scrape_r_rational/data/cache2/3jmkjq.md

## [D] Friday Off-Topic Thread

* Author: u/AutoModerator *
* URL: https://www.reddit.com/r/rational/comments/3jmkjq/d_friday_offtopic_thread/
* Score: 28

* Created: 2015-09-04T15:06:24

### 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/None** [+10]  (25 minutes later)
> 
> [deleted]

>> **u/iamtrulygod** [+9]  (3 hours later)
>> 
>> Having tried MealSquares and Soylent for Months and Weeks respectively, here are my thoughts:
>> 
>> * Soylent, for all its ease, still takes too much time and energy to make and clean up afterwards. It also goes bad in one or two days after you make it, so uneaten soylent is a problem, and I found myself not finishing a full bottle more often than not. Soylent is addressing these issues with a pre-made, disposable bottle version (which is slightly more expensive). 
>> * Related to the above point, I find that Soylent works better as a a small supplement to your daily food (15-20%) rather than a food replacement. It is also significantly better with some sort of sweetener. This combination makes it more like a milkshake you have once a day, rather than bland goop you have all day, or replacing all your food with milkshakes **shudder**.
>> * When I tried MealSquares, they were too dry, and neither savory, nor sweet enough. And, unlike with Soylent, I couldn't easily add more water or sweetener. They're palatable with some sort of sweet beverage, such as tea or soda, but I feel like they are also best used sparingly, like a replacement for a breakfast muffin, rather than replacing food entirely.

>>> **u/iamthelowercase** [+3]  (9 hours later)
>>> 
>>> Is there some reason you can't make less Soylent at a time?  I know practically nothing about it that isn't a result of following this thread, so maybe there's something I just don't know about, but that strikes me as a really obvious thing to account for.

>>>> **u/iamtrulygod** [+1]  (14 hours later)
>>>> 
>>>> You certainly can, it's just more effort for less food.
>>>> 
>>>> If you make a full bottle of Soylent, you pour in the whole bag of Soylent powder, pour in water, shake, pour in more water, shake, and you're done (you can also let it settle for a while, which helps mix it even more). This has the benefit of the Soylent being thoroughly mixed and in the proper ratio of powder to water (if you use the Soylent brand bottle, which you should). 
>>>> 
>>>> Making just a cup of Soylent requires you to have a measuring device, measure out two units of water for every unit of powder (this makes it slightly more thick than the full bottle version), then stir. Stir a _lot_. Then stir some more, because it's still going to be clumpy, unless you can use some sort of miniature whisk. Then, ideally, you'd let it diffuse for an hour or two, then stir it again, and it would be good, but if you're making the effort to make a glass right then, you probably want it right then. It's a little frustrating, and more work than a "convenient future food" feels like it should be.

>>>>> **u/iamthelowercase** [+0]  (10 days later)
>>>>> 
>>>>> I've just decided that this sounds like a Soylent-the-company-side problem -- specifically, that it should also be sold in smaller units -- more than anything else.  Maybe not so far as single-serving size, but smaller than what they have now.

>>> **u/None** [+1]  (5 days later)
>>> 
>>> [deleted]

>>>> **u/iamtrulygod** [+1]  (5 days later)
>>>> 
>>>> You're welcome, and good luck! Someday, we'll solve this food thing.

>> **u/None** [+4]  (3 hours later)
>> 
>> I tried a DIY soylent once. It wasn't inedible, but neither was it pleasant. Far better than starving, but that's about it.
>> 
>> My roommate tried MealSquares. He managed to nibble on one piece a little.

>> **u/blazinghand** [+2]  *Chaos Undivided* (7 hours later)
>> 
>> MealSquares are fine, but very chalky and bland. Imagine a boring breakfast muffin that someone tried to make with the consistency of a scone but accidentally used wood dust instead of butter. Because they're aggressively boring, they're not actually BAD, just supremely not-pleasing to eat. 
>> 
>> Very dense, but otherwise would make an acceptable breakfast food to eat with a cup of coffee or something. I couldn't imagine eating these more than once per day. As it is, I only eat them rarely.

>> **u/FuguofAnotherWorld** [+2]  *Roll the Dice on Fate* (9 hours later)
>> 
>> I got an order of Joylent, which is the danish equivalent. It was pretty good. Then me and a friend made a home made version which we called Super Drink. It was also pretty good. Not amazing, not terrible. Cheap though, because it is primarily oats and protein powder. After a while you can develop a taste/craving for them, which I assume is my body craving whichever vitamins/minerals I'm missing which it provides. 
>> 
>> I tend to drink them late at night, at times when I can't be bothered to cook or when I'm in a rush and going to the climbing gym. I have always had a hard time gaining weight and I credit a decent amount of my recent 4-5 kg increase to being able to drink soylent late at night when I would otherwise not bother eating.
>> 
>> As a dedicated cook who enjoys trying new things it would never replace everything or even most things, but it is certainly a good alternative for when I can't be fucked to cook and would just eat freezer pizza normally.

