InuyashaOhki

Members
  • Content count

    1,907
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    67

Everything posted by InuyashaOhki

  1. I have to assume that is the case. I see the same sort of piles at the houses and apartments of friends and family I'm close enough to that they don't feel the need to tidy up before inviting me over. It might be that my state (we do have "must be paper" laws for insurance, possibly other things) or the 2 counties I've lived in as an independent adult (didn't have the problem as a student in the third county I lived in, but I was a dependent, registered as living with my parents, and got piles there).
  2. I grew up almost entirely without video games. We weren't exactly poor, but my parents bought more house than Dad's peers, so several years I was eating bread with pizza sauce and leftovers, watching a black and white TV with a coat hanger for an antenna (the family TV was usually off limits), and reading the encyclopedia because it was more interesting than my parents' book selection at that age. When I got access to the family TV, I spent as much time as I could watching it. It's not quite the asceticism you're speaking of, but in retrospect, I found the limited access made it too much of a focus. TV became precious, and when finally the restrictions were gone, I spent too much time watching TV, playing games, etc. Over the years, I reached a saturation point where I realized the TV would get by just fine without me, and I was not really enjoying a lot of the games I was playing. Right now, I'm far from an ascetic lifestyle - I have a TV, 2 computers, a smartphone, 2 consoles (up from 0 a couple years ago), but I find it only becomes a focal point if I have something specific I want out of it. The TV only gets turned on if I want to do something - watch a new movie, watch a TV series I'm feeling nostalgic about, etc. The Wii, despite several games I haven't touched hasn't been turned on in months. On the other hand, the computer and smartphone are my links to the world. I do everything through them, and enjoy the lack of clutter they provide. Now, a dumb question for you - Electronics have never cluttered my life. Government, business and busybodies have. What are you doing that let you live your ascetic lifestyle without massive piles of paper when you come home? I separated it out one month and the stack of garbage that was pure advertisement was more than 2 13 gallon trash cans could hold, the mix of bills, tax information, "keep for your records" documents, and other such garbage was about a third of another 13 gallon trash can, and that was before getting into the things I had carelessly gotten myself into (eg. donating to charities). Incidentally, never donate to charities unless you can do it anonymously. They all abuse your contact information.
  3. That is awesome. And, yes, it works for those of us who don't put our faces in books.
  4. As feared, this year has started rough. I am beginning my hiatus early this year.

  5. Our new governor just declared a state of emergency and deployed the national guard for the storm that hasn't started yet. That's not foreboding at all. We're expecting an ice storm for the next 3-5 days.

  6. I'll be a standby or replacement.
  7. I didn't know Pikachu could learn Self Destruct.
  8. Yep. That was my role the third game. I'd be curious to see how this would play out with more players. With as few was there were, there was no real time for anything beyond analyzing 1-2 posts and speculating on the impact of inactivity. The aspect I liked best was the interaction between games where it mattered who died in which game. I would have liked there to have been a little more variability in between, though. Knowing for certain that Zodiac had to die was about like having a game run long enough that all but one player is cleared.
  9. It's specifically a set of 3 games. You're arguing for treating it as 3 separate games...which conveniently would give you the overall win if anyone listened to you. EDIT: Actually, the argument itself, along with the convenient "oops, forgot the lists I could easily have submitted while telling you I was submitting them" is very wolflike anyway. I think it's a safe bet when they execute you, they'll be executing the wolf.
  10. ~OooooOOoooo~ *The ghost of Inu haunts Zodiac, then posts in accordance with the Deathless rules.* I think you can call tonight a foregone conclusion. Everyone is strategically forced to vote for Zodiac. If he lives and is the wolf, he will have an insurmountable 33 sparks to NPM and Blac's 10 (or 18 if Blac guessed the outcome correctly after dying in game 2) If he lives and is not the wolf, and the wolf dies, he will have an insurmountable 32 sparks to the surviving non-wolf's 21 sparks (or 29 if it's Blac and he guessed the outcome correctly after dying in game 2.) If he dies and is the wolf, he will have 21 sparks, NPM will have 21 sparks, and Blac will have 21 sparks (or 29 sparks if Blac guessed the outcome correctly after dying in game 2). If he dies and is not the wolf, the wolf will win with 22 sparks. There is no scenario in which NPM or Blac wins in spark count where they fail to execute Zodiac tonight. The only possibility that this is incorrect is if NPM or Blac earned super secret sparks some other way that isn't known publicly. They can add those super secret sparks to the totals here and see if it works out, but I get the strong impression that no super secret sparks have been awarded. ~OooooOOoooo~
