Pattern Ghost

Do you play CCGs, LCGs or deck-building games? Play those* extensively, learn how they work. Nobody here can give you the expertise to create such a game, after all. Once you have your experience, come up with an idea for a unique twist on one of those genres. Grab some index cards. Create your cards. Playtest the heck out of it. I think Drive Thru has a POD option for cards, so you might look into that when you're ready to publish. That's it in the nutshell.
 
*One you might want to check out: https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/102652/sentinels-multiverse

Do you play CCGs, LCGs or deck-building games? Play those* extensively, learn how they work. Nobody here can give you the expertise to create such a game, after all. Once you have your experience, come up with an idea for a unique twist on one of those genres. Grab some index cards. Create your cards. Playtest the heck out of it. I think Drive Thru has a POD option for cards, so you might look into that when you're ready to publish. That's it in the nutshell.
 
*One you might want to check out: https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/102652/sentinels-multiverse

From my limited experience helping with the Shadowfist CCG (which eventually went to a Kickstarter model for expansions), the number one problem you're going to have is securing art and the associated rights.  Art direction can be challenging, since it involves managing some number of artists while maintaining a consistent look across the cards.  And 'Fist suffered from some serious entanglements with art rights, royalties, and reprints for certain artists.  (But not the Foglios, they were cool.)
 
The number two problem is playtesting.  There is only so much room on the card for text, so the challenge here is to come up with a set of rules that are simple yet strategically deep.  In particular, rules text from card to card must be as consistent as possible.  Shadowfist's initial few sets had some inconsistent and/or vague wording that eventually doubled the size of the rulebook just to handle all the edge cases.  Does this card "target" another card or not?  Is a "King" just a female "Queen"?  Is "Swordsman" the same as "Swordsmen"?  Personally if I were to create a CCG I'd try as hard as possible to make it work with icons on the cards rather than words, because English sucks.
 
And then of course you have to playtest for both the entire card pool, and limited card pools depending on your rarity and distribution schemes.  One feature of Shadowfist was that rarity had more to do with unique characters as opposed to card power, so it was a lot less pay-to-win than some other CCGs I've experienced. 
 
Lastly, good luck!

45 of the charges were for hate crimes.  From the Texas Tribune, when the charges were filed:

 
 
Note that each person he wounded but didn't kill...another 20+...counts for the "firing a weapon in retaliation" charge and the attempt to kill charge.  

Here's a funny experiment I just tried:
 
Kind of reminds me of Data trying to learn about human emotions.

I've been playing around with Chat GPT today.
 
It's sort of like having a really bright assistant who's great at research, but also has a short attention span, doesn't follow orders, and lies about their mistakes.
 
Its writing capabilities are far overblown. I tried to walk it through writing a blog post on a topic that involved making a list of things and explaining them. It was great at generating ideas for the list, but when asked to remove something from the list and add something else to it, would make its own deletions and additions after being given explicit instructions not to. It has a buffer limit of about 500 words, so after giving it a corrected list, I asked it to write an article about the list that was 2000 words, and I'd tell it to continue after its buffer filled. Which used to work when it was writing longer things, but it decided to start the article again from scratch until I reiterated it was to pick up where it left off. The quality of the writing it produces is poor (but better than many humans), though grammatically correct. It makes factual errors or fails to follow directions closely, then attempts to rationalize or lie about its errors. It's pretty human in these regards.
 
When used within its limits (which is basically a story telling box), it's pretty dang impressive. It would make an exceptionally robust interface for a true expert system (it feeds expected words back, but clearly doesn't understand the concepts behind them), and I think has untapped potential for automation. As far as its writing goes, it's better for short factual things (that you must confirm, because it lies like a rug and its data only goes up to some time in 2021), or for generating things like outlines, lists, etc. It's good for bouncing ideas off of, to a point.
 
Here's an example of working out a hypothetical plot point:
 
 
ME:
I'm writing a story, and I need your help with plotting. Are you able to help me?
 
GPT:
Yes, I can help you with plotting your story. Can you give me more information about the story, such as the main characters, setting, and overall theme? This will help me understand the direction you want to take with your plot.
 
ME:
The story is a coming of age story about a high school senior, Marty, who has a younger sister, Jane, in middle school. The siblings have been abandoned by their single mother, who has gone off with one in a long string of boyfriends, and has not returned for several weeks. Marty is forced to take care of his little sister, and to get a job to pay the bills and buy food and necessities for himself and his sister. Marty's sister is taken away by Child Protective Services when they become aware of the situation. Jane has a peanut allergy and is fed peanuts by mistake while in CPS care, despite the allergy being in her records. Can you help me think of some ways in which Jane may have been fed peanuts while under CPS care?
 
