his writing can carry them really far. A huge flaw of his in my eyes is the treatment of characters, it is very minimal. I enjoy character-driven plots and all the Crichton has to offer is usually action-driven plots, where characters are contrived to do stuff because the story demands it, with little regard for their own character motivations. So, although not bad (who am I to judge), not for me.

Thank you for reading my logorrhea, Eddie

prefer not to have negative opinions about anything, if it can be helped. Okay- that was not a strong start, but bear with me Taylor Swift Army.

For me, beer has been a great teacher (and a good analogue, I think). I don't think I've met anyone who liked beer the moment it first touched their lips. Love at first sight is only for Shakespeare and Swift, it seems. But as you taste that bitterness, the internal contradiction becomes clear as day. Somebody clearly likes this, but I for the life of me, cannot understand why. Eventually you will crack that code though, for some time now I can safely say that I get what is going on there.

Here is another contradiction: I do not like trying new things- But, I do like to be challenged. This particular drink is not bad, It's just challenging. When your immediate reaction is repulsion, remember that somebody likes this thing for some reason! There is some merit here, I just have not realized it yet. Everything annoying is instead a puzzle, if you contextualize it the right way.

I will drop the façade I have been putting up for some time now: I am not the world's biggest Taylor Swift fan. But I have enlisted two of the greatest swiftie scholars of our age in Sister Edna, and Sister Kaitlyn to tutor me. I have received their playlists and studied them. Not to do so would be reprehensible, anyone who receives a custom playlist from someone and doesn't listen to it is utter scum.

I would describe the contents as, um, very challenging. I don't really like pop, and I'm pretty selective about my country, so I already knew this would be difficult. I also think that this has a very specific audience that is not me. A lot of the the recurring themes are things that either don't apply to me, or are ideas that I am generally oblivious to.

There were a couple of songs that stood out to me, Dorothea, coney island. To be honest though, the stuff that I can most easily enjoy is her older pop stuff that I heard everywhere in high school. It just gets into that silliness territory that makes it fun, like going back and listening to All-American rejects or Mariana's trench. It provides a sense of nostalgia for a time when these types of narratives felt relevant to me.

I won't go as far as to say that this music is entirely without utility- a lot of the music I listened to has a numbing effect that allows one to focus on another task, (like drawing or writing). It's probably good music to lose yourself in a task to. But I was promised nutritional value.

The method of contextualizing art as a series of challenges is novel because you win some, but you're going to lose some.

It's the end of the fourth round and I'm bleeding from my face, I can't see out of one eye and the other one isn't so hot either. I can't hear shit. Coach leans over the rope and mouths “Throw in the towel kid. Live to fight another day.” “I'm tired boss.” I tell him, “I'm really tired.”

I am defeated, and there is no simple way around it. Is this music bad? I think that is a bit of a short-sighted question. It serves a utility to someone, which is the important thing. Am I going to be utilizing it? Uh, probably not on my lonesome, no. I am still a supporter of the Taylor Swift People's Militia, but maybe I won't assume the role of General any longer.

SPOILERS

• Story spoilers: minimal
• Gameplay spoilers: major
• World/Exploration spoilers: medium
• Breath of the Wild spoilers: fair game

I would bet that at least half of the people reading this are playing the latest entry in the Legend of Zelda series: Tears of the Kingdom. If you're not and don't plan on it any time soon, I'd appreciate the read anyways but the rest of the article will most likely be lost on you.

This article is aimed at the early to mid game player. Perhaps you've done a couple of the main temples, got an extra stamina wheel, a bunch of extra hearts, etc. I will try and keep the tips free of things which the game would teach you at some point or things that should be figured out on your own. For example, I won't tell you how to find a specific boss, but I may share tips on how to fight one. This list is in no particular order since I'm just sorta pulling all of these from my memory.

I also kinda messed up the GIFs situation just a tad. Accidentally made all the GIFs massive in file size, and there's like 20 of them. Hopefully by the time you finish reading these intro articles, the GIFs will have loaded. If not, oh well. I'll figure it out next time.

1. Repairing your gear

One of the most prominent complaints from the community about Breath of the Wild was the weapon durability system. In Tears of the Kingdom, Nintendo introduced a way to repair your items through Rock Octorocks. These monsters are typically found in the Death mountain region.

A Rock Octorock

To repair an item, drop one item that you would like to repair in front of the octorock. Take a couple steps back and wait for the octorock to inhale the item. The octorock will then chew on it a bit, and after a little sparkle effect, spit it back out at you. You will find that the item is now fully repaired.

A Rock Octorock repairing an item

This comes with the added benefit of the octorock applying a random modifier to the item (better durability, damage, etc.) but note that it will also overwrite any modifiers on it. Do note that this includes how many arrows a lynel bow will shoot. I remember feeding a 5 shot lynel bow to an octorock, and it spitting back out a 3 shot bow.

You should also be careful of not getting hit by the returning weapon. Depending on what it is, it may hurt a lot.

Getting hit by a returning weapon

Each octorock can only repair/modify one item per blood moon, so it may be prudent to mark the location of each octorock you come across, and kill the ones you've used so you don't run into it again.

2. The Air bike

Horses quickly become obsolete due to the amount of verticality that the map of Tears of the Kingdom introduces, especially when exploring the depths. Due to this, the need for a method of movement that can navigate any or all terrain becomes highly desirable. Enter the Air bike.

The Air bike

The Air bike is an incredibly popular design in the community as of writing this due to it's many advantages over other methods of transportation. This includes it's cheapness, flying properties, ease of use, and more. Autobuild allows you to make one using just 9 zonaite, but I still prefer to supply the actual parts. I encourage you to look up a guide on how to make one of these, as creating it initially can be quite tedious.

Autobuilding and using the Air bike in the depths, with a light attached

Controlling it feels really good. Keep the stick still to go forward and gain/lose no height. Pull back to go up, push forward to lose height and go faster, and left and right to turn. Quickly exit and enter the vehicle to lose a lot of height. Since it uses only two fans, it's quite light on the battery as well, but don't be afraid to use zonaite charges to go that extra distance.

Flying the Air bike

3. Shrines and Lightroots

This is a shorter tip, but very useful nonetheless. If you're having trouble finding lightroots in the depths, or shrines on the surface, remember this: for each shrine on the surface, there is a corresponding lightroot directly below it. This relationship between shrines and lightroots is made even more apparent when you realize that the lightroot's name is simply the shrine's name reversed.

Shrines and lightroots share relative locations

4. Fighting a Talus

The Talus returns from Breath of the Wild in almost the exact same form with one key difference: Link no longer has the Bomb rune. Previously, fighting a Talus was quite straight forward: hit it with a bomb or two until it was stunned, climb on it's back, then hit the nodule until it was defeated. With bombs becoming rarer in Tears of the Kingdom, an alternative method to fight the Talus without bombs is desired. For myself, I use these two ways to deal with them.

Ascend

My go-to method when I engage a Talus is to simply run up and ascend straight through it. It gives me a decent amount of time to get a good number of swings in before it shakes me off, to which I just do it again.

Ascending through the Talus

Recall

While standing far away, the Talus will attempt to throw one of its arms at you. When it does this, you can simply recall it back at the Talus, stunning it for a while. You could then attempt to climb it normally to get at the nodule.

