Shows how cryptography is so simple, yet so effective from the opening statement

This factor is a major reason why the british were able to break enigma

Shows how efficient the machine was to deciphering code vs the human brain, as 17,000 combinations done by a human would take and exponentially longer amount of time

The work on the bombe to break enigma led directly to the creation of the worlds first digital programmable computer

The first version of the bombe still needed human imput for the final steps in order to fully break enigma

The author here is explaining why creative nonfiction exists, almost as if she is hinting that most nonfiction has at some point stretched the truth they have available. I had to do this in my history class last week for a discussion project, however in history they call it hypothesizing.

This point refers to how our "value[s] of personal data" is what leads to the "exploitation of digital data". Us as users, give away our personal data almost every day, without questioning who has access to it and where it is going. For example, if a stranger walked up to you and asked for your address, you would most likely decline. When any new apps, websites, game, etc ask for personal data, such as phone numbers, address, emails, etc, we give it without hesitation. This is because we value our personal digital data differently than without it being digital.

Did the people behind these actually think they would convince anyone? Or is it part of an experiment to see how viewers will react to AI deepfakes?

Animation does not include game design, does not study graphic design, does not study typography, does not study virtual reality. Media includes animation, programming, games, planning, and flat design.

game app and competence motivation. let user win 50/50

By then persona saying that his cards fold, this is a use of a diction, which is implying that just like in a board game, the “cards” he has put down in his life has failed him and he has to withdraw his hands in defeat. The word “all” tells me that he has tried everything he has and everything he can do in order to succeed in life, unfortunately all his efforts went to waste with all his “cards” being defeated.

it's important for social media companies to be transparent about their recommendation algorithms and to continually monitor and adjust them to prevent manipulation and ensure that users receive the most valuable and relevant recommendations.

bottom of page 26...shocked me very much, we find out that she has signed a lease for a apartment for her to stay at and be alone without shukumar. That was the point of the game, to tell him this news.

Ethos- Recognizes the opposing side of the argument

Main point: Summarize for summary

Possible evidence for the comparison of this article and the other one

beneficial relationship on both sides

Accessible navigation menu

Having accessible navigation on a website is important because it allows users with disabilities, such as those who use screen readers or keyboard navigation, to access and use the website's content and features. Accessible navigation also improves the overall user experience for all users by making it easier to find and access the information they need. Additionally, accessible navigation can help with search engine optimization (SEO) because it makes it easier for search engines to crawl and index the website's content. Accessible navigation menu enables users to use more features on the keyboard by providing keyboard shortcuts, such as the ability to navigate to different sections of the website using the tab key, and to activate links and buttons using the enter or spacebar keys. This is especially beneficial for users who have difficulty using a mouse or other pointing device, such as those who have mobility impairments. Additionally, providing keyboard shortcuts can improve the overall accessibility and usability of the website for all users, as it allows them to navigate and interact with the website more efficiently.

ik vind deze zin raar klinken. Ik denk dat we het in de sellsheet beter verwoord hebben: "Players become more powerful throughout the game by acquiring new items, actions and companions that synergize with their deck and playstyle."

exacte woorden werden hierboven in de titel al gebruikt. ben ook niet zo zeker ivm "adventure". Het is een battle tussen Goden, het voelt niet echt als een adventure game.

Shut up and take my money products versus shut up and give us your money products -- companies treat their customers with scornful entitlement

Link to Cat Valente's Dec 2022 essay

tbf, I think this is very true still, and going back to them saying "it's okay for a game to be made by one person", we can see a more recent example of Eric Barone being a single developer by choice, who is successful at the same time, he's an exception, not a rule.

but I'll spend time making the game, with what am I gonna do this, if I "develop games the right way" yes the costs are smaller, but if there's nothing at my plate and probably won't be even after the release, that's not a good plan

The same happens with everything nowadays. Capitalism destroys innovation for profit. It is especially visible in fields where it takes more people & time to produce: games are the most obvious one. Considering will to success & financial profits, it, unfortunately, makes sense that creativity leaves its lead. When our Game Studio 2 group was trying to figure out our unique time mechanic, we were lost in so many places, starting from code implementation and ending with animation system. All of this, in full production setting makes it impossible to estimate & calculate budget. At the same time, team members need money to pay rent and eat food, and making bold creative choices is just scary and risky. Though I'm very inspired by creators who make what they want, not connecting themselves to trends (like German studio Honig, for example), but it's hard and probably requires some kind of governmental support, which is impossible in many countries.

I think that it would eb fun to include the student in the making of the board game so that they feel more involved with the material.

This is important because as a referee, you have to enforce the rules of the game without being influenced by the players. She is also able to take criticism in the heat of incredibly important scenarios, such as a late game penalty.

describes how the winners are given an olive branch

olive branch crown for winner

olive crown being gifted to the winner

describes how the winner of the match was given an olive branch crown as the prize for winning. could have possibly been where the olive branch crown "originated" or was believed to originate.

I wonder if they had children harvest the olive as depicted in assassins creed

interested in - applying : open source tools - to - = TPF - = Bend the Curve game.

sort of funny -- i feel this definition is now realized by the "III" games (just big indie games), which actually feel pretty "corporate" to me still. like, i don't think the reality of this vision matches the spirit of the manifesto, at least in the modern games scene

i actually really like the term scratchware...kinda want to revive it

interesting how much Daikatana comes up in this. def sounds like Romero deserves all the hate if he crunched his team this hard (sounds like the ad campaign for Daikatana originally wanted to release in 1997, which means maybe they crunched hard for 3 years??). it also released in May of 2000, and this manifesto released in on 9/5/2000 (or maybe 5/9/2000? not sure lol); so maybe it's just recency bias too. had never heard of this game at all, so interesting to see how much conversation seemed to be around it!

i was really confused by this lol so i looked into it, and it seems to be a reference to a marketing campaign for Daikatana, which was supposed to be Romero's first game post-id software.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ion_Storm#Legacy

i really like this :)

this is really interesting i think. i feel like these days, with consoles pretty unthinkingly accepted as the dominant / defacto mode of videogames, that their controllers have sort of become accepted as: "this is what a videogame controller is." but i can see how in 2000, when big-budget PC exclusives were still a thing, and not too far from arcade dominance (or at least close enough to have devs who would have like worked through that transition, maybe), maybe there was a lot more talk about controllers? and resistance over consoles settling into a singular controller setup?

okay well this seems like perhaps a slightly low asking price, but i agree with the sentiment that AAA is constantly obsessed with throwing financial-life-of-the-studio-threatening amounts of money at every single game they make. you can just...spend $400,000 on one small game that takes 2 hours to play....life could be better....hadn't really realized that this critique existed so long ago (i guess i thought games were cheaper to make then for some reason. or maybe they were but not in proportion to the money they could recoup)

this paragraph :') it rankles me probably too much when people constantly insist that gamedev is inherently a collaborative medium. it really isn't!! it certainly can be collaborative, but there isn't anything like, immoral lol, about someone doodling out a videogame by themselves, which many a twitter thread would have you believe. anyways not really an important point lol

i feel like this is a bit of an exaggeration...in undergrad i played through a bunch of 80s games, and like, there were a LOT of just crass imitations haha. the early 80s Atari stuff is notorious for being just loaded with cynical cash grabs (most infamous of the lot being the ET game); so much so that the North American games market literally just crashed because it was so overstuffed with garbage. and imo even the golden age Nintendo stuff began as a burst of interesting ideas (original Mario, Zelda, Metroid) that each in turn slowly devolved towards more and more conservative iterations of those ideas (this might be a controversial opinion though haha not sure)

The hope for the "Savages" to want help from the Christians is kind. The Christians yearned to be able to help them. It takes time for trust to build and helped to accepted.

It is important to follow this recommendation of using the correct metadata fields in a photo to store information, instead of wanted to use tags for everything.

By using tags composed of several words, I am being too specific, and making my tag system less flexible.

