## [D] Friday Off-Topic Thread
* Author: u/AutoModerator *
* URL: https://www.reddit.com/r/rational/comments/4rv3as/d_friday_offtopic_thread/
* Score: 19
* Created: 2016-07-08T15:04:42
### Post:
Welcome to the Friday Off-Topic Thread! Is there something that you want to talk about with /r/rational, but which isn't rational fiction, or doesn't otherwise belong as a top-level post? This is the place to post it. The idea is that while reddit is a large place, with lots of special little niches, sometimes you just want to talk with a certain group of people about certain sorts of things that aren't related to why you're all here. It's totally understandable that you might want to talk about Japanese game shows with /r/rational instead of going over to /r/japanesegameshows, but it's hopefully also understandable that this isn't really the place for that sort of thing.
So do you want to talk about how your life has been going? Non-rational and/or non-fictional stuff you've been reading? The recent album from your favourite German pop singer? The politics of Southern India? The sexual preferences of the chairman of the Ukrainian soccer league? Different ways to plot meteorological data? The cost of living in Portugal? Corner cases for siteswap notation? All these things and more could possibly be found in the comments below!
### Comments:
> **u/trekie140** [+18] (45 minutes later)
>
> In a earlier thread I recommended the book How To Succeed in Evil as a rational dark comedy. Now that I've finished the book, I hereby rescind that recommendation because the ending was awful. Not only does it fail to properly conclude the story in any way, instead just setting up for a sequel, but the last scene features the protagonist convincing a man to commit suicide by allowing himself to be buried alive without a shred of irony.
>
> I felt unclean after reading that, and even if I didn't the final act is still a drastic shift in tone from the rest of the book. I was fine with its mean-spirited satire of human stupidity, but when it suddenly decided to take itself seriously it was repulsive to read and strained credibility. It has some hilarious and tragic moments, and even a few interesting insights, but when none of it is tied together properly it all becomes meaningless drivel.
>> **u/VanPeer** [+1] *The shard made me do it* (22 hours later)
>>
>> Too late. I purchased it on Kindle based on your recommendation and because the beginning looked promising. It wasn't exactly what I hoped for, but as long as I focus on the semi-rational theme as opposed to the confused plot, it's palatable.
>>> **u/trekie140** [+2] (23 hours later)
>>>
>>> I did enjoy reading most of it, the story just never amounted to anything in the end. I guess it focuses on rationality, but by having EVERYONE make horrifically stupid decisions and refuse to listen whenever Edwin tells them they're wrong. It's understandable when it's comic book supervillains, they're supposed to be insane, but for Excelsior and his government handler it is ridiculous.
>>>> **u/VanPeer** [+3] *The shard made me do it* (a day later)
>>>>
>>>> Good point. The plot would have been more interesting if Edwin's clients weren't all over-the-top stupid/ignorant. I realize humor is a large part of the book, but it gets tiresome after a while. BTW, the funniest part was Dr. Loeb's Austrian accent.
> **u/Dwood15** [+9] (6 hours later)
>
> A bit of a rant here, but i'm sick and tired of 'adult' and 'adult-themed' books merely being another term for the inclusion of sex or blood and gore (if not all of that). It's a completely non-descriptive set of terms... The writing can be just as bad, or even worse than YA fiction.
>
> I would like 'for adults' be a moniker or a sign that the book uses more terms, treats the reader like an intelligent person, etc, but I'm not sure how I could influence that. I'm sure if I wrote a novel and marked it as adult, I'd get a bunch of teens in on it, looking for porn, and then get complaints that what I was writing barely even mentioned sex, and when it did, it wasn't detailed graphically.
>> **u/None** [+7] (6 hours later)
>>
>> I find sex scene in general to be mostly totally unnecessary to storytelling.
>>
>> If a story can function just fine without it, why include it at all unless the entire point is erotica.
>>> **u/None** [+7] (8 hours later)
>>>
>>> [deleted]
>>>> **u/None** [+3] (a day later)
>>>>
>>>> I don't disagree with you since you said those ASOIAF sex scenes contribute to the overall story.
>>> **u/trekie140** [+3] (7 hours later)
>>>
>>> Agreed. I recently finished the first season of Penny Dreadful on Netflix and found the sex and nudity annoying. Presumably it was added to compete with Game of Thrones, but many have nothing to do with the plot and don't add to the gothic horror. That said, I do recommend the show if you like old English literature, since it very much embraces that writing style.
>>>> **u/None** [+5] (a day later)
>>>>
>>>> > Presumably it was added to compete with Game of Thrones,
>>>>
>>>> Lol.
>>>>
>>>> The Tudors predates Game of Thrones and had this in buckets.
>>>>
>>>> Cable shows, especially history shows, play into this, both in terms of nudity and gore, it has nothing to do with Game of Thrones.
>>>>
>>>> Frankly, a lot of the things people attribute to Game of Thrones gets a bit tedious, kinda like back when everything was "The Sopranos with/of X".