Using recall to fight the Talus

5. Interesting shield fuses

I was on the fence on writing this section since most of these should be discovered on your own, but I decided to include them anyways since these aren't entirely obvious.

Fusing a shield with any type of cart allows you to shield surf on almost any surface.

Shield surfing with a cart

Fusing a shield with a bomb allows you to rocket jump.

Bomb jumping

The Animated series predicted this

Fusing a wing to a shield gives you extra height when initiating a shield surf.

Using a wing shield to get to higher places quickly

6. Using the Wing

The wing device is great for traversing long distances in the sky. You can even attach a steering stick and some fans to create essentially a controllable plane. I'll discuss some techniques here that will help you use the wing in more situations

Link on a wing

One of the weaknesses of the wing is it's inability to take off from solid ground. Typically, you'd need the help of some launch rails or a cart, but this is not very desirable. A good way to circumvent this limitation is to simply glide off the edge, summon the wing midair, then hop on. It takes a bit of practice to do consistently, but definitely does work. The best way I've found to doing it is to glide stationary for a bit, summon the wing, then move forward and fall. This method is great for when your initial wing expires.

Boarding a wing midair

If you don't find success in the above, the following method works just fine. Simply take a wing, use Ultrahand to lift it off the edge, then pull it back above you for a couple of seconds, and then set it down. After that, recall the wing and ascend onto it. When it starts hanging off the edge, stop the recall, and you're on your way.

Alternative boarding method

You could also just use a rocket to get the wing off the ground

7. Various ways to gain height

For this last section, I decided to forgo the whole taught by the game or discoverable on your own restriction of this article on the sole premise that gaining height is simply too useful in any open world game, this one included. With the lack of Revali's Gale from Breath of the wild, we are forced to find ways other than climbing to gain height. Here's a list of useful techniques that can be leveraged to do just that, arranged from least to most expensive with varying degrees of effectiveness.

Ultrahand, Recall, Ascend

By using ultrahand, recall, and ascend, the player can hover an object above their heads, recall it up there, then ascend through it. Can be a little tedious but gets the job done, and you can do it with anything large enough to ascend through. You can also forgo the ascend step by just standing on top of the object before recalling, but with ascending, you could make a tall pillar and ascend all the way to the top.

Ascending through a recalled object

Pine cone in a fire

One of the cheaper methods. Requires only tossing a Hylian Pine cone into a campfire.*

Tossing a pine cone into a campfire

Fan

Simply pointing a fan up creates a wind current which you can glide up with.

Rising with a fan

Springs

These devices were pretty much made for this express purpose, and they can be stacked and reused if you can recover it. Great for entering bullet time.

Using two stacked springs

Shield Fuses

Using a shield with a rocket or a spring will send you up, but is only a one time use. There's also the bomb and wing fuses discussed in tip #5

Gaining height with a rocket and a spring

Building a flying machine

Definitely the most expensive on this list, but also the most effective. Whether it's using a hot air balloon, the Air Bike, or just hopping from one floating platform to the next, using zonaite devices seems to be the easiest or only way to access certain areas. Especially useful if you can find the parts in the environment.

Using a hot air balloon

Sometimes, you can just find a flying machine in the wild

Hopefully you've found at least one of these tips helpful in your play through. This is my first article here, so please excuse any errors or general weirdness. All the GIFs and images were recorded/taken by yours truly. If this article is received well, I have plenty more tips and tricks in mind to make a second article, one that would carry major story and world spoilers. If there is demand, I may consider making a purely beginner version, filled with many basic tips for absolute newcomers to the game. If you know of anything to add to this list, send me a message and I will probably include it in the next article.

Now stop stalling and go save Hyrule, hero O

Preface

This paper is a hasily-edited adaptation of an overzealous reply I wrote in a slightly-heated online discussion. I'm choosing to adapt and publish it here because it covers 70% of an article I've been trying and failing to write for weeks. The argument within it functions as a “bootstrapped explanation” of why I've been failing to write that last article, or any article, really. No sources are provided because I originally wrote this one message at a time over discord. If that makes you mad, read Saussure yourself and tell me if and why I'm wrong.

Funnily enough—I probably had to write this much, in a casual fashion, to grasp that it's impossible to write a perfect formal paper about why the words I'm using to write it are an imperfect, informal system.

Take any commentary to the cafe bot comments, I would love to hear your thoughts.

Why I'm Skeptical of Language

I did my first degree in english lit, mostly because I was depressed and flunking out of compsci at the time. I wasn't that interested in literature, I just did well in it in high school and figured I could stay in school that way. But I did end up taking every course my school offered in literary theory—the study of methods of reading and interpreting texts. A lot of this gets pretty fuzzy, mingling with the rest of the humanities, and it took me directly into philosophy, gender studies, psychoanalysis, and semiotics: the last of which I'm gonna talk about at length for a minute. Studying semiotics, even to the limited degree I did, left me with strong opinions on how language operates. What I'm gonna talk about is related to semiotics, if not totally orthodox or comprehensive or 'objectively true'. It's what I believe, what I took away. Make of it what you will.

Casually, let's start with a definition of a definition, from merriam-webster: “a statement of the meaning of a word or word group or a sign or symbol”. Alright, let's do the definition (“a statement of the meaning of a word or word group or a sign or symbol”) of meaning: “the thing one intends to convey especially by language”. Ok, let's look at the definition (“a statement of the meaning of a word or word group or a sign or symbol” (meaning being: “the thing one intends to convey especially by language”.)) of language: “the words, their pronunciation, and the methods of combining them used and understood by a community”. Now, onto words, pronunciations, combining, community...

Sheesh, we're gonna be here all night.

The notion of a “objective definition” is effectively impossible. Diogenses kinda got to the heart of this when he responded to Plato's definition of man as “featherless bipeds” by holding up a plucked chicken and saying “behold! I've brought you a man”. You can define the term as precisely as you want, but corner cases will slip through for basically any term. You can add more rules to patch up the corner cases, but then you start to exclude things which also match the definition, in a similar fashion.

Even if you could patch up every single corner case, the definition you create is written in more words which require their own definitions, which all suffer the same fate. If any of these definition-words have corner-cases where similar diogenses-style misunderstandings can occur, the original definition is compromised by extension. At some point, use of language is a process of subjective, probabilistic interpretation, not objective linguistic forms.

A word is only a linguistic sign. A linguistic sign is only an arbitrary mapping between a “thought-concept”, (casually: a pre-verbal, probabilistic mental process of understanding or classifying some category) and a “sound-image” (casually: a class of possible/recognizable spoken sounds or visual writing). The relationship/mapping is arbitrary, because both components are arbitrary. Linguistic signs only gain their meaning relative to other linguistic signs, in a social context. I can say that “trehrke” is a word that means “pizza that's gone stale in the fridge”, but unless I'm saying that to somebody else who's familiar with the mapping between sound-image “trehrke” and the thought-concept of “pizza that's gone stale in the fridge”, it's a useless linguistic sign. And even if they do share that linguistic sign with me, if their mapping of sound-image “stale” doesn't include the thought-concept “moldy”, and mine does, then we're actually using two slightly different signs, because we're mapping sound-image “trehrke” onto slightly different thought-concepts. And beyond that, “pizza that's gone stale in the fridge” is also arbitrary. It's not some divinely established category, on which we bestow an arbitrary label. I could create infinite arbitrary signs just like “trehrke” (see: the German language) Our words, even extremely important ones, don't correspond to objective, pre-linguistic ontological categories. Different languages have different words for different things, words that can't be translated directly and that map onto different subsets and supersets of each other. The english word “love” could encapsulate countless different emotions in other languages, emotions which native speakers of those languages would never think of as “the same thing” in the same, very loosely-connected fashion that english speakers think of all possible variations on “love” as being “the same thing”.