!- Dual task: wrt biological and cultural evolution

!- definition : Darwin’s diversity paradox

!- Pirandello’s play Six Characters in Search of an Author : vehicle for exploring cultural evolution over the last 50,000 years

Make content easily navigable by a screen reader: Each image and thumbnail is followed up by a detailed description that will allow a screen reader to navigate easily. There are no random numbers or letters.

Distinguish the foreground from the background: The foreground uses image thumbnails for main articles and new posts with a wallpaper background based on the trending game or movie of the month to easily distinguish between the site contents

Avoid webpage complexity: There is a singular font and color scheme used throughout the website which makes it very easy for colorblind individuals to read. The Webpage is also easily loadable and even has a mobile version for lower end devices.

This idea fascinated me and reminded me of those game developers who barely work on projects yet receive renown simply for acting like they are refining it.

quote

What kind of question is this? Oh people do think of WWII like a movie or video game because that is how they experience it. It is entertainment to be consoomed

This is the most intriguing aspect of the article.

goal

We must censor things for school while also keeping it interesting. This can be a difficult game.

as a parent I would be very upset if my kid was talked to in that way that sounds so disrespectful.

I consider that number one reason on why a child would be afraid to speak in front of the class or with others, if he/she is felt criticized by someone who is supposed to correct them.

yikes... poor kid

It is crazy how some people just have a knack for that kind of thing and think its easy to figure out.

This makes me immediately think of COD, Fortnite, minecraft, and MW that are online games many people play against and with each other.

I definitely have noticed a lot that myself and many other people my age and younger do not like to go out with friends as much and usually communicate and like to game with friends at home rather than going out to hang out.

This is a lot of technology, but seeing as it is from 2005 it is probably way higher now. Thinking about my house we have 3 Tv's, 2 DVD players, 3 game consoles, 5 computers, 3 tablets, and 4 phones, there is a lot of technology in our house and I would bet it is pretty similar in many other households nowadays.

I have always wanted to play on a Game Cube just to see what it is like because I never had one growing up!

At the middle school level we are always getting students ready for the next level. I hear from High school teachers that they are preparing them for college and careers. We also keep hearing that industry steers the changes that are happening in school, but this statement contradicts that notion.

In middle school, we would often study for tests by playing Jeopardy or trivia using the topic(s) that the test would be on. I always found this to be a great way to study!

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

This is a quite nice work equipped with healthy scientific substance underpinned by a solid mathematical approach.

The authors based on a PGG with the threshold; M (that ranges; 1 < M < N, where N indicates the game size), whether cooperation bringing fruit or not, in which, according to the commonly used parameterization, b and c mean the cooperation fruit and the cost for cooperation. As a kernel in their model, they presumed that an individual will lose his endowment (cooperation fruit in this context) with a probability r, which represents the risk level of collective failure (Eqs. (1 & 2)). Let alone, they presumed a well-mixed and infinite mother-population to ensure their analytical formulation and analysis, and to apply the replicator dynamics. Subsequently, they presumed the co-evolution of cooperation fraction; x, and risk level; r, by introducing another dynamical system for r, of which the general form is defined by Eq. (3).

For a down-to-earth discussion, they presumed two types of concrete forms for non-linear function; U(x,r). Both types premise the so-called logistic type form; containing r*(1 - r). One is what-they-called Linear; Eq. (5). Another is Eq. (7), called Exponential. Up to here, all the modeling approach is well depicted and quite understandable.

By exploring some numerical results backed by their theoretical ground, the authors got phase diagram (Figs. 3 and 5); whether a co-evolutionary destiny evaluated by (x,r) being absorbed by the dominance of unwilling (less cooperative) situation (say, D-dominant); (0,1), or by bi-stable equilibrium (either better state or D-dominant depending on an initial condition) along u (parameter appeared in the dynamical equation for r) and c/b (roughly speaking; it implies dilemma strength).

The result seems interesting and conceivable. As a rough sketch, the two types of U(x,r) seem less different. But the higher absorbing point of (x,r) out of the two cases of bi-stable equilibria is mutually different (yellow region). The authors deliberately illustrated the time-series of properties and trajectory of (x,r) in some representative cases in Figs. 4 and 6.

As a whole, I really evaluate this work as impressive.

Author Response

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

This study investigates the psychological and neurochemical mechanisms of pain relief. To this end, 30 healthy human volunteers participated in an experiment in which tonic heat pain was applied. Three different trial types were applied. In test trials, the volunteers played a wheel of fortune game in which wins and losses resulted in decreases and increases of the stimulation temperature, respectively. In control trials, the same stimuli were applied but the volunteers did not play the game so that stimulation decreases and increases were passively perceived. In neutral trials, no changes of stimulation temperature occurred. The experiment was performed in three conditions in which either a placebo, or a dopamineagonist or an opioid-antagonist was applied before stimulations. The results show that controllability, surprise, and novelty-seeking modulate the perception of pain relief. Moreover, these modulations are influenced by the dopaminergic but not the opioidergic manipulation.

Strengths

• The mechanisms of pain relief is a timely and relevant basic science topic with potential clinical implications.

• The experimental paradigm is innovative and well-designed.

• The analysis includes advanced assessments of reinforcement learning.

Weaknesses

• There is no direct evidence that the opioidergic manipulation has been effective. This weakens the negative findings in the opioid condition and should be directly demonstrated or at least critically discussed.

We agree that we cannot provide direct evidence on the effectiveness of the opioidergic manipulation in our study. However, previous literature strongly suggests that a dose of 50 mg naltrexone (p.o.) is effective in blocking 𝜇-opioid receptors in humans. Using positron emission tomography, Weerts et al. (2013) found a blockage of 𝜇-opioid receptors of more than 90% with 50 mg naltrexone (p.o.) although given repeatedly 4 days in a row. In addition, convincing effects on behavioral functions have been reported with comparable doses that support the efficacy of the opioidergic manipulation. For example, Chelnokova et al. (2014) found attenuating effects of 50 mg naltrexone (p.o.) on wanting as well as liking of social rewards, implicating the involvement of endogenous opioids in the processing of rewarding stimuli. The same dose was also found to attenuate reward directed effort exerted in a value-based decision-making task (Eikemo et al., 2017). Moreover, 50mg of naltrexone (p.o.) have been shown to reduce endogenous pain inhibition induced by conditioned pain modulation (King et al., 2013) and to reduce the perceived pleasantness of pain relief (Sirucek et al., 2021). Thus, based on the available literature we assume the effectiveness of our opioidergic manipulation. A corresponding reasoning including a note of caution on the of the lack of a direct manipulation check of the opioidergic manipulation can be found in the manuscript in the Discussion:

“The doses and methods used here are comparable to those used in other contexts which have identified opioidergic effects. Using positron emission tomography, Weerts et al. (2013) found a blockage of opioid receptors of more than 90% by 50 mg of naltrexone (p.o.) in humans given repeatedly over 4 days. In addition, effects on behavioral functions have been reported with comparable doses that support the efficacy of the opioidergic manipulation. Chelnokova et al. (2014) found attenuating effects of 50 mg naltrexone (p.o.) on wanting as well as liking of social rewards, implicating the involvement of endogenous opioids in the processing of rewarding stimuli. The same dose was also found to attenuate reward directed effort exerted in a value-based decision-making task (Eikemo et al., 2017). Moreover, 50 mg of naltrexone (p.o.) have been shown to reduce endogenous pain inhibition induced by conditioned pain modulation (King et al., 2013). Thus, based on the literature we assume that the opioidergic manipulation was effective in this study, although we do not have a direct manipulation check of this pharmacological manipulation. Despite its effectiveness in blocking endogenous opioid receptors, the effect of naltrexone on reward responses was found to be small (Rabiner et al., 2011). Hence, a lack of power may have limited our chances to find such effects in the present study.”

• The negative findings are exclusively based on the absence of positive findings using frequentist statistics. Bayesian statistics could strengthen the negative findings which are essential for the key message of the paper.

