@doppelgreener I have acquired the print edition of the Extraordinary Adventures of Lovelace & Babbage. [cackles aloud]
> Babbage designed the Analytical Engine to immediately stop unless everything was working perfectly; in this sense the Engine rather resembled Babbage himself.
> Thinking that he was likely to hear most of the opinions about himself, as a then popular author, he collected everything he could gather in print about himself, and pasted it in a large folio book, with the "pros" and "cons" in parallel columns, from which he obtained a sort of balance.
> Babbage declared the existence of different languages a "great evil" in the minutes to the International Statistical Congress, 1860. He proposed a committee to prevent any future divergences.
> Babbage's first book, in fact, was A Comparative View of the Various Institutions for the Assurance of Lives in 1826. I note that Babbage couldn't even write about life insurance without opening with a career-torching rant denouncing everyone in the industry.
The core of his problem lay, so far as I can tell, in impatience with people who couldn't see as far as he could--whether his vision was accurate or not.
He was gregarious, friendly, loved talking to people, told great jokes (if you're the kind of person who thinks a chart makes a good punchline), held some of the best parties ("One of three qualifications were necessary for those who sought to be invited--intellect, beauty, or rank--without one of these you might be rich as Croesus and yet be told you cannot enter here"), and was genuinely invested in the betterment of mankind.
But he was an awful project manager, prone to impractical completionsim (when testing what combination of ink/paper colours was most legible, he tested black ink on black paper and white ink on white paper), and tended to launch grand dramatic insults at anything he saw as deliberate incompetence.
> No notice was taken of [Babbage's system of mechanical notation] by those practically interested in machinery, and by this want of attention they added unconsciously to the great irritation which displayed itself in the work which Babbage published shortly before his death. In this he struck about him most vehemently, like Timon of Athens with his spade, accusing his contemporaries of their want of comprehension and appreciation of his work. Without in the least deprecating, however, his most important labours in other directions, it must be said that the cause of the non-acceptance of hi…
During the Victorian backlash against automation by labourers who were being put out of work, Babbage published a pamphlet explaining that rioting and vandalising automated machinery to drive a factory out of town wouldn't stop automation, but would instead move the factor to a different town and create labour competition.
> It is of great importance that the more intelligent amongst the class of workmen should examine into the correctness of these views; because, without having their attention directed to them, the whole class may, in some instances, be led by designing person to pursue a course, which, although plausible in appearance, is in reality at variance with their own best interests.
@Anaphory Our Babbage is on the bench in a story that is also on the bench, but now I'm given to think of a different Babbage in a different setting: part of the resistance in a grimdark AU London, perhaps.
@doppelgreener The basic idea is, there's a setting aspect (the example is a TMNT game, so the aspect is Ninjutsu action!) that starts with two free invokes, one for the PCs and one for the GM.
But when a free invoke is used, it doesn't go away: it moves to the other side and becomes available to the other party.
When one side's free invokes are all used up, they get a new one automatically.
So as the game goes on, the number of free invokes on the aspect increase.
This means the pressure to do things which let you invoke the aspect increases, and the session has more intense and hyperbolic Ninjutsu action! as it progresses.
Imagine an Atomic Robo game -- like, pure Atomic Robo RPG, not our homebrew thing -- that had an EXTREME SCIENCE!! two-sided aspect for a struggle between two opposing science organisations. You only get to use its invokes when your science is suitably extreme.
> Babbage is distinguished as the cracker of the fiendish Vigenére cipher by, as Simon Singh describes in The Code Book, "a mix of cryptographic genius, intuition, and sheer cunning." In typical Babbage fashion, he was not credited with the feat, as he failed to publish anything about it.
@doppelgreener that could certainly be interesting, but I am in no hurry to stop doing our Bubblegumshoe game
@Anaphory yeah same people, part of it is that some of the people are not in this chat, and they also have some spotty attendance (most often for extremely reasonable reasons)
so our group can often seem like it is two separate groups, in a way XD
but it is all the same people
and when they can make it, everyone is a pleasure to RP with in their own special way, which is the best I can ask for in a group for playing all these various types of games with
(besides, like, common human decency I mean, which certainly isn't lacking)
Raycia mentioned to me yesterday that she's very pleased at how our games often speak to real themes of contemporary import, without becoming didactic or making that take precedence over characterisation and story. [has a happy]
> [Babbage] had also forgotten his cards, so he took a small brass cog-wheel out of his waistcoat-pocket and scratched his name on it and left it for a card!