  11. It's the ghost of Werewolves' past!
  12. As it stands, I think Zodiac has won overall with 21 sparks already plus whatever he gets this round. At best I can beat him by 1 spark if he dies and I'm one of the last 2 innocents standing this round (giving me 2x 11 spark rounds for 22 sparks total). Unless you've won sparks behind the scenes, everyone else has 10 sparks so the only one who can beat him other than me is the wolf (12 sparks), which I suspect based on posts so far is someone who hasn't spoken up yet. What he offers tonight is too good to kill him day 1, and day 2 we can't spare the vote unless he's looking like a wolf. On the off chance that something happens to me tonight before voting time, I'll go ahead and vote for Zilary as the other I have no info on yet. I should be back to change it if need be, but the fan is being hit by something unmentionable right now. Vote: Zilary
  13. Whew... I was a little worried I misread you, NPM.
  14. The only thing I have to go off of is the public behavior of the two of you, and yours yesterday left me leaning towards you being the wolf. This latest post is in keeping with your behavior when you're about to be executed on uncertain terms when you just happen to be a wolf, so while I'm not confident in my vote, I'm not convinced to change it either. My power also has to do with presents. I can swap with someone. Since this cycle will end before the night phase, I won't get to use it. Unfortunately, the analysis you've just made, while correct, only covers 2 possibilities out of 4 obvious ones (if we eliminate the possibility of Bed changing things up). Each of the two possibilities you claim with you having the PI role could equally apply to Zodiac having whichever I don't have. I know you well enough to know you thought of that fact and intentionally didn't mention it because you hoped to make me "think past the sale" of your asserted innocence. That doesn't tell me anything, though, because you do the same as an innocent. Still, the vibe I'm getting from you is more lupine than innocent.
  15. *Throws a smoke grenade, appears mysteriously wearing a ninja outfit. Hides Trajectory's unconscious body while coughing on the smoke.* Nothing to see here. Move along, move along... I'm inclined to vote with Zodiac. Vote: NeopetsMom
  16. Due to an unusually demanding December schedule, I will again sign up as a backup. (I suspect my hiatus may start earlier next year too.)
  17. With currently approved robotic laparoscopic surgery, the robot matches movements directed by the surgeon who is making decisions based on what he sees. My point in bringing it up, though, is that it's sewing in a far more detail-oriented and tighter space than a human could ever do. It's currently automatically repeating the actions input by the doctor. If you wanted some special stitch done over and over, the same mechanical action would be automated without repeated input. But since you ask, there are fully automated prototypes. It'll be years before anyone is comfortable enough with them to let it be tried on a human, though, and even then it will be supervised for at least a decade before we see anything resembling an "autodoc" just because we're not all that trusting of computers yet. Robots have flown commercial planes 99.9% of the time for years with far fewer incidents than human pilots, but people are still scared to hear a computer is flying their plane (or driving a car...). As for "quickly" - first off, nope. None of this is quick. It's going to happen as it becomes profitable to eliminate labor in each instance. Manufacturing is automated when it's cheaper than having someone in Bangladesh do it for a penny a week, yet a lot is being done with automation. The service industry can't outsource overseas, so there is more cost pressure to replace them, especially when talk of major shifts in minimum wage are brought up. Amazon is a prime example (pun intended), with their attempts to automate their warehouses right around the time employees were proving to be more costly than Amazon wanted. Second off on "quickly" - also nope. By the time you finish working out the bugs in an individual robot with even a fraction of the dynamic capabilities of a human that's able to fit in a human environment, this shift to labor devices will be long over with. It takes -months- to design, order, and set up a new automated factory that produces a new device now. I have an idea for a novelty item (actually, not hypothetical) that involves fabric, some magnets, layers of foam, and a two-part sturdy handle that the magnets would hold together. If I felt it would be a good investment (it's currently not, or I'd be seeking funding and doing it, but I'm not saying what it is online because it might work in the future), it would be a custom stitching process, a custom foam shaping process, a custom process for making the handles and then assembling the whole thing and sewing it up. If I had an investor, I could have the machines in place in a facility near me within 10 months, with orders filled in 14 months. The level of complexity increases if you're limited in space, but corporations aren't. McDonalds are torn down and rebuilt all the time. Walmart has enough space to build it in the back of every store and then level the front half of the building for more parking. None of them would roll it out nationwide right away, but Walmart's "supercenter" and McDonalds' dual-lane deployments are examples of similar major changes, both of which rolled out right under people's noses. Most people saw one local Walmart replaced, then suddenly realized there were supercenters almost everywhere a few years later. For something as straightforward as fast food, it's so simple that prototyping challenges regularly build fully automated prototype restaurants that function in less than a week. A human can walk from a grill flipping burgers to a wastebin to take out