>> **u/xamueljones** [+1]  *My arch-enemy is entropy* (an hour later)
>> 
>> I don't have any actual experience with Soylent, but here's an [honest review](http://www.goblinscomic.org/soylent-my-thoughts-and-experiences/) on Soylent by the author of Goblins, Tarol Hunt.

>>> **u/TimTravel** [+1]  (an hour later)
>>> 
>>> I have similar feelings toward food but I'm still a bit on the fence about trying it. You have to buy in bulk and I have an excessively strong sense of taste so it'd be a waste if I dislike it.

>> **u/None** [+1]  (21 hours later)
>> 
>> I've replaced my lunch with Joylent. I had to stop it for a month or two because I couldn't afford the upfront cost, but I must say I'm missing it. It makes lunch a lot easier and faster. The main problem is that I often forget to make it the evening before, but my girlfriend helps me remember.
>> 
>> The taste is actually pretty decent, at least the vanilla. I miss it now that I don't have it.
>> 
>> I wouldn't go 100% on the stuff, as I enjoy eating occasionally, but I wouldn't mind replacing a couple more meals with it.

>> **u/None** [-1]  (8 hours later)
>> 
>> [That is not food.  That is *sickness*.](http://41.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m4wrkddZXi1qzh89mo1_1280.jpg)

> **u/None** [+10]  (7 hours later)
> 
> I'm reading a novel called _Wired_ (by Douglas Richards), and it's...horrible.
> 
> The antagonist is a woman. Every time she's introduced to a character, they have to comment (in dialogue or in narration) on her appearance in relationship to their willingness to have sex with her. This is pretty annoying.
> 
> The thing that's unusual about this book is, there's working intelligence augmentation. Absurd levels of it, in fact, far beyond what should be possible, plus the effect is temporary. (The author didn't do the research for pretty much any topic the book talks about.) But, as is explained in a four-page author rant, this intelligence augmentation is inextricably linked to increased selfishness, decreased concern about others, and an uncaring attitude toward social consequences. That author filibuster was overly cynical and had a lot of prose that smacks of the sort of person who hangs about in /r/atheism: people got smarter and more independent over time, so religion came in to stop us from killing each other, diminishing our effective intelligence.
> 
> Anyway. The antagonist can control herself well enough not to go on murder sprees as long as she stays in a sensory deprivation chamber while under the drug's effects, and that's with iteration #78, where the previous iterations are weaker in both psychological effects and intelligence augmentation. There is an obvious solution to the problem. Use the maximum safe level of augmentation to find another drug that will compensate for the lack of goodwill toward your fellow humans. Set up situations where you will be rewarded for helping others. Engender in yourself a sense of ownership toward the world so it's a point of pride to eradicate malaria, clean up the oceanic garbage patches, and ensure that everyone has clean drinking water. Ask yourself: [what would Orange Lantern do?](https://forums.spacebattles.com/threads/with-this-ring-young-justice-si-story-only.272850/)
> 
> Everything else in the story is wrong and annoyingly so, but this...it's just such a huge miss that I can't stand it, and the author seems heavily invested in the insuperability of the problem.

>> **u/Toptomcat** [+2]  (a day later)
>> 
>> >Use the maximum safe level of augmentation to find another drug that will compensate for the lack of goodwill toward your fellow humans. 
>> 
>> Incidentally, [this is a known class of psychoactive drugs.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empathogen-entactogen)

>> **u/rubix314159265** [+1]  (16 days later)
>> 
>> So, after reading this comment I went and read the orange lantern story. I enjoyed it enormously, and came back to this comment in the hopes of getting a similar recommendation from the author, but he has deleted his name. Oh mystery author, if you see this, please message me.

> **u/Sagebrysh** [+6]  *Rank 7 Pragmatist* (4 hours later)
> 
> I've posted the [second chapter](http://talesfromaeria.tumblr.com/post/128269703332/wanderlust) to Wanderlust, a hard science fiction story about life aboard a colony ship in deep space. I could probably use some help to make sure all my maths work out and it comes off as sufficiently plausible.

> **u/Drexer** [+5]  (an hour later)
> 
> So, because I spent the month of August living by myself, I've actually spent the last few days worrying about
> 
> >  The cost of living in Portugal? 
> 
> Now that I have a sort of planned end date for my Master's (assuming nothing goes wrong with my thesis), and by extension this allows me to plan a future date for financial and living independence from family members, I'm even more fearful about the next year's evolution of the local prices.
> 
> Specially because with the upcoming elections I'm seeing every political party in opposition to the current far-right, austerity measures being woefully incompetent, with the only hope of mine for a more rational opposition being personified by a 29-year old woman which seemingly up until now is the only rational and positive agent in a political system which thrives on meaningless catchphrases and outside support instead of proper results. Of course if she won we might suffer the same thing that happened to Syriza+Greece, and that is not an enjoyable perspective for the future.
> 
> On the other hand, I'm thinking about perhaps writing a small fanfic of the [Home](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Home_%282015_animated_film%29) movie which at the same time plays it straight with the silly aliens and cars made which work on juice, but with a legitimate alien intelligence as the "occupiers".