> What struck me most in Mr. Babbage's character, was his thoughtful kindness, his remarkable acuteness, and his almost painfully sensitive feelings. Mr. Babbage was so tender in his friendship and bitter in his hatred, so bitter, that I used to say to him, "How lucky it is your bark is worse than your bite!"
> Cards progressed and became even more beautiful with the invention of chromolithography. This enabled the card makers to print gorgeously rich colors on Victorian "scraps" and attach them to plain cards. These new cards were called hidden name calling cards. Among the fanciful images printed using chromolithography on the Victorian scraps were hearts, birds, scrolls, lush bouquets of flowers, graceful hands and so much more.
One of the young Ada's math tutors was considered radical for supporting non-numerical algebra; another was a conservative who felt even imaginary numbers had no place in maths.
Of course, being Victorian, Boole's paper on the subject included examples such as...
> God is not changed to a worse state. He is not changed by Himself. If He suffers change, He is changed by another. He is not changed by another. He is not changed.
This was very weird even for the average Victorian.
@doppelgreener Those things are still very much numerical. I mean, I do object-oriented and functional programming, my variables are anything, from sets of human languages to actions to be done on things sent over the internet. And in mathematical notation, if someone says “Let (G, +) be a group”, then the “+” is a variable, and can be multiplication of numbers, or anything else that behaves like it should.
At about the same time, Lovelace was saying that the Analytical Engine (imagined by Babbage purely as a device for the automated manipulation of patterns, primarily to make actuarial tables) could write music.
@trogdor well it definitely has problems, but then it was presented as an example; Boole hardly needed to lodge serious arguments about the nature of god at that point.
> [The Engine] might act upon other things besides number, were objects found whose mutual fundamental relations could be expressed by those of the abstract science of operations, and which should be also susceptible of adaptations to the action of the operating notation and mechanism of the engine. Supposing, for instance, that the fundamental relations of pitched sounds in the science of harmony and of musical composition were susceptible of such expressions and adaptations, the engine might compose elaborate and scientific pieces of music of any degree of complexity or extent.
@doppelgreener this is true, my issue with this specific idea was that they were assuming knowledge about an infinitely powerful being who in theory couldn't actually BE known
to be fair, I also don't like philosophy that assumes everything is an illusion, because most of it that I have read anything about or heard anything about assumes that said ilussion is also pointless (which seems like an assumption that often has to be made to make that kind of philosophy work)
@BESW I am glad I can look at that era from all the way over here and admire the things I like while not getting stuck in the things I do not XD
@Anaphory Hm. Still having trouble imagining what a non-numerical variable is, but I'm very used to the computer concept of a variable - and in a digital computer, everything is ultimately numerical. But, a variable being a mathematical operation is a little eye-opening... I suppose we could consider algebraic equations where a living being is accounted by a single variable, for instance.
anyway, none of this is to mean I can't acknowledge that these ways of thinking brought about some really cool/neat/useful things that we still use similar ideas to create
certain strange uses of logic itself in ways I either don't understand or don't agree with are off putting to me though
@BESW Maybe? I basically make a living by dealing in logic (including when it gets down to Sherlock levels: "once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth" has led me to discover a lot of extremely strange things over the years) and there's lots of philosophical ideas I've looked into without knowing broader names for some of them.
"Dog" is sufficient for "mammal," meaning "if p then q" is true and "if not q than not p" is true. But it is not necessary, so the form "if not p then not q" is not true.
@trogdor FWIW the loose description of "everything is an illusion" roughly corresponds to some philosophies I find very helpful to live by, but they are definitely also confronting, and more or less so depending on which philosophies you're living by at the point you're beginning to learn about these ones. (Necessarily disclaimer, there's also many other very helpful philosophies which are nothing like this, but these are the ones I presently enjoy use of.)
The notion that these ideas which have no numerical value can be reduced to algebraic forms and their truth deduced from the relationship of the forms regardless of the specific values being plugged in for a given circumstance.
@BESW I think I understand. A sufficient value is one that meets the condition, but not necessarily the only one that might follow that condition and reach that conclusion. A necessary value is the only one.
