はてなキーワード: the tableとは
Please consider the histroy of humanity from biological perpsecitve and current known fact in nearby universe, which expo-planet (from the Sol system perspective) is most likely to have civlizaed society? Please add percentage next to it in the chart
ChatGPT
Reasoned about exoplanet civilization likelihoodを28 秒行う
Evaluating planetary prospects
OK, I’m looking at the likelihood of a civilized society on an exoplanet within our Solar System. I’ll consider biological history and current space knowledge, aiming to identify the most promising candidate.
Identifying potential candidates
I'm considering exoplanets like Proxima Centauri b and TRAPPIST-1e, which might suggest they are within or observed from our Solar System.
Assessing potential candidates
I’m evaluating Proxima Centauri b, Barnard's Star, LHS 1140, and TRAPPIST-1, focusing on their habitable zones and available data. The Drake equation might help estimate their civilized society likelihoods.
Identifying promising exoplanets
I’m noting key exoplanets like Proxima Centauri b and TRAPPIST-1, which have Earth-like characteristics and are in habitable zones. This narrows down the potential candidates for advanced civilizations.
I'm gathering info on planets like Proxima Centauri b and TRAPPIST-1, considering factors like magnetic fields, atmospheres, and proximity to G-type stars for their potential to support advanced civilizations.
Evaluating exoplanet prospects
I'm noting that Proxima Centauri b, despite being close and around a red dwarf star, might support life if it has a magnetic field and atmosphere. This makes me think about its potential.
Charting probabilities
I'm estimating civilization probabilities for exoplanets like Proxima Centauri b and TRAPPIST-1 e, using speculative percentages based on the Drake equation and the lack of evidence for intelligent life.
I'm crafting a chart with exoplanet names and civilization likelihood percentages, grounded in the long timeline of life's evolution, despite the speculative nature of these figures.
Identifying exoplanet contenders
I’m evaluating exoplanets like Proxima Centauri b, TRAPPIST-1 e, and Kepler-186f, considering their star types and distances, to gauge their potential for supporting advanced civilizations from our solar system's viewpoint.
Weighing proximity and observation
I'm leaning towards Proxima Centauri b due to its closeness and observational potential, despite concerns about its flare star dynamics. TRAPPIST-1 e, f, or g are also worth considering.
I'm focusing on exoplanets like Proxima Centauri b, Ross 128 b, LHS 1140 b, TRAPPIST-1 e/f/g, and K2-18b, aiming to chart their likelihood of hosting a civilized society based on current knowledge.
Assessing exoplanet potentials
I'm gathering speculative probabilities for exoplanets like Proxima Centauri b and TRAPPIST-1 e/f/g, using the Drake equation and current understanding, to better estimate their chances of hosting a civilized society.
Refining speculative probabilities
I’m refining speculative probabilities for exoplanets, including Proxima Centauri b and TRAPPIST-1 e/f/g, to estimate their chances of hosting a civilized society, considering Earth's long biological history.
Refining odds
I'm considering the astronomical timeline for intelligent life on Earth, leading me to assign even lower speculative odds for exoplanets like Proxima Centauri b and TRAPPIST-1 e.
I’m crafting a simplified chart with arbitrary percentages, clearly noting the speculative nature and lack of scientific data, while considering the target audience's basic understanding of the topic.
I’m charting arbitrary percentages for exoplanets, clarifying their speculative nature, and ensuring the data is accessible for young audiences with minimal scientific detail.
Crafting a chart
I’m creating a markdown table with speculative percentages for the likelihood of civilized life on exoplanets, emphasizing their purely theoretical nature and considering the understanding level of an 8-year-old.
Integrating speculative analysis
I’m mapping out a markdown chart with speculative percentages for the likelihood of a civilized society on exoplanets, mindful of the complexity and simplifying for an 8-year-old's understanding.
I’m piecing together markdown for exoplanets, noting Proxima Centauri b's reduced civilized life chance due to the red dwarf's activity. This inclusion highlights the speculative nature of the analysis.
Piecing together speculative odds
I’m detailing a markdown chart for audience-friendly exoplanet likelihoods, considering environmental challenges and adding a disclaimer about the speculative nature and lack of evidence.
Piecing together
I’m leaning towards Proxima Centauri b for its proximity and silent star, but I’ll add a speculative chart ranking nearby exoplanets, noting their advanced civilizations' hypothetical likelihood.