We agree with the reviewers that the power may not have been sufficient to detect potentially small effects of the pharmacological manipulations. The power calculation was based on the design and the medium effect size found in a previous study using a comparable experimental procedure for assessing pain-reward interactions (Becker et al., 2015). To acknowledge this weakness, we clarified in the manuscript the description of the a priori sample size calculation as follows:

“The power estimation was based on the design and the finding of a medium effect size in a previous study using a comparable version of the wheel of fortune game without pharmacological interventions (Becker et al., 2015). The a priori sample size calculation for an 80% chance to detect such an effect at a significance level of 𝛼=0.05 yielded a sample size of 28 participants (estimation performed using GPower (Faul et al., 2007 version 3.1) for a repeated-measures ANOVA with a three-level within-subject factor)."

Further, we did not aim to claim that endogenous opioids do not affect the perception of pain relief. Our phrasing in describing the results was in several instances too bold. The aim of the pharmacological manipulations was to investigate effects of dopamine and endogenous opioids on endogenous modulation of perceived intensity of pain relief. Here, we expected dopamine to enhance such endogenous modulation and naltrexone to reduce this modulation. The higher average pain modulation under naltrexone compared to placebo found in VAS ratings (naltrexone: -10.09, placebo: -7.31, see Table 1) suggests an increase in pain modulation by naltrexone compared to placebo, although this did not reach statistical significance, which is the opposite of what we had expected (see comment #11). Therefore, we concluded that we have no evidence to support our hypothesis of reduced endogenous modulation of pain relief by naltrexone. We do not want to claim that there are no effects of endogenous opioids on pain modulation. Although Bayesian statistics might be used to support such an interpretation, we think this might be misleading in our context here due to the considerations on the lack of power (which also affects null-hypothesis testing in Bayesian statistics) and the lack of a direct manipulation check mentioned above. Since we expected opposite effects of levodopa and naltrexone on pain modulation, we did not intend to compare these effects directly to avoid a distortion of the results. According to our hypotheses, we expected to see increased modulation of pain relief with enhanced dopamine availability and decreased modulation of pain relief with blocking of opioid receptors (see also comment #11). However, we had no a priori assumptions on potential differences in the absolute changes induced by the drug manipulations. Based on these considerations, we did now not include further direct comparisons of the effects of both drugs. Rather, we carefully went through the manuscript to tone down the descriptions and interpretations of our null findings and adjusted the respective section of the discussion to better reflect this interpretation.

• The effects were found in one (pain intensity ratings) but not the other (behaviorally assessed pain perception) outcome measure. This weakens the findings and should at least be critically discussed.

We thank the reviewers for highlighting this important aspect. We have considered the two outcome measures as indicative of two different aspects or dimensions of the pain experience, based also on previous results in the literature. Within our procedure, the ratings indicate the momentary perception of the stimulus intensity after phasic changes in nociceptive input (outcomes), while the behavioral measure indicates perceptual within-trial sensitization or habituation in response to the tonic stimulation within each trial. Supporting the assumption of such two different aspects, it has been shown before that pain intensity ratings and behavioral discrimination measures can dissociate (Hölzl et al., 2005). In line with the assumption that both outcome measures assess different aspects of the pain experience, a differential effect of controllability on these two outcome measures is conceivable. Similarly, Becker et al. (2015), using a very similar experimental paradigm, did only find endogenous pain facilitation in the losing condition of the wheel of fortune game in pain ratings but not in the behavioral outcome measure, while they found endogenous inhibition in both measures. Compared to Becker et al. (2015), we implemented here smaller changes in stimulation intensity as outcomes in the wheel of fortune game (-3°C vs -7°C for win trials, +1°C vs +5°C for lose trials), potentially resulting in the differential effects here. Nevertheless, we agree that this reasoning needs a more explicit discussion in the manuscript and we included the following sentences to the Discussion section:

“Although we did not assess the affective component of the relief experience, we implemented two outcome measures that are assumed to capture independent aspects of the pain experience: VAS ratings indicate perception of phasic changes (outcomes), while the behavioral measure indicates perceptual within-trial sensitization or habituation in response to the tonic stimulation within each trial. We found enhanced endogenous modulation by controllability and unpredictability in the VAS ratings, in line with the view that endogenous modulation enhances behaviorally relevant information. In contrast, the within-trial sensitization did not differ between the active and passive conditions under placebo. In contrast, in a previous study using a similar experimental paradigm Becker et al. (2015) found a reduction of within-trial sensitization after pain relief outcomes by controllability. Compared to this study, we implemented here smaller changes in stimulation intensity as outcomes in the wheel of fortune (-3 °C vs -7 °C for pain relief), potentially explaining the differential results.“

• The instructions given to the participants should be specified. Moreover, it is essential to demonstrate that the instructions do not yield differences in other factors than controllability (e.g., arousal, distraction) between test and control trials. Otherwise, the main interpretation of a controllability effect is substantially weakened.

Thanks for pointing out that specific information on instructions given to the participants was missing. We agree that factors other than controllability would confound the interpretation of differences between test and control trials. We aimed minimizing nonspecific effects of arousal and/or distraction while still giving all needed information with our instructions (see below). In addition, control and test trials were kept as similar as possible. In order to check for unspecific effects of arousal and/or distraction, we also included lose trials in the game as an additional control condition. For clarifying participants’ instructions, we added the following paragraph to the Materials and methods section: “The participants were instructed that there were two types of trials: trials in which they could choose a color to bet on the outcome of the wheel of fortune and trials in which they had no choice. Specifically, they were told that in the first type of trials they could use the left and right mouse button, respectively, to choose between the pink and blue section of the wheel of fortune. Participants were further instructed that if the wheel lands on the color they had chosen they will win, i.e. that the stimulation temperature will decrease, while if the wheel lands on the other color, they will lose, i.e. that the stimulation temperature will increase. For the second type of trials, participants were instructed that they could not choose a color, but were to press a black button, and that after the wheel stopped spinning the temperature would by chance either increase, decrease, or remain constant.”

In general, both arousal and distraction can be assumed to affect pain perception. If the active condition in the wheel of fortune resulted in higher arousal and/or distraction this should result in comparable effects on intensity ratings in both the win and lose outcomes compared to the passive condition. In contrast, controllability is expected to have opposite effects on pain perception in win and lose trials (decreased pain perception after winning and increased pain perception after losing in the active compared to the passive condition). These opposite effects of controllability are tested by the interaction ‘outcome × trial type’ when fitting separate models for each drug condition, which should be zero if unspecific effects of arousal and/or distraction predominated. Instead, we found a significant interaction in these models, confirming opposing effects of controllability in win and lose outcomes and contradicting such unspecific effects. We added this reasoning, marked in red here, to the Results section to better highlight this line of reasoning, as follows:

“To test whether playing the wheel of fortune induced endogenous pain inhibition by gaining pain relief during active (controllable) decision-making, a test condition in which participants actively engaged in the game and ‘won’ relief of a tonic thermal pain stimulus in the game was compared to a control condition with passive receipt of the same outcomes (Figure 1). As a further comparator the game included an opposite (‘lose’) condition in which participants received increases of the thermal stimulation as punishment. This active loss condition was also matched by a passive condition involving receipt of the same course of nociceptive input. Comparing the effects of active versus passive trials between the pain relief and the pain increase condition (interaction ‘outcome × trial type’) allowed us to test for unspecific effects such as arousal and/or distraction. If effects seen in the active compared to the passive condition were due to such unspecific effects, then actively engaging in the game should affect comparably pain in both win and lose trials. In contrast, if the effects were due to increased controllability, pain inhibition should occur in win trials and pain facilitation in lose trials.”

• The blinding assessment does not rule out that the volunteers perceived the difference between placebo on the one hand and levodopa/naltrexone on the other hand. It is essential to directly show that the participants were not aware of this difference.