@BESW Essentially, it starts when you go away from filling an example: from “If (sentence 1) then (sentence 2)” you can always deduce that “If not (sentence 2) then not (sentence 1)”, and with some other rules about “and”, “or”, “not” etc. you can deduce a lot about the truth of sentences without knowing the specific sentences, i.e. you can do logic algebraically.
[looks up, because it is 11pm and things are not necessarily clicking effectively]
> Necessary causes: If x is a necessary cause of y, then the presence of y necessarily implies the presence of x. The presence of x, however, does not imply that y will occur.
Sufficient causes: If x is a sufficient cause of y, then the presence of x necessarily implies the presence of y. However, another cause z may alternatively cause y. Thus the presence of y does not imply the presence of x.
Ok. So, "atoms" are a necessary cause of "atomic fusion", so if there is atomic fusion there is necessarily atoms, but the presence of atoms does not necessarily mean there's fusion going on.
@doppelgreener And the algebra-ness of this is that we are quite used to writing things like this today where the “x” and “y” are random-things-not-even-numbers (sentences/predicates in this case) and it still makes sense.
You'll find fallacies of necessity/sufficiency quite often, if you look.
It's a very useful concept to be able to generalise.
(eg, a new RPG.SE citizen who thinks that D&D is necessary for RPG or that GM is sufficient for social authority.)
4
@doppelgreener Then you can start adding Booleans to the logic.
If p AND q, then r. If p but NOT q, then not r. If q but NOT p, then not r.
Neither p nor q are sufficient for r, but both are necessary.
In Babbage's Analytical Engine, he had stacks of operators which would check their output against a target quality and then do something different with the output depending on whether the quality was present.
In this way, he could loop a single operation or pass a variable through a series of different operations until it achieved a particular quality, at which point it would be shunted to the next stage of the equation.
Algebra and machine automation danced together very briefly in the notes of Lovelace and Babbage, then parted ways as automation became more practical and algebra became more abstract.
They met again almost a century later, in computer languages.
At some point, I should expand this discussion in the direction of the mathematical field of Abstract Nonsense, because there is such a field and it would be the perfect next step from this discussion, in some sense. (I'll probably not do it, because this is a chat, not an unconference with blackboards and lectures.)
It's more taking the step of abstraction to an arbitrary level, talking about maps between objects from the same or different categories and deducing very abstract, but still true results.
when trying to get students to make the mental switch from "algebra=ways of manipulating equations to find solutions" to "algebra=a structure of objects and operations"--the former being the literal and historical understanding of the word, the latter being the extension of that first-example to generalized and widely-useful principles--I'll often run them through a few weeks' working with 2D geometric shapes (objects) and rotations/reflections/shear/scaling (operations) just to forcibly break the connection with "number".
Though I think many of my students would disagree. Overheard: "Mr. A's class isn't hard, I mean, we're just drawing triangles. But I get a headache every time I try to do the homework."
I have also used the most ridiculous variable names I could think of, to show that the variable name does not know anything about the whatever that's in there.
@nitsua60 names is mostly for teaching programming. Squiggly symbols, potatos and things that look like they might want to be letters but aren't are for blackboard maths.
Okay, RPGSE question: I've got an answer that I posted because I think it's the way the question needs to be thought about, but I don't find very convincing. Should I include an "author's note" or anything? Or just let the voters have their say without me getting my cake and getting to denounce it, too?
My answer sounded good to me at midnight, when I wrote it. Now, each time I reread it I'm less and less convinced... =(
(Daylight'll do that.)
I think I may just throw in a giant "however" that explicitly points out where the current answer rests on one critical and (IMO) weak reading/interpretation.
Also, anyone know how to make multi-paragraph entries in an ordered list respect hanging indent? I.e., in that answer each of my numbered points has multiple paragraphs, but the latter ones flush themselves left... =\
@SevenSidedDie Thanks. Just for kicks, does that also work for block-quoted pararaphs? See rev 3 for where I would have wanted an indented block-quote.
@nitsua60 Yep! You can embed most things, including sublists; there are a few corner cases that mess things up, but they're rare enough. Just line up the > with the text in the previous paragraphs and it will put it inside fresh <p> inside the same parent <li>. It helps to think of the first letter in the list item's first paragraph as defining the item's internal left edge, like the text input box define's a hard left edge for the whole source.
