Joshua Kronengold
@mnemex.bsky.social
Joshua Kronengold; software developer, sf fan/conrunner, game designer, musician, filker, harper, fiddler
In Phoenix Command, throwing a sandwich would first roll for wind speed and elevation. On hit, you'd roll for sandwitch fragmentation and whether you hit an exposed orifice.
After the basics, you'd then roll for sandwich curvature, allergies, and, of course, spontaneous combustion.
After the basics, you'd then roll for sandwich curvature, allergies, and, of course, spontaneous combustion.
November 4, 2025 at 10:43 PM
In Phoenix Command, throwing a sandwich would first roll for wind speed and elevation. On hit, you'd roll for sandwitch fragmentation and whether you hit an exposed orifice.
After the basics, you'd then roll for sandwich curvature, allergies, and, of course, spontaneous combustion.
After the basics, you'd then roll for sandwich curvature, allergies, and, of course, spontaneous combustion.
Now, that in this case it's deployed on a very conservative "poor kids should starve" eugenical result.
But it's hard to change minds (and many conservatives have convinced themselves that cutting snap won't actually kill poor people). So...the math/economics deployed here is -also- terrible.
But it's hard to change minds (and many conservatives have convinced themselves that cutting snap won't actually kill poor people). So...the math/economics deployed here is -also- terrible.
October 28, 2025 at 9:45 PM
Now, that in this case it's deployed on a very conservative "poor kids should starve" eugenical result.
But it's hard to change minds (and many conservatives have convinced themselves that cutting snap won't actually kill poor people). So...the math/economics deployed here is -also- terrible.
But it's hard to change minds (and many conservatives have convinced themselves that cutting snap won't actually kill poor people). So...the math/economics deployed here is -also- terrible.
I mean, clearly not. But making economic arguments that appeal only to a confident grade-schooler are both core to their brand and a key way in which they underestimate the American populace (or, sadly, don't).
That it's motivated reasoning and therefore only applies when they want is, well.
That it's motivated reasoning and therefore only applies when they want is, well.
October 28, 2025 at 9:45 PM
I mean, clearly not. But making economic arguments that appeal only to a confident grade-schooler are both core to their brand and a key way in which they underestimate the American populace (or, sadly, don't).
That it's motivated reasoning and therefore only applies when they want is, well.
That it's motivated reasoning and therefore only applies when they want is, well.
This isn't the first time I've seen post-conservative radicals trying to coast on a gradeschooler's knowledge of economics.
In their minds, as long as it's convenient, spending=costs go up, every time. Same for their logic on inflation, where they try to shoehorn everything into the money supply.
In their minds, as long as it's convenient, spending=costs go up, every time. Same for their logic on inflation, where they try to shoehorn everything into the money supply.
October 28, 2025 at 7:55 PM
This isn't the first time I've seen post-conservative radicals trying to coast on a gradeschooler's knowledge of economics.
In their minds, as long as it's convenient, spending=costs go up, every time. Same for their logic on inflation, where they try to shoehorn everything into the money supply.
In their minds, as long as it's convenient, spending=costs go up, every time. Same for their logic on inflation, where they try to shoehorn everything into the money supply.
Doing way too much work here is "which obviously will drive up the cost".
-If- the production/distribution of food was constant and inelastic, this would be true.
But it isn't. More spent on food means more food gets produced (and more people don't starve).
SNAP keeps food costs stable and low.
-If- the production/distribution of food was constant and inelastic, this would be true.
But it isn't. More spent on food means more food gets produced (and more people don't starve).
SNAP keeps food costs stable and low.
October 28, 2025 at 7:52 PM
Doing way too much work here is "which obviously will drive up the cost".
-If- the production/distribution of food was constant and inelastic, this would be true.
But it isn't. More spent on food means more food gets produced (and more people don't starve).
SNAP keeps food costs stable and low.
-If- the production/distribution of food was constant and inelastic, this would be true.
But it isn't. More spent on food means more food gets produced (and more people don't starve).
SNAP keeps food costs stable and low.
Daybreak (it's clearly a night thing), but which one? Beginning of dawn? Or when the sun finally clears the horizon?
