It doesn't cost life to eat modestly and live smaller than you can afford, you live life while doing this. Many think the best part of their life was when they were young and poor, its not a bad life to have low costs so you can live stress free.

Unless you think that the rich experiences of life are what make life worth living, that money grants you access to some of those richest experiences, and that you are more able to fully appreciate and incorporate those experiences into your personhood at a younger age.

I'd advise that person to change their attitude about that, because it's stupid and inhuman. Otherwise you get the absurd statement that average people in most countries, billions, a normal married guy in Vietnam, none of their lives are worth living.

No, that doesn't follow at all. Having less access to experiences of value is not remotely the same as having no value.

That is true until the owner dies, at that point you will have zombie AI companies that continues even though everyone associated with it is dead.

Money buys drones, drones are the future of power.

Critics has the same issue, they will also be mostly AI generated. How do you find the good non-AI generated and unpaid critics in the future?

Same as it’s always been. Test the waters until you find someone with a consistent preference that lines up with your own. Personally I don’t really care if a critic is ai as long as its preferences are consistent and align with my own. If you dont find yourself relating to a critics take the great thing is that it’s easy to switch.

Serfdom existed to prevent peasants from leaving those farms, people wanted to move to cities were wages and jobs were better but nobility wanted to force them to stay on those farms.

Serfdom existed as a step above slavery. The city may have been better for serfs but for the free farmer (if any) the farm was better. There is a lot of 'grass is greener' in the idea that the city was better for many farmers and so they may not have liked what the city was really like.

Before the modern era, people died like flies in cities; they were population sinks.

Its because the people pushing for these changes are privileged and stupid, so they want the most gameable version to still be there ie GPA and extracurriculars and not the SAT.

Its easier to get good grades in poor schools since regardless how you grade your teachers grade you against your peers, and poor schools have worse peers. So given same knowledge poor students have better grades, so their grades will be relatively better than their SATs.

At least in public schools were you don't have an incentive to give everyone an A, maybe private schools are different.

If Claude starts sending queries to Google then Google makes you use captcha from that IP, likely you have been using such a bot and it sent queries without you knowing.

> I guess the "fun aspect" of seeing them flee and not restraining your movement at all could be slightly more satisfying than taking them down in a single hit one-by-one for the thousand time.

Chasing enemies is much more annoying than them coming to you, so that would be a punishment to the player.

Players don't like when you punish them in that way, they want to kill the monsters they don't want an upgrade that makes you more powerful make it harder to kill monsters since now they start running.

> Chasing enemies is much more annoying than them coming to you, so that would be a punishment to the player.

It seems I've failed to express myself clearly. The idea was that at some point, "low-level" adversaries simply stand no chance against a "high-level" PC, which should be obvious to both sides -- so acting accordingly on both sides would make sense without taking the fun out of the game, because -- and hear me out -- at that point in the game, chasing the low-level minions should be the last mechanic the player is forced to endure. When you are going for a dragon, you should not be forced to stomp your way past overly self-confident "newts" or mow down swarms of goblin youngsters…

Naturally, if the PC chooses to chase minions fleeing in terror after they took out the most courageous (or silly) third of their clan, that should be an option… and arguably it could even bring some satisfaction after the PC's low-level struggles, perhaps. But should this be the main mechanic? Definitely not -- at least not in the kind of game my thought experiment addressed.

The truly correct answer is give the player a mild damage aura/aoe and let the mobs die at your feet on their own. Running away breaks an annoying amount of mechanics, like ingredient farming.

The power fantasy just needs them to die trivially. So just do that.

Is there anything particular about Americans which makes them incapable of forming a rational, constructive union?