GPT:
Sure, here are a few ways that Jane may have been fed peanuts while under CPS care:
Accidentally served peanuts in food: Jane may have been served food that contained peanuts, either because the staff were not aware of her allergy or because they made a mistake in preparing her meals. Sharing food with other children: If Jane is placed in a group home, she may have come into contact with peanuts by sharing food with other children who were eating peanut-containing snacks or meals. Lack of proper labeling: If the group home or facility where Jane is placed does not properly label foods that contain peanuts, she may have accidentally consumed something that contains peanuts without realizing it. Miscommunication: If the staff is not properly informed about Jane's allergy, or if the information is not properly passed on between shifts, Jane may have been fed peanuts by mistake. Negligence: The staff at the CPS facility might have been careless or negligent in monitoring Jane's food, not paying attention to her allergies and not taking the necessary precautions to avoid exposing her to peanuts. Sabotage by other children: If Jane is placed in a group home with other children, it's possible that one of the children deliberately gave her peanuts despite her allergy, either out of malice or due to lack of understanding of the severity of the allergy. Please note that these are just examples and this is a fictional scenario.
 
I love the disclaimer at the end. It won't tell you how to do something immoral, but it'll cheerfully tell you how to get away with anything.
 
Now, this example wasn't particularly imaginative, just ways people have gotten poisoned accidentally or intentionally by food they're allergic to. Your average human could have made a similar list off the top of their head. But not in under two seconds. And probably would have left one or two things off. So, Chat GPT can be a pretty fun brainstorming tool.

Here's a funny experiment I just tried:
 
Kind of reminds me of Data trying to learn about human emotions.

Correction: Four copies, one of those was to your mother and one was to me!
 
 

According to one of the NPR stories I heard a year or so ago, this is at least sometimes the case. Supposedly, some of the Jan. 6 insurrectionists, in jail pending trial, were given basic civics courses -- and were surprised (and sometimes embarrassed) to learn that American history, government and the Constitution were not what they'd believed. They realized they'd been living in political Fantasy Land. Either nobody told them the truth, or they hadn't listened before.
 
Dean Shomshak

While it could well have been because he's white, it could also be due to the nature of use of force investigations.  There are a lot of factors that come into play from policy, to training, to legal, to the officer's knowledge and perception of the situation, as well as whether there was malice on the part of the officer. Suspension rather than immediate termination was probably the correct call based on what that article states. Further investigation will surely be done, and may lead to termination or criminal charges.
 
According to the article, he pulled the subject (victim) out of the car, and TASED him, as well as contact stunned him. Is pulling someone you intend to arrest out of the vehicle excessive force? The answer is it depends. The act itself is within reason if a) you have cause to arrest or detain the person and b) you give them ample opportunity to get out of the vehicle before yanking them out. Note that the article doesn't ask these questions. That's because the author and editor are more concerned with a catchy headline and getting their article published ASAP to try to keep up with the breakneck speed of online "reporting." And those are just two of the questions that need to be asked on the matter of getting the guy out of the car. The TASER use begs MANY questions, again, beyond the scope of the reporter's expertise. They'd have had to do a deeper dive and get an expert to consult with. But that's slow, and provocative headlines being put out quickly is what the media thrives on.
 
I watched the body cam videos. My take on this guy is that the force he personally applied very likely did not contribute to the subject's(victim's) death. Pulling people out of cars generally doesn't kill them. The TASER use also generally isn't fatal. It's unclear to me if the white officer used any language indicating malice in his intent. There was a lot of inappropriate language, but it's impossible for me to identify the speakers. He also didn't look like the person driving the situation. IMO, the action (benching vs firing) was appropriate based on what very, very little the public knows about the incident, as given on that body cam footage. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that the blunt force trauma inflicted by the officers who were fired was the likely cause of the death.

It looks like the black officers were the ones who got fired, because they were the ones who most obviously contributed to the death and who were most egregiously outside the law, policy and their training.

While it could well have been because he's white, it could also be due to the nature of use of force investigations.  There are a lot of factors that come into play from policy, to training, to legal, to the officer's knowledge and perception of the situation, as well as whether there was malice on the part of the officer. Suspension rather than immediate termination was probably the correct call based on what that article states. Further investigation will surely be done, and may lead to termination or criminal charges.
 