We based our assessment of blinding on the fact that for none of the drug conditions the frequency of guessing correctly which drug was ingested was above chance (see Results section, page 8, lines 201ff). In addition, the frequency of side effects reported by the participants did not differ between the three drug conditions, supporting this notion indirectly. However, we agree with the reviewer that this does not rule out completely that participants may have perceived a difference between the placebo and the levodopa/naltrexone conditions. We ran additional analyses to test whether participants were more likely to answer correctly that they had ingested an active drug and whether they were more likely to report side effects in the active drug conditions compared to the placebo condition. In 7 out of 28 placebo sessions (25%) the participants assumed incorrectly to have ingested one of the active drugs. In 12 out of 43 drug sessions (21.8%) the participants assumed correctly that they had ingested one of the active drugs. These frequencies did not differ between placebo sessions on the one hand and the levodopa and naltrexone active drug sessions on the other hand (𝜒)(1) = 0.11, p = 0.737). In 9 out of 28 placebo sessions (32.1%) and in 23 out of 55 drug sessions (41.8%) participants reported to be tired at the end of the session. The frequency of reporting tiredness did not significantly differ between placebo sessions on the one hand and drug sessions on the other hand (𝜒)(1) = 1.06, p = 0.304). No other side effects were reported. We added the following information, marked in red here, to the Results section:

“In 32 out of 83 experimental sessions subjects reported tiredness at the end of the session. However, the frequency did not significantly differ between the three drug conditions (𝜒)(2) = 2.17, p = 0.337) or between the placebo condition compared to the levodopa and naltrexone condition (𝜒)(1) = 1.06, p = 0.304). No other side effects were reported. To ensure that participants were kept blinded throughout the testing, they were asked to report at the end of each testing session whether they thought they received levodopa, naltrexone, placebo, or did not know. In 43 out of 83 sessions that were included in the analysis (52%), participants reported that they did not know which drug they received. In 12 out of 28 sessions (43%), participants were correct in assuming that they had ingested the placebo, in 6 out of 27 sessions (22%) levodopa, and in 2 out of 28 sessions (7%) naltrexone. The amount of correct assumptions differed between the drug conditions (𝜒)(2) = 7.70, p = 0.021). However, posthoc tests revealed that neither in the levodopa nor in the naltrexone condition participants guessed the correct pharmacological manipulation significantly above chance level (p’s > 0.997) and the amount of correct assumptions did not differ significantly between placebo compared to levodopa and naltrexone sessions (𝜒)(1) = 0.11, p = 0.737), suggesting that the blinding was successful.”

• The effects of novelty seeking have been assessed in the placebo and the levodopa but not in the naltrexone conditions. This should be explained. Assessing novelty seeking effects also in the naltrexone condition might represent a helpful control condition supporting the specificity of the effects in the naltrexone condition.

We thank the reviewer for this interesting suggestion. Indeed, we did not report the association of pain modulation with novelty seeking in the naltrexone condition, because we did not have an a-priori hypothesis for this relationship. We now included correlations for all three drug conditions, testing if higher novelty seeking was associated with greater perceptual modulation in the active vs. passive condition. In line with comment 3, we applied a correction for multiple comparisons here (Bonferroni-Holm correction). This correction caused the correlation in the placebo condition to be no longer significant with an adjusted p-value of 0.073 (r = -0.412), while the correlation stays significant in the levodopa condition (r = -0.551, p = 0.013). Because of a reasonable effect size of the correlation under placebo (i.e. r = -0.412), we still report this correlation to highlight the increase under levodopa, while emphasizing that this correlation not significant We carefully toned down the interpretation of this correlation to reflected the change in significance with the correction for multiple testing.

We added the following information, marked in red here, in the Results section:

“Previous data suggest that endogenous pain inhibition induced by actively winning pain relief is associated with a novelty seeking personality trait: greater individual novelty seeking is associated with greater relief perception (pain inhibition) induced by winning pain relief (Becker et al., 2015). Similar to these results, we found here that endogenous pain modulation, assessed using self-reported pain intensity, induced by winning was associated with participants’ scores on novelty seeking in the NISS questionnaire (Need Inventory of Sensation Seeking; Roth & Hammelstein, 2012; subscale ‘need for stimulation’ (NS)), although this correlation failed to reach statistical significance after correction for multiple comparisons using Bonferroni-Holm method (r = -0.412, p = 0.073). A significant association between novelty seeking and endogenous pain modulation was found in the levodopa condition (r = 0.551, p = 0.013). More importantly, the higher a participants’ novelty seeking score in the NISS questionnaire, the greater the levodopa-related endogenous pain modulation when winning compared to placebo (NISS NS: r = -0.483, p = 0.034 Figure 7). In contrast, higher novelty seeking scores were not correlated with stronger pain modulation induced by winning in the naltrexone condition (r = 0.153, p = 0.381) and the naltrexone induced change in pain modulation showed no significant association with novelty seeking (r = 0.239, p = 0.499). Pain modulation after losing was not associated with novelty seeking in placebo (r = 0.083, p = 0.866), levodopa (r = -0.164, p = 0.783), or naltrexone (r = 0.405, p = 0.133).

No significant correlations with NISS novelty seeking score were found for behaviorally assessed pain modulation in the placebo, levodopa and naltrexone conditions during pain relief or pain increase (|r|’s < 0.35, p’s > 0.238). Similarly, the difference in pain modulation during pain relief or pain increase between the levodopa and the placebo condition and between the naltrexone and the placebo condition did also not correlate with novelty seeking (|r|’s < 0.22, p’s > 0.576).” <br /> We also edited the interpretation of the correlation in the Discussion:

“Overall, all three predictions were largely borne out by the data: relief perception as measured by VAS ratings was enhanced by controllability, unpredictability and showed a medium sized - although not significant - association with the individual novelty-seeking tendency,”

• The writing of the manuscript is sometimes difficult to follow and should be simplified for a general readership. Sections on the information-processing account of endogenous modulation in the introduction (lines 78-93), unpredictability and endogenous pain modulation in the results (lines 278-331) are quite extensive and add comparatively little to the main findings. These sections might be shortened and simplified substantially. Moreover, providing a clearer structure for the discussion by adding subheadings might be helpful.

We have reworked the manuscript to make it easier to follow. Specifically, we reworked the Introduction section to simplify it and to make it more concise. Further, we also shortened the extensive descriptions of modeling procedures that are not central for understanding the main findings. We think that these additions make it easier to follow the manuscript and our line of arguments, and to understand the applied analysis strategies.

• Effect sizes are generally small. This should be acknowledged and critically discussed. Moreover, effect sizes are given in the figures but not in the text. They should be included to the text or at least explicitly referred to in the text.

We agree that the effect sizes we report appear generally small. Importantly, the effect sizes were calculated by dividing differences in marginal means by the pooled standard deviation of the residuals and the random effects to obtain an estimate of the effect size of the underlying population rather than only for our sample. This procedure was used for the purpose of achieving more generalizable estimates. Due to considerable variance between subjects in our sample, this procedure resulted in comparatively small effect sizes. Nevertheless, we think this calculation of effects sizes results in more informative values because they can be viewed as estimates of population effects. We added specific information on the calculation of the effect sizes and a brief explanation that this procedure results in comparatively small effect sizes estimates to the Materials and methods and to the Results section (see below). In addition, we included standardized effect sizes whenever we report the respective post-hoc comparisons in the Results section.

“Effects sizes were calculated by dividing the difference in marginal means by the pooled standard deviation of the random effects and the residuals providing an estimate for the underlying population (Hedges, 2007).” (Materials and methods section)

“We used post-hoc comparisons to test direction and significance of differences in either outcome condition and report standardized effect sizes for these differences. Note that all reported effect sizes account for random variation within the sample, providing an estimate for the underlying population; due to considerable variance between participants in the present study, this results in comparatively small effect sizes.” (Results section)

• The directions of dopamine and opioid effects on pain relief should be discussed.

We amended our explanation of the hypothesis on the expected drug effects. As outlined there, we indeed expected opposite effects of levodopa and naltrexone on endogenous pain modulation in the active vs. the passive condition of the wheel of fortune.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

This study used the tonic heat stimulation combined with the probabilistic relief-seeking paradigm (which is a wheel of fortune gambling task) to manipulate the level of controllability and predictability of pain on 30 healthy participants. The authors focused on the influence of controllability and unpredictability on pain relief using pain reports and computational models and examined the involvement of dopamine and opioids in those effects. For that, the authors conducted the three-day experiments, which involved placebo, levodopa (dopamine precursor), and naltrexone (opioid receptor antagonist) administration on separate days. Lastly, the authors examined the relationship between dopamine-induced pain relief and novelty-seeking traits.