the trash, then to a broom to sweep, but a grilling machine is a controller, 2 metal plates, 4 pistons and 2 mechanical arms off the shelf with some code written to control it, an automated wastebin is available to order already, and I owned an automated broom for a while (Roomba). Unlike creating the multi-function robot, nothing actually has to be invented. It just has to be cost effective enough to write the code and buy the parts. You also wouldn't transition a machine from one job to another. Even when you have humans, companies since Henry Ford have been single-tasking human laborers for efficiency. They're not doing that as much now, because they're learning that humans are really bad at repetitive tasks, but robots excel at them, making that efficiency one they would naturally gravitate to. These specialized robots are still versatile in what they can do, though. You can make one grill your burger to exactly the level of "done" you want, put on the toppings you want, swap out a different kind of meat, add in other foods, etc. A 3D printer can produce everything from a comb to a complex honeycomb lattice to...all the plastic parts you need to make another 3D printer. And a 3D printer is just a set of simple gears, motors, heaters and injectors with a controller. We're very close to being able to 3D print food, human organs and numerous other things with this same simple set of equipment. Stiffening is a material. It's also called "interfacing fabric". It's a stiffer fabric that you use to make shirt collars and waistbands stiff. If you've ever worn a hole in either of those, it's that white material that sort of looks like a very dense mesh. It has absolutely nothing to do with automation. I've got plans for pants I intend to make that are period accurate to the mid 1800s. The process for making them would be -simple- to automate. There is nothing in sewing that is hard for a machine to do. Well, China is losing it's place as the target of outsourcing just like the US started to 200 years ago. Cost of living, standard of living, and consumer interests are growing there as money flows into China. That drives up the costs of labor, and outsourcing shifts to the next cheapest. Clothing is currently being outsourced more and more to Cambodia than China and even China is starting to outsource labor, despite having the largest labor pool on the planet. As for how it would affect it, first it would just be a matter of building more automated factories in China. I mentioned earlier that the second world would be quicker adopters than we will be, and China is the industrial giant of the second world right now. As the costs go down from more automation, it would be cheaper to build them in the US and save on shipping of finished products, but China will be past the labor requirement threshold by that point. Eventually, as the costs of more advanced 3D printing come down, you eliminate the warehouse and just store and ship raw materials, with everything made on demand from sushi to a 6 foot tall Furby with custom articulation and circuitry. Over several decades it will eliminate the need for assembly outsourcing and you'll gradually see "made in (country)" disappear off labels as it becomes trivial. But the returning jobs won't go to humans. The human management of the facilities will be the same people who previously flew to Cambodia to oversee sweatshop operations. You wouldn't ask someone to build you a sentient slave. You would ask for a "plastic pal who's fun to be with", to quote Douglas Adams. Even those are likely to just be simulated emotions to give the illusion of empathy with a human without the free will or free thought that makes the difference between complex data processing and a person. A real sentient machine can say "I don't want to be friends with wetware!" which isn't a desirable outcome. More likely, if sentient robots are created, it will be as a directed scientific effort after required labor is ancient history. Any device that performs labor. The welding robots currently making cars, a burger grilling machine, each automated sewing machine in an assembly line, a robotic arm that puts what a customer wants on a tray, or a hex-copter that delivers your Amazon order would all be labor devices. The term distinguishes from laborer, which is a person who performs labor. EDIT: Totally relevant to this discussion.
  18. A human shaped robot is only good for appealing to human emotion. The bipedal balance issue is nearly resolved, but it's taken decades and isn't more effective than a much simpler quadraped arrangement. The dexterity of a human is again multitasking. Machines sew jeans now. They die-cut the denim, stiffener, and liner fabric, assemble and sew it inside out, then blow it right side out. Put simply, the human hand is a jack of all trades, master of none. Any single task can be done better by a specialized machine. Think about robotic laproscopy if there's some aspect of sewing you think machines can't do. Automated warehouses are the space to watch for most labor. If fully automated, Walmart could handle your entire local shopping trip from a kiosk with a sixth or less of the floor space. Nothing remotely shaped like a human will be involved. It will look like an inverted assembly line, with the specialized armature-based tools on a track moving around the warehouse or storeroom. The shelves in the storeroom in Walmart were already electronics-driven in the late 90s (massive hydraulic accordion shelves controlled by an overgrown calculator), and could store a third of what was on the floor in space smaller than the electronics section. There also won't be robot slaves. A Roomba is a robot with the same level of sentience as any that will be build for service. There is no financial benefit to putting feelings into machines, and a society that replaces human labor with machines would have no reason to put it in a labor device either.
