I've been getting into the early stages of developing a game concept, from the position of a near complete novice. My idea is very vague but I know enough of the elements to be able to break it down into numerous atomised technical challenges to be overcome, little things like making something move and emit a sound.
So far this approach seems to be working really well, I'm not getting overwhelmed or bogged down by trying to 'vertical slice' anything, and keeping the end goal very loosely defined means I can easily adopt new gameplay ideas as I come across them in the process of tinkering with the available tools and their interactions.
Once I've figured out all the individual challenges I can begin in earnest to craft the whole.
I generally take disinformation to entail some nefarious intent on the part of the source and those who amplify it. Misinformation is more akin to just noise, irrelevant or confusing details that obfuscate the truth.
The problems of course are determining when and where exactly someone has ill intent, and when information is unhelpful noise. This seems likely to remain a qualitative endeavour.
> "Likewise we cannot generalise very easily from what information is given to us by the press or on twitter or on social media. We can generalise [pretty good] with some training, but we are not natually good at it.
So you will have a deficit in our understanding of reality, and that's what disinformation plays on"
I agree that this article perhaps veers a little too far into the kind of 'objective' territory that you mention, it's something I see and dislike often in similar pieces, though to be fair I think it's probably quite hard to avoid while remaining personally relatable to many people.
My strategy in general for taking in ideas is to simply pick and choose the bits that seem interesting and productive, and internally reinterpret those parts to remove the author's biases and excessions that don't seem relevant.
This tends to cause issues when I share things like this article though, people often seem to prefer to interpret the tone of the piece as a whole, and that overall or initial reading colours their view of the individual ideas that were espoused, making it harder for me and them to have a productive discussion about it.
Aye, the ideal goal of disussion shouldn't be to persuade in my opinion, but to explore each other's ideas with the aim of modifying and improving each position. I think the process of doing that happens to be the best way to actually get people to go along with something also.
Take an interest, not a position. A position often causes us to feel like we have to defend a position, taking an interest helps increase the likelihood that both parties remain open
With many political matters, though, people inherently have to hold positions by virtue of the fact that the issues affect their material interests. You need to remain open in spite of that, but there are also limits to how open one can be when someone else is arguing that you should lose your job or that your health insurance should be able to deny you coverage for care, or maybe that you are culturally or genetically inherently stupid or incapable of self-governance.
Not all controversial matters are political. For instance, it's not inherently political whether global warming is real or whether vaccines work in curtailing a pandemic. Only a certain side in these debates wants to reduce arguments in which there is rational evidence (and important actions to be taken) to something that is merely "political", and therefore a just a matter of constitutional free speech and action.
That's a good way of thinking about it. Reminds me of when Alan Kay asks "Are ideas like matter? [bumps his fists together] Or are they more like light? [Overlaps his hands]" (roughly paraphrasing there).
The ability to entertain multiple, seemingly contradictory thoughts at once is a good skill I think.
“The ability to entertain multiple, seemingly contradictory thoughts at once is a good skill I think.”
Unfortunately large portions of the populace see this as being phony. You must be a red or blue team person, being “people without a tribe” is itself a heresy because by not conforming to this idiotic false dichotomy denies the simpletons and partisans their fallacious little world views. Socrates died in vein, I suppose.
That's a strange take on Socrates, it makes him sound like he died (intended to die?) for our sins like some kind of Jesus figure. I doubt he'd agree with it.
Anyway, I suspect you mean 'in vain'. Veins are those little tubes in your body that the blood flows through, in generally in the direction of the heart. Since Socrates died by poison one could argue that he literally died "in vein" but this is probably not the interpretation you were going for.
I agree with you on the teams thing, and in my opinion it has a strong relation to two-party systems.
> That's a strange take on Socrates, it makes him sound like he died (intended to die?) for our sins like some kind of Jesus figure. I doubt he'd agree with it.
Much of the Christian narrative about Jesus and the nature of divinity is influenced by Neo-Platonist thought, and Plato did kind of frame Socrates' story in those terms. So it's not that Socrates was a Jesus figure, Jesus was a Socrates figure.
I have heard very little of his music so far, only in some of the Tarkovsky films like Stalker which I adore.
This theme for Urga: Close to Eden is beautiful, I must watch the film one of these days - https://youtu.be/_U_DOuAWz4g He always seems to utilise a rich mix of styles and instrumentation.
Just stumbled on his Siberiade theme [1] recently, I hadn't listened to it in a couple of years, it hit me back hard how great this music is, even genius-like, I would say. There's a slightly re-mastered version by PPK [2] that manages to "increase" that genius a little. Amazing stuff.
> Russia has blacklisted U.K. foreign affairs think tank Chatham House as an “undesirable organisation,” the country’s Prosecutor-General's Office announced Friday.
The authorities believe the organization presents "a threat to the constitutional order and security of Russia."
> “Everybody within the Chatham House Russia program that has expressed an opinion is enormously proud of this endorsement,” said Keir Giles, a Russia expert at Chatham House.
“It comes as confirmation that the program’s work is both effective and heading in the right direction. For those old enough, it is reminiscent of times under the Soviet regime, when a denunciation in Pravda would be the ultimate recognition that you had annoyed the USSR by doing the right thing", he said. “We will continue to support Ukraine, and there will be absolutely no effect on Chatham House’s work promoting peace and security in Europe."