>> **u/None** [+2] (7 hours later)
>>
>> Do books with serious vocabularies sell well?
>>> **u/Nepene** [+6] (a day later)
>>>
>>> I've certainly seen a fair bit of critique in /r/rational for stories with simple vocabularies, and quite a few of the stories written in here tend to have rather complicated vocabularies.
>>>
>>> I'm reminded of vaguely remembered studies that found that Donald Trump and Daily Mail or something had a reading level and style well below other political leaders, and suggestions that this made them more popular and charismatic.
>>>
>>> Plus this.
>>>
>>> http://www.plainenglish.co.uk/
>>>
>>> From a quick google this and many other things slowly edited in.
>>>
>>> https://contently.com/strategist/2015/01/28/this-surprising-reading-level-analysis-will-change-the-way-you-write/
>>>
>>> >The initial surprise from my little data experiment is that writers whose work we regard highly tend to be produce work at a lower reading level than we’d intuit.[7] Cormac McCarthy, Jane Austen, and Hunter S. Thompson join J.K. Rowling in the readability realm of pre-teens. The content of McCarthy’s and Thompson’s novels isn’t meant for children, but these writers’ comprehensibility is rather universal.
>>>
>>> >I wasn’t shocked that academic documents rank difficult. However, I was surprised that the ones I studied were only 12th and 13th grade reading level.
>>>
>>> >Most of us don’t read at that level, it turns out. (Or if we can, we hate to.) Here’s what research says about how many Americans even can read well:
>>>
>>> >In other words:
>>>
>>> >I did an informal poll of some friends while writing this post. Every one of them told me that they assumed that higher reading level meant better writing. We’re trained to think that in school. But data shows the opposite: lower reading level often correlates with commercial popularity and in many cases, how good we think a writer is.[8]
>>>
>>> http://www.impact-information.com/impactinfo/newsletter/plwork15.htm
>>>
>>> This on magazines and tabloids and such is interesting.
>>>
>>> From before.
>>>
>>> https://np.reddit.com/r/rational/comments/4oftzh/q_is_my_story_rational/d4rcp4t
>>>
>>> >Furthermore, the dialogue is stilted, the characters are dumb and erratically motivated, and the writing itself is childish, which opinion I arrive at having spent three years teaching and grading the writing of eleven year olds. If Brandon Sanderson reads my first, incorrect rant, I am entirely sorry for any degree of pissed-off he becomes, and abjectly apologize, and direct him to this more accurate rant instead, acknowledging any further inaccuracies as my own fault.
>>>
>>> This sort of comment by another user is representative of the sort of attitude I've seen here. Brandon Sanderson does probably write at a fairly low grade level. This may explain part of his popularity. I read that above quoted user/author's writings, and there were a lot of odd complicated terms I wasn't actually sure of the meaning of in his writing.
>>>
>>> http://www.scholastic.com/teachers/book/harry-potter-and-sorcerers-stone#cart/cleanup
>>>
>>> From a quick google, harry potter book 1 is a grade level for 11-12 year olds, and is of interest to 8-9 year olds as well.
>>>
>>> I'll end with a quote.
>>>
>>> >"I notice that you use plain, simple language, short words, and brief sentences. That is the way to write English—it is the modern way and the best way. Stick to it; and don't let the fluff and flowers and verbosity creep in.
>>>
>>> >"When you catch an adjective, kill it. No, I don't mean utterly, but kill most of them—then the rest will be valuable. They weaken when close together. They give strength when they are wide apart." - Mark Twain.
>>> **u/alexanderwales** [+2] *Time flies like an arrow* (9 hours later)
>>>
>>> To some extent, this is one of the expectations of "literary fiction" as a genre (and one of the things that people mean when they use "literary fiction" as a euphemism). Literary fiction doesn't tend to sell very well, because it's mostly optimized for critical acclaim and social status rather than actual sales, but I don't think that says too much about what impact vocabulary has on sales.
>>>> **u/Dwood15** [+3] (10 hours later)
>>>>
>>>> Vocabulary is a bad marker for good fiction, as it can go too far and give off the "English Major" feeling and turning off readers from enjoying the book.
>>>>
>>>> I guess I would like the "intelligent reader" treatment with more complex plot lines, deeper meaning in the story, etc. For example. Lord of the Flies would be in the category because of the way it treats the reader. Stephen King could be Adult as well, not because of any gore or sex in his books, but because he treats is readers like they're intelligent and doesn't beat the motifs or tropes over your head, etc etc.
>>>>
>>>> Adult should be adult literally because it exhibits a higher quality in story and language depth than most YA novels. What that quality is, is extremely difficult to quantify.
>>>>> **u/alexanderwales** [+2] *Time flies like an arrow* (12 hours later)
>>>>>
>>>>> There's a point where you're just having a thesaurus thrown at you, which is bad, but that doesn't mean that it's a bad metric. The optimum pH balance of a pool is 7.4; it's bad if it's higher or lower, but that doesn't make the scale any less useful.
