cupofpython

-> refocus the stress response to a fleeting danger

video games are filling this role for me (and i exercise separately void of danger). although i used to get caught in feedback loops of too much gaming leading to decreased performance of responsibilities leading to more stress leading to more video games to destress.

that said, i still recommend them. just be aware of the potential cycle and stay disciplined about using them as a tool! Also, dont get so caught up in what youre "supposed" to do in the game such that it becomes another source of stress.

>Play any of them and it's obvious what they have in common - not just randomization and permadeath but also turn-based tactics.

the minecraft comment was tongue in cheek because you used contradictory wording between your comments. You asserted that the randomization was key to what made rogue different and not the permadeath because all games had permadeath and restart at the beginning mechanics.

If I understand you correctly now, you are asserting that it is a specific set of seemingly generic features that make up the rogue-like genre and that lacking any of them kicks the game out of the genre.

>It is now tagged as such by users on Steam

This is kind of the point I am getting at. There is something captured by rogue-like that is missing from other games enough for users to begin appropriating it out of necessity. "Its a rogue-like except ...." eventually becomes "rogue-like". So if you want to preserve the rogue-like tag, a new tag still needs to be adopted for the kind of game where you start at the beginning repeatedly without the other requirements needing to be met. "rogue-lite" is already kind of the leading effort to patch the problem, but honestly as a tag it makes no goddamn sense without the history lesson.. it's piggy backing off rogue-like which implies some sort of equivalency

I wish games had their specific mechanics tagged in much higher resolution in general tbh

>Starting over when you die is exactly how games worked since the arcade days

So then from a purist viewpoint, starting over from the beginning is not a defining characteristic of a rogue-like. A randomized playthrough is. which means Minecraft is a rogue-like

I think what happened is that some general qualities of early games maintained persistence to modern day gaming in the rogue-like genre (starting over, permadeath) alongside rogues unique features (randomized adventure) because they complimented each other well. So the takeaway for the genre now ends up being those more general qualities, because they've disappeared from everywhere else. they might not be specific to rogue at the time of rogues creation, but rogue-like was effectively hijacked from the beginning.

I only found rogue-likes because i was looking for games with permadeath, for example.

I had already edited my comment before you made this reply to specify "rogue-lite" at the beginning of that sentence. I was emphasizing to you that you should not be surprised to find such features in games labelled rogue-like. not sometimes, but most of the time.

I searched for rogue-likes a few years back, played some, enjoyed and continue to enjoy the genre, and commented based on my experience. Pretty much every game I came across had game-state changes. You referenced slay the spire. you unlock new cards and classes in that game, giving you more in-game options for progression as I said.

>Saying that it's a feature of the genre is definitely wrong.

good thing I am not saying that then

The point is that if you see "roguelike" then those features could be there, not that they necessarily will be there. We are talking about a genre, which is a pretty general thing

An FPS could have grenades, but it might not. And including grenades does not suddenly mean it is no longer an FPS.

Steam does list Dead Cells as both a roguelike and a roguelite. So yeah, you literally will find these features in this genre.

this is the stance I take on AB tests. The are objectively good at things you shouldnt need objective evidence for

check the AB test results

of course not. that's the responsibility of the company management to say "okay UI is good lets divert resources elsewhere"

I was going off of how the rogue-like tag is currently used in game marketplaces, like Steam. You are technically correct, I learned something new, and I updated - but as far as seeing the phrase in the wild and trying to predict what to expect, my comment stands.

Hades and Dead Cells are certainly not like diablo. the core game loop is to lose and try again, not build up a strong character over the course of a single playthrough as is typically expected of action-rpgs.

It seems like the definition of rogue-like has expanded due to popularity of the genre (as things do) and you have a purist attitude that rejects the new compromises. Rather than create contention over something you cant control, it might be better to highlight permadeath and no persistence as a subtype of rogue-likes for which the original game falls under.

And yes, it probably does need a better general-purpose name but unfortunately the thing it describes is rather abstract so idk what a concise self-evident phrase could be for it

Oh cool, I wasn't aware of that distinction

Dead Cells is a popular recent one. Hades classifies as well I believe.

A ~roguelike~ rogue-lite is something where you start from the beginning repeatedly, and each "run" or playthrough you change the game state somehow (varies by game) so that the next run is easier / you have more in-game options for progression. Almost always with randomized game features available each run.

It's worth noting that "rogue-like" is a description for the Game Play Loop, not the look / feel of the game. A roguelike can be top-down, side scroller, 2d, 3D, etc.

>it was something their engineering department had tried to do, but just never got operational "yet".

OR it was something a product manager aimed to do, and it was sold internally before it was developed - and then proper resources were not available to make it a reality

I considered the original question to mean: "Does / would the use of AC help?"

to which tangential, interesting information was provided but left the original question unanswered.