More formally, what I'm calling a thought-concept would be called the “signified” and sound-image would be called the “signifier”. I prefer these descriptive terms because I'm slightly dyslexic and stumble over the similarity of the formal signifier/signified.

Controversy also totally shatters these mappings. A militant maoist maps an entirely different thought-concept onto the sound-image “socialism” than a lifelong Republican does. Casually, to the former, it's utopian affect; to the latter, dystopian. When they have a discussion with or around that linguistic sign, they aren't talking about the same thing, because they conceive of it so differently. Same sound-image, different thought-concept: asymmetric mapping. They can attempt to clarify this misunderstanding by hedging it against their shared understanding of other signs—like “government” and “freedom” or “money”, other words you'd use when talking about this stuff—but it's likely there's some asymmetric mappings going on with respect to those words too! Clear communication and consensus becomes extremely challenging.

For a more fun example, “is a hotdog a sandwich” is a clear example of an asymmetric mapping.

In this sense, language is lossy compression; the pre-verbal, rich, analog, probabilistic thought-concept understanding of the world we have has to be compressed into discrete sound-image symbols to be communicated, and then decompressed by the other individual in the context of all the other signs involved and their idiosyncratic mappings. Usually, for day-to-day stuff, this is done pretty successfully. Shared social context goes a long way. But it breaks down at times, particularly on controversial and advanced topics (like the socialism example above).

We don't live in a world of language, we live in a world of ineffable, idiosyncratic, fluid, probabilistic thought-concepts. I'm interested in phenomenology because I hope one day we might be able to communicate without the restrictions innate to language: the tragic loss involved in compression and decompression. I don't want to tell somebody I appreciate them, I want them to feel what I feel when I appreciate them. And I appreciate you for reading this.

Footnote on scientific communication

While I have a lot of skepticism around communication, I will freely admit the scientific method, and standards are reproducibility, are one of humankind's greatest communicative accomplishments. Scientific literature is clear and formal enough to avoid many of the pitfalls of casual language-use.

But it doesn't fully solve the problem. Ultimately, it's still taking a phenomenal analog world and trying to chop it up into little digital linguistic signs, running experiments on those categories. When an abstract says “this paper is on dogs” it assumes a clear delineation of what a “dog” is vs a “wolf”. Sure, that's an easy enough distinction to make with 99.9% accuracy – but when you have to do that for every single word, every single category, every single communication, the notion of true, clear-minded objectively becomes a lot less tenable. Any “measurable category” is a measurable category of some “X”—and “X” is, sadly, just a linguistic sign.

I don't have ample words (well, other than this expression of “I don't have ample words”) for how I feel about the beauty and understanding we might get out of a post-linguistic science.

In an effort to bolster my printhouse contributions, this blog will serve as something less structured and analytical than Ghost Notes. Like when a YouTuber makes a second channel to throw their garbage on. With that in mind, I thought it might be interesting to, in no particular order, explore some of the many game and game related projects I've kept a keen eye on. In particular, ones that feel as though they have been in progress for an especially lengthy amount of time. Alongside each entry will be a rough estimation of how long I've been waiting for each project. Enjoy!

Momentum Mod –

Waiting time: At least 3 years

This project in particular was probably the main inspiration for this article. My typical approach when it comes to extremely long-term projects I am interested in is... to forget about them. Only when I remember they exist do I check in to see their respective status. But for whatever reason I cannot seem to keep this thing out of my head for more than a month at a time.

“Source” is the game engine primarily used by Valve Software, creators of renowned games such as Counter-Strike: Global Offensive, Team Fortress 2, and Portal. A noteworthy quirk of its physics allows you to slide along sharp slopes by strafing into them. This minor detail has snowballed into an entire community of creators who make maps designed to exploit this phenomenon in order to make a giant course for you to slip and slide around. These maps have been dubbed “surf maps”.

The issue is that to play these surf maps you need to open them through a game like CS:GO, then join a community server hosting one of these maps, or download the map yourself and configure the physics settings of your game to accommodate it. While not necessarily the most cumbersome process, it is inconvenient enough for me to avoid doing it in favor of something else.

This is where the Momentum Mod comes in. As a standalone client, it'll become trivially easy to open up the game and start sliding around to my heart's content. It is that exact ideal that I pine so intently for. Unfortunately, as is common for its breed, it is a mod that is supported by a small but dedicated group of developers, who work on it in their free time. So any estimation of its day of completion is a fruitless endeavor.

Hollow Knight: Silksong –

Waiting time: At least 2 years

It's no secret that I have a particular fondness for Hollow Knight. The developers at Team Cherry have taken the levelheaded approach to the hype by keeping the community blind to their progress on its highly anticipated sequel. What's more amusing is seeing the feral reactions from the fans whenever even the most minor of informational scraps are thrown in their general direction regarding the game or its release date.

Like many others I found Hollow Knight to be a beautiful game in all aspects. Its visuals invoke rich atmospheres of varied landscapes. Its soundtrack, often haunting, yet whimsical. Its gameplay, potentially very challenging but with an equal sense of reward when mastered. Judging by what previews we do have, Silksong exhibits the same excellent attention to detail as its predecessor.

I may be cursing myself to more years of waiting by saying this, but I actually think this one might release soon. Despite their tepid desire to indicate any potential release date for the game, they did allow Xbox to post on their Twitter that Silksong, among many other games, will be “playable over the next 12 months”.

So you’re telling me Silksong is out within the next 12 months

— That guy (@1xandermander) June 12, 2022

That's exactly what we said.

— Xbox (@Xbox) June 12, 2022

Assuming no delays, that puts the checkered flag sometime in June. If it doesn't release then, I will have no choice but to do the exact same thing I've been doing for the last 2 years.

Continue my wait, as long as it takes...

Pepper grinder –

Waiting time: At least 6 years

Ori and the Will of the Wisps was a game justifiably commended for many things. One aspect in particular was a section of the game where you drill through some sand and launch outwards when you surface. Now imagine this section expanded to the scale of an entire game on its own, that is Pepper Grinder.

A trend you will notice is that I have stumbled onto many of these games through Twitter, and this one is no exception. Had I not found it on Twitter I would have nonetheless discovered it through a Dunkey video talking about his experiences with it PAX 2017.

I imagine Dunkey saw the same potential in this game as I did, being charmed by its lightly abrasive pixel art and its captivating hold on momentum and flow. Looking through it again for this article has shown me it has matured quite a lot since I last investigated it in earnest. The once-solo developer has now partnered with a musician and a porting company. In addition, the game seems to now be published by Devolver Digital so it's certainly in very good hands.

Like everything else on this list, I await its release with great anticipation.

OTHER: Her Loving Embrace –

Waiting time: About 3 years

The release of Undertale in 2015 prompted an explosion in the “Earthbound Inspired” RPG genre. These games tend to focus on quirky characters and dialogue, in addition to having amazing soundtracks. Something else Undertale revitalized was the idea of turn-based combat but with some twists to make it more engaging for a broader audience.