This is a strong and well-performed study on an important topic. The paper is well-written. I really enjoyed reading the introduction and discussion and learned a lot. Below, I have a few minor comments.

First, given that the Results section comes before the Methods section, it would be helpful to include some method and experimental design-related information crucial for the understanding of the results in the Results section. For example, how long was the thermal stimulus? What was the baseline temperature? etc. Maybe this information can be included in the caption of Figure 1.

We thank the reviewer for this helpful suggestion. We agree that due to the order of the manuscript sections, more information on experimental design and the statistical analysis strategies should be included in the results section. Accordingly, we included more detailed information on the analysis strategies in the Results section (please see responses to comments #5 & #9). In addition, we added more detailed information on the experimental design and information such as the duration of the stimuli and the baseline temperature, marked in red below, to the caption of Figure 1 (Results section).

“Figure 1: Time line of one trial with active decision-making (test trials) of the wheel of fortune game. Experimental pain was implemented using contact heat stimulation on capsaicin sensitized skin on the forearm. In each trial, the temperature increased from a baseline of 30 °C to a predetermined stimulation intensity perceived as moderately painful. In each testing session, one of the two colors (pink and blue) of the wheel was associated with a higher chance to win pain relief (counterbalanced across subjects and drug conditions). Pain relief (win) as outcome of the wheel of fortune game (depicted in green) and pain increase (loss; depicted in red) were implemented as phasic changes in stimulation intensity offsetting from the tonic painful stimulation. Based on a probabilistic reward schedule for theses outcomes, participants could learn which color was associated with a better chance to win pain relief. In passive control trials and neutral trials participants did not play the game, but had to press a black button after which the wheel started spinning and landed on a random position with no pointer on the wheel. Trials with active decision-making were matched by passive control trials without decision making but the same nociceptive input (control trials), resulting in the same number of pain increase and pain decrease trials as in the active condition. In neutral trials the temperature did not change during the outcome interval of the wheel. Two outcome measures were implemented in all trial types: i) after the phasic changes during the outcome phase participants rated the perceived momentary intensity of the stimulation on a visual analogue scale (‘VAS intensity’); ii) after this rating, participants had to adjust the temperature to match the sensation they had memorized at the beginning of the trial, i.e. the initial perception of the tonic stimulation intensity (‘self-adjustment of temperature’). This perceptual discrimination task served as a behavioral assessment of pain sensitization and habituation across the course of one trial. One trial lasted approximately 30 s, phasic offsets occurred after approximately 10 s of tonic pain stimulation. Adapted from Becker et al. (2015).”

Second, it would be helpful if the authors could provide their prior hypotheses on the drug effects. It could be a little bit confusing that the goal of using these drugs given that levodopa is a precursor of dopamine, whereas naltrexone is the opioid antagonist, i.e., the effects on the target neurotransmitters seem the opposite. Then, I wondered if the authors expected to see the opposite effects, e.g., levodopa enhances pain relief, while naltrexone inhibits pain relief, or to see similar effects, e.g., both enhance pain relief. Clarifying which direction of expected effects would be helpful for novice readers.

We thank the reviewer for pointing out that information on the expected drug effects should be explained in more detail. Indeed, we expected opposite effects of levodopa and naltrexone with respect to the effect of controllability on pain relief. Levodopa, as a precursor of dopamine, enhances dopamine availability and thus, phasic release of dopamine in response to events, for example, the reception of reward. Accordingly, we hypothesized that endogenous modulation by relief outcomes are increased in the active (reward) compared to the passive condition. In contrast, naltrexone blocks opioid receptors and as such it has been reported that naltrexone blocks placebo analgesia as a type of endogenous pain inhibition. Correspondingly, we hypothesized that naltrexone decreases endogenous pain modulation induced by actively winning pain relief compared to the passive condition. We expanded the explanation of these hypotheses in the Introduction section as follows:

“We expected increased dopamine availability to enhance phasic release of dopamine in response to rewards, and hence, to increase the effect of active compared to passive reception of pain relief. In contrast, we expected the inhibition of endogenous opioid signaling to decrease the effect of active controllability on pain relief. The latter is based on the observation that blocking of opioid receptors attenuates other types of endogenous pain inhibition such as placebo analgesia (Benedetti, 1996; Eippert et al., 2009) or conditioned pain modulation (King et al., 2013). “

Third, on the "Behaviorally assessed pain perception" results in Figs. 2D-F, I wonder why the results for the "pain increase" were still positive. Were the y values on the plots the temperature that participants adjusted (i.e., against the temperature right before the temperature adjustment)? or are the values showing the differences from the baseline (i.e., against the baseline temperature)?

The behavioral measure was calculated as the difference in temperatures between the memorization interval at the beginning of the trial (i.e. the predetermined temperature perceived as moderately painful) minus the self-adjusted temperature at the end of the trial so that positive values indicate sensitization (i.e. an increase in sensitivity) and negative values indicate habituation (i.e. a decrease in sensitivity) across the stimulation within on trial (i.e. approx. 30 seconds of stimulation). In general, for a stimulation of approximately 30 seconds with intensities perceived as painful, perceptual sensitization is expected to occur (Kleinböhl et al., 1999).

The outcome of the wheel of fortune game, i.e. the phasic decrease (winning) or increase (losing) in stimulation intensity, should indeed have opposite effects on this sensitization. A decrease in nociceptive input negatively reinforces pain perception, as seen in stronger sensitization in win trials, while an increase in nociceptive input punishes pain perception, as seen in reduced perceptual sensitization in lose trials. Using the a very similar task, Becker et al. (2015) found values indicating habituation within trials with temperature increases in lose outcomes. However, in this previous study, increases of +5°C were used for lose outcomes (as compared to +1 °C in the present study). Thus, in the present study the comparatively small increase in absolute stimulation temperature may not have been sufficient to induce within trial habituation to the tonic heat pain stimulation.

Nevertheless, independent of the effect of the outcome (increase or decrease of the stimulation intensity) our focus was on the additional effect that controllability (active vs. passive condition) had on the perception of the underlying tonic stimulation within each outcome condition (i.e. on the same nociceptive input). Here we expected to see endogenous inhibition after winning and endogenous facilitation after losing in the active compared to the passive condition.

We added more detailed information on the calculation of the behavioral measure and the expected perceptual modulation within each trial due to the stimulus duration in the Methods section as well as in the Results section.

Methods section:

“After this rating, participants had to adjust the stimulation temperature themselves to match the temperature they had memorized at the beginning of the trial. This self-adjustment operationalizes a behavioral assessment of perceptual sensitization and habituation within one trial (Becker et al., 2011, 2015; Kleinböhl et al., 1999). Participants adjusted the temperature using the left and right button of the mouse to increase and decrease the stimulation temperature. The behavioral measure was calculated as the difference in temperatures in the memorization interval at the beginning of each trial minus this selfadjusted temperature at the end of each trial. Positive values, i.e. self-adjusted temperatures lower than the stimulation intensity at the beginning of the trial, indicate perceptual sensitization, while negative values indicate habituation.” Results section:

“Positive values (i.e. lower self-adjusted temperatures compared to the stimulation intensity at the beginning of the trial) indicate perceptual sensitization across the course of one trial of the game, negative values indicate habituation. For tonic stimulation at intensities that are perceived as painful, perceptual sensitization is expected to occur (Kleinböhl et al., 1999). Differences between the outcome conditions (win, lose) reflect the effect of the phasic changes on the perception of the underlying tonic stimulus. Differences between active and passive trials reflect the effect of controllability on this perceptual sensitization within each outcome condition.”

Lastly, I wonder if it is feasible or not, but examining the effects of dopamine antagonists will be helpful for obtaining a more definitive answer to the role of dopamine in information-related pain relief. This could be a good suggestion for future studies.

