scrape_r_rational/data/cache2/7sqylx.md

## [Biweekly Challenge] Pioneer

* Author: u/alexanderwales  *Time flies like an arrow**
* URL: https://www.reddit.com/r/rational/comments/7sqylx/biweekly_challenge_pioneer/
* Score: 12

* Created: 2018-01-24T22:20:52

### Post:

## Last Time

[Last time](https://www.reddit.com/r/rational/comments/7og8ik/biweekly_challenge_forbidden_research/), the prompt was "Forbidden Research". Our winner is /u/vi_fi, with their story, ["Forbidden Theology"](https://www.reddit.com/r/rational/comments/7og8ik/biweekly_challenge_forbidden_research/ds9ogz9/). Congratulations to /u/vi_fi for their sixth win!

##### This Time

This time, the challenge theme will be **Pioneer**. Write a story about someone (or a group of people) who are the first at something, whether test subjects, explorers, or thinkers. This is an extremely common trope in fiction, as well as the subset of rational fiction, largely because being a pioneer tends to be more interesting than following in the footsteps of a pioneer. Remember that prompts are to inspire, not to limit.

The winner will be decided **Wednesday, February 7th.** You have until then to post your reply and start accumulating upvotes. It is strongly suggested that you get your entry in as quickly as possible once this thread goes up; this is part of the reason that prompts are given in advance. Like reading? It's suggested that you come back to the thread after a few days have passed to see what's popped up. The reddit "save" button is handy for this.

##### Rules

* 300 word minimum, no maximum. Post as a link to Google Docs, pastebin, Dropbox, etc. **This is mandatory.**

* No plagiarism, but you're welcome to recycle and revamp your own ideas you've used in the past.

* Think before you downvote.

* Winner will be determined by "best" sorting.

* Winner gets reddit gold, special winner flair, and bragging rights. Five-time winners get even more special winner flair, and their choice of prompt if they want it.

* All top-level replies to this thread should be submissions. Non-submissions (including questions, comments, etc.) belong in the companion thread, and will be aggressively removed from here.

* Top-level replies must be a link to Google Docs, a PDF, your personal website, etc. It is suggested that you include a word count and a title when you're linking to somewhere else.

* In the interest of keeping the playing field level, please refrain from cross-posting to other places until after the winner has been decided.

* No idea what rational fiction is? [Read the wiki!](http://www.reddit.com/r/rational/wiki/index)

##### Meta

If you think you have a good prompt for a challenge, [add it to the list](https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1B6HaZc8FYkr6l6Q4cwBc9_-Yq1g0f_HmdHK5L1tbEbA/edit?usp=sharing) (remember that [a good prompt is not a recipe](http://www.reddit.com/r/WritingPrompts/wiki/prompts?src=RECIPE)). Also, if you want a quick index of past challenges, I've [posted them on the wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/rational/wiki/weeklychallenge).

##### Next Time

Next time, the challenge will be **Infighting**. Write a story about two (or more) people (or groups) who are theoretically on the same side having some sort of conflict with each other. This conflict doesn't *necessarily* have to be to the detriment of their mutual goals/values, but that's what I personally would do with it. Note that two agents with conflicting goals/values in conflict to the detriment of the goals/values they claim to be (or are paid to be) working for is another tack you might take.

**Next challenge's thread will go up on 2/7**. Please private message me with any questions or comments. The companion thread for recommendations, ideas, or general chit-chat [is available here](https://www.reddit.com/r/rational/comments/7srfuf/challenge_companion_pioneer/).

### Comments:

> **u/None** [+12]  (10 hours later)
> 
> [108 Terabytes Per Second](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1nZ_BNm6cZNcSjPRWcP_RyM2Bvfw731NgVjK6h2ONmYw/edit?usp=sharing) (2250 words)

>> **u/MultipartiteMind** [+1]  (14 days later)
>> 
>> Ahh.  I like the true intended meaning of [](#s "peace"), concealed in the face of the more shallow/normal interpretation.
>> 
>> Further thoughts:  [](#s "Faraday cages ineffectual?  Mineshaft-deeper-and-deeper-underground ineffectual?  Why not at least have policy of wearing something which seamlessly covers all bare skin except one's face, if that..?  (Is there a need for one's arm to be exposed?)")  
>> 
>> [](#s "--Ah, a last thought:  Mara's suggestion to take the machine away confused me at the time, but made a sort of sense only after the revelation.  If he wanted 'satisfaction of exploration' peace, then throwing it down the mountain wouldn't help where burying it deep wouldn't help, and 'more devices than we can see' neither affects the 'satisfaction of exploration' (can't get that anyway) nor the 'lie that undiscovered' (since if can't be seen, others can't see to deny you either--or is it that they would find them if they digged more?). Her suggestion to get rid of it in a different way only makes sense if she already understands that it's it being there, not having been there, that causes pain; his mention of there being more devices only makes sense if he's speaking as if she already understood the true reason, but that can be treated as him talking about what matters without caring if she understands or not.  Ah, yet another thought--what about a metal-detector or signal-strength triangulation to, one by one, completely remove every device in a certain plot of land?  Or use diggers and giant sieves to one-by-one get out all the large rocks and ancients' devices out of a certain plot of land?  (Assuming that since some are macroscopic, the others are too.)  If beamed over from further away despite that, again the mineshaft nuclear-bunker approach; what is the range limit and how deep down are the deepest ones buried..?")

>>> **u/DCarrier** [+1]  (a month later)
>>> 
>>> [](#s "I don't think they had much in the way of technology considering the were using rope maid of yak fur instead of nylon or something. They did have steel, but that could have just been forged from what the ancients left. They probably didn't know about Faraday cages. Though that doesn't explain the part about mineshafts.")

>>>> **u/MultipartiteMind** [+1]  (a month later)
>>>> 
>>>> Ah, a very good point!
>>>> 
>>>> [](#s "Perhaps they also couldn't safely dig deeply, going over a surface somewhat easier than changing a landscape...  though I don't know how the required industrial(/tool) levels for mining and mountain-climbing interact.")

---