With these aspects in consideration, OTHER: Her Loving Embrace is a quirky RPG with engaging characters, catchy tunes, and combat that opens up a 2d arena to briefly fight in for each turn (as opposed to Undertale's bullet hell segments). Safe to say it wears its inspirations on its sleeve. Despite this, the game has successfully forged its own identity, and I tend to have a soft spot for goofy guys.

A came across this game through a pretty deep rabbit hole I will explain in more detail later in this article (see: Magus Array). I have no idea how far along it is in development, and I am left with no choice but to forget about it for a couple of months and come back to it later like I often do.

I have a lot of faith that this game will turn out well. So much so, in fact, that I actually own a few pins based on the characters of the game. Pins from a game that as of right now, has not yet been released. So here's hoping things turn out well.

Bomb Rush Cyberfunk –

Waiting time: About two years (Since August 11th 2021)

From Team Reptile, the developers of Lethal League comes Bomb Rush Cyberfunk Jet Set Radio.

No, seriously it's basically Jet Set Radio, they even have the original composer (and funny Twitter guy) Hideki Naganuma in this as well. This is a huge boon because a major part of JSR's identity was its banger soundtrack.

I haven't yet played Jet Set Radio, because if I did, it would have to be its now abandoned remake on the Original Xbox, Jet Set Radio: Future. Unfortunately, I haven't been able to experience the rail grinding, public vandalism, and wacky art style that is Jet Set Radio. What I can do instead, is wait for Bomb Rush Cyberpunk. Which, judging by brief snippets, comes very close to its inspirations not only in music as mentioned previously but also in art, gameplay, and just general vibes.

ADDENDUM: Ok so as it turns out I've taken so long to write this article that the release date for Bomb Rush Cyberfunk was announced, August 18th, making it an eventual 3 years total of waiting.

Deltarune –

Waiting time: Little more than a year since the last chapter

It's Toby Fox.

TF2 Heavy update –

Waiting time: 5 years now, ∞ to go

Team Fortress 2 still sits at the #1 spot of my most played games on Steam. Its last update, Jungle Inferno, released in October 2017 came with a promise for at least one other update down the line, the heavy update. The update promised to revitalize the game's titular fat man as it did with Pyro in Jungle Inferno.

Since then my hope has slowly dwindled as a game that I love decays before my eyes. Even with the knowledge that Valve does not get anything done in a timely manner (very relatable, I mean, I've been writing this article for almost a month now), there has been very little indication that a major update is on the horizon, or even in the same solar system.

I still hold hope that it might happen one day, but I am not holding my breath. TF2 is still a playable game, and I do on occasion hop on to play it. However, the writing has been on the wall for years, nobody wants to work on a 12-year-old piece of software when flashier, newer things like Counter-Strike 2 exist as an alternative option to contribute to.

Night runners –

Waiting Time: At Least 3 Years

In me, there exists a desire to drive dangerously down dimly lit streets in gaudy tuner cars. Ever since Need For Speed: Most Wanted, no other racing game has successfully eclipsed its greatness. Nowadays, most racing games commit to full simulation or full arcade, which NFS existed as a nice medium between. Even Need For Speed itself has fallen from grace after brushing against the heavens with Most Wanted. On top of that, it's extremely rare to find any amount of car customization in any of these games. My feeble attempts to fill the steering wheel-shaped hole in my heart with a modded version of Need For Speed: Heat just doesn't quite capture the vibe and gameplay that I wish for. Until now.

From what I can tell this is also a solo development effort but with an extremely deep understanding of the exact kind of experience that has been neglected for so long. All of the menus look like VHS recordings and the showcased depth of customization will allow one to personalize their car to such fine detail that it surpasses even modern Need For Speed games.

My only worry is in the handling model, which can really make or break a game like this. Most Wanted had a very weighty physics system that was challenging without requiring you to know how to actually race a real car. On top of that, it's difficult to discern the feeling of driving just from preview videos alone, so the final judgement rests on when this game finally releases. Regardless, what has been shown so far is really promising and has only gotten better with time.

ULTRABUGS –

Waiting time: Around 4 years

There are few development teams I hold in such high regard as I did for the 2-person studio Vlambeer. All of their games have this hyper-focus on “feeling” that can be difficult to describe in words but is immediately understood when you actually play them. This unspoken language is what set them apart and I've played and adored almost every game they've made.

My eagerness for their upcoming game ULTRABUGS comes from that aforementioned “game feel”. However, it is sullied by the announcement that Vlambeer games has shut down and that ULTRABUGS will be their final game ever.

It's hard to say if this game will ever release, the first of the two developers has gone off to create their own projects such as “Minit” or “Disc Room” and the other has focused on fostering independent game development efforts in underrepresented regions of the world (while also becoming a pilot).

A part of me doesn't want it to release. Its completion will mark an end of an era for indie games, and my experience of playing this game will be bittersweet in its finality.

UFO 50 –

Waiting time: At least 5 years

Speaking of indie game titans, UFO 50 is a collection of 50 mini-games developed for a fictional 8-bit console. The people behind it include Ojrio Fumoto, the developer behind Downwell and POINPY (two games I intend to write a Ghost Notes article about), as well as some other names I don't immediately recognize. The project is spearheaded by the legendary Derek Yu. Derek and the team at Mossmouth are the minds behind one of the greatest roguelites of all time, Spelunky, which people are still making new discoveries in 10 years down the line.

There's really no telling what to expect from a project such as this one. 50 games is a pretty heavy undertaking, no matter how big or small each of them is. It also means that one could expect a huge variety of different ideas executed by some very talented people. I am also very curious to see how the lessons learned from developing Spelunky carry over to this.

In many ways, UFO 50 is quite enigmatic, but overall I think that only adds to the excitement.

Hytale –

Waiting time: About 5 years

Much like Undertale, Minecraft also sparked a wildfire of games that could be considered under the umbrella of “indie survival game”. However, Minecraft's survival mechanics are pretty simplistic and progression is more of an inclined hill than it is a curve. Minecraft is also no stranger to competitors, many attributed Terraria as a “2d Minecraft clone” which while not really true goes to show Minecraft's dominance in the space it occupies.

All this to say, when the team behind one of the most popular Minecraft servers, “Hypixel”, pledges to make a game that intends on going toe to toe against the goliath that is Minecraft, it's bound to garner some attention.

What's interesting to me is Hytale seems to tackle that challenge by creating a foundation that is comparably more developed than its inspirations. It's difficult to say if the sheen coating this game has is simply a thin veneer over an underwhelming experience or if it genuinely advances beyond Minecraft in things like combat and progression. On its surface though, perhaps it would be more accurate to call it a “3d Terraria” as opposed to a Minecraft clone.

Another thing Hytale is doing that really differentiates itself from Minecraft is an extremely high prioritization of modding and custom content. Despite Minecraft having a modding scene comparable to the likes of Skyrim, the relationship Mojang has with its modders is more of a passive acceptance than actual support. Hytale in comparison seems to present something more akin to a game engine that can be modified and shared consistently across all supported devices. This would eliminate the kind of isolation found between console Minecraft players and PC Minecraft players, where PC players get to enjoy the wellspring of modded content available to them while console players are left to make the most of the very limited toolset for customization released for the platform.