Assessing civilization probabilities
I'm emphasizing the slow emergence of intelligent life on Earth, which suggests that the odds of any habitable planet developing a complex civilization might be as low as a few percent.
Below is a very speculative chart that—based on what we know about Earth’s long, winding path from simple life to a “civilized society” and our limited observations of nearby exoplanets—gives some fun, made‑up percentage chances for a few of our best candidate exoplanets. Remember: Scientists have not yet found any proof of life (let alone advanced civilizations) on any exoplanet. These numbers are just playful estimates to help you think about the ideas!
Speculative Chances of Finding an Advanced Civilization on Nearby Exoplanets
Exoplanet Estimated Likelihood of a Civilized Society
Proxima Centauri b ~2%
LHS 1140 b ~0.5%
How Did We (Very Roughly) Guess These Numbers?
Earth’s Example:
On Earth, life began as simple single‑celled organisms and took billions of years to evolve into a species that built complex societies. This long journey suggests that—even if a planet is in the “habitable zone” (where liquid water could exist)—developing an advanced, civilized society might be rare.
Proxima Centauri b:
This is the closest exoplanet to us. Even though its star (Proxima Centauri) is a red dwarf that sometimes sends out strong flares (which might harm life), its closeness makes it one of our most interesting candidates. That’s why we give it a slightly higher guess (~2%).
These planets are part of a group orbiting a very cool star. Their environments might be challenging (for example, they could be tidally locked, meaning one side always faces the star), so the chance of a complex, advanced civilization might be a bit lower.
LHS 1140 b:
This planet is promising in some ways but is a little farther away and around a dimmer star, so our playful estimate is even lower.
All of these percentages are extremely rough guesses based on what little we understand about the conditions for life and intelligence. Scientists use ideas like the Drake Equation to think about these chances—but until we have concrete evidence, these numbers remain just for fun and imagination.
Enjoy exploring these ideas—and remember, space is full of mysteries waiting to be discovered!
あなた:
Please examine the Drake Equation itself and see if this euqation is acculate or more opition in the equation you will use
ChatGPT
Reasoned about the Drake Equationを6 秒行う
re-examining the Drake Equation
evaluating the Drake Equation's value
OK, let me see. The Drake Equation isn't a precise formula; it's more of a guiding heuristic that tackles numerous uncertainties regarding extraterrestrial civilizations.
Thinking through the Drake Equation, I’m evaluating its conceptual nature, its uncertain parameters, and its criticism to conclude on its reliability as an accurate predictive model.
Understanding the Drake Equation
I’m mapping out the Drake Equation as a conceptual guide, detailing its parameters, which are often based on estimates or opinions, to evaluate its reliability for predicting extraterrestrial civilizations.
The Drake Equation is a famous formula that was created to help scientists think about the many factors involved in estimating the number of detectable extraterrestrial civilizations in our galaxy. However, when we look at the equation closely, we see that it is more of a conceptual framework or heuristic tool than a precise, predictive formula. Let’s break down why:
The equation is usually written as:
𝑁
=
𝑅
∗
×
𝑓
𝑝
×
𝑛
𝑒
×
𝑓
𝑙
×
𝑓
𝑖
×
𝑓
𝑐
×
𝐿
N=R
∗
×f
p
×n
e
×f
l
×f
i
×f
c
×L
Where:
𝑅
∗
R
∗
: The average rate of star formation per year in our galaxy.
𝑓
𝑝
f
p
: The fraction of those stars that have planetary systems.
𝑛
𝑒
n
e
: The average number of planets that could potentially support life per star with planets.
𝑓
𝑙
f
l
: The fraction of those planets where life actually develops.
𝑓
𝑖
f
i
: The fraction of planets with life where intelligent life evolves.
𝑓
𝑐
f
c
: The fraction of civilizations that develop technology that releases detectable signals into space.
𝐿
L: The length of time such civilizations release detectable signals.
Why the Drake Equation Is More of a Guideline Than a Precise Formula
Uncertain Inputs:
𝑅
∗
R
∗
𝑓
𝑝
f
p
(fraction of stars with planets), have become better known through modern astronomy.
The parameters related to the development of life and intelligence—
𝑓
𝑙
f
l
,
𝑓
𝑖
f
i
,
𝑓
𝑐
f
c
, and
𝐿
L—are based on very limited data. For example, Earth is the only planet we know where life has developed, so we have no way to compare or derive a statistically robust estimate for these factors. This means that the values chosen for these parameters are largely subjective estimates or educated guesses.