What if you fed a mogwai food at 11:59pm, but it got stuck between their teeth and they only swallowed it after the clock chimed?
#importantquestions #gremlins #genx
What if you fed a mogwai food at 11:59pm, but it got stuck between their teeth and they only swallowed it after the clock chimed?
#importantquestions #gremlins #genx
October 27, 2025 at 8:11 PM
Daybreak (it's clearly a night thing), but which one? Beginning of dawn? Or when the sun finally clears the horizon?
What if you fed a mogwai food at 11:59pm, but it got stuck between their teeth and they only swallowed it after the clock chimed?
#importantquestions #gremlins #genx
What if you fed a mogwai food at 11:59pm, but it got stuck between their teeth and they only swallowed it after the clock chimed?
#importantquestions #gremlins #genx
Archive October 25, 2025
Connections Puzzle #867
🟦🟦🟦🟦
🟨🟨🟪🟨
🟨🟨🟨🟨
🟪🟪🟪🟪
🟩🟩🟩🟩
Really didn't enjoy this one. Blue was fine, but one of the purples was a better yellow than the underwear, so I took the mistake even though I'd sorted purple by that point even though I didn't know what it was.
Connections Puzzle #867
🟦🟦🟦🟦
🟨🟨🟪🟨
🟨🟨🟨🟨
🟪🟪🟪🟪
🟩🟩🟩🟩
Really didn't enjoy this one. Blue was fine, but one of the purples was a better yellow than the underwear, so I took the mistake even though I'd sorted purple by that point even though I didn't know what it was.
October 26, 2025 at 8:25 AM
Archive October 25, 2025
Connections Puzzle #867
🟦🟦🟦🟦
🟨🟨🟪🟨
🟨🟨🟨🟨
🟪🟪🟪🟪
🟩🟩🟩🟩
Really didn't enjoy this one. Blue was fine, but one of the purples was a better yellow than the underwear, so I took the mistake even though I'd sorted purple by that point even though I didn't know what it was.
Connections Puzzle #867
🟦🟦🟦🟦
🟨🟨🟪🟨
🟨🟨🟨🟨
🟪🟪🟪🟪
🟩🟩🟩🟩
Really didn't enjoy this one. Blue was fine, but one of the purples was a better yellow than the underwear, so I took the mistake even though I'd sorted purple by that point even though I didn't know what it was.
TJ! Still in fandom, btw, and with kids who -also- like SF.
October 26, 2025 at 8:08 AM
TJ! Still in fandom, btw, and with kids who -also- like SF.
YES! i have been complaining about this since this puzzle came out.
October 25, 2025 at 8:20 PM
YES! i have been complaining about this since this puzzle came out.
I've gotten into Astoria Seafood without a long wait, but that was for early dinner. And of course people wait, because it's amazing. But, yes, not a tourist place; it looks way worse than it is.
October 15, 2025 at 8:51 PM
I've gotten into Astoria Seafood without a long wait, but that was for early dinner. And of course people wait, because it's amazing. But, yes, not a tourist place; it looks way worse than it is.
The pile of neurons is still (for now) substantially better than the spreadsheet at looking at a set of pixels and deciding whether they contain "a cat." Since the spreadsheets are designed foremost at math, it stands to reason that they make math errors infrequently.
October 15, 2025 at 7:02 PM
The pile of neurons is still (for now) substantially better than the spreadsheet at looking at a set of pixels and deciding whether they contain "a cat." Since the spreadsheets are designed foremost at math, it stands to reason that they make math errors infrequently.
A lot of people seem to have had 'issues' with blue. That said, once that was our leftovers, I nailed it (albeit not in so many words).
October 2, 2025 at 8:40 PM
A lot of people seem to have had 'issues' with blue. That said, once that was our leftovers, I nailed it (albeit not in so many words).
Yeah. It's reasonable to call the branch of CS "AI" because it includes study of cognition and the various methods you can make computer thinking more like intelligent organism thinking; it's aspirational.
But current results aren't AIs because they aren't intelligent. Call them what they are.
But current results aren't AIs because they aren't intelligent. Call them what they are.