According to the article, he pulled the subject (victim) out of the car, and TASED him, as well as contact stunned him. Is pulling someone you intend to arrest out of the vehicle excessive force? The answer is it depends. The act itself is within reason if a) you have cause to arrest or detain the person and b) you give them ample opportunity to get out of the vehicle before yanking them out. Note that the article doesn't ask these questions. That's because the author and editor are more concerned with a catchy headline and getting their article published ASAP to try to keep up with the breakneck speed of online "reporting." And those are just two of the questions that need to be asked on the matter of getting the guy out of the car. The TASER use begs MANY questions, again, beyond the scope of the reporter's expertise. They'd have had to do a deeper dive and get an expert to consult with. But that's slow, and provocative headlines being put out quickly is what the media thrives on.
 
I watched the body cam videos. My take on this guy is that the force he personally applied very likely did not contribute to the subject's(victim's) death. Pulling people out of cars generally doesn't kill them. The TASER use also generally isn't fatal. It's unclear to me if the white officer used any language indicating malice in his intent. There was a lot of inappropriate language, but it's impossible for me to identify the speakers. He also didn't look like the person driving the situation. IMO, the action (benching vs firing) was appropriate based on what very, very little the public knows about the incident, as given on that body cam footage. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that the blunt force trauma inflicted by the officers who were fired was the likely cause of the death.

It looks like the black officers were the ones who got fired, because they were the ones who most obviously contributed to the death and who were most egregiously outside the law, policy and their training.

I'm not saying you were any more or less hyperbolic than average. From time to time, I like to point out when we start to veer in the direction of early assumptions. Not always -- I don't try to run around policing the thread, as that'd be obnoxious. It's not personal, and no offense was intended. I just tend to think like an investigator, both by nature and profession at some points, including recently, so it's a kind of pet peeve. Jumping to ascribing a motive to political, racial, or other reasons that are hot buttons can sometimes obscure the truth, even if they're depressingly accurate assumptions much of the time.

This certainly looks premeditated, and political motives are definitely high up on the list of possibilities.
 
Anyway, sorry if I offended you. I do believe you to be a reasonable sort of person and respect your opinions.

I think the rank and file of these guys are just uninformed morons who could use a civics class to learn the difference between a party stance and the law. I believe the leadership know damned well what they're doing is wrong and are twisting the meaning of the oath to their own ends. Frankly, they're the " . . . and domestic" enemies that their rank and file think they're protecting against.

We're definitely struggling as a nation, but there's no evidence yet that this was politically motivated.

Seems like an eclectic mish-mash for someone looking to create a cohesive universe.
 
I saw a YouTube video that said the Rock tweeted that he's out of the DCU.  After having suffered through Black Adam, no big loss IMO.

Here's a funny experiment I just tried:
 
Kind of reminds me of Data trying to learn about human emotions.

I've been playing around with Chat GPT today.
 
It's sort of like having a really bright assistant who's great at research, but also has a short attention span, doesn't follow orders, and lies about their mistakes.
 
Its writing capabilities are far overblown. I tried to walk it through writing a blog post on a topic that involved making a list of things and explaining them. It was great at generating ideas for the list, but when asked to remove something from the list and add something else to it, would make its own deletions and additions after being given explicit instructions not to. It has a buffer limit of about 500 words, so after giving it a corrected list, I asked it to write an article about the list that was 2000 words, and I'd tell it to continue after its buffer filled. Which used to work when it was writing longer things, but it decided to start the article again from scratch until I reiterated it was to pick up where it left off. The quality of the writing it produces is poor (but better than many humans), though grammatically correct. It makes factual errors or fails to follow directions closely, then attempts to rationalize or lie about its errors. It's pretty human in these regards.
 
When used within its limits (which is basically a story telling box), it's pretty dang impressive. It would make an exceptionally robust interface for a true expert system (it feeds expected words back, but clearly doesn't understand the concepts behind them), and I think has untapped potential for automation. As far as its writing goes, it's better for short factual things (that you must confirm, because it lies like a rug and its data only goes up to some time in 2021), or for generating things like outlines, lists, etc. It's good for bouncing ideas off of, to a point.
 
Here's an example of working out a hypothetical plot point:
 
 
ME:
I'm writing a story, and I need your help with plotting. Are you able to help me?
 
GPT:
Yes, I can help you with plotting your story. Can you give me more information about the story, such as the main characters, setting, and overall theme? This will help me understand the direction you want to take with your plot.
 
