I want to generally remark that 'violence makes no sense'.
Basically, my best effort at resolving violence entirely capitalist-inhumanist (economic stick/carrot, culturally agnostic solution, allowing an individual to be hobo's, addicts, foreign diplomats, aliens or robots basically) leads to a strange capacity-assurance metagame.
Basically it ends up being pretty Cyberpunk 2077 by the example of their 'medical extraction teams'. There's something oddly desireable about that style; professional and expensive, highly capable performance orientation. And, by that example, enforcement operations are actually very similar.
That example also makes you realize very quickly that you're 'putting a gun in the first chapter' (it tends to be used later in the story).
How would a gang war be possible if both sides had:
- Health insurance (you pay my healthcare costs)
but also
- Prevention Bonds (if you do not prevent it, you forfeit your upfront)
Basically, a gang member is expect to potentially operate with a security company. The usual conflation of professional life or lifestyle is sort of removed with that - violence is worth money, but it's worth better money when it's legal violence. Prevents the idea that one's raison d'etre is their relationship with their gang. Similarly - a vested interest in issue prevention can be forced upon the entire circumstance. Machine Learning to validate the effectiveness.
Could be very fun once we have AI prevention mechanisms, to throw rocks at people and just watch them somehow not reach the target. Or, idk, have the 7G mast spazz your muscles out before you toss it or something. Getting the control mechanisms right is clearly important, and things like adapting a poison dart to a person for their allergies should be pushed directly by (tuneable) financial incentives.
Basically, could be made very unattractive 'overall financially' if things go badly with individuals. Regions of the US could be given higher taxes or 'forced commitment' to a qualifying group of enforcement organizations, if certain criteria are met. Basically - 'talking' to such communities' lack of harmonic practices through their pockets. Could end up as a forced reroll on any neighborhood that produces issues; it's often a consequence of not being in a good circumstantiality and it'd benefit a lot of these monkeys to just land elsewhere.
I'm positive this fiscal-first approach makes it 'right-wing' or something, but the appearance of a great deal of scalars for tuning the security circumstances through fiscalities strikes me as a left wing affect.
No, that's odd. Supply is not much restricted per route.
There's simply a pricing model where a more convenient or luxurious travel intiniary is more expensive. Only temporary popularity shifts could do a supply/demand price run, otherwise larger airplanes generally lower costs per passenger, and running more flights on the same line is likely a reduced effort and risk than having more lines.
Low-performance or high-variance lines could be higher priced due to having to pay for empty seats (on the same line of flights) but I believe this is not usual. The remaining passengers would be fewer.
I should think air travel would greatly improve with better customer-risk-treatment (e.g. no security - more like busses) and a 'ticketing model' that's as complicated as buying train tickets. Perhaps then we will see some more imaginative forms of air travel.
Most of the time, you buy fewer than one ticket per leg. Often the interfaces or forms are more fancy or extensive; perhaps implying security.
Hindsight /km payment for international travel would not readily take your mind off of distances beyond the travel time; you'd never know how much to pay. Every international card has recognition issues in some countries/places, or limited ticket stations serve special deals. Countries probably vary in their use of smartcard gates etc further complicating such deals.
I was wondering about train pricing and train pricing ideals. There's a large factor of involvement of the cost of finance, as they're expensive projects. The market-technical pricepoint relates to alternative modes of travel, but the nature of mobility does not. This relates to hyperloop etc.
It would be neat to have fast-train New York - London/Paris/Amsterdam - (... more stops, have skip-trains ...) Bejing - Seoul/Busan - Tokyo, maybe Australia would even pay to have one next to a brand new city in the northeast of the country.. But the scale implies enough industry to have issues being expressed in regular currencies - and it should have fargoing implications to live so proximate; in one of the world-cities.
But how many people would you expect to make the journey? And whatfor? Is the economy of it the leading choice, or is prestige a factor? What is the balance of advantages at different price-points, or at different expectations of traffic volume. It might be added value for tickets to be ~20 euro's (cheaper even per hour than 'typical' train fair, probably impossible without large volume and subsidy), instead of the 'serious hassle' <300 that a "regular international intercity" tends to go for. In fairness to potential comfort, fares could be 2000 euro's, but this would greatly reduce the potential volume and application range.