We thank the reviewer for this suggestion. We agree that antagonistic manipulation of the dopaminergic system could provide further insights and confirm the role of dopamine in shaping pain related perception and behavior. Moreover, we think that bidirectional manipulations of opioidergic signaling could also provide valuable insights and should be used for future research. We added the following sentences to the Discussion section:

“Because the mechanisms underlying learning from pain and pain relief and their recursive influence on pain perception may contribute to the development and maintenance of chronic pain, it is crucial to better understand the roles of dopamine and endogenous opioids in these mechanisms. Accordingly, bidirectional manipulations of both transmitter systems should be used in future studies to better characterize their respective roles in shaping behavior and perception.“

Look at market share for tensorflow and pytorch which both offer first-class nvidia support and likely spells out the story. If you are getting in to AI you go learn one of those frameworks and they tell you to install CUDA

I grew up in this kind of culture where there are certain toys for girl and other for boys. As a girl it was okay to play some boy toy but as for a boy it was "prohibited" because it will mean that he is weak. A boy was supposed to play tough came with other boys. He was not supposed to be playing doll or any other game with girls. He will be call soft and some parents would even punish their kids in some cases.

OPERATION JAZZORCIVILIZE

Jazzercize is something my mommy did around the time I was born. It's literally just "jamboree" or some kind of popular women's ((predominantly)) exercize group. They met all over America in the 80's and they wore some funny socks ;) It is the word associated with "changing everybody up" to include the entirety of the capable group of humanity ever living on a rock with religion. It could be bigger than that, but here I've sort of defined it to literally link with significance only the Church of Rome and things that came after it. It is literally what it is, the A.D. timeline. It most likely includes a group of "less than all" who carried things like knowledge and Asimov's Foundation from the Pentagon Technocrat's "Torah guild" ... many thousands of years before the day Christ appears to have been born or died in history.

this is a big deal. I have come to a place in Deseret I associate with a military group that is literally and ((I pray)) responsible for the colonization or the co-colonization of the known galaxy. I believe we have a number of coveted extra-galactic operations aswell, and that they include Soviet and American as well as European operations outside of Deseret. I have come here to prove that Operation's Gunsider, Holocaust and Y are "Information Operations" which is modern NSA-talk for "propaganda designed for a purpose." I do not believe the technologies are real, and it's important to understand I lived through the time others call "the Cold War" and saw with my own eyes videos of rocket's traveling along United States Federal USHWY1 up and down the Eastern Seaboard ... rather than I-95 though it existed because of known and intentional fortifications on that road for equipment so heavy it would crumble bridges. We are in a place where ... London may be the only bridge left in existence after the move from NM to NV .. if you know what it means to lose pillars of Samson in a place like the Holy Temple's heart.

I need this to be taken seriously. If we want to stop moving towards a point where we are going to be angrier with each other than we should be; I need someone in the world with a public company to hire me to build something ... "more public than companies." It starts with software and it ends with codification in the Constitution and beyond. It's a "big deal" this is a revolution bigger than the invention of voting and money; this is big. I need a pay check from a company with that kind of oversight at the very least.

I am open to FTSE, CAC, ASX, DAX, or similar companies on those exchanges to ones listed on the S&P 500 or the DOW. The exchanges listed are not all inclusive, but it means something that I "know what they are" I studied them and we need something at least as big as an entity governed by laws to be listed on "those" ... a private company in Dubai, for instance; is not large enough to do this properly.

I came to the particular city that I am in to prove that Operation Gunsider and Project Y were "ruce's" ... #informationoperations that were part of a grand design that literally includes the whole of "Majestic" which is another key word in the research path to where we are going.

It includes more than that, much more--on this song and who you all are. Closer to God, than ... "most." Closer to me, too. It includes the entirety of the KJV and "all of religion as seen through the eyes of the Christ." It includes missions to teach Latin and English and "reading and writing" to the entirety of humanity; and at this point we have to pause and really understand what is going on.

We have an "Adam code" that is something like ##305407; its a word that includes research and development on what to do when the "everybody up?" generation fails or succeeds; it is a way to get "way more voters involved" in a place where we once had a world that could have have saved its past, clearly do to the inability to see it at all, much less travel to it. Today I need basic computer knowledge and general concepts of things like terraforming and physics added to the list of things that are "required to vote" in the Constitutional realms considerably here perhaps the somewhere between the third and the fifth Houses of the Capitol of the United States.

I would like to make the entirety of the past, the entire A.D. timeline and perhaps something bigger than that "intelligent, omni-important, and oligarchical rulers of themselves." I would like to see Technocracy flourish as a word that literally involves the Halo of Cortana and its connection to "how we vote." I wrote for a brief time on how to engage an audience in something called "subconscious voting" and how to connect "checking your vote" to the only Labor the Party has to accomplish on it's WED/hour of "required work left once we are done with ... automation, roboticization and the revolution colloquially associated with Bolshevik and Ford.

I need us to think today what kind of classes we would need to put together for ... "members of the midieval civilization of lore" ... people who coincided in cities with Cathedral's or Mission's that match the architecture associated with the One True Church--whether it be the source of the Spanish Armada or the Eastern Orthodox Byzantine Fault.

What kind of classes are required to understand things like "game theory" and "solar fusion" and also the inner workings of Heaven enough to intelligently vote on whether or not another group of people, for instance, is "educated enough to be considered a peer, or a citizen."

UK Home Office U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Immigration And Nationality Services (IANS)

It's interesting to "see this answer" INS has aided me here in assuming you understand that acronym has changed from the historical truth, as we consider "naturalization" and what kind of history/nation

https://lnkd.in/dvUKdGZf

THE MONOLOGUE CONTINUES, UNDERSTAND ME.

It doesn’t take much “thought” to see these star charts–our Astrological road maps to ‘wisdom of the Ancients’ might actually be something closer to road maps than I could have previously fathomed–let alone imagined. I’m staring at “Monoceros” and seeing it’s definately connected to “the kissing disease” and to Eros and to Cupid–and seeing … this one not for the first time that character linked to Orion and to the “Speare” of Sagittarius.

I’ve commented … ‘on the show in my head’ that it seems the entirety of the Milky Way might be something like our world … it could be a microcosmic map to something much larger–it could be the seed of “galaxies” in this place that might very well be the “thing” that connects the end and the beginning; rather than the beginning and the end as I once … commented was the original “glyph” i read in the letter “H.”

--

someone commented on the site, they posted a picture from my earlier work ... the "WHY?" one that depicted starvation and crucifixion and no press.

in related news the LA Times spoke, it echoed "and he's thinking about his own mortality" seconds after the event ... the self questioning of whether or not I have any "kind of divinity" in me at all. Dana too, has echoed back that there's a message I am missing.

I forgot to mention the press junket's every day, that was a kind of speech that you can't really "feel" in the rest of the articles that talk about things like walls and "something missing." Acosta may have written more on the reason, but I wasn't able to find out exactly what it was they were saying.

Lately science has started talking about things ... "going haywire" I'm here with "IGNITION" and LLNL on my mind, and also the power of star creation and destruction connecting to the Pentagon and Deuteronomy and ... deuterium and fusion and fission and the Vooshan Young.

I imagine some people read through this feed, the one I'm posting to. I've just posted this:

This is what I have to do to ensure things "aren't vanished upon death" or worse, while I'm still typing about them in the very same day. The post was "vanished" from github, and I mean; it's here for the protection of not just veracity and Americana, but Hypothesis itself.

• https://www.publishthis.email/fw-i-am-not-sure-how-to-break-this-to-you-...-i-feel-in-all-honesty-that-i-am-a-true-ameri-Hkm-2tuos

• https://ipfs.2read.net/ipfs/QmXCxWmuGF48LezyiGLFRzcRjjMzLCDZnRaYajFajvndGv/

Edit: the Github posting didn't disappear it was just marked as closed; along with an explanation "about hearing and answering before."