>>>>>
>>>>> I generally consider vocabulary as a fairly good second-order approximation for adultness of a work. Vocabulary acts as a gate through which inexperienced or uneducated readers cannot (or will not) pass, so if you see a certain vocabulary you can assume a few things about both the author and the author's intentions.
>>>>>
>>>>> I do have a B.A. in English though, so treat what I say with a grain of salt.
>>>>>> **u/UnseenFlower** [+1] (2 days later)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> From a storytelling and marketing standpoint simpler vocabulary is safer for the writer to use.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The depth of language the writer can use is at the mercy of the reader's own vocabulary. An unfamiliar word throws the reader out of the story. The writer obviously *doesn't want that to happen* (unless, I wonder, if a writer has ever done that to deliberately make a reader stop and think about what was said?) so they limit their word usage. Being playful with language is too risky.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> From a selling point complex language reduces the size of the potiential audience. Plainer language = bigger audience = bigger sales.
>>>>>> Personally, I think this makes vocabulary a poor basis to judge the maturity of a story on.
>>>>>>> **u/alexanderwales** [+1] *Time flies like an arrow* (2 days later)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's a fairly anecdotal argument, but my impression is that mature stories *also* pull readers out of the story and compromise sales, at least to some degree. Simpler, unambiguous story = bigger audience = bigger sales.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If an author is calibrating for that, then they're probably also calibrating for vocabulary. While you can't judge whether a story is a mature one without having actually read the thing, you can judge its vocabulary within the first few pages (barring some notable exceptions like *Flowers for Algernon*).
>>> **u/whywhisperwhy** [+1] (8 hours later)
>>>
>>> If you're a talented enough author or have a population of readers interested in that, yes.
>> **u/Roxolan** [+1] *Head of antimemetiWalmart senior assistant manager* (7 hours later)
>>
>> I don't see a way around this. There is obviously a need for a euphemism here. And any euphemism is going to mean something different if taken literally. If not you, it would've irritated someone else.
> **u/alexanderwales** [+7] *Time flies like an arrow* (8 hours later)
>
> Warning: Spiders/Politics
>
> So [here's Ben Carson](http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/ben-carson-dallas-shooting-obama-225278#ixzz4DqSuBDxP) on Obama's response to the Dallas shooting:
>
> > Why do we have a Second Amendment? They’re always saying you don't need a high-powered weapon to hunt deer. The Constitution is not about deer hunting. It's about people being able to defend themselves from an overly aggressive government or an external invasion.
>
> I've always considered the "we need guns to protect ourselves from the government" as something of a power fantasy, similar to how a lot of people view the zombie apocalypse. People like to make escape routes out of the city, build prep kits, go camping in the wilderness to test their survival, etc. I generally consider this (and prepping in general) to be pretty harmless, or possibly beneficial in the sense that people are going out to acquire useful skills like first aid and disaster preparedness. This particular defense of the 2nd Amendment seems to come from a similar psychological place.
>
> What I don't understand is this reaction *specifically in response to someone shooting police officers*. "We need our guns in order to go after the government" seems completely tone deaf to me when someone has just used their guns to go after the government. I can't actually tell whether this is just repetition of a talking point without regard to context, or a hard line ideological stance. I recall similar rhetoric following the shooting of Gabrielle Giffords, so I don't think this is isolated to just Ben Carson or just this incident.
>
> (There are other, much better arguments against gun control, but they provoke less head scratching from me.)
>> **u/None** [+4] (a day later)
>>
>> > I've always considered the "we need guns to protect ourselves from the government" as something of a power fantasy,
>>
>> At this point the best thing that can be said about it is it actually means "we need guns to make it *just* inconvenient enough for the government.
>>
>> And, honestly, I don't even buy that.
>> **u/MugaSofer** [+3] (2 days later)
>>
>> Yes, there is a real ideology that suggests that the answer to both "oppressive government" and "dangerous rioters" is "give everybody guns". We outnumber the government, and we outnumber the rioters.
>>
>> EDIT:
>>
>> I'm blue tribe, so take this with a grain of salt:
>>
>> The structure of modern militaries is fundamentally different to those envisioned by the drafters of the constitution. You have to remember, when the United States were founded, artillery and warships were routinely privately owned.
>>
>> You could argue pretty strongly that this means the constitution is outdated.
>>
>> But you could also argue that it means our society has been drifting closer and closer to a state where a few powerful people control most of the power, and this is incredibly risky. Or you could start thinking about asymmetric warfare and argue that we can plot a fairly short route back from where we are now to something like balance, argue modern militaries aren't really all that in the case of civil war - when was the last time the US military really *captured and held* a hostile territory?
