You know, I enjoy playing Hardspace: Shipbreaker as a sort of chill, zen experience.
But it really probably is an issue, storywise, that a game about being an exploited laborer in a ultra-capitalist dystopia is fun to actually play.
There's also a real tension between a story about being debt-trapped in an unsafe, brutal job and the gameplay fact that you can 'get gud' to safely navigate all of these hazards and also consequently steadily work down that massive debt.
The 'interest on debt' floor is 500k credits per work shift, but I regularly do 1.5-2m credits of salvaging per shift - sure the debt is made comically huge to prevent it being zero'd, but if each shift is a day the implication is you could do it in about 4 years.
So you end up with a text narrative about people being trapped in their jobs and the evil exploitative corporation that goes out of its way to keep them trapped...layered over a gameplay loop that ends up being pure 'bootstraps'-ism.
Still a great game in early access, highly recommend. Very chill once you know what you are doing.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
I actually think we agree on more than the article lets on - a lot of what Harper and Nagl are laying out strikes me as modern operationalization... 1/8
...of the 'socially embedded' option. As I laid out in my own piece, past examples suggest two choices when raising 'auxiliary' forces: either total deracination or else you need to learn to work within existing social institutions. 2/8
In arguing against military 'helicopter parenting' Harper and Nagl really to me seem to be saying that the more independent, socially embedded system - the way Rome treated the armies of Pergamum or even the Italian allies - is the way to go.
Today I've learned that if you tweet about Star Trek, one of the genre of replies you get are folks who maybe don't know their Star Trek so well, but are really convinced someone must have made the whole thing internally consistent and scientifically rigorous.
And...I have bad news for those folks: Star Trek can't keep basic, plot-essential things like beaming through shields or how many shuttles Voyager has straight.
The 'kill' setting on phasers was 1/4 and 3 and also 10, because they couldn't keep that straight either.
Consistency was *never* a priority on the classic Star Trek shows.
Also the science was more or less entirely made up. Like, the scarce warp fuel they use is 'Deuterium' - literally just a molecule of two atoms of the most common substance in the universe (it's H2).
One of my sci-fi pet peeves? Weapons that fire like a magic spell that either happens or it doesn't; Star Trek's phasers are a frequent offender.
What I mean is the sort where 'oh no, we fired our techtech beam, but they had their techtech shield up, so it did *nothing.*" 1/13
Actual weapons nearly all work by delivering some amount of energy to a target; there are some exceptions (chemical and biological weapons come to mind), but a sword, a javelin, a rifle and a nuclear bomb all work by delivering energy, either as kinetic energy or heat. 2/13
Even if those weapons fail to defeat a target's defensive systems (armor, whatever), they still delivered the energy, which, thermodynamics being what they are, had to go somewhere. It might degrade armor, or knock the target around a bit, or cause collateral damage. 3/13
I find myself more than a bit frustrated by this phrasing, "sovereign but deferential" and the degree it implicitly accepts the PRC's framing of the point rather than acknowledging that to many countries 'deferential' means 'not sovereign.' 1/6
I'm not saying journalists need to be as skeptical as we'd expect, say, US government officials to be, but China's record in all of this isn't great! The Xinjiang and Tibetan autonomous regions...aren't very autonomous. "One China, two systems" turned out to also be BS. 2/6
China's long list of territorial disputes, with India, Japan, Vietnam, Bhutan, Malaysia, the Philippines, and Brunei all seem to suggest that 'deference' would be understood to include territorial adjustments which wouldn't favor those countries. 3/6
Ah, that most fun of emails, "Dear Museum, could you please supply me with the provenance of <thing> and <other thing>, ideally back to at least 1973?"
Taking all bets* on how hard they ghost me!
*Not actually taking any bets; you bet on things that are UNcertain!
For those unfamiliar with the rules here, a 1970 UNESCO Convention, to which the USA was a party, set 1970 as the grandfathering line for antiquities, after which for possession of cultural heritage objects to be legal, you need to be able to show that it was imported legally...
...with the consent of the country of origin. Generally, a museum ought to have either 1) a chain of possession to a point before 1970(ish) OR 2) a chain of possession that is legal at each step back to the original, post-1970 recovery of the object.
Well, people seemed to like my little Julius Caesar chart, so why not tweet out some of my other lecture aids.
Here is a set of four charts I use to help students visualize ancient social classes, starting with Fifth century BC Athens (bibliographic discussion at the end): 1/23
And then we can compare very early fifth century Sparta: 2/23
And my latest addition to the block-charts, the same method but applied to the Roman Republic in 225 (it's a big chart, you may want to zoom in): 3/23