> **u/Chronophilia** [+5]  *sci-fi ≠ futurology* (10 hours later)
> 
> I've just finished reading *Jam* by Ben "Yahtzee" Croshaw. (The author also does a series of web videos called *Zero Punctuation*, you may have heard of him from there.)
> 
> It's a black comedy about a jam apocalypse, which is superficially similar to a zombie apocalypse except with man-eating jam instead of zombies. The joke is that nobody is prepared for the apocalypse and what groups of survivors remain are making it up as they go along. This includes the genre-savvy everyman who has always dreamed of being a world hero, the survivalists, the pragmatists, the hipsters, the organisation that works on existential risk, and a variety of groups who think they're the sole remaining bastion of civilisation. The characters are definitely not rational - 99% of everyone they know is dead, and the remainder is quite understandably going mad if they weren't already.
> 
> I think it's quite a funny deconstruction of rational fiction.

> **u/ToaKraka** [+6]  *https://i.imgur.com/OQGHleQ.png* (3 hours later)
> 
> Why does the post have so few upvotes? By my count, a dozen people have commented, but only four of them have given upvotes to AutoModerator's post. Is there some reason for which you're so stingy with your upvotes?
> 
> (I'm reasonably sure that the "vote-fuzzing" kicks in only at much higher numbers.)

>> **u/alexanderwales** [+15]  *Time flies like an arrow* (3 hours later)
>> 
>> People don't vote. This is endemic to reddit. The reason for it is that voting takes both effort and attention, which people have been trained not to spare. We have ~3,500 readers on this subreddit and the most upvoted thing of all time has ~160 upvotes.
>> 
>> So it's not necessarily that people are stingy with their upvotes, it's that they just don't think about voting too much. Part of this is that voting up or down has very little personal utility. It's something you're doing for other people, not for yourself. This is especially true for AutoModerator, since the upvotes don't do her any good, so it's not like you're giving a reward, which is how some people think of it.
>> 
>> And yes, vote fuzzing doesn't kick in until much later. Soft-capping is the other factor, and that doesn't kick in until the mid thousands.

>>> **u/davidmanheim** [+1]  (8 hours later)
>>> 
>>> I suspect there is also a lag effect from votes not getting counted in real time.

>>>> **u/Chronophilia** [+2]  *sci-fi ≠ futurology* (10 hours later)
>>>> 
>>>> What do you mean, votes aren't counted in real time?

>>>>> **u/davidmanheim** [+1]  (10 hours later)
>>>>> 
>>>>> I strongly suspect that the nosql database they use is slow to update totals,  especially when under heavy load.

>> **u/blazinghand** [+4]  *Chaos Undivided* (7 hours later)
>> 
>> Most people do not vote, even commenters. I upvote everything I see in r/rational that I like in order to encourage people, but there's no reason to really upvote automoderator posts since it's not like our frontpage is busy enough that it'll fall off quickly.

>> **u/Empiricist_or_not** [+2]  *Aspiring polite Hegemonizing swarm* (7 hours later)
>> 
>> Thank you for the reminder.  I was still in last week's thread up to yesterday or Wednesday, and it's worth my vote.

>> **u/Chronophilia** [+2]  *sci-fi ≠ futurology* (10 hours later)
>> 
>> No point in upvoting automoderator posts. This subreddit moves slowly enough that any new post will end up in the top 5, and it's likely that most regular readers will see every post no matter how few upvotes it has, so the normal function of upvotes as "bringing good content to the front page" doesn't work.
>> 
>> I upvote posts to make their author feel rewarded.

>> **u/IomKg** [+2]  (2 days later)
>> 
>> I've mostly been treating reddit as a big forum so maybe i am missing something because of it, but is there any particular point to upvoting other than increasing the visibility in situations where lots of content exist?
>> 
>> If so why would it be needed to upvote these posts particularly seeing as the number of posts in general, and votes for those posts in particular is so low?
>> 
>> Also this is an offtopic thread, nothing to bad, but not something particularly valuable(i.e. you will want people looking at the top topics in a few months\years to find it).

>>> **u/ToaKraka** [+2]  *https://i.imgur.com/OQGHleQ.png* (2 days later)
>>> 
>>> > Is there any particular point to upvoting other than increasing the visibility in situations where lots of content exist?
>>> 
>>> No, that's really the only function of upvotes ("karma"). However, if a person's personal Reddit front page is filled with a zillion different submissions (most of them from subreddits other than this one), a post from this subreddit may need some extra upvotes to appear on that person's personal Reddit front page--especially if he hasn't activated the "Don't show me links that I've upvoted/downvoted" option.