There's a fortune in building the thing; and putting it together; it's basically "the next big thing" a news and "what's popular on the web" aggregator that has advanced search and friendship capabilities. Integrating with LinkedIn and Facebook and Twitter and ... "most of all abstracting those things with an identity system that ties directly to IPFS and strong identity validation and authentication--

Out of the Ether ..

PS: noting that this link ties to the root directory of fromthemachine dot org and it's already an aged post about this very thing, building something with Ethereum that "is glaringly missing" .. including "find your friends" integration that doesn't require them to send you a long random string of letters and numbers--just being "already connected". Creating a Wallet/Address system that ties together the social networks and "crypto trading" is glaringly missing, and we can already see applications like Snapchat and Tik-Tok that have done it in a way that creates a significant growth factor ... I mean it almost instantly made Tik Tok as big as Instagram.

This tool is a key; being able to see "what everyone is saying about the front page news on the outlets you read every day" in a news feed and interface similar to Facebook's ... "I think that's a game changer for me; I would use it."

I would love to know what such an evaluation looked like! How do you test for spacial awareness? This reminds me of that Blokus or Tetris game I played as a child that required fitting items into various spaces. I wonder often why I didn't bother studying architecture after that.

1.This class is intended to help you advance and afterward apply reasonable as well as hypothetical data as it connects with the social brain research of game and exercise science. A portion of the areas connected with this class incorporate character, inspiration, excitement, objective setting, initiative, symbolism, collective vibes, social impact, social examination, and correspondence.

This is interesting to reflect on how people react when video game systems change the controllers' design in major ways. I'm specifically thinking of when the Wii came out and it was so different from "typical" game consoles.

pretty map

In reading this piece from Imbler and the overarching tone and movement of her article, I couldn't help but think of a discourse in the series Ted Lasso (Jason Suedeikis, AppleTV). Over a game of darts, Lasso talks about the need to "be curious, not judgmental." A simple suggestion, not dissimilar to the one put forth by Imbler, but one that points towards a deeper, more intentional engagement with the beings that we are confronted with.

This is just sad

This kinda reminds me of the Oregon Trail where game-like, interactive methods for sharing information with students allows for a better understanding of the topic at hand. It seems like it has trended towards that as access to technology increased and became more normal to see in academic settings.

As humans we're good at separating things based on categories. The Dewey Decimal System systematically separates mathematics and history into disparate locations, but your zettelkasten shouldn't force this by overthinking categories. Perhaps the overlap of math and history is exactly the interdisciplinary topic you're working toward? If this is the case, just put cards into the slip box closest to their nearest related intellectual neighbor—and by this I mean nearest related to you, not to Melvil Dewey or anyone else. Over time, through growth and branching, ideas will fill in the interstitial spaces and neighboring ideas will slowly percolate and intermix. Your interests will slowly emerge into various bunches of cards in your box. Things you may have thought were important can separate away and end up on sparse branches while other areas flourish.

If you make the (false) choice to separate math and history into different "sections" it will be much harder for them to grow and intertwine in an organic and truly disciplinary way. Universities have done this sort of separation for hundreds of years and as a result, their engineering faculty can be buildings or even entire campuses away from their medical faculty who now want to work together in new interdisciplinary ways. This creates a physical barrier to more efficient and productive innovation and creativity. It's your zettelkasten, so put those ideas right next to each other from the start so they can do the work of serendipity and surprise for you. Do not artificially separate your favorite ideas. Let them mix and mingle and see what comes out of them.

If you feel the need to categorize and separate them in such a surgical fashion, then let your index be the place where this happens. This is what indices are for! Put the locations into the index to create the semantic separation. Math related material gets indexed under "M" and history under "H". Now those ideas can be mixed up in your box, but they're still findable. DO NOT USE OR CONSIDER YOUR NUMBERS AS TOPICAL HEADINGS!!! Don't make the fatal mistake of thinking this. The numbers are just that, numbers. They are there solely for you to be able to easily find the geographic location of individual cards quickly or perhaps recreate an order if you remove and mix a bunch for fun or (heaven forfend) accidentally tip your box out onto the floor. Each part has of the system has its job: the numbers allow you to find things where you expect them to be and the index does the work of tracking and separating topics if you need that.

The broader zettelkasten, tools for thought, and creativity community does a terrible job of explaining the "why" portion of what is going on here with respect to Luhmann's set up. Your zettelkasten is a crucible of ideas placed in juxtaposition with each other. Traversing through them and allowing them to collide in interesting and random ways is part of what will create a pre-programmed serendipity, surprise, and combinatorial creativity for your ideas. They help you to become more fruitful, inventive, and creative.

Broadly the same thing is happening with respect to the structure of commonplace books. There one needs to do more work of randomly reading through and revisiting portions to cause the work or serendipity and admixture, but the end results are roughly the same. With the zettelkasten, it's a bit easier for your favorite ideas to accumulate into one place (or neighborhood) for easier growth because you can move them around and juxtapose them as you add them rather than traversing from page 57 in one notebook to page 532 in another.

If you use your numbers as topical or category headings you'll artificially create dreadful neighborhoods for your ideas to live in. You want a diversity of ideas mixing together to create new ideas. To get a sense of this visually, play the game Parable of the Polygons in which one categorizes and separates (or doesn't) triangles and squares. The game created by Vi Hart and Nicky Case based on the research of Thomas Schelling provides a solid example of the sort of statistical mechanics going on with ideas in your zettelkasten when they're categorized rigidly. If you rigidly categorize ideas and separate them, you'll drastically minimize the chance of creating the sort of useful serendipity of intermixed and innovative ideas.

It's much harder to know what happens when you mix anthropology with complexity theory if they're in separate parts of your mental library, but if those are the things that get you going, then definitely put them right next to each other in your slip box. See what happens. If they're interesting and useful, they've got explicit numerical locators and are cross referenced in your index, so they're unlikely to get lost. Be experimental occasionally. Don't put that card on Henry David Thoreau in the section on writers, nature, or Concord, Massachusetts if those aren't interesting to you. Besides everyone has already done that. Instead put him next to your work on innovation and pencils because it's much easier to become a writer, philosopher, and intellectual when your family's successful pencil manufacturing business can pay for you to attend Harvard and your house is always full of writing instruments from a young age. Now you've got something interesting and creative. (And if you must, you can always link the card numerically to the other transcendentalists across the way.)

In case they didn't hear it in the back, I'll shout it again: ACTIVELY WORK AGAINST YOUR NATURAL URGE TO USE YOUR ZETTELKASTEN NUMBERS AS TOPICAL HEADINGS!!!

https://ncase.me/polygons/

An interesting interactive model for segregation here. See also https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-12-10/an-immersive-game-shows-how-easily-segregation-arises-and-how-we-might-fix-it for press coverage.

https://ncase.itch.io/wbwwb

We become what we behold, a game by Nicky Case.

A commentary on news cycles and social media.

maybe this article is late to the game

onto -> on to

I must have been talking and interacting with the wrong kids. I did not see this behavior or thought process in either of my kids, my nephews, or their friends. These kids would mention that there were some classes that they put little effort into, but it was not all classes.

Consider: a version of the game 20 Questions that helps build up a knowledge base that can be relied upon for Mek's aforementioned Michael Jackson-style answers.

This is the classical story of the open source challenge to an incumbent / dominant actor in a market. In this case it's about Nerf and toy blasters. The interesting bit is that this was hardware-led revolution (3d printing); and the open source spirit is optional - chosen by some actors, but not others.

.

We simply cannot be in a deeply focussed state during all the day.

This is so interesting to me because my mom would always push for me to learn beyond school. I think that her always pushing me to do more practice and spend hours in the public library book sale trying to find the perfect textbooks for me to learn from really was a huge contributor to where I am now. Without that extra encouragement, I think that I would have to play the game of "catchup" to even compete in the real world, especially coming from a poor background. I really want to take the time to appreciate my mom for doing this, even though at the time I really hated her for pushing this onto me and not let me do "normal kid things" like go to friends houses or play with toys all day.