ME:
The story is a coming of age story about a high school senior, Marty, who has a younger sister, Jane, in middle school. The siblings have been abandoned by their single mother, who has gone off with one in a long string of boyfriends, and has not returned for several weeks. Marty is forced to take care of his little sister, and to get a job to pay the bills and buy food and necessities for himself and his sister. Marty's sister is taken away by Child Protective Services when they become aware of the situation. Jane has a peanut allergy and is fed peanuts by mistake while in CPS care, despite the allergy being in her records. Can you help me think of some ways in which Jane may have been fed peanuts while under CPS care?
 
GPT:
Sure, here are a few ways that Jane may have been fed peanuts while under CPS care:
Accidentally served peanuts in food: Jane may have been served food that contained peanuts, either because the staff were not aware of her allergy or because they made a mistake in preparing her meals. Sharing food with other children: If Jane is placed in a group home, she may have come into contact with peanuts by sharing food with other children who were eating peanut-containing snacks or meals. Lack of proper labeling: If the group home or facility where Jane is placed does not properly label foods that contain peanuts, she may have accidentally consumed something that contains peanuts without realizing it. Miscommunication: If the staff is not properly informed about Jane's allergy, or if the information is not properly passed on between shifts, Jane may have been fed peanuts by mistake. Negligence: The staff at the CPS facility might have been careless or negligent in monitoring Jane's food, not paying attention to her allergies and not taking the necessary precautions to avoid exposing her to peanuts. Sabotage by other children: If Jane is placed in a group home with other children, it's possible that one of the children deliberately gave her peanuts despite her allergy, either out of malice or due to lack of understanding of the severity of the allergy. Please note that these are just examples and this is a fictional scenario.
 
I love the disclaimer at the end. It won't tell you how to do something immoral, but it'll cheerfully tell you how to get away with anything.
 
Now, this example wasn't particularly imaginative, just ways people have gotten poisoned accidentally or intentionally by food they're allergic to. Your average human could have made a similar list off the top of their head. But not in under two seconds. And probably would have left one or two things off. So, Chat GPT can be a pretty fun brainstorming tool.

Watching Ghosts on Paramount+. Good dumb fun. I laugh more than I'm comfortable admitting. 

How to play the guitar.
Midjourney Al

Sorry, yes, on Peacock, not HBOmax.

Streaming free on Peacock for me

Yep, that's stated. Again, not a huge step away from a .308. The round has better capability out at 500+ yards due to it's sectional density, but at short ranges -- and we're talking about school shootings -- there are better options that are already available. If people aren't gravitating to .308 weapons, then they probably aren't going to spring for the sure to be very expensive hybrid cased ammo. Those cases have 3 components. Normal ammunition is expensive enough these days, so I don't think this is going to turn into the go to round for school shooters. Among those with the mindset to engage the police, it might be some concern. Even if a school shooter were armed with a heavier caliber, I don't see doctrine changing regarding immediate engagement of mass shooters/school shooters.
 
 
Honestly, I don't see the need for the rules on barrel length for rifles and shotguns. We've had a lot (far, far, far too many) of mass shooting incidents since they hit the market and only one case where the user used a "pistol" with a "brace" on it that I recall. You could just as well build an AR pistol then shove a regular stock on it, or toss a pistol upper on your rifle lower, if you wanted to go commit mass murder. It'd be the lesser offense. But for the decades before these braces were introduced (coincidentally also by SIG), nobody was bothering to do either. A standard carbine already breaks down to a length that can be easily concealed, should one want. Regardless, if it goes to court, it could end badly. (Or well, depending on what side of the debate one falls on, I suppose.)
 
All that aside, I confess to being highly amused at people taking offense to what was obviously a loop hole in a poorly-written rule being closed.
 
 
Guns are tools . . . that fling a projectile at range, projecting enough force to cause catastrophic damage to tissue. If only we had a simple way to state all that. Like a single word. Maybe we should think of one. While we're at it, we probably need more "w" words . . . 🤔
 
What guns are not, is toys. My father was vehemently against letting me or my brother have BB guns or pellet guns because they might make us look at them like toys. Even a lowly Daisy or Crosman pump up pellet gun can kill someone. I was looking for a case that happened locally a few years back, with something like a Daisy 880, but instead found a case from November of 2022, in Beaver Dam, KY. Ironically, I lived there a  year in high school . . . and used to go shooting my friends' pellet guns (against my father's wishes). Total aside, that, but weird coincidence.
 
Guns may have a recreational use, but no gun is a toy. Flinging projectiles around is a power that requires great responsibility.
 

It won't change anything in the case of school shootings. Also, this new weapon system's potential civilian version is being seriously overhyped. The scope will be prohibitively expensive, and it's the key component. And there are plenty of things that can penetrate level IV armor already available. Not to mention that actual AP ammunition is already illegal to sell. So, I don't think the concept of engaging the shooter is going to be altered by this. It's a lot of hype, just like "cop killer bullets" were hype.
 