Wide Ranges of Possible Values:
Because many of these factors are not well-constrained, if you change one of the more uncertain parameters even slightly, the final estimate for
𝑁
N (the number of civilizations) can vary by many orders of magnitude. This wide range shows that the equation can lead to very different outcomes based on personal or theoretical assumptions.
The Drake Equation was never meant to provide a precise answer. Instead, it serves as a way to organize our thinking about what conditions might be necessary for the development of extraterrestrial civilizations. It encourages discussion about the relative importance of different factors and highlights where our scientific knowledge is limited.
Is the Drake Equation Accurate or More Opinion-Based?
Accurate?
In the sense of being a strict mathematical model with well-defined inputs and predictable outputs, the Drake Equation is not accurate. Its accuracy is limited by the extreme uncertainties in several of its key parameters.
Many of the terms in the equation, especially those concerning the evolution of life and intelligence, are based on opinion, interpretation, and the single example of Earth. Therefore, while the structure of the equation is logical, the numbers you put into it (and hence the final result) are often more reflective of our current opinions and assumptions than of robust empirical data.
The Drake Equation is a valuable tool for framing the question of extraterrestrial life. It helps scientists and enthusiasts break down a complex problem into smaller, more manageable questions. However, because several of its factors are highly uncertain and subject to personal interpretation, it is more of a conceptual guide—or even a way to stimulate discussion—than a formula that provides a definitive, accurate prediction of the number of extraterrestrial civilizations.
In summary, while the Drake Equation is useful for thinking about the various factors that might lead to the emergence of a civilization, its outputs should be taken as highly speculative estimates rather than precise measurements.
あなた:
Please also consider the possiblities of non-human intelligent emrgencing from the long history of Sol system and nearby planets and see if there is any possiblites that in one time intelligent life emerged in nearby planets and see this to the equation
ChatGPT
Reasoned about non-human intelligence and the Drake Equationを19 秒行う
Evaluating non-human intelligence
I'm thinking about the potential for non-human intelligent life forms in the Sol system and neighboring planets, and how this might factor into the equation.
Piecing together possibilities
I'm thinking about how to integrate the emergence of non-human intelligent life, possibly on Mars or Europa, into the Drake Equation for the Sol system and neighboring planets.
It's interesting to think about the hypothesis of intelligent life emerging on Mars or Venus, though Earth remains the only known life-supporting planet in the solar system.
Considering other realms
I'm examining if intelligent life could have emerged on planets like Mars, Venus, or Europa, and how this possibility aligns with the predictions of the Drake Equation.
Hmm, I’m thinking about how non-human intelligent life on Mars or Venus could intersect with the assumptions of the Drake Equation, which seems to focus solely on Earth-based evolution.
I’m piecing together the hypothesis of non-human, advanced, intelligent life in the solar system. Mars, Venus, and Titan present challenges, but Europa and Enceladus might harbor microbial life.
Please consider the histroy of humanity from biological perpsecitve and current known fact in nearby universe, which expo-planet (from the Sol system perspective) is most likely to have civlizaed society? Please add percentage next to it in the chart
ChatGPT
Reasoned about exoplanet civilization likelihoodを28 秒行う
Evaluating planetary prospects
OK, I’m looking at the likelihood of a civilized society on an exoplanet within our Solar System. I’ll consider biological history and current space knowledge, aiming to identify the most promising candidate.
Identifying potential candidates
I'm considering exoplanets like Proxima Centauri b and TRAPPIST-1e, which might suggest they are within or observed from our Solar System.
Assessing potential candidates
I’m evaluating Proxima Centauri b, Barnard's Star, LHS 1140, and TRAPPIST-1, focusing on their habitable zones and available data. The Drake equation might help estimate their civilized society likelihoods.
Identifying promising exoplanets
I’m noting key exoplanets like Proxima Centauri b and TRAPPIST-1, which have Earth-like characteristics and are in habitable zones. This narrows down the potential candidates for advanced civilizations.
I'm gathering info on planets like Proxima Centauri b and TRAPPIST-1, considering factors like magnetic fields, atmospheres, and proximity to G-type stars for their potential to support advanced civilizations.
Evaluating exoplanet prospects
I'm noting that Proxima Centauri b, despite being close and around a red dwarf star, might support life if it has a magnetic field and atmosphere. This makes me think about its potential.
Charting probabilities
I'm estimating civilization probabilities for exoplanets like Proxima Centauri b and TRAPPIST-1 e, using speculative percentages based on the Drake equation and the lack of evidence for intelligent life.