To be fair, more exciting things were happening. In school, implementing this process was boring and I felt like I could never write the perfect paper. Like I just wasn't capable of it

Seems like an unrelated critique - choosing not to peer review your classmates paper because you are excited about other things doesn't relate to the issues being discussed regarding the process's implementation in school systems.

I don't know if this is what this meant but this is what i thin k it means. I think this is tALking about how since the future is changing that people are changing the past like a game of telephone.

Both

Opinoin

Both

Fact

Fact

the game?

she doesn't learn from her mistakes

repetition once more listeners can see the lines that Swift makes sure to reintroduce throughout the entire song, sharing her portrayed reputation time and time again

the toxicity is two sided

its not the speakers first time playing the game of love

the relationship that was meant to be a "game" or something fun will turn into something too serious

referring to herself as a game, maybe with her status as a player, people often see her as a challenge to break people using her as a way of entertainment

Repetition.

Repetition.

She may not be a good partner, due to her ex's saying so. Her relationships are like a game to her that she loves to play.

shes using him for entertainment

The speaker doesn't care about relationships and she treats them as a game but her past lovers didn't think that way.

treats relationships as a game, doesnt take them seriously

she doesn't take it seriously

plays the players

actually loved her past lovers, causing them to think she was crazy

Is all a game referring to the last stanzas end that says Loves a game

She takes love for granted, doesn't take is seriously

you learn from mistakes only.

finds this person attractive

Could be saying she has gotten played/cheated on before

from the speakers point of view, she actually loved her past lovers, but they only loved to love, causing them to think she was crazy

plays more into the idea of that Swift views it as a game, very sarcastic tone

comparing love to a game makes it seem not serious,

considering love a game, something that you do often, can get addicted to and view it as a hobby.

SHE WANNA GET FREAKYYY

the speaker is awe of this persons beauty and believe they are too good to be true.

The singer finds the other person to be attractive and is ready to take a risk on this new found love.

metaphor, comparing love to a game, doesn't take love seriously, thinks of it as a temporary, unimportant thing

she does not take love seriously

doesn't take love serious

comparing love to a game makes it seem not serious, making it seem fun and playful while love is usually seen as something serious

Male inequality, explained by an expert, Richard Reeves, Big Think

Jan 4, 2023

Modern males are struggling. Author Richard Reeves outlines the three major issues boys and men face and shares possible solutions.

Boys and men are falling behind. This might seem surprising to some people, and maybe ridiculous to others, considering that discussions on gender disparities tend to focus on the structural challenges faced by girls and women, not boys and men.

But long-term data reveal a clear and alarming trend: In recent decades, American men have been faring increasingly worse in many areas of life, including education, workforce participation, skill acquisition, wages, and fatherhood.

Gender politics is often framed as a zero-sum game: Any effort to help men takes away from women. But in his 2022 book Of Boys and Men, journalist and Brookings Institution scholar Richard V. Reeves argues that the structural problems contributing to male malaise affect everybody, and that shying away from these tough conversations is not a productive path forward.

About Richard Reeves: Richard V. Reeves is a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, where he directs the Future of the Middle Class Initiative and co-directs the Center on Children and Families. His Brookings research focuses on the middle class, inequality and social mobility.

https://rstudio.github.io/vetiver-r/

Consider the following packages while doing MLOps in R: - pins - vetiver - tidymodels - tidyverse

Extremely well put.

They don't wear gloves, and this may be a sort of routine that they do.

spring brings the game back every year, neighbor views it as foolish

considers it a game

refers to building of the wall

the speaker enjoys the fence and rebuilding

Maybe a lumberjack? supposedly cutting down trees

South Korea's Policy against North Korea is classic tit for tat game theory. A clear 3x punishment and retaliation program.

Axie Infinity play-to-earn game

Funded by a16z, this game allowed character owners to farm out their characters to "scholars" who would play them for a cut of the player's earnings. It has been accused of relying on predatory mechanisms to extract rent from lower demographic populations.

!- Thomas Piketty : limited ability for real change as long as elites can lobby governments - but in the past, there has been success, as the two cases previously mentioned - so it is possible, but will take just as enormous a political mobilization of the people

filter for words w/o repeat letters --> then RNG

!- Global Capitalism's pathological behavior of maximizing profit : comment - Due to lack of global coordination and agreements, - global capitalism game played by multi-nationals is a whack-a-mole game that eludes any kind of attempts at individual state level regulation. - Any attempt by one country at social or ecological regulation will be met with a corporation exercising their right to pull out and find another country that has no such regulation in place.

is there merit or obfuscation in selling your myths to a broader swath, class-wise

Habsburgs were initially chosen because they didn't seem like a threat

Hmmm the MIT Media lab, a prestigous institution that mines for elietes. I wonder if it actually enables them or uses them as pieces in a game!?!?!?

Le vocabulaire des jeux

I do agree that lots of people waste too much time on the internet, so do I. I always regret wasting too much time after several hours' game playing. But I don't agree that the internet is not real life. I always use instagram to show something interesting in my life. These are all my real life.

https://usesthis.com/interviews/kicks.condor/

Part of the game (or not?) I miss Kicks...

Interesting facts about the launch of the Harvest Moon/Story of Seasons series in Japan. The first game for SNES sold about 100,000 copies. The game that most launched the series, however, was the simpler Game Boy game, which "sold over 300,000, launching the new franchise." This article credits the success of Pokemon in part with the high sales of Story of Seasons.

Yasuhiro Wada, the creator of Harvest Moon/Story of Seasons, explained that he first had the idea of creating a game where the player cared for cows from growing up in the Japanese countryside.

The story of how Pokémon Red and Blue were almost released without link cable battling.

"The question the link poses: Is there a redeeming quality about [Ai Ebihara]? Can a kind soul be all it takes to save someone?"

This is a beautiful write-up of the Ai Ebihara social link in Persona 4. I would be curious what the author thinks the answers are to the two questions presented. In my view, Ai's redeeming quality -- that is the quality she uses to redeem her character in the end -- is the same quality that drove her unpleasant personality early in the arc -- introspection. The player "saves" Ai by giving Ai the courage to save herself. Part of the beauty of the link is that the rest is for Ai to figure out as she goes forward.

what are the topics contributing to positive expectancy

.h2

Les mesures de qualite d'un modele de machine learning

John B. Kelly highlighted this disparity in a memorable passage published in 1973:

Distance, the filtering of news through so many intermediate channels, and the habitual tendency to discuss and interpret Middle Eastern politics in the political terminology of the West, have all contrived to impart a certain blandness to the reporting and analysis of Middle Eastern affairs in Western countries. ... To read, for instance, the extracts from the Cairo and Baghdad press and radio ... is to open a window upon a strange and desolate landscape, strewn with weird, amorphous shapes cryptically inscribed "imperialist plot," "Zionist crime," "Western exploitation," ... and "the revolution betrayed." Around and among these enigmatic structures, curious figures, like so many mythical beats, caper and cavort - "enemies," "traitors," "stooges," "hyenas," "puppets," "lackeys," "feudalists," "gangsters," "tyrants," "criminals," "oppressors," "plotters" and deviationists". ... It is all rather like a monstrous playing board for some grotesque and sinister game, in which the snakes are all hydras, the ladders have no rungs, and the dice are blank.

the reason to start trading with 1 micro lot

https://musicbrainz.org/release-group/dd31bd8c-2727-450e-984e-ab62fe6a8b9e

Thanks to Re*Define and Kaisernet, the original 2005 English-language translation of io [Christmas Eve], a freeware Japanese visual novel written in KiriKiri, is playable in English. The 2005 patch ceased working due to the Japanese game receiving a minor update in 2006. Kaisernet notes that "[t]he fix has been tested on Windows XP and Windows 10." I personally tested it on Linux running the game with the patch on WINE and found that it works without issue.

Playing a children's game. Also, a re-emergence of the word play from the riddles earlier.

Mr. Woodhouse also conflates childhood with poverty again: "poor little boys."

ur act of participation itself is the connection, the playing by rules, not what u r sharing

Quoted here: https://malleable.systems/catalog/

and also.... ethics in game journalism.

Since this is video, maybe we could just embed the video.