  19. "AI" has become a nebulous term. We have AI now - this combines things ranging from machine learning to fuzzy logic. Advancing the level of complexity without changing the fundamentals could eventually get you something like Star Trek's "Data" was supposed to be outside of plot holes, able to process and make logic-based decisions from available input, able to act on it's own initiative, and able to come up with original solutions from the available data. Others see AI as being what that Data aspired to become (with the aspiring itself being a plot hole) - a full "person" with emotion, creativity and intelligence, though, which is much like FTL drives. It works in theory, except for a mysterious black box in the center that does something currently impossible. This is the problem with the "technology singularity" being interpreted as an AI uprising. Computers won't spontaneously become true beings when reaching a certain level of complexity, processing power, or getting struck by lightning. They need the as-yet-unknown software, and possibly even new hardware, to go that extra step. Automation, however, does have the logical extreme where it replaces all labor. Any single task a human can physically do, a machine can be made to do it faster, more efficiently, more consistently, and without breaks. Where machines fall down is flexibility. Assembly lines demonstrate this well - where I can make a wooden toy in 30 minutes with the right tools, 80 different machines synchronized by a computer make it in 10 minutes with 80 others in the assembly line at the same time. We're still about 15 years away from a computer being able to listen to you and respond with anything even close to human accuracy, but there are very few jobs where you actually need to listen to your customers. The customer may not like to hear it, but there are a limited number of options you will ever provide as a business. For most businesses, anything the customer might say to a human is going into a computer interface. Tidy up the interface a bit and turn it around so the customer can use it instead, and you don't need anyone at the register. That's being done now. The only tasks that we can't fully automate humans out of for at least 15 years are: tech support, surgery, about a third of desk jobs, art, politics, and anything where a significant number of people simply won't pay to hear from a machine. Tech support fades as people become familiar enough with increasingly static technology to support each other. Fully automated surgery is just a bit further down the line (20-40 years) unless nanotechnology makes an unexpectedly quick leap and makes surgery obsolete...which still won't begin to be accepted for 15-20 years. Desk jobs vary a bit, but some of the most complex ones are being automated in small chunks. As a programmer, I automate any part of my job I can, and people are being (too) aggressive at it with the "never start with a blinking cursor" movement. It began long ago with templates and has progressed to the point where it's trying to write code for you up to a point - and even that will be obsolete when machine learning advances enough to remove the need. Eventually, we're left with politics, art, and science - or ego, self-actualization and advancement. It's one prediction I think Star Trek got right. There's no reason to respect money at that point. As soon as you automate just the manual labor industry out of existence, you no longer have sufficient justification to "incentivise" work. You can put in the safety nets and basic standards of living. You can make things free. Things like Kickstarter (that get money because people are interested in a thing) become your model for employment. I could go to work for 5 hours a day because that's my level of interest in it, be fully engaged and productive for those 5 hours, and someone else you couldn't afford to hire in the modern world could be intrigued enough to come in as well. Things like exploring the universe, solving the spread of some new disease, or designing a game that appealed to nostalgia would get intense interest. Things like making a tower with someone's family name emblazoned across it would become laughable. The first downside that Star Trek didn't really touch on is that it leaves the wrong people with too much free time. People who want to live the old ways can still do so, and people who actually want to just lie on the beach all day can do so, but there is a certain element of counter-function boredness in humanity. People who become gray-hat hackers are the educated form of this now. They're knowledgeable and skilled enough to cause problems, have the free time to do it, and the limited consequences give them the space to start thinking "because it's there" is justification enough. In a society where no one actually has to work to survive, this could manifest as anything from freeclimbing buildings to disabling critical systems to making a sport of harming other people in ways that the idiots involved can convince themselves aren't "real" harm. There's also more time for faux-activism. One of the reasons Westboro has faded to only sending 2-3 people to even major events is because their source of funding has been curtailed. Take away transportation costs, and we might see their equivalent en mass at 10 funerals a day, with more violence because the people who wish they could be there to "do something about" the faux-activists don't have to be at work. Other fiction (Log Horizon, for example) throws in another category - the people who feel they lack a purpose, but I think the number of people with free time whose skills are interpersonal will solve this. The people who would become psychologists now for a career, plus innumerable others who don't for financial reasons, would be able to address a lot of them, and you'd have something akin to a "job placement" structure naturally be developed to address those who just need something to do. The second downside is that there's a lot of potential for stagnation. A lot of the things we do right now to advance are because we hate our jobs, or we have