Hytale is without a doubt facing a very steep cliff to climb to the top of. However, if executed well, could be a genuinely phenomenal experience the likes of which could only be met with something like Roblox* (unironically). I have no idea if they'll be successful but I don't mind waiting another 5 years to see it polished to perfection.

*I've never personally played Roblox but from an outsider's perspective it looks like GMod for kids, which is honestly insane.

Genokids –

Waiting time: At least 2 years

I forgot about this one so hard that in writing an article about things I was waiting for I hadn't even considered writing about this.

For those of you who were on the old monkey cafe, you may recall a post I made about liking art styles that would go straight to black for shading. The examples from that post were from games like Hades, The World Ends With You, and also this game, Genokids.

Another trend you may notice is a couple of the games I have been watching have a Y2K vibe to them and Genokids looks like an old cartoon from 2005 turned into a hack-and-slash video game. Where these 4 color-coded kids in a band fight against aliens. The game overall seems to be very silly.

Compared to the rest of the games on this list, my knowledge regarding Genokids is fairly limited. Despite that, the art style and presentation have me interested enough to on occasion question how the project is doing. It seems like the initial Kickstarter I found in late 2020 has been taken down (I remember it not being successful), with another one published much more recently getting funded in 24hrs. I'm glad this game is getting the support it deserves.

Honorable Mentions

Cuphead DLC –

Waited for: 4 years

Cuphead is a pretty straightforward concept. Take early 20th-century animation styles and adapt them into a video game. But while the idea is straightforward, their dedication to the craft results in a workflow that can only be described as maddeningly arduous. In the end, studio MDHR braved the gauntlet that is hand animating an entire video game's worth of characters and enemies, and the initial release of Cuphead was met with critical acclaim, and rightfully so. Not to forget scoring the whole thing with a live jazz band.

At the finish line, the question of “what to do next” arises. Much like the straightforward nature of the game comes another direct answer, which was “make more Cuphead”. So in June of 2018, the Cuphead DLC was announced (amusingly abbreviated as the Delicious Last Course).

In June of 2022, it was finally completed and released to the masses. I finished it in 4 days, and then haven't really touched it since.

Those 4 days however were as good as when I played Cuphead the first time. In the end, it was more Cuphead, which is all I ever expected or wanted out of it. The last course was really delicious.

Sable –

Waited for: Something like 3 years, I don't really remember specifics for this

I remember seeing this cool desert game floating around on Twitter. Most striking of which was its comic book art style with thin black outlines around everything you see (Later I learned about Moebius, the inspiration of the art style). As I followed along with its development I learned that this game takes place on a desert planet where you drift along the dunes and explore the world and its scenery.

When the game was finally released in 2021, I remember enjoying it a fair amount. But, because the experience is so heavily based on “vibes”, it quickly soured when the mildly inconsistent optimization made the experience much less seamless. Which is a shame because it really is a beautiful game otherwise. Even now the game is quite stuttery, so unless I manage to swallow that discomfort I will probably not finish it.

What was especially interesting to me about this game was how peaceful it was. You're not really fighting anyone, or saving the world. The entire premise is that it's a journey of self-discovery, traversing the quiet sands and navigating bustling towns. Certainly a rarity among its peers.

Installation 01 –

It's still not out, and I don't care anymore

It's been 7 years since I first learned about Installation 01. Back in 2016 playing Halo on your PC limited you to just the first two iterations of the series, which by that point has had 7 games in its lineup, the most recent of which were released by a different company (called 343 Industries) and were very underwhelming.

This was the niche that Installation 01 was targeting, a modern version of the Halo series, playable on your pc, that stayed true to the classic formula that had since been neglected by 343. I was squarely in that niche, and I wanted to play this game so badly. I subsequently started following their blog posts (where I first learned about ULTRAKILL amusingly), reading their developer updates, and generally invested myself in the progress of this game hoping to see its release one day. That release however... never came.

Where did that leave me then? Fortunately, in the meantime I had learned about another, less legal, halo fan project/mod which I thoroughly enjoyed when it was popular around 2018. On top of that, both of these Halo projects gave Microsoft the kick in the pants to go ahead and port every Halo game to pc starting in 2019. Which brings us to today. If I want to play some good old Halo on my computer, I can do that with no problem, leaving Installation 01 in a sticky situation. Since development took so long, it timed itself into irrelevance.

So now I don't really care about this project anymore. If it releases one day I might give it a shot. In the end, though, it's now obsolete with the current state of the series on PC. A strange case indeed.

Magus Array –

Barely had a pulse to begin with

On April 6th, 2020 a Source Filmmaker animator I follow released another banger video. That video contained a song from a then-unreleased game called Velorum. I really liked that song and investigated further into the artist behind it, who at the time went by the name “brainfoam” (they now go by pngsequence, or Joe). This name lead me to their now defunct website, which also had a list of projects they contributed to including many other “earthbound inspired” RPGs like OTHER, mentioned earlier.

I really felt like I had uncovered an interesting niche, and the general quality of not only their music but their art as well had me feeling as though I had discovered something really special. This was all I needed to start intently watching for any progress regarding whatever this project came to be. At some point the game was rebranded to “Magus Array”, a soundcloud and Twitter page were created and some more minor scraps of music and art were uploaded to each.

Unfortunately, sometime later down the line, the game was cancelled. I don't remember where or when it was announced, but it's been a little while now. This was a little disappointing, as I am quite fond of Joe's art and music, so I was curious to see what game a person like that could make. Fortunately for me, I might be able to do just that. They've been hyping up their newest game, Reflectile, which looks far more like an actual game than Magus Array ever was.

Duel Arms –

Cancelled, and I'm still a little sad about it

In 2018 I stumbled on a little game called Knight Club. It was a fun twist on your typical platform fighter which focused on health bars as opposed to the stamina knockback system found in Smash Bros. I tried it out a little, had a good time, and then put it down for a while. Then, in December 2020 Knight Club had a little rerelease on Steam dubbed “Knight Club+” which polished the game somewhat and also added Steam multiplayer support which made playing online much easier. I bought it for myself and then convinced a few friends to grab some of the free keys they were giving away and try it with me.

Sometime before the release of Knight Club+, I started seeing glimpses of a sequel/remake called Duel Arms. This game seemed to expand on the very solid foundations of Knight Club with a special move system and multiple equippable utility items. However, in 2022 it was cancelled, which like Magus Array, was also disappointing. Sadly, the developer didn't have the money to be able to support themselves while making a game like Duel Arms.

As some kind of consolation, the unfinished build of the game was released on itch.io. I don't really want to try it in the blind hope that the developer stumbles into a million dollars in a ditch and is suddenly able to finish this game properly. So here's hoping for that day to come.

A Fox In Space Episode 2 –

Waited for: at least 6 years

I'm not really a Star Fox fan. I've interacted more with the character's appearances in Smash Bros than I have with the game itself. On the other hand, I really love this 90s-style fan animation of Star Fox. Another solo project, A Fox In Space presents Star Fox as a Saturday morning cartoon, packaged with a meaningful helping of low-fi ambience. As I have no connections to the characters from the games, the renditions shown in the pilot episode were so captivating that I am unable to imagine them differently now.