Are we to assume literally nobody has an AC nor is it possible for AC to even exist in those situations? Because if it helps, then maybe something productive can come out of this conversation where we can aim to improve some of these living conditions through use of AC's - which would kill 2 birds with one stone.

It seemed like a genuine question that should be actually answered. I want to assume "yes" they would help, but I'd be guessing.

that does not answer the question

Here's the fun fact: they don't need you. Someone else will seize the opportunities you miss while being unavailable.

Also, we created a scenario where they literally cannot get in touch with you even if they need you.. are you expecting an emergency carrier pigeon?

(What is this, reddit?)

I checked news sources more directly from the websites i am personally familiar with instead of using the hacker news front page as a filter + expanded domain

Are we channeling through internet cabling or magical straight lines?

6) forget to check notifications in a reasonable amount of time and miss important alerts, possibly negatively impacting your career growth.

1) Mute phone

2) Turn off desktop notifications

3) Set timer

4) enjoy working in peace

5) timer goes off, check feeds for updates

Repeat Steps 3, 4, 5. for timer length suggestions see: pomodoro

Facebook created value out of nothing; peoples boredom in-between doing all of the above. I am just saying people are treating facebook like it is stealing attention from everything else on the internet and I dont buy it.

I think it is a stretch to say any of the things you listed are competing with social media for your attention. The "attention" social media is taking from its users was previously spent on being bored, not taking care of other pre-existing needs. Social media becoming mainstream has created new "needs" for people to stay in touch with their online network. These new needs spawned economic incentives. Facebook is arguably the reason social media is mainstream at all. They have certainly earned the right to claim they are not stealing economic activity from those other pre-existing needs. You previously could not create an economic model out of people who were checking in with friends because they were bored. They created that

>public stuff that's become annoyingly hard to view anonymously because Meta chose to stick it behind a login box

this one

anecdotally, I had CD player first then I moved to iPod and downloaded limewire

>but what a given user spends their attention on

I want to point out, since I have not seen it elsewhere in this thread, that user's do not need to be on the internet at all. Does no one remember what it was like to be bored? With respect to living everyday lives, social media addiction is becoming an issue. Instagram specifically is a huge item.

So it would be contradictory to say Meta is responsible for manipulating its users and successfully furthering people's addiction to social media in general, while also claiming that people are using meta products with time and attention that would have been spent on the internet anyway (0-sum).

Are they or are they not incentivizing people to spend more time on social media than they otherwise would have?

>Is it really bullshit to critique more thoroughly that to which more of the finite resources are dedicated?

this kind of aligns with my point tbh. We give $10 critiques to million dollar positions as if they hold weight.

yes, if I claim that the painters did a bad job and they gave me a laundry list of professional reasons for it.. I would consider those reasons before criticizing. would you not?

trying to use painting as an analogous situation like that isnt transferable to the point i am making though. Putting the excuses in their mouth doesnt even make sense. We are presupposing that the painters did a horrible job.. while discussing how to decide whether or not a CEO did a horrible job. The only reason you know the painters did a bad job is because we are saying they did. the only reason we can use painting as an example is because most people can imagine a terrible paint job. i.e. we do have a full scope understanding of what it takes to be a painter. I am saying it is much harder to imagine the role of a CEO and what good results would look like than it is a painter.

Maybe my wording was fuzzy, but I am not saying you need a complete understanding of the CEO's role, but it does need to be of full scope. I see that reads near synonymous, so in other words it may be infeasible to account for the total depth of their role, but at the very least the entire breadth of the role should be looked at. If you default to "i gave you a lot of money to make it happen so it should be perfect" type logic; you're just being a "karen". the cost of something has nothing to do with the results, directly. Money needs to be converted into something that helps the work, and in that process we are all still limited by reality; diminishing returns, supply chains, quality of communication, availability of resources, etc. A CEO is at the focal point of all of this, and is human. Whether they get paid nothing or everything doesnt change how effective they can reasonably be.

But they do deserve criticism. it just needs a lot of work to do it right. you have to provide some sort of evidence that across all scopes of work the trade-offs do not make sense. maybe the CEO sacrifices on every front in order to provide the fastest service in the business and is successful in that. If you leave speed of delivery out of your criticism it becomes a meaningless criticism. "They charge a lot for poor quality". "These painters did a terrible job.. (even though I called them this morning, and they were done by lunch which allowed me to do a walk through with a potential tenant)".

All i'm really trying to emphasize is that we absolutely can criticize a CEO, but if you dont do it properly it is very easily washed away by the many unknowns of the position. however, if it is done right - it would be very damning as they cant default to company policy or directives from above as a scapegoat since they are the ones creating such things.

My point is that properly criticizing a CEO is exhausting so it is rarely done properly.

