@thorbot

The wrong thing was that “It doesn’t matter what the US does” when the US is exceptionally culpable on the demand side, the drill side, and the policy side.

@thorbot@lemmy.world

And looking at per capita, consumtion based, the US is ten times as bad as China. US: 20 tons per person. China: 2 tons. I think the world average is 4t.

China still needs to cut down because 2 tons is a lot more than what is OK but holy shit saying

But the problem is, even if all of the US came together and stopped 100% of our emissions, China would still continue to pump out 90% of the world emissions

is the wrongest thing I’ve ever heard. There are very few countries on this planet who arr doing worse than the US:

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/consumption-co2-per-capita

@snota@sh.itjust.works @boardgames@feddit.de

Oh, that is wonderful!

Yeah, I’ve been reading Nick Bentley, he’s like been wary of even simple abstracts, let alone a full euro. I’m still gonna cut down overall (not buying new hardware is better than buying harm-reduced hardware) but I’m glad they’re trying to harm-reduce! 👍🏻
Makes me more interested in the game.

@boardgames

I guess I see pandemics as still an unsolved and dangerous issue, although of course not as bad and important as climate change is, so I still have a hard time seeing the difference.

I didn’t mean to rain on your parade and I hope you end up enjoying the game.👍🏻

For me, buying new board games is something that’s riddled with climate guilt. It’s one of my own biggest footprint leaks. And this theme, I feel, would remind me everytime I’m playing the game about that. Which I guess is a good thing.

I already have nine co-op games so I’m set for a while*. If peeps in my part of the world need to fill up seats for Daybreak I’d be willing to give it a spin on someone else’s copy. 🫡
Leacock has made some great games.

*: Actually I kind of needed this thread because I’ve been eyeing Unfathomable today but I guess I don’t need a tenth coop game right now. This is the irony of Daybreak’s theme—it’s meant to inspire the fight against climate change and as such it reminds me to not buy games much more than a plastic pile like Unfathomable can.

@boardgames

Climate change has the same “going through it in real life” trait as Pandemic has.

@boardgames

best: play games with them

Yes! I was just about to say the same thing.

It’s something most boardgamers really want, it’s something that they can’t buy, and it’s lower impact on the planet than buying a bunch of plastic and cardboard.

There is this game CO2 where everyone is kind of the villain sorta but you’re also supposed to be cooperating. It doesn’t work very well, your idea sounds better.

But the theme is still a li’l weird to me.

@boardgames@feddit.de

Despite this unbridled optimistic view, it’s hard to deny that much of this game could be described as fantasy. The clarity of structures found in the format of a board game in no way parallels the deeply troubled complexity of our world. In fact, Daybreak makes it clear that to accomplish such an arduous task requires the absence of hurdles such as opposing financial incentives and human egoism.

Yeah 💔

For me these games are kinda upsetting almost, for how frivolous they come across. The “build back civilization easily after the collapse” ones are even worse, though.

I was on a seminar with some scientists who had created and played many sessions of a very realistic sim game of how Switzerland could meet its climate goals. And no group had ever managed to win it. People were unwilling to give up cars and meat and cheese, was one problem. (That’s also why I don’t fully buy the “it’s only the corporation’s fault” line of reasoning.)

@boardgames@feddit.de

I love Carcassonne and play it often but I don’t like putting a bunch of expansions in. I have three versions: South Seas, The Castle (a.k.a. Zamek), and Mists over Carcassonne, I play them separately and that way I think they end neatly and satisfyingly. My last game of Zamek with @smorkin came down to the last tile drawn!

@iAmTheTot @boardgames

It was such a awesome storyline though! Def made me interested in the game (but probably gonna skip it after all since I don’t think I like these kinds of games).

It’s good that it’s a concluded S1 storyline since a lot of us still have a lot of catching up left to do of Discovery. I just started S02E08.

@RootBeerGuy @startrek

I forgot to add the best part which was the Ra game itself.

@reverse bought out early and had no sun discs left. Our other friend had only one, and it was the lowest remaining disc, a three. I had the highest three remaining discs.

But Ms. Disc Three refused to invoke, just pulled tile after tile, and finally we had a full action table. It’s pretty good, but Ra’s boat is on the middle of the field. I figure I can get three times as much as her if let her have it, so I do.

I have the run of the board.

And immediately pull three Ra in a row and die. I ended up dead last, and @reverse actually won the game. I got played 🤦🏻‍♀️ I love Ra!

@dpunked

I played Ra, Blood on the Clocktower (not sure that counts as a “game” but we had fun👍🏻), and some more Sail. Sail is so great. Ra is good too but as we were packing up the game some anti-boardgame people came up, being jerks to us.

And also I played some Magic which I am so sick of.

One thing in the Lucky Duck’s edition’s favor (not sure if it’s enough) is the card art, which I prefer.

@thewitchofcalamari @boardgames

Yes, that’s right! It has a board so the tricks you take move you on the board or fight a dangerous Kraken. But like The Crew Mission Deep Sea it has the best theme and that theme is the sea!

Ooh, this week I was really looking forward to this thread because we have been playing Sail! I was having regretsies for backing it since it looked really clunky and fiddly but all that fell away as soon as I understood the game. It’s just so good, tight, perfect amount of tension throughout. I was afraid it wasn’t gonna feel like trick-taking but it absolutely does. I have too many 2p coops but this is my new fave.

Yes, the fossil economy has enabled society as a whole to create temporary wealth; the past has borrowed from the present. It’s going to be a rough comedown.

We haven’t been, and still aren’t, commensurately accounting for our environmental externalities.

If you were right about markets only using energy when it made sense, we wouldn’t have this problem:

I don’t think energy use is a serious problem, that just seems to get thrown around just because it’s trendy. Does it even matter

Yes, since it’s a rapidly growing field.

compared to gaming or crypto?