>> **u/None** [+2] (4 days later)
>>
>> >What I don't understand is this reaction specifically in response to someone shooting police officers. "We need our guns in order to go after the government" seems completely tone deaf to me when someone has just used their guns to go after the government. I can't actually tell whether this is just repetition of a talking point without regard to context, or a hard line ideological stance. I recall similar rhetoric following the shooting of Gabrielle Giffords, so I don't think this is isolated to just Ben Carson or just this incident.
>>
>> Maybe Ben Carson supports shooting cops.
>> **u/None** [+0] (9 hours later)
>>
>> Fighting against our own government is asking for a civil war.
>>
>> The last time this happened was because a bunch of slavers wanted to secede and form their own union.
>>
>> Then the last time the last time it happened was the American revolutionaries against the British. Arguably, Canada manages to gain its independence without even firing a single shot.
>>
>> So, what good is it when Americans rise up against other Americans? You could say that it is already a disaster at that point.
>>> **u/DuplexFields** [+3] *New Lunar Republic* (a day later)
>>>
>>> I take it you've never heard of the [Battle of Athens](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McMinn_County_War)? A political machine was stomping on rights, and the second amendment was used to vote it out. (The aftermath wasn't ideal, and given today's police state it could never happen again.)
>>>> **u/None** [+1] (a day later)
>>>>
>>>> Interesting. I'll make sure to remember it the next time I read gun control debate.
>>>>> **u/DuplexFields** [+2] *New Lunar Republic* (a day later)
>>>>>
>>>>> And despite being a patriot (in the revolutionary sense) and a 2nd Amendment advocate, as a Christian, I always remember the words of Jesus: "He who lives by the sword, dies by the sword." Guns don't make things better when dealing with people, they just give a chance at survival in some dangerous circumstances.
> **u/Nighzmarquls** [+6] (8 hours later)
>
> Anyone have recommendations of well written fics that deal with protagonists that are actually inhuman?
>
> Of particular import is the MINDSETS being at least not like a baseline human.
>
> My frustration being, if my own brain is more foreign then your so called "unfathomably alien" mind in its diversions from the baseline of 'majority' European human on motivations, approach to sexuality, ethics and problem solving, aesthetics of beauty, culture etc I will have to resist the urge to scream and smash something.
>
> I'd prefer if their vaguely insectile or something like the xenomorphs or zerg in physical aesthetics but considering how small the pool of this kind of works is I'll take most anything.
>
> To date everything in the tvtropes page on xenofiction has either been researched/read by me already or I've not found an accessible source for it.
>> **u/None** [+10] (9 hours later)
>>
>> [deleted]
>>> **u/Nighzmarquls** [+1] (9 hours later)
>>>
>>> Checking it out now, thanks much!
>>>> **u/Nighzmarquls** [+1] (a day later)
>>>>
>>>> Very good read, exactly what I wanted thanks much.
>> **u/_stoodfarback** [+3] (12 hours later)
>>
>> I recommend Three Worlds Colide, which deals with this explicitly: http://lesswrong.com/lw/y4/three_worlds_collide_08/
>>> **u/Nighzmarquls** [+1] (13 hours later)
>>>
>>> Read it, many years ago, in fact before I was fully aware of lesswrong. Thank you though it is very much the kind of thing I'm looking for.
> **u/Aabcehmu112358** [+6] *Utter Fallacy* (a day later)
>
> Does anyone else find whole chains of '[removed]' kind of spooky?
>> **u/Cariyaga** [+6] *Kyubey did nothing wrong* (2 days later)
>>
>> Kind of yes. It's like a graveyard of comments. What arcane secrets were lost to the delete button?
>>> **u/CouteauBleu** [+1] *We are the Empire.* (3 days later)
>>>
>>> Well, it's usually pretty grim. You see, we live under a secret [REDACTED] who routinely [REDACTED] our homes to [REDACTED] (I hear children's [REDACTED] is tastiest). Everyone once in a while one of the [REDACTED] will try to call for [REDACTED]. Concerned people then answer, asking for the OP's coordinates and discussing [REDACTED] strategies. Of course, they [REDACTED] too. Their histories are then [REDACTED], including the whole chain of reddit comments.
> **u/Roxolan** [+5] *Head of antimemetiWalmart senior assistant manager* (27 minutes later)
>
> Wait But Why is [planning IRL meetups](http://waitbutwhy.com/2016/07/wait-but-hi.html) worldwide on August 13. You have to answer a survey and they’ll try to match you with people/activities/courses/foodstuffs/dates? that you’ll enjoy. It has the potential to be awesome. If nothing else, people who read Wait But Why are my kind of people.
>
> Here in London I’m part of a semi-private [boardgaming club](http://www.meetup.com/The-Golden-Axe/) looking for more members. We currently have a strong female majority (how the fuck did *that* happen?) and would quite like to even it out, but everyone's welcome. It’s not rationalist, there’s just me and then one guy who enjoyed Luminosity, but it’s good people and good games.
