> Frequently Proposed Ideas (FPIs)

> 7. Healing/leadership should give experience

> It is felt that allowing units to gain experience without risk would make leveling-up of such units inevitable. Further, one of the motivating examples of this is so that units such as shaman can have a hope to level up in multiplayer. It is pointed out that if the experience gains were high enough to allow shaman to level up in a single multiplayer game, then it would be trivial to gain the best type of healing unit in a campaign very quickly.

https://forums.wesnoth.org/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=34904#w0fpi7 (2011)

There's various ways around this (like capping amount of experience per level by source), but ain't game design fun?

It depends. Personally I think they should make alternatives more easy. For instance, under Options, for people to pick other ways to level up. Does not have to be 1000000 ways, just, say 3-5 ways in total, first one being the main default and only the main default is kept balanced, the rest can be unbalanced, just allowed per option as-is.

Other aspects of the game or mod-able, but such things as this I guess is against the grain enough to probably be difficult.

Perhaps. This is the last paragraph from the main award:

> It’s a design that sits between mass production and personalization, reflecting a world where individuality matters more than ever. Rather than buying a notebook, you complete it—turning a passive object into an active, personal process.

This is a translation via translate.kagi.com from "LinkedIn speak" to English:

> It’s a way to charge people for the privilege of assembling their own office supplies under the guise of "individuality." You aren't just buying a notebook; you're paying for the chore of finishing it so you can feel like you've had a "personal process" instead of just buying a damn notebook.

Seems accurate; then again, I also own a nice notebook and a fountain pen and I enjoy using them, even if this is just me feeling like I have a personal process.

Not just you if that helps.

Human verification technology absolutely exists. Give it some time and people who sell ai today are going to shoehorn it everywhere as the solution to the problem they are busy creating now.

Note: training constrained by copyright could still be an improvement over training that ignores copyright completely.

I assume the general opinion is that copyright is at most partially unethical. That’s what the AI discussion is about too, i.e. artist copyright.

Given the extent to which the copyright system has benefited corporations and publishing companies to the detriment of individual authors and the general public, I'm constantly surprised that it still has many apologists.

As we don't live in a world where the rich patronize the arts some sort of copyright system is the only way authors and artists are gonna make a living doing their thing. ...though I suppose proponents of Universal Basic Income (UBI) would disagree, but between the abolishment of copyright, the institution of UBI, or a 7 year old child being hit by 7 lightning strikes and 7 meteor impacts and surviving; the latter seems the most likely.

What do you suggest instead? I.e. what would benefit individual authors more?

People imagine poor author having their thing stolen rather than poor author that corporate takes IP from by contract agreement (and if you don't do that, you don't get the job), then abuses for 70+ years

> it also would use less electricity

How would it use less electricity? I’d like to learn more.

That's completely not true. LLM on device would use MORE electricity.

Service providers that do batch>1 inference are a lot more efficient per watt.

Local inference can only do batch=1 inference, which is very inefficient.

> Nothing obsolete about DOS when it comes to playing 2D games.

Until you want better graphics, network, touch support, etc, etc.

Some people may not want that; and there are workarounds, even in dosbox itself; still, they are just that.

The page lists similar plans in FAQ: “To add additional functionalities (features) to the game (like online gaming, scalable HQ Grahics, HQ Audio, plugins, etc.).”

Only because bombs don’t charge as well. Aerosol cans and flammable liquids (e.g. alcohol) are allowed; in small quantities - just like power banks.

This is the first decent answer, which I appreciate. And while my comparison to a bomb may have been over the top, I don't think a comparison to shampoo is fair either. And in any case, I'm not so sure whether the limit on toiletries is all that sensical either.

> I don't think a comparison to shampoo is fair either

I’m not sure what you mean; when I Ctrl+F “shampoo”, this is the only hit I see.

There are non-rechargeable power banks too though.

Do you remember the model names?

Here are your beers lads, I didn't spill anything! They taste good too.

Since the one who picks them up pays, it's fair.