Proof-of-work based tokens are the enemy and not what we should be comparing things to.

It’s also an easily solved problem, just install more solar.

It’s a little trickier than that. Renewable doesn’t mean infinite; we still need to limit consumtion to sustainable rates. Also, there is the hardware in the rigs themselves. Solvents, wiring, metals, plastic…

Training the initial model isn’t time critical or depended on location, so there is a lot of flexibility here that you wouldn’t have in other applications.

That’s a good point. It’s less vulnerable to wind or light conditions.

Meanwhile running the already trained model is very cheap, it’s literally the most efficient way to solve the problem.

Yep. I never argued against that part. That’s great, as long as we can hold it together and not make new models every fifteen minutes just to keep up with the joneses, but there’s also a drawback to the “expensive to train, cheap to run” model: that’s the very thing that is driving the wealth concentration of big capital like Google.

Basically, people are going to use AI when it makes better use of time/money/energy than the competition. Nobody is going to use AI to burn energy just for the fun of it, it has to improve on what we already have.

That would be a perfect argument if we had accounted-for environmental transaction externalities, but we don’t. Using energy is cheaper than it “should” be to account for the environmental impact of that energy use. The old “if I sell you a can of gas, the price of the forest that got wrecked by that gas isn’t factored in” problem. Even otherwise laissez-faire stalwarts like Hayek acknowledged this.

As for the concentration of power and wealth, that can certainly happen to some degree, but I could also easily see that get balanced out by the amount of freedom that local models give.

Right; once it does get truly democratized with open source model we can have a post-scarcity pay-it-forward future where the step from dream to reality is smaller than ever before.

We’ve been through backs and forths of this. The big data mainframe era was replaced by PC. Then that got centralized again in the age of big dialup. But then with broadband everyone could run a server. And then the web 2.0 debacle happened and we got a silo era where people voluntarily started using Google Search and Facebook Messenger and stuff like that to give big capital ownership of our platforms.

You seem like you have your head on your shoulders (you’re on feddit, after all) but among the general population there’s a lack of awareness around these power&wealth-concentration issues.

Now centralization can still happen, Google is sitting on more data than everybody and if they make some multi-modal model that is trained on it all, that could be a very potent offering.

Yes, and I want a plan for that.

Nothing in the AI space so far lasts very long

Which is why we’re risking runaway energy use and climate impact.

That’s a good point. Thank you.

As a writer and painter, I’ve long been opposed to copyright and have been releasing stuff under Creative Commons licenses for over a decade. So don’t misinterpret me as agreeing with the brigade.

Livelyhood for artists is important but so is a livelyhood for everyone, and I’ve been arguing against the flawed “copyright is good for artists” position for decades—we’ve been having this exact same fight against copyright since Napster or even the cassette era. Gates’ infamous “Open letter to hobbyists” was in 1976, and that hasn’t changed.

There’s a lot of starving artists out there, and a lot of rich publishers. It’s difficult getting food, shelter, medicine and other resources to go around, down here on Earth.

In a world already deprived by such scarcity, we’d be better off without the shackles of artifical scarcity that copyright introduces.

I say all that as a lead in because I’m just about to absolutely disagree with part of the following:

That’s only an issue if we continue this brigade of trying to protect artists at everyones expense.

As I wrote above, I agree with you re the so-called brigade and have done so publicly in the past, too.

The myth that IP is a good way to sustain artists’ lives economically is part of the same market capitalism bugged system that has led to the extreme wealth concentration (Google, Microsoft, Amazon) in the first place.

But what you are replying to, what I wrote, has nothing to do with the pro-copyright stance. I wrote that it’s a very expensive means of production which leads to further concentration of wealth & power.

Getting enough data to make a usable LLM will be impossible for all but the big players.

Yeah, if LAION gets shut down. LAION is freely available. The data is not the problem. The resource, hardware, electricity, tensors, e-waste, cooling etc is. And I’m not saying startups and garage operations can’t get their hands on this kinda tech if they can profit from it, as we’ve seen in the proof-of-work “mining” debacle. It’s that since environmental externalities are under-accounted for, that’ll lead to climate-wrecking runaway resource use.

I have a lot of sympathy for the artists on the other side who are protesting this with whatever futile li’l clogs in the cogs they’ve got; not because I think they’re right about who can learn from art, I disagree with them there, but because they’re a canary in the coal mine for how big capital can use automation to replace workers and how that’ll lead to an even bigger wealth gap (which is already at an historical high) and mass unemployment and economic desperation.

As Amelia Earhart put it in 1935: “Obviously, research regarding technological unemployment is as vital today as further refinement or production of labor-saving and comfort-giving devices.” And we still haven’t figured that out. And they’re eating at artists, writers, programmers, game designers, economists, cooks, doctors, drivers, postal workers, psychologists—no one is safe. We need to figure out a way to distribute tasks and resources differently in a world where there’s a heck of a lot fewer tasks and a lot more digital resources (while physical resources like fuel and food and shelter are still limited). Politics is also going to get harder since money correlates withnpower, no matter how much we’ve been trying to fight that corruption.

Markets use prices to distribute resources, and prices are set by supply and demand, and that started breaking down in the cassette and floppy disk age where making the initial recording was very expensive but making copiesnof that was cheap. Big capital has tried to patch the hole to their advantage at the expense of the public by introducing artificial scarcity in the form of an exclusive right to make copies, “copyright”.

And now it’s getting twisted one more turn, since now the initial work itself is easy to make, but the models, the makers themselves, are wholly owned by big corporations like Microsoft and Google. Capitalism was bad before. It’s going to get cataclysmic now that the workers are wholly owned machines.

@kmkz_ninja@lemmy.world @boardgames@feddit.de