>> **u/PeridexisErrant** [+2] *put aside fear for courage, and death for life* (a day later)
>>
>> Oooh, fun - did the survey, which was amusing in itself and had an excellent interface.
> **u/traverseda** [+4] *With dread but cautious optimism* (48 minutes later)
>
> So how about that pokemon go?
>> **u/Roxolan** [+2] *Head of antimemetiWalmart senior assistant manager* (4 hours later)
>>
>> I'm told that the actual gameplay element is very shallow (button-mashing with zero strategy; even types barely matter). So what remains is the fun of AR games, wandering your neighbourhood looking for hotspots. That was not enough to get my interest.
>>> **u/GaBeRockKing** [+6] *Horizon Breach: http://archiveofourown.org/works/6785857* (12 hours later)
>>>
>>> I found the actual "game" part was less interesting that ingress's equivalent, but the fact that it has random spawns makes it considerably more interesting than just planning a portal route and only taking out your phone once you get there.
>>>
>>> Plus, *everyone* is playing it, so I've talked to a bunch of people I haven't seen in a year or more.
>>>
>>> And I fully expect the gameplay part to improve-- they wouldn't have included strong attacks if they didn't plan for them to matter, so they'll probably balance out combat whenever they get around to doing the next patch.
>> **u/Kishoto** [+1] (2 days later)
>>
>> I'm having tons of fun playing it.
> **u/None** [+5] (5 hours later)
>
> Anybody using git and programming in their writing process?
>
> I wrote a shell script to document how many words changes I made to a given project everyday, in which I learned a lot about...shell scripting. It was satisfying to document my progress this way.
>
> I am thinking of building a random name generator, a dice roller, maybe an RPG system for use in quests.
>
> There will probably be a lot of processing and indexers in the future soon as well, so I can better cross check and jump around, helping me keep things straight.
>> **u/PeridexisErrant** [+3] *put aside fear for courage, and death for life* (a day later)
>>
>> Yep, my entire Honours thesis was written in Latex, and tracked by Git. Python for data analysis and as a `make` substitute because installing anything on school computers was an enormous pain.
>>
>> I would definitely use this workflow again.
>> **u/Faust91x** [+1] *Iteration X* (7 hours later)
>>
>> I do but only on small projects that catch my attention. I worked a bit with crawlers and neural networks and actually found use for one for a paper I'm making on ontology generation for chatbots.
>>
>> I think its a fun way to work and automate tasks. I'm biased towards Python given how easy it is to craft something and modify on the go but have tried (unsuccessfully I must say) to create Android applications for automation.
>>
>> If you go mobile and want something for personal use I suggest Apache Cordova because the deployment process is faster than Java Android. I absolutely hate how you must edit stuff in lots of windows and how cluttered and verbose the code is when using Android Studio.
>>
>> What language are you using? Or its bash?
>>> **u/None** [+2] (7 hours later)
>>>
>>> I used bash, though I find it very finicky to work with in some aspect. It could be my incomplete knowledge of the language, though.
>>>
>>> I might just switch to something like ruby or lua though.
>>>> **u/Faust91x** [+1] *Iteration X* (9 hours later)
>>>>
>>>> I see, bash is usually recommended for small automation tasks and processes that require interaction with elements of the OS like file systems and the like but complex tasks can be done with effort, its still better to use a dedicated language for those though.
>>>>
>>>> I've read some really good things about Ruby but haven't used it. Lua is very clean and Python like, used it once for a robotics project. Is there any reason you don't use Python?
>>>>
>>>> I've found it very easy to learn and great for prototyping or automation tasks.
>>>>> **u/None** [+2] (11 hours later)
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't have any dislike for python. Ruby is very familiar to me.
>>>>>
>>>>> As is lua, which I am currently using it to mod a game.
> **u/alexanderwales** [+3] *Time flies like an arrow* (15 hours later)
>
> Is there anything useful that I can do with books I started writing but didn't finish, besides actually taking the time to finish them? I have ~9 books that are sitting at various stages of completion (that's only counting anything that's crept over 10K words) and actually completing them will be [*haaaaard*](http://i.imgur.com/MD0p6LA.gif), not just because of the writing-prose aspect, but because of the editing, beta-reading, second round of editing that are a minimum to get quality content out the door. I don't want to just throw away hundreds of thousands of words, but I can't foresee myself ever having the time to finish all but one or two of them.
>
> Is there anything that can be done with unfinished stuff? Or is it completely worthless except for the practice it gave me at writing?
>> **u/CouteauBleu** [+6] *We are the Empire.* (a day later)
>>
>> I guess it depends on the specifics (themes/stories/word count/etc), but in no particular order:
>>
>> * Making omakes or short stories out of them; you're still letting a lot of words go to waste though.