>>>> **u/IomKg** [+2]  (2 days later)
>>>> 
>>>> Hmm wasn't aware of that usecase, so it is interesting.
>>>> But isn't that usage pattern broken in any case? i mean it is inevitable that some subreddits would have significantly more upvotes than the others, and that wont have any relation to how much that person is interested in their content relatively ?

>>>>> **u/ToaKraka** [+1]  *https://i.imgur.com/OQGHleQ.png* (2 days later)
>>>>> 
>>>>> > Hmm wasn't aware of that usecase
>>>>> 
>>>>> I'm not sure how you could be unaware of it. By "personal Reddit front page", I mean "the page that you see when you go to [Reddit](http://www.reddit.com) while signed in to your Reddit account".
>>>>> 
>>>>> In any event, I don't claim to know exactly how a Reddit user's personal front page works. I do, however, think that it adjusts for the size of each subreddit--in my own front page, for example, I sometimes see posts with *zero* upvotes from small subreddits such as r/NarutoFanfiction or r/GamesNews--so I guess the number of upvotes given to a post in a small subreddit doesn't matter *quite* as much.

>>>>>> **u/IomKg** [+2]  (2 days later)
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> >I'm not sure how you could be unaware of it. By "personal Reddit front page", I mean "the page that you see when you go to Reddit while signed in to your Reddit account".
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Well, as i said i use reddit as a bunch of seperate forums which just happen to share a notifications\msgs inbox.
>>>>>> i.e. when i visit reddit I go to a specific subreddit, mostly /r/rational to be honest, and look around.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> >In any event, I don't claim to know exactly how a Reddit user's personal front page works. I do, however, think that it adjusts for the size of each subreddit--in my own front page, for example, I sometimes see posts with zero upvotes from small subreddits such as r/NarutoFanfiction or r/GamesNews--so I guess the number of upvotes given to a post in a small subreddit doesn't matter quite as much.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> from your description it sounds like it probably doesnt matter so much what is the absolute number of upvotes so much as the relative number or somesuch algo.
>>>>>> in any case having more votes will probably get adjusted after a while so no point to particularly try and upvote more as it just means that at the worse case when you stop the visibility will go down for a while..

>>>>>>> **u/alexanderwales** [+2]  *Time flies like an arrow* (2 days later)
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> It's related to upvotes/subscriber base, but it is *not* adjusted for more active users within those subs. This is one of the reasons that /r/sweden routinely makes the top of /r/all. So yes, upvoting things *does* make them more likely to be seen, even if you do it consistently, because there's no algorithmic correction involved. (For more, see /r/TheoryOfReddit.)

>>>>>>>> **u/IomKg** [+1]  (2 days later)
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Hmm interesting, so upvoting withou subscribing is more significant?

>>>>>>>>> **u/alexanderwales** [+1]  *Time flies like an arrow* (2 days later)
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Technically, yes.

> **u/Reasonableviking** [+3]  (2 hours later)
> 
> Any thought's on how I could extract useful energy from the equivalent of a small wood fire that burns constantly using 16th Century technology, and D&D magic?

>> **u/None** [+7]  (3 hours later)
>> 
>> A boiler and a turbine, perhaps. The first practical steam engine was patented in 1606. Problem is, it won't produce much energy.

>> **u/alexanderwales** [+7]  *Time flies like an arrow* (3 hours later)
>> 
>> Make an [aeolipile](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aeolipile)! Efficiency is going to be a problem, and you'll have to find a way to keep it topped off with the water that you're losing due to steam (because I think a condenser is probably one of those things that's beyond the tech level). I almost suggested using a decanter of endless water to fill up the tank, but if you've got one of those then you have easier ways of getting energy.
>> 
>> I have no idea how much torque you could get out of such a device, but that's my opening offer for someone else to beat.

>>> **u/Reasonableviking** [+1]  (5 hours later)
>>> 
>>> I could probably make a decanter of endless water (character has the item creation feat for it) however I suspect that even at full output the energy produced would be a lot more expensive than flaming skeletons from Animate Dead. In pathfinder a [Decanter of Endless Water](http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic-items/wondrous-items/wondrous-items/c-d/decanter-of-endless-water) can output at most 5 gallons per second in a stream, the decanter would cost me slightly more than 4500gp to build.
>>> 
>>> Wikipedia tells me that the power from an overshot wheel can be calculated thus:
>>> 
>>> Power in Watts = 4 × Q × H × C (x V?)
>>> 
>>>     Q = Weight of water (volume per sec x capacity of the buckets)
>>>     V = Velocity of the stream in meters per second
>>>     H = Head, or height difference of water between the lip of the flume (head race) and the tailrace
>>>     C = Efficiency Constant 
>>> 
>>> Q = 19Kg (5 gallons is about 19 litres)
>>> V = 6 m/s (the stream is described as being 20 feet long)
>>> H = 4 m (lets make the thing pretty big, but not massive)
>>> C = 1 (I'm just gonna assume 1 here since wikipedia tells me that's alright)
>>> 
>>> P = 456W or 1824W depending on the formula.
>>> or P = 2008W for an undershot wheel assuming square foot paddles and 6m/s stream