Animation takes a long time, a long, long time normally. A long, long, long time for one person on their own. This guy, Mathew Gafford, wrote, animated, scored, edited, partially voice-acted, and directed an entire animated episode of this show himself. So I knew that I would be waiting YEARS for the next episode of this show to come out, and years it took, as while writing this article I decided to check on it again and realized that episode 2 finally came out a month ago now. It's 40 minutes long.

Hopefully, it was worth the wait, I'll be watching it soon.

If you are reading this article, you are almost certainly a communist or a sympathizer. An important divide within the communist movement is between those who see a revolution as the only path to socialism and those who believe it to be achievable under the current liberal system via reform. This article assumes you believe a revolution to be necessary and there will be no arguments against social democracy in it. Go read State and Revolution. There is a bad habit among western, particularly North American, leftists. We seem obsessed with ceaselessly antagonizing and alienating soldiers. This comes from a weird hubristic belief that our goals are achievable without them. That simply is not true. There will be no revolution without their support, and the current leftist instinct serves the interests of counterrevolution. The goal of this article is to dismiss any naive delusion that a revolution can occur solely by the rising of the proletariat or peasantry. Organization needs to be done to appeal to the soldiering class or the armed forces need to be outright infiltrated and steered toward the end of achieving socialism.

Case Studies

Socialism is a scientific ideology. In pursuit of our goals, we should consider the material evidence of past successes and failures. Altogether, the evidence is overwhelming: the likelihood of a successful revolution without the support of a significant portion of the nation's soldiery is nearly impossible. Let's examine case studies together and see what we can learn from them. For the purposes of this article, we shall narrow down our list of revolutions with two criteria. Firstly, we shall not examine revolutions occurring before the invention of the modern military structure. Before the 17th century, there was no class of professional soldiers in significant number. The 17th century saw the rise of two dominant military structures: mercenary armies and national armies. Before this, militaries were entirely reliant on drafting peasantry, who spent most of their time as agricultural workers. The superiority of a professional army over a levy army should be immediately obvious but was not logistically possible under feudalism before the technological developments and social changes of the reformation/renaissance period. Secondly, we shall only consider a short list of major revolutions for the sake of brevity. Generally, other revolutions e.g. the Spanish Civil War follows the same patterns established in our case studies.

Revolution	Result	Notes
English Civil War	Revolutionary Victory, British republic established	The army is the only reason a republic was even established after the defeat of the Cavaliers, as the general opinion was in favour of maintaining the constitutional monarchy even among the parliamentarian leaders (See the history of the Rump Parliament).
American Revolution	Revolutionary Victory, American independence secured	Not really a revolution, as the ownership of production within American territory was not changed. Wealthy planters remained in charge of their plantations and the industrial revolution had barely even begun in Britain meaning there were no great industrialists owning American assets on either side of the fight. Many of the COs of the Continental Army were in the British army up to the moment of the conflict, including George Washington and the Continental Army was defeated routinely in cases where they did not heavily outnumber the enemy. If it were not for the intercession of the actual French armed forces, the historiographical consensus is that the war would've ended in American defeat. The British also faced problems that would not be faced by the reactionary side of a domestic revolution, including long transatlantic supply lines and sympathy towards the revolution by a significant portion of the British parliament.
French Revolution	Revolutionary Victory, First French Republic established	Interesting case: reactionary officers vs revolutionary enlisted men. Reactionary officers were forced from their posts by the enlisted men and most emigrated. Revolutionary officers were promoted swiftly and took control of the nascent republican army, Napoleon Bonaparte among them. The French republic became the First French Empire only when the army under Napoleon demanded the change, not because of popular uprisings against Republican rule, all of which were crushed (e.g. the Vendee rebellion).
Slave Revolts	Variable Result (see notes)	All failed except for Haiti. Haiti only succeeded because the army was busy fighting on both sides of the French revolution. The French expedition to restore Haiti to colonial rule was defeated when a significant portion of the attacking army defected.
Revolution of 1848	Variable Result (successful in France, failure in Italy, Austria, and Germany)	The revolution succeeded in places where the enlisted soldiers defected to the revolution (e.g. France) and was defeated in places where they did not (e.g. Austria). Germany should not be seriously considered as an example of either due to the circumstances of the German confederation. The Austrian army managed to defeat the revolutionaries despite critical disorganization, low morale, and broken supply lines.
Russian Civil War	Revolutionary Victory	Although there was an attempt at the start of the civil war to not use tsarist soldiers, the inexperienced proletariat and peasant army was routed soundly by the white army. The Red Army was only able to win after military reorganization by Trotsky, after which it was comprised of an astounding 83% ex-tsarist soldiers and officers disillusioned with the Russian Empire and Kerensky's Russian Republic.
German Revolution of 1919	Reactionary Victory	The demands of the army for the abdication of the Kaiser were the only successfully enforced demand. Anarchist and Communist revolts were obliterated by the armed forces and veterans of the first world war
Chinese Civil War of 1949	Revolutionary Victory	Only successful due to material support from the government of the Soviet Union. The Chinese Communist Party was on the defensive for the entire conflict until the post-1945 period, which was the first time the CCP's regular army (i.e. not militia) was near the KMT army in size.
Cuban Revolution	Revolutionary Victory	Every attempt by the revolutionaries to take on the government failed initially, as the armed forces were totally on the side of Batista. It wasn't until the US placed Batista's government under embargo and Batista's own supporters began to abandon him that the tide turned. Regardless, Cuba provides the model of a successful revolution performed by and large without the support of a significant portion of a nation's armed forces but this was only possible under peculiar conditions (US embargo of Batista, and ironically the arming of the guerillas by CIA agent Frank País), neither of which would be likely to be replicated now and in Canada.

A summary of our case study is that successful revolutions are revolutions supported by a significant portion of those serving in the armed forces in the area at the time. Exceptions to this exist, e.g. Cuba, but that is only due to confounding variables. Attempts to replicate a Castroist style of revolution in Canada or the United States would undoubtedly fail, especially in a world without Soviet support for communist insurrections.

Officers vs enlisted men

A secondary lesson to be drawn from this is that class lines exist within the military hierarchy just like in civilian society. Officers in a modern military are strictly selected through education systems such as West Point and RMC. It is just as important that they adhere to a belief in the project of the state as it is that they are competent commanders. Political education is part of the curriculum of the average military academy in capitalist countries just as in communist ones. Because of this, the officer class is generally far more reactionary than their underlings in the enlisted and non-commissioned ranks. However, just like in the civilian economy, the labour of the armed forces is done by the lowest levels of the military hierarchy. Professional officers act as the foremost oppressor of the enlisted man. The resentment of enlisted soldiers towards professional officers can be exploited and increased with proper outreach and organization. Furthermore, if the bulk of enlisted men were to side with a revolutionary movement, the officer corps would be powerless to stop them as was the case in the French Revolution.

Why is the support of the soldiery so important?

Why is this all necessary? Why should the left even bother reaching out to the soldiering class? Since the invention of the modern army, the arms race between the oppressed classes and their oppressors has been particularly one-sided. The modern army structure is an incredibly efficient tool of violence that is inherently superior to the system of levies it replaced. That levy system is the closest historical equivalent to how many leftists seem to imagine a communist revolution: a disorganized mass of urban and rural poor. Soldiers are trained in combat principles and the use of military equipment in the same manner as the proletariat are trained in the use of factory machines, point-of-sale systems, and computers. A fight between these professional fighters and even a large proletariat militia would be particularly one-sided. Regardless of any reaction of disgust to the idea of sullying one's ideological purity by appealing to trained killers, it is the only way the goal of revolution can ever be achieved.