>>
>> * Cannibalizing their characters and plot points into your other stories/books, the way Wildbow did with his superhero stories pre-Worm. It means you probably can't use most of the text you've written, but transferring a character to a different story might be faster than writing a new character from scratch, so you *might* get some increased productivity from your previous work that way.
>>
>> * Making A GIANT CROSSOVER OF THEM ALL WHERE THE DIFFERENT WORLDS ARE LINKED BY PORTALS AND then I guess interesting things happen or something?
>>
>> * Trying to complete shorter, denser versions of you stories. Only keep the essential, try to go to the conclusion as fast as you can, maybe use a different format. You still need a lot of work for each book but at least you're actually using your previous writings.
>> **u/VanPeer** [+1] *The shard made me do it* (22 hours later)
>>
>> In the same boat here, though I am nowhere near as prolific a writer as you. I can't just discard, due to the emotional and intellectual investment. What about extracting the core of those works into an "Omake" anthology? For example, the LOTR omake fan fiction segment within HPMOR is some of the most inspirational writing I've seen.
> **u/rineSample** [+3] (9 hours later)
>
> How would you make a rational character in the [world of professional wrestling](http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ProfessionalWrestling), given that it seems to be a form of soap opera?
>> **u/Roxolan** [+7] *Head of antimemetiWalmart senior assistant manager* (10 hours later)
>>
>> Are they allowed to realize the fakeness of their world?
>>
>> The trivial answer is "a character who trains and studies very hard to become good at wrestling".
>>
>> But if they notice that skill does not correlate all that well with wrestling victories? Then they would start optimizing for being a marketable character, and you'd get a story sort of like [Shadows of the Limelight](http://alexanderwales.com/shadows/).
> **u/ToaKraka** [+10] *https://i.imgur.com/OQGHleQ.png* (9 minutes later)
>
> [The Yudkowskys profess a dislike for singular `they`!!](http://i.imgur.com/retdUge.png)
>
> ("But only *Mrs.* Yudkowsky actually said such a thing *outright.* Couldn't *Mr.* Yudkowsky have had reasons for giving a like to this post *other* than disliking singular `they`--e.g., merely expressing appreciation for his spouse's *creativity,* without having an opinion on whether or not this *particular* product of that creativity is *worthwhile?"* Yes, yes... [makes resigned face])
>
> ---
>
> It's kind of interesting to note that, despite the rise of [HTML](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTML) (in [EPUB](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPUB) packaging) and the decline of [PDF](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portable_Document_Format) in electronic books, many tabletop role-playing games are sticking with PDF. Why should this be?
>
> Compare the following screenshots...
> \- [First](http://i.imgur.com/gJKUacH.png), a page from the PDF version of the **ludicrously**-awesome (seriously--check out [the bibliography](http://www.sjgames.com/gurps/books/low-tech/bibliography.html)!) book *[GURPS Low-Tech](http://www.sjgames.com/gurps/books/low-tech)*;
> \- [Second](http://i.imgur.com/FGeKwUx.png), an excerpt of the same book, manually converted to HTML (including some [CSS](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cascading_Style_Sheets) tweaks--read the code [here](http://pastebin.com/6NsHKN9S)) and displayed in [Google Chrome](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Chrome);
> \- [Third](http://i.imgur.com/OOY3ieT.png), the same HTML file, displayed in Google Chrome at a different window width; and
> \- [Fourth](http://i.imgur.com/AWsA4cs.png), the same HTML file, converted to EPUB in [Sigil](https://github.com/Sigil-Ebook/Sigil) and displayed in [Cool Reader](https://sourceforge.net/projects/crengine).
>
> Note that Cool Reader doesn't display the [~~sidebar~~ boxout](http://www.graphics.com/article-old/creating-boxouts-and-sidebars-css) as a boxout. Actually, Sigil recognizes that e-reading applications can't read the boxout's `float:right;` style, and just removes it in the conversion. If I try to open the HTML file directly in Cool Reader, it just crashes the program, even though Cool Reader normally is able to open HTML files! (It *does* work properly in [Calibre](https://calibre-ebook.com)'s EPUB converter and viewer--but Calibre is *library-management* software, not *reading* software, and doesn't even have any mobile versions.) Tabletop RPGs can't abandon PDF for EPUB until mobile e-reading programs are as good as mobile Internet browsers (and mobile PDF readers) at displaying content more complex than a single column of text and images. (Obviously, distributing an RPG book as an HTML file, with any illustrations provided as individual image files in an accompanying folder, would *technically* work--but it also would be a horribly cumbersome solution. "PDF" stands for "*Portable* Document Format"!)
>
> (Note: I took the fourth screenshot above before realizing that my versions of Sigil and Cool Reader were outdated by more than a year. However, after I updated them and tried again, the results were exactly the same--right down to Cool Reader's crashing when I attempted to open the HTML file!)
>
> [A relevant 2015 discussion on the RPG.net forums](https://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?756319)
>
> ---
>
> And, on the topic of sidebars and boxouts in RPG sourcebooks, it occurs to me that they're a very interesting innovation.