>>>> **u/Reasonableviking** [+2]  (6 hours later)
>>>> 
>>>> Now the skeleton power, this is a little more complex. Burning Skeletons do 1d6 points of fire damage to all adjacent creatures each round, comparing to the table for extreme heat conditions in 3.5's Sandstorm book that suggests the temperature in those squares to be about 90°C.
>>>> 
>>>> The amount of energy required to take air from room temperature to 90°C is Q.
>>>> Q = mCΔT
>>>> 
>>>> m = (volume of 8+9+9 5' cubes which surround a medium creature in m^3 is 92) 92x1.0755 (density of air between 20 and 100 degrees Celsius) = 99kg
>>>> 
>>>> C = 1 or thereabouts
>>>> 
>>>> ΔT = 70
>>>> 
>>>> Q = 70x99x1 = 6930J
>>>> 
>>>> please correct me if I have done something stupid but considering this only costs about 25gp I think the flaming skeletons beat out the decanter.

>>>>> **u/Marthinwurer** [+1]  (2 days later)
>>>>> 
>>>>> Here's a link that discusses the amount of energy produced by a wall of fire. http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?134910-Ideas-for-using-Magic-as-Technology

>>>> **u/FuguofAnotherWorld** [+2]  *Roll the Dice on Fate* (9 hours later)
>>>> 
>>>> Ah, water power equations. Haven't used those in a while. Fun fact, you can make H=to whatever you damn well please, which makes V shoot up as well. Normally people didn't do this in the past because there was only a small difference in height in most streams, but you can just stick the decanter on top of a building/mountain/necromancer tower you cleared and attach a pipe to it. That gives you a head of 20-300m depending on local architecture and availability of cliffs.
>>>> 
>>>> Funny story, let the pipe fill all the way to the top the stick a nozzle on the bottom and you can get some impressive speed and power going. That's basically how hydroelectric damns work. The problem is using the energy when you don't have the tech to make or use electricity. I mean, it's just a magnet spinning fast in a coil of wire but you'd have to explain how your character knows that.

>>> **u/TimTravel** [+1]  (7 hours later)
>>> 
>>> If you have a decanter of endless water can't you just set up a water wheel?

>>>> **u/Transfuturist** [+1]  *Carthago delenda est.* (8 hours later)
>>>> 
>>>> > if you've got one of those then you have easier ways of getting energy

>> **u/Toptomcat** [+2]  (a day later)
>> 
>> > Any thought's on how I could extract useful energy from the equivalent of a small wood fire...
>> 
>> Use it to cook.
>> 
>> >using...D&D magic?
>> 
>> If you have access to D&D magic you don't need anything else to break your average campaign setting clean in half. Google 'Tippyverse'.

>> **u/Marthinwurer** [+1]  (2 days later)
>> 
>> The real answer is that that's not the way to optimize the D&D world. [Here's an answer that's from a dedicated D&D forum.](http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?242955-Building-a-Magitechnocratic-Society-Tippyverse-in-under-six-levels!)

> **u/TimTravel** [+4]  (8 minutes later)
> 
> Not quite off-topic, but any recommendations for books with interesting magic systems? Especially with interesting non-obvious emergent stuff.
> 
> The Mistborn trilogy is pretty good.

>> **u/alexanderwales** [+10]  *Time flies like an arrow* (22 minutes later)
>> 
>> Brandon Sanderson's stuff in general is good; he knows his magic systems.
>> 
>> *The Merchant Princes* series by Charles Stross has a pretty dead-simple magic system, but the emergent social/economic stuff might be up your alley (this series often gets mixed reviews; if at all possible, get the reissue that shrinks it from six short books into three fat ones).
>> 
>> *The Powder Mage* trilogy by Brian McClellan also has interesting magic systems, though one of the primary ones is of the "ineffable workings" variety (though it still works). McClellan was a student of Sanderson's and the influence is pretty obvious.

>> **u/iamthelowercase** [+5]  (2 hours later)
>> 
>> So this is a random interesting thing I'm just going to tag along on...
>> 
>> I've got the outlines of a setting bouncing around in the back of my head.  High-fantasy space-faring, originally whipped up to be an RPG setting.  One of the things it's got is an elemental magic system.
>> 
>> Now when you've go got an elemental magic system you've got to have them interact with each outer.  One thing I feel like I see a lot is the "Pokémon maneuver" - when your electric user and your water user blast the same thing at the same time, breaking down water into component matter, and then a fire user chips in and gets a much bigger fireball than normal for that much power expenditure.  I specifically don't want that in this setting (it's got interplanetary islands and magic and no humans, after all), but then I'm not sure what to do.
>> 
>> I like the setting, and I would be down with fiction being written/writing fiction in it, so I thought about making a main post here.  But I'm not sure if anything I wrote would be "rational"/"rationalist".
>> 
>> So if anyone's got ideas or thinks they can help probe, that'd be awesome.  Or I can also share more of asked.