Clarification on supporting militarism vs engaging the soldiery

It is important that the appropriate lesson be drawn from this. Communists should not become chest-beating psychos supporting the coming invasions of Iran and Mexico. The lesson is not to support unrestrained applications of force by the bourgeois state using the army as a cudgel. When the opportunity arises, we should strongly oppose ongoing and future military interventions and conflicts. What should be done is a concerted effort to appeal to the average soldier. Soldiers should not be talked down to, belittled, or dismissed as seems to be the current leftist instinct. Soldiers should be addressed as potential comrades. Appeals should be made to their sense of self-preservation and humanity. Most of them would much rather collect a cheque and get free college than actually get deployed. Those who actually do fantasize about murdering the state's enemies are victims of propaganda and should be engaged in the same manner as other victims of propaganda in your life. If you are incapable of doing these things, just shut up and do not engage with them at all.

Should leftists join the army?

One instinct you may have on learning this lesson is that leftists should simply infiltrate the armed forces and shift the culture towards socialism. While certainly possible if a critical mass of communists were to enlist, this is not necessarily realistic. Consider that the army is strictly authoritarian. Attempts to proliferate communist sentiment from within would presumably be cracked down upon by reactionary elements in the officer corps. The only potential advantage to this would be to create a corps of revolutionaries trained in warfare and the operation of military equipment.

Conclusion

There will be no communism without the support of the soldiering class. There will be no support from the soldiering class if the left does not improve its organizational skills and basic demeanour. If your goal is not a revolution, this is a perfectly fine state of affairs. If it isn't, a significant shift in the internal culture of left-wing movements is necessary. The growing climate change crisis means we are running out of time to achieve communism. Action must be taken at once.

Future Work

Look forward to the future publications from the Monty division of the printhouse: Rage For The Machine: CIA infiltration of leftism Let's Plan the Economy: critiquing Towards a New Socialism Range Feudalism 2: why do so many farmers support their own immiseration?

I first learned in elementary school of a proverb: the greatest quality in a mathematician is laziness. When I introduce newcomers to pure maths, laziness is the first concept I explain. It comes as a surprise to most—many react with “if I was lazy I would simply not bother to do maths.” The fact is that until one learns to like maths, it is impossible to do it lazily.

As a mathematics tutor, I am enthusiastic but fearful to bring this proverb to the classroom. The mathematics which my students bring to class can be quite lazy in a sense, generally prepared so as to minimise setup and get straight to the calculator. The calculator is becoming a much more prominent part of the mathematics curriculum. At school, students are told which calculator to buy, and whole lectures are dedicated to which buttons to press to solve all your problems. In later years, students are introduced to terrifically powerful tools such as Desmos and WolframAlpha which trivialise the problems they've been solving for years.

When I try to deprive them of these tools, most students appeal to what their teachers permit them to use. However, students who hope to win argue that in the real world, nobody would go to the trouble of working a problem out on paper if the internet can solve the problem as fast as it can be typed. It's certainly the best counterargument, but it's the one I'm the most prepared to deal with.

In reality, most adults are far too lazy to use a calculator, and rightly so. If any power is desired beyond the four basic functions, calculators suck. They cost an unjustifiable amount of money. Expressing problems more complicated than trivial computation takes practice, practice which doesn't pay off unless you're completing math problems as often as a high-school maths student. Put it this way: if in the middle of a conversation you became intrigued by a simple derivation of a sports stat, pulling out a calculator would totally kill the conversation. Even among my mathematically inclined friends, calculators are avoided by referring to tedious-to-compute numbers as “some number”.

What place, then, does mathematics have in the real world? To illustrate the kind of problem that can, and should, be solved in daily life, I'd like to introduce one of my students, who is not called Mark. Mark is a student that I can easily bait into attempting math puzzles, mainly because he enjoys taunting his teachers with problems they can't solve. He came to me with the problem in the illustration below (thanks to the Scriptorium for inspiring me to put some damn illustrations in these things), bragging that it could only be solved using calculus. Mark is an Algebra II student, but the funny thing is, I'm quite sure a person who had taken calculus would have the same reaction: that it could be solved using calculus, but that they couldn't do it. I'm damn sure that no farmer I've met would set up linear equations to represent the path to the river and the path to the turkey, then take the derivative of the lengths of the lines in order to determine the optimal strategy.

So I showed Mark what he hadn't seen: the beautiful, lazy pig sunning herself across the river. This pig is going to save us many thousand years of mathematical rigor. She will let us be lazy with her. The reason is that she is just as easy to water as the turkey. As long as we assume the river is simple to ford, any path that reaches the turkey can be reflected to reach the pig, as seen in the example.

But the quickest path to the pig is simple to find—it is simply the straight line which passes through the river. Seeing this, we observe that the river and the path are two straight lines, and the path meets the river at two congruent angles. We reflect back the portion of the path after the crossing, and the problem from here is simple geometry.

Let's compare the two approaches. In particular, we have showcased two different kinds of lazy. The calculus approach minimises the amount of work done—the student sees that it is a calculus problem, and quickly determines that it is not worth doing. In comparison, the paragraph I've written and illustrations I've drawn took real work. The only reason I cared to do it is because I could see the pretty picture in my head. I would never have finished this problem if it looked like a miserable slurry of algebra and calculus. Unless the problem shows some promise, the hard work is not worth it. Instead I got to draw pictures of piggies, and the monkey-work[1] took only a brief moment. Rigor, worksheets, and formulas tend not to survive in the real world, but I like to think this piece of reasoning would survive a casual conversation. I ask, therefore, what this other “laziness” has to show for its hundreds of hours of work.[2]

Footnotes

[1] I would like to apologise to the monkey community, who are very capable of problem solving, and very incapable of algebra. [2] I will answer this soon.

You have 7 Days

Within the first minutes of the game, The World Ends With You (TWEWY) tells you all you need to know about Neku Sakuraba. That he would like nothing more than to close himself off from the world. That interaction with another human is a chore. That he does not understand other people. This would be fine enough if not for one small issue. At the start of the game Neku finds himself under the threat of death, and must survive 7 days of “The Reaper's Game” to gain his freedom.

How does one survive the reaper’s game?

Unfortunately for Neku, he’ll need a partner.

For a developer designing a video game where you play as a character who dislikes other people but must begrudgingly work with someone else to succeed, your first major hurdle is in the dissonance between the player and their character. You, the player, don’t hate other people (I hope), and you have no investment in an angsty teen’s qualms with society. Yet, for your character, being chained to another person to live may be a fate worse than death itself. How would you imprint onto the player that same feeling, of wanting to be alone, of not understanding others?

Even further, if Neku's disposition against people changes, how do you convey this without alienating the player? Does the player just watch from the sidelines as they see this character morph with no connection between Neku and the player?

Other games attempt to resolve this by making the character relatable somehow. They may bear characteristics shared by its targeted demographic. Alternatively, you could forgo personality entirely. Make your character an empty husk in which the player is expected to fill the void with their own interpretations or ideals.