I think the way people communicate here defines that. I've seen some discussions here and it's more friendly. It's just nice to hang around and read thoughts and jokes of locals.
I'm sorry that it takes too long to write message. It was a long time since I communicated with someone using English.
Maybe it's widely known, but I want to share it anyway.
Great subreddit with tables for generating content and convenient tool built upon these tables.
I'm really appreciate people's work there. I love generated content: it's often inspires me and give many ideas. Generators for rpgs are not a rare things, but these are the best that I've seen.
@Anaphory [Jealous] Nearest bouldering is a good hour from me. (Though I've got natural ledges with good toproping a ten-minute walk up my road, so I shouldn't complain.)
@SevenSidedDie I don't think it's appropriate to spam the comments in there with this, so I ask in chat. This is what tag description says (I, surely, checked it before adding the tag): "Interpretations and applications of rules that only take into consideration specifically what published game material states."
This probably needs to be changed if the meaning is different.
@Baskakov_Dmitriy This does need to be changed, but due to ongoing political conflicts between RPG sub-communities who have a stake in the RAW concept, and the history of major fires starting when the [rules-as-written] tag is touched or discussed, it hasn't been done yet. Just believe that it doesn't mean [rules], it is something else.
@Baskakov_Dmitriy Meta has a lot of the history, but that's just the local tip of the iceberg; the larger RPG community is regularly on fire surrounding the RAW concept.
@Baskakov_Dmitriy Just ask the question you want answered. That's all. Answers here are expected to back up what they say, so you don't have to say anything special to request that. (People might still answer without backing up their answer; that will naturally get downvoted, or in very bad cases, removed.)
@Baskakov_Dmitriy The specific thing that the [rules-as-written] tag is for is when you ask a question about doing things that the rules are maybe or obviously not meant to do, but if you read them very literally you can argue that it's allowed and doable. Things like making a D&D character with an infinite bonus to hit at 1st level, for example, is an exercise in RAW interpretation.
@Baskakov_Dmitriy Then you are blessed to have never been in a conflict where literalist interpretation of the rules was the crux of the conflict. :) Possibly it's because the RAW tradition is mostly confined to D&D 3.5 edition and later D&Ds, and is much rarer outside those.
But sometimes, a literal interpretation of the rules does not produce such "this is most probably not what the authors wanted" outcomes, just a nuance (see that recent question where, RAW, a horned helm deals double damage on a charge, but can't be used to deal damage during a charge except in very specific situations). Of course we want to know what the rules really say, in order to decide what changes are necessary.
IMO, the problem with the D&D crowd is that most (as I see it from my own experience) are prone to reading the rules approximatively, drawing conclusions that anyone reading the rules accurately could prove wrong (by RAW), so they disagree about RAI, disagree about "what is written" and also disagree about RAW (literalist interpretation of the rules). Which is a mess.
@nitsua60 Well, right now we already have the Cathedral Churc of the Nativity, where high priests of different confessions fight using sacred symbols and furniture. If real world priests can behave like D&D priests, why can't we D&D players behave like real world religious scholars?
@Zachiel The only actual place where RAI concept can matter is if a game developer explicitly announces that he meant something else than what he has written.
Or when something is really unclear by the rules. Like my question about automatic successes from Disciplines. There is no place in the Corebook that deals with it. Someone mentioned that developers had commented the issue on a forum that is now dead.
So RAI.
But anywhere else... Just why?
@SevenSidedDie What if I write a blog post (a question that I am going to answer myself) about RAW/RAI problem?
@Baskakov_Dmitriy You know the bad thing? They often announce that sort of things in way that is still subject to "did you listen to what he really said?" RAW vs. RAI issues.
someone is going through and nitpicking all my answers in comments in really obviously pedantic ways. Like where a question title does not match a question body, they are down voting me for 'not answering the question in the title'
@Tritium21 Since that "enemy" is actually in chat, maybe you two can have a talk and settle this down before enmity grows?
You know, it is not hard to browse through all of your answers and find which one you were talking about ;) Also, I think "all my answers" is an overstatement, I don't see many comments by the same person in your other answers bar one, but the discussion looks civil to me (unless I'm missing something, that is)
@Trish Also, I see more and more evidence of to don't as negative verb. I'm looking forward to the first instances of “don'ts” instead of “doesn't”, or other evidences of re-analysing that word grammatically. I like it!