>>> **u/alexanderwales** [+3]  *Time flies like an arrow* (2 hours later)
>>> 
>>> There are a lot of ways to do elemental magic. The rock/paper/scissors approach is pretty standard, but there's nothing that says you have to go with that. What you have to ask is what you want out of the magic system; how do you want people to use it and how do you want it to impact the world. Personally, I start with some basics and then work my way forward, so that if there *is* a cool maneuver that you can do with some combination of things, it comes more naturally as a result of what you've established about how these things work.
>>> 
>>> I would personally suggest posting to /r/magicbuilding instead of /r/rational, since they're experts in the subject of magic systems. /r/rational most often tends to try to break things that are presented to them.

>>>> **u/Empiricist_or_not** [+1]  *Aspiring polite Hegemonizing swarm* (8 hours later)
>>>> 
>>>> To reiterate my earlier comment read B Sanderson's post on his [laws of magic systems](http://brandonsanderson.com/sandersons-first-law/).  His discussion might help you realize what type of magic you *want* or what you don't want, and from their it's just binary search of your own ideal space.

>>> **u/TimTravel** [+3]  (2 hours later)
>>> 
>>> The most important part of a magic system is what it can and can't do. Remember: good restrictions make things interesting. The theme is "just" flavor. Flavor is important too of course, in an aesthetic sense, but it doesn't really affect functionality.

>> **u/Empiricist_or_not** [+3]  *Aspiring polite Hegemonizing swarm* (7 hours later)
>> 
>> Have you read Sanderson's stormlight archives, or The Name of the wind?

>>> **u/TimTravel** [+1]  (7 hours later)
>>> 
>>> I have not.

>>>> **u/Empiricist_or_not** [+6]  *Aspiring polite Hegemonizing swarm* (7 hours later)
>>>> 
>>>> I recommend Sanderson's work specifically The Stormlight Archives (warning 2/3 books released) and Warbreaker and Elantris.  If you google Sanderson's comments on the importance of limiting or outlining the magic system you'll see why.
>>>> 
>>>> Rothfus'es Kingkiller chronicles are probably the most rational, rationalist fantasy novel I've read.  It trumps Mistborn by a lot, though fair warning (also warning 2/3 published) if you don't want to read them twice+ [something you'll eventually figure out about the narrator](#s "There Narrator is Deceitful")

>>>>> **u/ulyssessword** [+3]  (7 hours later)
>>>>> 
>>>>> > specifically The Stormlight Archives (warning 2/3 books released)
>>>>> 
>>>>> Actually 2/10 books.

>>>>>> **u/Empiricist_or_not** [+1]  *Aspiring polite Hegemonizing swarm* (8 hours later)
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Thank you for fixing improving my expectations: He's being stingy with how the systems work in this series.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> As an aside do you think he'll end up at 12+ books and anoint his own heir the Way R. Jordan did to him?

>>>>>>> **u/PeridexisErrant** [+2]  *put aside fear for courage, and death for life* (12 hours later)
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Nah, Sanderson has a history of delivering at a frankly ridiculously rate.  Unless he gets hit by a bus, I think the series is pretty safe.

>>>>>>>> **u/iamtrulygod** [+1]  (14 hours later)
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> He may end up with 12+ books though, like how the Mistborn series grew from 9 to 12.

>>>>>>>>> **u/alexanderwales** [+3]  *Time flies like an arrow* (15 hours later)
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> I think he's going to stick with 10 - it's a very important number to the series, given that there were ten orders of the Knights Radiant. Adding on more books means breaking a fair amount of the symmetry/symbolism.

>>>>>>>>>> **u/iamtrulygod** [+1]  (15 hours later)
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> I do think he'll stick with twin pentalogies, but he may write a duology or trilogy set in the same universe in addition. Probably between the first pentalogy and the second, though they probably won't be doorstoppers.

>>>>>>>>> **u/ulyssessword** [+1]  (a day later)
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> I don't know how I would count the extra Mistborn books in this context.  He still has the same plan for the three Mistborn Trilogies (original, medium future, further future), and "accidentally" wrote 2/3 of the Wax and Wayne books while working on other stuff.  He only had a plan for writing the second book.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Also, I think Mistborn is up to 13 now.  3 originals (Final Empire, Well of Ascension, Hero of Ages), + 4 Wax and Wayne (Alloy of Law, Shadows of Self, Bands of Mourning, The Last Metal), + 3 1940's/1980's trilogy, + 3 space trilogy.