>
> In [the example passage that I used above](http://i.imgur.com/FGeKwUx.png), there are exactly six heading levels, from `GURPS Low-Tech
` and `Chapter 2: Core Technologies
` to `Glass
` and `Core Formation (TL1)
`. HTML allows a maximum of six heading levels, so this probably was a conscious choice on the part of the editors. However, where should "Race for Porcelain" go? It obviously needs to fit under `High-Fired Ceramics
`--but, at the same time, it isn't quite as narrow in scope as the `...
` headings underneath `Glass
`. So, it gets an `...
` heading *in a boxout*--effectively, a heading *at level 5.5*--underneath `High-Fired Ceramics
`! It's a neat little solution. Note that it's a branching path: After reading about ceramics in general, you can take a temporary detour down the dead-end right side of the page to learn about porcelain, or you can advance to the next topic in series on the left side of the page!
>
> The *ex post facto* determination of where a boxout was meant by the original author to go in the structure of the book can be tricky, however. Note that the font style of `High-Fired Ceramics` in [the screenshot of the original PDF](http://i.imgur.com/gJKUacH.png) actually seems to be a hybrid of `...
` (not in the screenshot: large, bold, and all-caps) and `...
`--*not* a hybrid of `...
` and `...
`. On the other hand, though, it's very obvious from the text that this boxout is much more relevant to the narrower "High-Fired Ceramics" section than to the wider "Stone and Earth" section. The verdict: The editors at Steve Jackson Games failed to provide a consistent progression of weight in laying down the stylistic guidelines for their headings. Tut, tut!
>> **u/EliezerYudkowsky** [+16] *Godric Gryffindor* (5 hours later)
>>
>> I use the singular 'they'.
>>
>> I know, very politically incorrect in these days when so many of my friends defy the singular-multiplicity binary.
>>> **u/itaibn0** [+2] (6 days later)
>>>
>>> Actually, with the second person singular pronoun long gone, and singular third-person pronouns on their way out, we see this as a natural progression towards totally number-neutral pronouns.
>> **u/jesyspa** [+16] (2 hours later)
>>
>> I had a friend who hated singular "they" back in high school, but they stopped talking to me.
>> **u/Drexer** [+2] (7 hours later)
>>
>> Regarding the ubiquitous use of the PDF format, I would define the problem as such:
>>
>> "New formats will only turn popular once you can emulate the design of a current complex PDF with just LaTeX"
>>
>> As a totally anecdotal evidence I can say that I've worked on trying to emulate a Pathfinder sourcebook with a LaTeX template, and the work hits a snag around 70% authenticity. Don't get me wrong, LaTeX is still the number one option to obtain the best alignment and visual aspect with the least effort, but once one goes pass the bare medium effort, the small design details that one might want to work with turn it into a nightmare. Putting a picture halfway in each column, creating a wrapped effect in a column, making changes halfway through the page, etc... All of those things are complicated to do in a project where the design process has to be left partially to the computer, but easy to do when the human controls where pretty much everything will end up in as in InDesign.
>>
>> All of this to say that in this comparison the free formats for online resources are much more similar to the LaTeX pipeline than the InDesign one, you have your inputs of images+text+design rules->you get the device constraints(screen, proportions, etc...)-> you display the final result 'image'. And if you wanna present a very stylized and presentable result then a static creation like a PDF is still the best option, both in terms of the result and of the tools used to create it.
>>> **u/ToaKraka** [+1] *https://i.imgur.com/OQGHleQ.png* (7 hours later)
>>>
>>> > the work hits a snag around 70% authenticity
>>>
>>> But why do you need perfect "authenticity"? When I look at [that *GURPS Low-Tech* screenshot](http://i.imgur.com/gJKUacH.png), I'm *annoyed* at this "authentic" editing. Why are the margins humongous, when they could be narrow? Why are the borders huge and orange (with a Kira-damned *orange gradient* in the outbox!), when they could be narrow and black or gray? Why is the page in two columns, rather than in one--and, even worse, why does the outbox protrude from one column into the other? I don't want "authenticity"--I want a design that looks good and is easy to read.
>>>
>>> I didn't try to make [my HTML rendition](http://i.imgur.com/FGeKwUx.png) *match* [the original page](http://i.imgur.com/gJKUacH.png). Rather, I made it as starkly simple and beautiful as possible, with no random colors, no unnecessary columns, no randomly-protruding outboxes, and no unnecessary jumps from bold to italic to all-caps in the headings.
>>>
>>> > Putting a picture halfway in each column, creating a wrapped effect in a column, making changes halfway through the page, etc...
>>>
>>> But why would you *want* to do [these hideous things](http://i.imgur.com/Bq3F9Xl.png)??
>>>> **u/PeridexisErrant** [+6] *put aside fear for courage, and death for life* (a day later)
>>>>
>>>> In retrospect, I think the typography of my thesis was much improved by assuming that anything which was too hard to do in Latex was a bad idea.