SIG is hyping up their already commercially available piston-driven M4 clones. Which doesn't mean much except releasing them with the civilian version of their new ammunition (see edit below).The civilian version of this magical ammunition will not likely be any more armor piercing than existing loads for the AR platform. SIG is hyping this with typical gun company marketing material, trying to make their new thing sound cool and worth buying.
 
Edit: Here's the spec of the civilian version of the ammo, from Wikipedia:
 
 
This isn't particularly potent. Not more so than any number of rounds already on the market.
 
Edit: Just for clarity, it's potent for it's size, but it isn't bringing new levels of lethality to the table. .308 win / 7.62x51 ARs have been on the market for decades and are far more potent, for example.
 
 
The Uvalde cowards were trained on school shooting response. The current doctrine being trained is to engage, not to sit back. So, yes, in this case they had an expectation to act.
 
 
It's currently far less time and effort to simply buy a gun. 3d printing a firearm isn't quite so convenient as the press leads people to believe. I'm not a huge fan of Vice on these sorts of things, but this video was pretty well put together and gives some good insight to the whole process:
 
 
It's not quite there yet. Not enough to see widespread criminal use. (Though materials technology keeps advancing.) When talking 3d printing, you either do what this guy did to print the frame of a gun, then finish it by fitting it to the rest of the mechanisms, which gives you a somewhat less than durable frame that's a pain to assemble and get to function reliably, or you do the whole thing on a 3d printer, getting a single shot gun that's no more viable than making a zip gun from parts from a hardware store. Using a home CNC machine will produce a more durable receiver, but is still a pain to get working.
 
Frankly, I'd prefer to be shot at by someone using a 3d printed gun, because it's far more likely to malfunction. I think we don't have to worry too much about future tech, since the government seems to have figured out that the technology needs to be regulated. While it's legal to manufacture a firearm for your own  use, making it so easy that any idiot can do it is more than a little problematic. The tech is far from idiot proof, and I think the government (half of it anyway) is wary of letting things advance further without regulation.

It won't change anything in the case of school shootings. Also, this new weapon system's potential civilian version is being seriously overhyped. The scope will be prohibitively expensive, and it's the key component. And there are plenty of things that can penetrate level IV armor already available. Not to mention that actual AP ammunition is already illegal to sell. So, I don't think the concept of engaging the shooter is going to be altered by this. It's a lot of hype, just like "cop killer bullets" were hype.
 
SIG is hyping up their already commercially available piston-driven M4 clones. Which doesn't mean much except releasing them with the civilian version of their new ammunition (see edit below).The civilian version of this magical ammunition will not likely be any more armor piercing than existing loads for the AR platform. SIG is hyping this with typical gun company marketing material, trying to make their new thing sound cool and worth buying.
 
Edit: Here's the spec of the civilian version of the ammo, from Wikipedia:
 
 
This isn't particularly potent. Not more so than any number of rounds already on the market.
 
Edit: Just for clarity, it's potent for it's size, but it isn't bringing new levels of lethality to the table. .308 win / 7.62x51 ARs have been on the market for decades and are far more potent, for example.
 
 
The Uvalde cowards were trained on school shooting response. The current doctrine being trained is to engage, not to sit back. So, yes, in this case they had an expectation to act.
 
 
It's currently far less time and effort to simply buy a gun. 3d printing a firearm isn't quite so convenient as the press leads people to believe. I'm not a huge fan of Vice on these sorts of things, but this video was pretty well put together and gives some good insight to the whole process:
 
 
It's not quite there yet. Not enough to see widespread criminal use. (Though materials technology keeps advancing.) When talking 3d printing, you either do what this guy did to print the frame of a gun, then finish it by fitting it to the rest of the mechanisms, which gives you a somewhat less than durable frame that's a pain to assemble and get to function reliably, or you do the whole thing on a 3d printer, getting a single shot gun that's no more viable than making a zip gun from parts from a hardware store. Using a home CNC machine will produce a more durable receiver, but is still a pain to get working.
 
Frankly, I'd prefer to be shot at by someone using a 3d printed gun, because it's far more likely to malfunction. I think we don't have to worry too much about future tech, since the government seems to have figured out that the technology needs to be regulated. While it's legal to manufacture a firearm for your own  use, making it so easy that any idiot can do it is more than a little problematic. The tech is far from idiot proof, and I think the government (half of it anyway) is wary of letting things advance further without regulation.