friends who hate theirs, or we think there's profit in making someone else's hated job easier or more fun. When work becomes optional, the incentive to advance pares down to the roadblocks in the way of our aspirations. We would certainly be going to Mars and beyond, and solving those problems, but other areas may fall through the cracks. Or maybe not, it's hard to say when the subject is solving problems that haven't arisen yet. I don't think, though, that you can dismiss the abolishing of physical labor as being a repeat of the machines the Luddites fought against. With each such technology change, new markets and with them new physical labor positions arose. When you can automate all that with more efficient machines, it might create new markets, but it pre-fills the physical labor positions created with more machines. While the technology to do it is looming, the modern Luddites and later the wealthy will slow the implementation. That said, I don't think they'll slow it much. Losing jobs to China resulted in a lot of angry posturing by people dressed in clothes made in China holding signs written with markers made in China on posterboard made in China because those were cheaper. When you replace "made in China" with "made in the USA" without mentioning "by a robot", it will look different because the "job stealing" is close enough for people to take trivial-but-spectacular destructive action, but ultimately it won't be any more effective. Cost will win out over time and we will automate physical labor out of existence. Laws will change quickly after that because "millions of hard working Americans" are scary words to have against you when you're a politician hoping to keep your job. Once you create that situation in the US, other first world countries will follow suit rapidly, and second world will have probably beaten us to it since it fits better with their model anyway. After that, the third world will start benefiting from the surplus, and the friendly third world will have the automation shared with them until they're first world. The unfriendly third world will become briefly violent as the difference becomes more stark, but their unfriendly leadership will quickly run out of resources and become laughable despots like Kim Jong-un with outdated "new" weapons systems and an economy almost completely disconnected from the rest of the world. At some point in the much-further future, political tides of one of the major countries will inevitably shift towards interventionalism and we'll see even those collapse. I think by 2250, we will be a world without anyone doing physical labor that they don't want to do outside of illegal coercion. But the part I'm glossing over is the intervening years when the newly created job types are filled by robots. It's one thing to replace janitors as they retire with bots, but it's not going to be pretty when it hits retail and fast food where the turnover rate is high.
  20. I have been asking family for lists for years because we've all reached the point where we're on our own budgets, so it's not safe to just get something in their fandom without checking first. I have a friend, who I'm meeting up with in a few hours, who I get board and card games for because that's what we spend most of our time together doing and I know he does the same with his other friends. For others, I do like Bed and give a card - we have a formalwear shop in town that sells oddities that include some very ornate and beautiful pop-up cards. It feels like getting an object (my mother gives them to me for various other occasions) but it can be closed and put away without taking up much space.
  21. Sorry to hear it went down like that. Don't give up on it over this, though. It's just an unfortunate issue of timing.
  22. What is the minimum for this?
  23. I will do what I have seen others do and sign up as a backup.
  24. This will be a more traditional game geared towards letting experienced players play alongside newer players. This would be a good time to invite that friend who you've been thinking about inviting to play. The roles will be assigned randomly, so yes, the newbies can be villains. I will advise and guide any newbie who wants help. Private messages will be open as well if you want to talk to your friend who invited you. I am going to list roles when the game starts, along with their powers and the nightly processing order. There will be more roles in my post than in the actual game, so you won't be able to work out who is who by the list. All deadlines will be 11pm Central time. Keep in mind, Daylight Savings Time just ended. You are REQUIRED to post at least once daily, vote daily, and submit a power use daily. If you have an optional power you don't want to use, you must say "no power use" instead. I reserve the right to exercise any penalty I want on those who fail, including but not limited to: Public mocking, replacement, and forced watching of recorded political campaign ads. The theme for this game is in the title. For those who don't know, the phrase "happy little trees" is from Bob Ross, who notoriously painted thousands of them. Unfortunately, not all the trees in the world are happy. You are all innocent art students traveling to a remote mountain camp to spend time practicing your art (any artists playing are welcome to share art inspired by the game). What you paint matters, though. A select few unfortunate souls will choose some not-so-happy trees to paint, becoming possessed by the lupine spirits of the forest. Signups: Happy Little NeopetsMom Happy Little Tweee Happy Little Blacjak Happy Little Lion Wiggles Happy Little Zilary Happy Little Celairiel Happy Little friends of Cel Happy Little TheZodiac Happy Little Bed Happy Little Trajectory Rockthe Happy Little Fox Happy Little Exiled Phoenix Happy Little UrGilgamesh Happy Little Rexozord Happy Little Ashontez Happy Little Smiletrue
  25. Not killed player roles: NPM-Disabler Lion-Necromancer Zilary-Veteran Exiled-Scrambler Ash-Protector I didn't have the option of disabling communication, since the goal was to give newbies the opportunity to be helped.