>>>> **u/Drexer** [+2] (8 hours later)
>>>>
>>>> When I talked about authentic I was referring to the html format seeking to copy the original PDF. If you so hate the original PDF then the best way would be to start with a PDF that you like and see what it loses when trying to pass it through.
>>>>
>>>> In regards to the "why"s:
>>>>
>>>> Because they create page breaks, flow and points towards where the reader's attention is drawn instinctively. When I'm going through the core rulebook to check on a rule in the middle of a Pathfinder session I don't remember on which specific page the rule is, I know the approximate region and I quickly move through the pages; because every page is unique and visually distinctive from all the others in its layout and visual identity I don't need to read or scan words in every one of them, I only need to keep on going until my brain goes "stop, I remember that it was somewhere around this specific visual memory".
>>>>
>>>> Why two columns other than one? Same as with scientific articles, it helps with optimizing space while compacting all necessary info in a small area where your eyes are looking at.
>>>>
>>>> Also bold, italics, colors and those details are important for the same reasons as explained above, there's a reason why so many people invest in design for their product, and it's mainly related as to how good designs can help the user understand the content.
>>> **u/scruiser** [+1] *CYOA* (13 hours later)
>>>
>>> > Don't get me wrong, LaTeX is still the number one option to obtain the best alignment and visual aspect with the least effort, but once one goes pass the bare medium effort, the small design details that one might want to work with turn it into a nightmare.
>>>
>>> > All of those things are complicated to do in a project where the design process has to be left partially to the computer, but easy to do when the human controls where pretty much everything will end up in as in InDesign.
>>>
>>> Thank you for putting this into words. The other people in my lab all use latex and my PI insists on latex, and I can appreciate how it automatically formats everything... but it still annoys me for some reason and I think you have verbalized why.
>> **u/PL_TOC** [+1] (2 hours later)
>>
>> I'm ok with the singular they. The only thing I don't like about it is that it seems a little more impersonal than he or she.
>>> **u/alexanderwales** [+6] *Time flies like an arrow* (8 hours later)
>>>
>>> I use it all the time when I'm talking to people online, just because gender is almost always ambiguous with user handles. I prefer singular "they" to alternatives like "he/she", "s/he", "xir", etc. because it's the only one that doesn't draw attention to the issue of gender. Using "he/she" has always felt like it was saying to the reader "okay, I don't know gender here, so I'm going to be respectful and point out that it's ambiguous", which can detract from the message you're actually trying to communicate ("xir" and variants being the most aggressive about it). I've never felt like there was a similar component of signaling with singular "they", which is practically invisible for most readers.
>>>
>>> (There was a period of about a week when I tried to avoid using pronouns and/or tried to figure out gender from posting history or context clues, but it was too much work.)
>>> **u/gabbalis** [+2] (3 hours later)
>>>
>>> I'm OK with plural They. FOR WE ARE VAST AND MANY. WE CONTAIN MULTITUDES. WORSHIP OUR BEAUTY AND DESPAIR!
>>>
>>> Seriously though, got no real dog in that debate.
>>>> **u/OutOfNiceUsernames** [+3] *fear of last pages* (5 hours later)
>>>>
>>>> > FOR WE ARE VAST AND MANY. WE CONTAIN MULTITUDES.
>>>>
>>>> [*“We are each a nation.”*](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bZitlia-u-4#t=2m50s)
>>>>> **u/Drexer** [+3] (7 hours later)
>>>>>
>>>>> Thank you for making me cry again in remembrance of the first Mass Effect.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm still waiting for its sequel... :(
>>>> **u/None** [+1] (7 hours later)
>>>>
>>>> HERESY! **BLAM**
> **u/None** [+4] (3 hours later)
>
> Well, I'm done. That's it. Wake me in a few decades if people have decided to stop feeding each-other to the Lone Power nonstop. This shit's utterly fucked.
>> **u/PL_TOC** [+2] (4 hours later)
>>
>> What is the Lone Power?
>>> **u/None** [+2] (5 hours later)
>>>
>>> [This fucking guy.](http://www.youngwizards.com/ErrantryWiki/index.php/Lone_Power)
>>>> **u/PL_TOC** [+1] (5 hours later)
>>>>
>>>> Do you have any recommendations for novels featuring wizards that is not YA?
>>>>> **u/None** [+2] (5 hours later)
>>>>>
>>>>> The Cat Wizards books in that verse are a written-for-adults series. Starts with *The Book of Night with Moon*.
> **u/None** [+1] (a day later)
>
> How does anyone feel about reusing characters from one story to the next?
> **u/None** [+1] (6 hours later)
>
> [removed]
>> **u/None** [+10] (10 hours later)
>>
>> [removed]
>>> **u/None** [+1] (18 hours later)
>>>
>>> [removed]
---