CEO is a very general job role. I dont understand your point with the painters. That would be an operations issue, so I actually wouldnt criticize the CEO of the painting company at all for it. thanks to him/her, I was able to contact a painting company, they showed up, they painted the apartment, and left. I would think the operations team (the painters) deserve to be fired and held accountable for claiming they know how to paint a room when they clearly didn't. Nothing about their job is general or consists of trade-offs. If I said "you only have 10 minutes to paint the room and then leave" then yeah, it might come out like shit and the "excuses" would be valid. which is the kind of time pressure CEO's are often under with respect to things they are actually doing on a day-to-day basis.

i would hold the CEO responsible with respect to resolving the issue and refunding me, etc, since the CEO role is to be responsible for the outcomes of the company.. but he's not the one painting the room. Just like with any company, the CEO does not literally run the company. If service is poor, it is usually because people are finding their way past hiring filters to get jobs they aren't qualified for. Let's not forget that people everywhere are often advised to lie their way into employment, fake it till you make it, baffle them with bullshit, reword your resume to sound more impressive, etc. These people line the mechanisms that CEO's use to accomplish anything at any company.

Of course, the CEO position is no exception to this and I am not saying it is literally impossible to build a case against a CEO. I am saying it needs to fully encompass the position or else you're likely assigning criticism to the CEO for some culmination of lower level operational incompetence that they simply failed to overcome. If a director over-promises to the CEO and the CEO signs off on the basis of trust with the director, then when the bar is not met later of course the CEO will be held responsible but the reality of fault sits with the director, or maybe a subordinate to the director who convinced the director that the over-promise was doable. You then have to get into the weeds of whether or not there were signs the CEO should have seen as to not trust the director, or if they had reason to overrule the directors approach, etc. you then have to do similar things across all areas of the company to derive a valid criticism that the CEO is the common denominator in it all.

Leadership is significantly harder to criticize appropriately than operations. Personally, I would like to stop reading meaningless criticisms from people who want to complain and be heard but dont want to do the work necessary to make a valid complaint.

criticism is fair game. it just usually doesnt account for the reality of what they are doing, and puts them to blame for not directly controlling things that in reality were outside their control. Taking responsibility for the failings of the company i part of the job description, so by all means hold them responsible. I am just saying all of that is tangential to the root of the problem - which is that no matter how much someone gets paid, they are still human.

It's an area that is pretty tough to make meaningful criticism. its kind of a show dont tell type situation imo. If upper management seems under-qualified and overpaid to you, then maybe you have a calling to go perform better and get paid more.

Company management is in underdeveloped game-theory territory. Sure we can isolate one part of their job and describe how they are failing on it, but we dont know the trade-offs being made on a daily basis with their time and focus. a lot of which is going to be company secrets, if it even leaves their personal thoughts. Any criticism that comes down to saying "they should have done more" is likely out-of-touch, for example. Unless you can prove they were actually being lazy.. which is usually not the case, since they are often workaholics (ime). But we usually cant tell if something is a good move or not until it plays out on the market. So making criticisms based on hindsight is weak, as is making criticism that lack the full picture of the organizations goals and the time / energy they actually have on hand to accomplish them

I think we are giving these people too much credit. Being the head of the organization is like inheriting someone elses filing system. the only way for them to actually understand wtf is going on at the company is to reorganize some things in a way that makes sense to them.

High level management is fundamentally hard to stay on top of over time. It's about as easy as thinking chess is easy because you can theoretically know every move your opponent might make. There are so many moving parts to an organization that having visibility to them isnt enough to perform well. They have to influence most of the business pretty indirectly. If changing things gives you the confidence necessary to keep things running.. that's what you're going to do. Everything is a gamble, so doing nothing is kind of unacceptable leadership behavior unless they are actively taking up the mantle left by previous management and understand it very well already.

Where I grew up no one would actually say the sticks and stones line unless they were intentionally being sarcastic and provoking people to bully them (i.e. trolling). It was still a useful phrase to pass around though

I understood the lesson to mean "Dont let bullies control you with words". As in, be wary of people trying to manipulate you with hurtful words. The point is to not give your bully information on how they are hurting you because they can leverage it against you

Of course words can hurt. the saying wouldnt exist if that wasnt true. We dont go around saying "sticks and stones can break my bones but giving me thoughtful gifts will never hurt me". There is an understanding the bully is trying to hurt with words, because words can hurt, and the response is meant to deny them the emotional reaction they are looking for from you

If you are currently living paycheck to paycheck this is understandable.

Something that helped me out was filling out a dedicated digital calendar with actions actually done. First entry each day is usually the hours i slept, for example. I'll lump things together to try to make entries fit at least half an hour, preferably an hour+, so im not tediously filling out a calendar all day.

A little backwards to how calendars usually get used, but being able to open it up and see where all my time went helped me feel better about the never ending to-do list. I started seeing the sea of to-dos as an opportunity landscape that I could mine in order to improve the things i see marked down on my "actual" calendar. when i make an entry i am proud of, i see it every time i make a new entry for a little bit. i am able to continue being productive with a clear head most of the time; while compounding that good feeling each time i make an entry; which is almost always between tasks and a good time to bask in it a little bit.