>>>>>>>>>> **u/iamtrulygod** [+1]  (a day later)
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Fair enough. :)

>>>>>> **u/Nevereatcars** [+1]  *The Greatest Is Behind* (14 hours later)
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I laughed a little at his mistake, before I started crying.

>>>>>>> **u/Empiricist_or_not** [+1]  *Aspiring polite Hegemonizing swarm* (21 hours later)
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Thats kind of how I felt when I think of how often I check Amazon for Hollowed Stones

>> **u/ToaKraka** [+2]  *https://i.imgur.com/OQGHleQ.png* (11 minutes later)
>> 
>> The *Runelords* series ([Reddit](http://np.reddit.com/r/rational/comments/2ket47/rthfrunelords/), [Goodreads](https://www.goodreads.com/series/41322-the-runelords), [TV Tropes](http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Literature/TheRunelords)) is pretty cool.

> **u/PL_TOC** [+5]  (22 minutes later)
> 
> Fear the Walking Dead. I understand that they have no concept of zombies in their universe, fine. I understand that it's more of a soap opera than a survival guide, that's also fine. Why can't we get the perspective of a person who is more competent? Not a doomsday prepper, but say, someone that perhaps witnesses an attack, doesn't immediately launch into head-in-the-sand mode, and is like "holy shit, that just happened, this PLAGUE spells doom, I have no contingencies for a situation like this, I need to get moving RIGHT NOW" 
> 
> That would be greeeeeaaaaaattttttt.

>> **u/TimTravel** [+9]  (27 minutes later)
>> 
>> I have two main problems with zombies as they normally are presented in fiction.
>> 
>> 1. Zombies don't run farms. Given their hyperviolence they're going to starve to death in two weeks, max. A zombie virus could certainly end civilization in a few connected continents, but humanity will survive unless someone is intentionally infecting people on every major continent or the virus has a long gestation period.
>> 
>> 2. Zombies are predisposed to violence so they're going to be twice as likely to fight each other as uninfected humans. This is the point they never bother explaining and I have a hard time suspending disbelief on this.

>>> **u/PL_TOC** [+3]  (46 minutes later)
>>> 
>>> David Moody kind of bypasses #2 in his Hater trilogy. The 'haters' aren't undead, but are hyperviolent and recognize other haters by sight/vibe. Entertaining read, though I didn't like the main character and I felt some story potential was wasted.

>>> **u/Uncaffeinated** [+3]  (3 hours later)
>>> 
>>> I thought that normal fiction zombies don't need to eat and don't fight each other?
>>> 
>>> I suppose it depends on the particular type. "Virus" zombies are more problematic than explicitly fantastical undead.

>>>> **u/TimTravel** [+5]  (3 hours later)
>>>> 
>>>> I'm only talking about virus zombies. Undead zombies are typically not contagious and really have nothing to do with virus zombies.

> **u/Cariyaga** [+2]  *Kyubey did nothing wrong* (a day later)
> 
> Has anyone considered Rational Homestuck? I've always harboured a certain fascination for the setting, particularly Sburb, and wonder if a rationalist take on it might work out...

>> **u/Toptomcat** [+1]  (a day later)
>> 
>> An interesting thought. The story has some themes involving predestination and narrative causality that are a *cast-iron bitch* to tackle from a rationalist perspective, though.
>> 
>> The Replay Value AU centered around the [SBURB Glitch FAQ](http://archiveofourown.org/works/340777/chapters/551606) attempts to *systematize*, if not rationalize, the setting: it may be a worthwhile starting point.

>>> **u/Cariyaga** [+1]  *Kyubey did nothing wrong* (a day later)
>>> 
>>> Yeah, it would. But at the same time as it would be difficult to tackle, I feel those same themes would make it an exceptionally interesting story to read...
>>> 
>>> And yeah, I've read the Sburb Glitch FAQ.

> **u/None** [+2]  (2 days later)
> 
> I've been reading a bit about US history with the Sioux Nation.
> 
> The US government signed a treaty with the Sioux Nation (the Treaty at Fort Laramie of 1851) establishing that the Black Hills were theirs and paying $50,000 per year for 50 years for limited land use rights. The US violated this treaty, ceasing payments after ten years. Several years after the US broke their treaty, the Sioux opened hostilities (because the US was still using their land, which had no legal basis any longer thanks to non-payment).
> 
> This second treaty (the Treaty at Fort Laramie of 1868) guaranteed certain lands to the Sioux Nation, and additionally specified that the US government would ensure that the relevant groups would have at least 160 acres of farmland per person. Additionally, they were allowed to hunt outside their sovereign territory. We should have stuck with the original treaty, but if we couldn’t do that, this was at least halfway decent.
> 
> But then the US discovered gold in the Black Hills and forced the people living there to move, using the military. Thus they violated their second treaty. This didn’t break into open warfare for several years, though, when the US military attacked in Montana, which had been promised to First Nations people for their exclusive use.
> 
> Unfortunately, might makes right, or if not right, then at least a large measure of control over what happens. The Sioux were dependent on imported food, so the US threatened to cut off supplies until they agreed to a new treaty. Since the land had already been surveyed and prospected, this new treaty was able to restrict them to unprofitable lands. The treaty claims that the ceded territories were purchased, but there’s no record of a proper, legal exchange. The US Supreme Court has ruled that the treaty was illegal, and the US has paid for the land, but the Sioux are attempting to refuse the transaction. If successful (a prospect that has approximately a whelk’s chance in a supernova), several hundred thousand white people would be faced with a choice of moving or living under a Sioux government, and the Sioux would have to choose whether to grant them citizenship. I would like to see this, mostly because it’s largely the right thing to do and partly because I like seeing more nations on the map. (Still waiting for Styria to declare independence. Or at least Cornwall.)
> 
> The original treaty covered about 40% of South Dakota.