September 30, 2025 at 4:24 AM
Yeah. It's reasonable to call the branch of CS "AI" because it includes study of cognition and the various methods you can make computer thinking more like intelligent organism thinking; it's aspirational.
But current results aren't AIs because they aren't intelligent. Call them what they are.
But current results aren't AIs because they aren't intelligent. Call them what they are.
Yeah, I don't think it's in response to a specific prompt, except possibly the xkcd "lucky 10000", and, of course, the original point.
September 30, 2025 at 4:16 AM
Yeah, I don't think it's in response to a specific prompt, except possibly the xkcd "lucky 10000", and, of course, the original point.
But the joke on this particular image is that all the red dots are on the places planes -don't- come back from when they're hit. So of course you never see images like this. Non-survivorship fallacy!
September 30, 2025 at 4:12 AM
But the joke on this particular image is that all the red dots are on the places planes -don't- come back from when they're hit. So of course you never see images like this. Non-survivorship fallacy!
Looking over the rules, the only thing I see that could conceivably ban violins is:
* Horns, whistles, large megaphones or artificial noise makers.
Which...I guess a violin is an "artificial noise maker" if you squint?
Notably, -playing music- (without an "artifical noise maker") is not banned.
* Horns, whistles, large megaphones or artificial noise makers.
Which...I guess a violin is an "artificial noise maker" if you squint?
Notably, -playing music- (without an "artifical noise maker") is not banned.
September 29, 2025 at 9:41 PM
Looking over the rules, the only thing I see that could conceivably ban violins is:
* Horns, whistles, large megaphones or artificial noise makers.
Which...I guess a violin is an "artificial noise maker" if you squint?
Notably, -playing music- (without an "artifical noise maker") is not banned.
* Horns, whistles, large megaphones or artificial noise makers.
Which...I guess a violin is an "artificial noise maker" if you squint?
Notably, -playing music- (without an "artifical noise maker") is not banned.
Er, what? He'd have let you in with it if you weren't, you know, good? Because apparently if you weren't good you had no chance of trying to busk? Nobody ever busks without equipment (as experience in the NYC subway system will tell one, clearly).
September 29, 2025 at 9:36 PM
Er, what? He'd have let you in with it if you weren't, you know, good? Because apparently if you weren't good you had no chance of trying to busk? Nobody ever busks without equipment (as experience in the NYC subway system will tell one, clearly).
Having enemies that can't talk and have animal intelligence is an entirely different thing than "orcs"; they can even use complex tactics. Just don't give them a humanoid body shape because ew.
September 22, 2025 at 8:08 PM
Having enemies that can't talk and have animal intelligence is an entirely different thing than "orcs"; they can even use complex tactics. Just don't give them a humanoid body shape because ew.
Heck, I keep going back to my line about hunting. We already have creatures that use complex tactics and that it's considered (by many people) ok to kill -- they're prey animals, and they're smart enough to out-fox us (sometimes literally) but not enough to have for [rather than to] dinner.
September 22, 2025 at 8:06 PM
Heck, I keep going back to my line about hunting. We already have creatures that use complex tactics and that it's considered (by many people) ok to kill -- they're prey animals, and they're smart enough to out-fox us (sometimes literally) but not enough to have for [rather than to] dinner.
Heck, make it Saturday morning cartoons where combat doesn't end in death and you get to face the same foes again and again.
September 20, 2025 at 6:22 PM
Heck, make it Saturday morning cartoons where combat doesn't end in death and you get to face the same foes again and again.
Where sure, you had more earnest fights when things got more serious, but "go out and fight things" were hunts for animals/animal-like monsters you were intending to cook for food.
D&D keeps spawning intelligent enemies that are fine to kill with no motivation; it doesn't feel necessary, and yet.
D&D keeps spawning intelligent enemies that are fine to kill with no motivation; it doesn't feel necessary, and yet.
September 19, 2025 at 9:10 PM
Where sure, you had more earnest fights when things got more serious, but "go out and fight things" were hunts for animals/animal-like monsters you were intending to cook for food.
D&D keeps spawning intelligent enemies that are fine to kill with no motivation; it doesn't feel necessary, and yet.
D&D keeps spawning intelligent enemies that are fine to kill with no motivation; it doesn't feel necessary, and yet.