Another question could be, why are countries ran 'retroactively' nowadays? I'd rather the news stated there was debates about future trains, proactive regulation of automation and small electric vehicles, something to tie science like a horse for improvement, rather than to consider (promoting) improvements indirectly; through a market.
To be 'meta' rather than 'social' is an improvement.
Zuckerberg presents sometimes as suddenly widly ambitious, whilst so far maintaining the wide eyed - nobody knows who I'm supposed to be. God of personals sharing? Master of your wall of little notes?
This may prequel taking a more active stance in what Facebook means, and how it (supposedly) relates.
Still can't construe it as ethical or right to prevent access to scientific papers. There's something about universities pooling cash for publishing, but whatever's happening is something else.
Standard intelligence practice is to assume that your information is already compromised. All it takes is a mole, or a disgruntled employee and all the cybersecurity in the world is naught. You'd be foolish to think anything else.
It's a balancer item. It exclusively affects the leading player.
What's wrong with it is it's arbitrary (you can't really help it), it punishes good behavior (winning) but especially: it's too powerful!
Its balancing effect could be spread over a couple of other items. Certain items could receive a penalty if you're leading. The odds of picking just the right item up could be affected.
What's great about OP items like this is the amount of spectacular saves it creates. An expert player is already married to the game anyway, why care? It's only him that suffers. The rest has a very memorable stolen victory.
I think they already do in a way. The guy in first place never gets things like bullet bills or stars, but a ton of bananas and green shells. It wouldn't surprise me to learn there's a gradient.
There are several items in MK8 that will save you from a blue shell. How is it too powerful? And spreading the "balancing effect" over several items effectively eliminates that effect. How often does someone use multiple items simultaneously?
Starting a fire alarm etc. just means the guy was using the reduced inhibition to go ballastic. Just stupid really. Don't go blame the stuff for that.
>400 is high.
up to 150/200 is low - can function normally.
between 200/400 is hard to function normally.
above 400 you really kinda can't, best just lie down and let the colors wash over.
200µg is certainly enough to perceive the world radically differently—so, very high to a sober person. However, it's very low on the scale of LSD you can safely ingest.
Either way, the dude had more going on than an acid trip that day.
Basically, my best effort at resolving violence entirely capitalist-inhumanist (economic stick/carrot, culturally agnostic solution, allowing an individual to be hobo's, addicts, foreign diplomats, aliens or robots basically) leads to a strange capacity-assurance metagame.
Basically it ends up being pretty Cyberpunk 2077 by the example of their 'medical extraction teams'. There's something oddly desireable about that style; professional and expensive, highly capable performance orientation. And, by that example, enforcement operations are actually very similar.
That example also makes you realize very quickly that you're 'putting a gun in the first chapter' (it tends to be used later in the story).
How would a gang war be possible if both sides had: - Health insurance (you pay my healthcare costs) but also - Prevention Bonds (if you do not prevent it, you forfeit your upfront)
Basically, a gang member is expect to potentially operate with a security company. The usual conflation of professional life or lifestyle is sort of removed with that - violence is worth money, but it's worth better money when it's legal violence. Prevents the idea that one's raison d'etre is their relationship with their gang. Similarly - a vested interest in issue prevention can be forced upon the entire circumstance. Machine Learning to validate the effectiveness.
Could be very fun once we have AI prevention mechanisms, to throw rocks at people and just watch them somehow not reach the target. Or, idk, have the 7G mast spazz your muscles out before you toss it or something. Getting the control mechanisms right is clearly important, and things like adapting a poison dart to a person for their allergies should be pushed directly by (tuneable) financial incentives.
Basically, could be made very unattractive 'overall financially' if things go badly with individuals. Regions of the US could be given higher taxes or 'forced commitment' to a qualifying group of enforcement organizations, if certain criteria are met. Basically - 'talking' to such communities' lack of harmonic practices through their pockets. Could end up as a forced reroll on any neighborhood that produces issues; it's often a consequence of not being in a good circumstantiality and it'd benefit a lot of these monkeys to just land elsewhere.
I'm positive this fiscal-first approach makes it 'right-wing' or something, but the appearance of a great deal of scalars for tuning the security circumstances through fiscalities strikes me as a left wing affect.