I should go back to try to calculate the distance between cities in my fictional kingdoms... at least math-board was so kind to give me the answer... in a comment!
@Baskakov_Dmitriy If you have better answers, write them. I am done reading your pedantic comments. VtM has now RAW culture, and you are trying to introduce one.
Like, using the medival demographics (and calculating with exactly the formulas there), Kingdom "Ye'Sen" has a size of 359 hexes of 17 km height (250,28 km², 9.81 km 'radius') It has 4 large cities of 12000+ and 1 city of 8000-12000 inhabitants. There are also 45 towns with an average of 2500 inhabitants.
@Tritium21 Wrong -- I am going through VtM answers in general -- it's just you being active in there. And some of your answers having wrong info. I am not stalking you.
SE isnt a discussion forum. Your comments are calling for substantive changes to answers that go beyond the realm of improvement. if the answer is different in your mind, write your own.
@Tritium21 @Baskakov_Dmitriy has started coming into chat in the last few weeks, and seems to be trying in good faith to understand things around here and how to make positive contributions. Can you try gently correcting him or just politely telling him you're not interested and to only comment once (if that's the sort of thing that's going on)? You're coming off a little aggressive.
@Baskakov_Dmitriy this is a good point Tritium makes. Leave one or two comments, then leave it for a while. Different users have different pacing, work-flow, and interest in being engaged, so it's worth just dipping a toe until you've got a sense for any one person.
@Baskakov_Dmitriy I'm not saying that's a hard rule, it's just polite to get to know someone before running the risk of making them feel "spammed" by one user.
@Baskakov_Dmitriy Such a self-answered question would use the [rules-as-written] tag, yes, since that style of play is the subject. But on that note, we would expect it to be respectful of the style and those who play it, since RPG.se is playstyle-agnostic by policy. So that's something to consider before posting.
@Baskakov_Dmitriy Are there any examples of places growing due to fertility of the land/see/…, without major trade routes? I assume not, because fertile land itself leads to growing more stuff which is then exported, which leads to trade routes?
@Baskakov_Dmitriy Even those who have not clashed over their views on how to play have views, and being unfamiliar with the subject likely means you can't actually know how neutral your views are. Tread lightly, should you choose to proceed. :)
@Anaphory At least in russian school of history a settlement is only a town if majority of it's citizens don't do agricultural job -- that's what I am being taught in my university.
And they will do such a job if settlement's main income is from a fertile land.
@Baskakov_Dmitriy Well, in theory you could have incredibly fertile land, able to support people easily, and other people starting to specialize outside agriculture.
My point is more that in practice, this case is precisely how you get the seed of a trade route, no matter whether there are rivers/coasts/trods there or not. Because the skill of those specialists will be sought after outside.
@nitsua60 I have one user that I urgently resist to stalk, because I don't like to make people feel that they are being stalked. Even though I am a great fan of stalking.
@Anaphory May you please rewrite the answer? I can't understand you.
There are places that had little to no agriculture and only grew from trade. Lübeck and Hamburg for example had little to no export of food or other locally made products in the hanseatic league, they were financial centers.
Once you get people specialising in stuff other than agriculture – that is, once “town” starts forming –, the thing these specialists make will find its way elsewhere, and other people will want it. So a trade route starts to form.
So it does not matter which is first, the trade route or the specialists starting to grow into a town, both will grow together.
@Trish Castles points to defence, which is another reason for specialization?
@Anaphory I think its the other way round. In order to specialize, you need specialist supplies - towns will only form where those specialist supplies are accessible. That is not to say that continued inbound trade is required to maintain specialization, just to seed it.
@Baskakov_Dmitriy I just keep an index card at my desk with notes-to-self: "comment on a/12345 about statistics" or "double-check cite ref in q/67890", partially because I don't always have time to do a good job of commenting or editing, partly to self-rate-limit.
@Trish But, if my recollection of Hanseatic League bears any resemblance to actual history, wouldn't we assume cities within the League to tend to be outliers in history?
@doppelgreener that is all good, as long as you are getting positive help from that kind of philosophy that is great. I just cannot begin to think something like that in any healthy way that would help my state of mind, so I prefer other types of beliefs. nothing is wrong with you liking that kind of thing though :)