> **u/CuriousBlueAbra** [+1]  (14 hours later)
> 
> Does anyone know any good Star Trek rational stories? It seems like a good universe to get reasonable in.

>> **u/TaoGaming** [+2]  *No Flair Detected!* (14 hours later)
>> 
>> I don't know, way too many of Trek stories are "Crew encounters a god-like entity that has no rules." I've been slowly watching all of TOS and they do that way too often. I mean, if you give them warp drives it's still just an ungrounded series. DS9 did "grounded" the best, if you just grant them their assumptions.
>> 
>> But for all I know the books (etc) are all well done.

>>> **u/CuriousBlueAbra** [+3]  (15 hours later)
>>> 
>>> I was thinking more along the lines of exploiting the logical implications of shields, antimatter weaponry, replicators, transporter, holodecks, nanobots, etc. etc. 
>>> 
>>> Seven of Nine, Spock, Data, T'pol all would serve as great in-universe POV characters without even changing their personalities.

>>>> **u/TaoGaming** [+2]  *No Flair Detected!* (a day later)
>>>> 
>>>> Oh, It can certainly can be done, and some ST stories really do try, but it's not one that seemed like the writers cared about doing it. (At least, the actual writers. For all I know FF writers have done a great job).

> **u/rochea** [+1]  (22 hours later)
> 
> Are there any books that explore the consequences of widespread prediction markets?
> 
> Scott Alexander touched on them a little in the description of his conworld [Raikoth](http://slatestarcodex.com/2013/05/08/raikoth-corruption-priesthood/), but I'd love to read something some near-term speculative fiction set in a society that implemented e.g. Robin Hanson's [Futarchy](https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Futarchy).
> 
> Seen anything like that?

> **u/Toptomcat** [+1]  (a day later)
> 
> I have recently enjoyed some stories from Charles Stross' Laundry series, which puts Lovecraft, bureaucracy, spies, and information technology in a blender. Not rationalist or really rational, but still smart and fun. Start with 'Down on the Farm', available for free [here](http://www.tor.com/2008/07/20/down-on-the-farm/).

> **u/TimTravel** [+1]  (an hour later)
> 
> I love stories / TV / etc that are so bad that they're good, like Full-Life Consequences. Is there such thing as a game that's so bad it's good? I can't think of any.
> 
> Maybe Goat Simulator? Never played it but it seems like that sort of thing.

>> **u/alexanderwales** [+5]  *Time flies like an arrow* (an hour later)
>> 
>> I almost think that [I Wanna Be The Guy](http://kayin.moe/iwbtg/) fits. It farts in the face of conventional game design philosophy, the graphics are terrible, the story (to the extent there is one) is incoherent, the only way to tell what's going to happen in most levels is rote memorization, it's tough as balls ... yet people still like it and feel compelled to play it. ([playthrough here](https://youtu.be/EzxJgWbm_3I?t=145))

>> **u/traverseda** [+3]  *With dread but cautious optimism* (2 hours later)
>> 
>> I presume you've perused the tvtropes page for the aforementioned category?
>> 
>> http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SoBadItsGood
>> 
>> http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/SoBadItsGood/VideoGames

>>> **u/TimTravel** [+4]  (2 hours later)
>>> 
>>> I have not, mostly on the basis that there are so many listed.

>>>> **u/traverseda** [+5]  *With dread but cautious optimism* (2 hours later)
>>>> 
>>>> Yeah, and most of them are so bad they're just kind of bad.
>>>> 
>>>> Goat simulator tries to be this, but it does it passably, which means that it's good at pretending to be so bad it's good. It went over the top pretty quick, with lighting throwing goats and what have you.
>>>> 
>>>> Apparently they were inspired by street cleaner simulator, which was legitimately trying to simulate street cleaning.

>> **u/LiteralHeadCannon** [+2]  (10 hours later)
>> 
>> Big Rigs.  I think you want Big Rigs.
>> 
>> Infinite backwards speed!

---