Instead, the way TWEWY solves this disconnect is one of the most subtle yet effective ways I have seen of getting the player in the same mindset as their character. The entire experience revolves around this solution.

Have the player control both Neku and his partner.

It sounds simple, but make any mistakes and the results crumble. Too easy or too hard, the outcome will be that the player ignores their partner, and that dissonance will remain.

Such a mechanic would need to be strange, yet can be grasped. Difficult, yet surmountable. At first it may seem obfuscated, but with time comes clarity. It needs two screens.

It needs two screens

The Nintendo Dual Screen (Nintendo DS) is a handheld video game device that much like its name implies has two screens. One regular screen on the top and on the bottom a touch sensitive one. The device was known for printing money for Nintendo, but also due to its design it provided a means of interaction that could not be found on any other device. This resulted in a huge swath of unique and original games for the system.

Some personal favorites include Ghost Trick: Phantom Detective, Rhythm Heaven, WarioWare: Touched, and of course, The World Ends With You. None of these games could have been made had it not been for the DS and especially so for TWEWY since the gameplay is closely intertwined with the narrative.

So how does TWEWY effectively utilize both screens in order to convey that feeling of unfamiliarity in cooperation?

The bottom screen has you controlling Neku with the stylus and the top screen has you controlling his partner. You control the partner by pressing the face buttons to attack and defend. Both partners are fighting their own battle against a set of enemies, but their health pool is shared.

A player's first exposure to the control scheme requires a minor acclimatization period regardless of the game or system. However, for TWEWY you are handed the additional load of juggling both battles at once. There's an awkward sensation that permeates your first exposure to the combat system.

The language I use to describe the initial feelings about the gameplay can likewise be used to describe Neku’s perspectives on interacting with people. There’s a sense of friction handed to the player that perfectly matches the feelings Neku has about having to cooperate with someone. Neku doesn’t get people, and you don’t get how to play this game.

Even better, this metaphorical link between you and Neku can be extended through the entire runtime of the game. As you become more familiar with the systems and mechanics that govern gameplay, so too does Neku learn to open himself up to others.

Becoming an experienced player will result in you making use of a baton pass system (represented by the green ball), that rewards you for keeping up a rhythm of attacks between both Neku and his partner. This additional mechanic symbolizes not only Neku learning to trust his partner, but you learning to trust yourself to control the other screen without looking directly at it.

By the end of the 7 days, Neku's connection to his partner has sprouted and flourished, represented by your mastery of the gameplay. Your battles play out like clockwork, hit this enemy, switch focus to partner, defend, attack again. The unspoken bond between Neku and his partner represents an unhesitating trust he now puts in them. A commitment between two people and an appreciation of who they are.

Neku made a friend.

A New Day

All of these nuances are conveyed not only through dialogue, but reinforced through gameplay. This significantly elevates the narrative from more traditional forms of storytelling and utilizes the medium it is presented in to its fullest extent. Had this story been presented as an anime, movie, or book, a lot of the substance would be lost. Even more than that, this gameplay is only achieved due to the system it was designed for. Despite this, Square Enix has made several ports for Android, iOS and Switch, as well as an anime adaptation. While these translations are not bad, their effect is lackluster in comparison to the original DS version. However I recognize that not everyone has access to a DS and would rather people experience this story on these platforms than not at all.

There's more that can be said about this specific topic, but in the interest of keeping things relatively spoiler free I will not elaborate on them. If this article has at all interested you in playing the game I would highly recommend it, regardless of your platform of choice.

It is essential that any self-respecting internet poindexter have at least one 8-bit pastime. Ever since I started playing in college, I have been completely addicted to Baseball, an NES release title. While friends struggle to grasp why I even care about it, I play it any chance I can get—any friend of mine with a Nintendo online subscription has at least heard of it. Although it is technically the best-selling baseball game on the NES, Baseball has the dubious honour of being the second most popular, behind Namco’s R.B.I. Baseball. R.B.I. Baseball is actually quite an incredible game, including a team manager game-mode that was decades ahead of its time.

In contrast, Baseball was not a minute ahead of its time. It is a game that permanently burns white and green shapes into your TV screen thanks to a total lack of visual variety. Pitchers and hitters from six teams are totally fungible but for the colour of their uniforms and their left- or right-handedness. Its mechanics can be listed on a postcard: the batter can shift in the box and choose when to swing, the pitcher can choose between three speeds and steer the ball’s direction, and fielders can choose which base to throw to once they decide (completely randomly) how long they will take to get to the ball. Apart from the odd charming detail, the first ten minutes of playing the game make one wonder if it’s really a game at all.

But an experienced player can quickly demonstrate that this game has many levels. When I played in university, it was immediately apparent that the “cutter,” a fast pitch which creeps in towards the batter, was a danger. It moved subtly enough to still be called a strike, but any contact it would make with the bat was low quality, often leading to double plays. To make matters worse, Baseball does not have a hit-by-pitch mechanic, removing the real-life risk of throwing cutters. Although there is precedent for a dominant one-pitch pitcher in the remarkable career of Mariano Rivera (to wit a cutter specialist), it simply didn’t seem fair. It became clear that the only remedy was to alter the batter’s position in the box, normally something decided on well before striking the ball, in a dynamic way, even juking the pitcher with lateral moves.

It is normally at this point that the pitcher discovers how powerful he is. I said before that he can “steer” the ball as it approaches the box, but this does not communicate the full range of control. On a slower ball, he can loop about ten degrees in towards the batter then change direction halfway to return for a strike. The ball handles like a supercar. These manoeuvres match even the most astute fine-tuners with virtually unreactable 50-50 mixups and lead batters to unexplainable whiffs on pitches that seem nowhere near home plate. Although the odds favour the batter getting a hit or two, it’s not nearly enough to reliably get runs on the scorecard.

Once again, I reveal another mechanic I previously hid from the reader: base stealing. The hitter can individually command each runner to run, or return to base, at any time. An important principle of human baseball is that expert base-stealers do not choose random times to run; instead, they choose a time when the baseball’s journey will be unreasonably slow. A runner might read that a pitcher is going to throw a looping curveball, and take that opportunity to run as soon as the pitch leaves the pitcher’s hand. Even if the pitcher throws a fastball, the runner could well be saved by the batter making contact. This even privileges the runner, who now has a head start around the bases. It is this mechanic which reins in the pitcher’s arsenal[1]. If the pitcher wants any hope of throwing a runner out, they had better throw the ball fast, and it had better avoid the batter. At the start of the inning, you have no choice but to play the pitcher’s game. As soon as you find a single hit, anything can happen. Every arrangement of base-runners is slightly different, too. For instance, if first base is occupied, you have to watch out for double plays, but second base is the easiest to steal due to its distance from the catcher.

These mechanics comprise only a small fraction of what would be available in a modern baseball video game. Yet the spirit of dastardly trickery and exploitation in which they are combined reflects baseball better than any game I’ve ever played. At its heart, baseball is a Randian fever dream in which trained specialists search for tiny exploits in an ostensibly dull landscape, forging a more optimal order from destructive chaos. There is no better way to express this than a simple but deceptively broken piece of kuso.

Footnote

[1] I fondly remember overhearing the following conversation between two parents of rival high schools at a baseball game: “The game is all chaos and base-stealing at this level!” “Yeah, but at least it stops them from throwing that bullshit curveball!”