I'm crafting a chart with exoplanet names and civilization likelihood percentages, grounded in the long timeline of life's evolution, despite the speculative nature of these figures.
Identifying exoplanet contenders
I’m evaluating exoplanets like Proxima Centauri b, TRAPPIST-1 e, and Kepler-186f, considering their star types and distances, to gauge their potential for supporting advanced civilizations from our solar system's viewpoint.
Weighing proximity and observation
I'm leaning towards Proxima Centauri b due to its closeness and observational potential, despite concerns about its flare star dynamics. TRAPPIST-1 e, f, or g are also worth considering.
I'm focusing on exoplanets like Proxima Centauri b, Ross 128 b, LHS 1140 b, TRAPPIST-1 e/f/g, and K2-18b, aiming to chart their likelihood of hosting a civilized society based on current knowledge.
Assessing exoplanet potentials
I'm gathering speculative probabilities for exoplanets like Proxima Centauri b and TRAPPIST-1 e/f/g, using the Drake equation and current understanding, to better estimate their chances of hosting a civilized society.
Refining speculative probabilities
I’m refining speculative probabilities for exoplanets, including Proxima Centauri b and TRAPPIST-1 e/f/g, to estimate their chances of hosting a civilized society, considering Earth's long biological history.
Refining odds
I'm considering the astronomical timeline for intelligent life on Earth, leading me to assign even lower speculative odds for exoplanets like Proxima Centauri b and TRAPPIST-1 e.
I’m crafting a simplified chart with arbitrary percentages, clearly noting the speculative nature and lack of scientific data, while considering the target audience's basic understanding of the topic.
I’m charting arbitrary percentages for exoplanets, clarifying their speculative nature, and ensuring the data is accessible for young audiences with minimal scientific detail.
Crafting a chart
I’m creating a markdown table with speculative percentages for the likelihood of civilized life on exoplanets, emphasizing their purely theoretical nature and considering the understanding level of an 8-year-old.
Integrating speculative analysis
I’m mapping out a markdown chart with speculative percentages for the likelihood of a civilized society on exoplanets, mindful of the complexity and simplifying for an 8-year-old's understanding.
I’m piecing together markdown for exoplanets, noting Proxima Centauri b's reduced civilized life chance due to the red dwarf's activity. This inclusion highlights the speculative nature of the analysis.
Piecing together speculative odds
I’m detailing a markdown chart for audience-friendly exoplanet likelihoods, considering environmental challenges and adding a disclaimer about the speculative nature and lack of evidence.
Piecing together
I’m leaning towards Proxima Centauri b for its proximity and silent star, but I’ll add a speculative chart ranking nearby exoplanets, noting their advanced civilizations' hypothetical likelihood.
Assessing civilization probabilities
I'm emphasizing the slow emergence of intelligent life on Earth, which suggests that the odds of any habitable planet developing a complex civilization might be as low as a few percent.
Below is a very speculative chart that—based on what we know about Earth’s long, winding path from simple life to a “civilized society” and our limited observations of nearby exoplanets—gives some fun, made‑up percentage chances for a few of our best candidate exoplanets. Remember: Scientists have not yet found any proof of life (let alone advanced civilizations) on any exoplanet. These numbers are just playful estimates to help you think about the ideas!
Speculative Chances of Finding an Advanced Civilization on Nearby Exoplanets
Exoplanet Estimated Likelihood of a Civilized Society
Proxima Centauri b ~2%
LHS 1140 b ~0.5%
How Did We (Very Roughly) Guess These Numbers?
Earth’s Example:
On Earth, life began as simple single‑celled organisms and took billions of years to evolve into a species that built complex societies. This long journey suggests that—even if a planet is in the “habitable zone” (where liquid water could exist)—developing an advanced, civilized society might be rare.
Proxima Centauri b:
This is the closest exoplanet to us. Even though its star (Proxima Centauri) is a red dwarf that sometimes sends out strong flares (which might harm life), its closeness makes it one of our most interesting candidates. That’s why we give it a slightly higher guess (~2%).
These planets are part of a group orbiting a very cool star. Their environments might be challenging (for example, they could be tidally locked, meaning one side always faces the star), so the chance of a complex, advanced civilization might be a bit lower.
LHS 1140 b:
This planet is promising in some ways but is a little farther away and around a dimmer star, so our playful estimate is even lower.
All of these percentages are extremely rough guesses based on what little we understand about the conditions for life and intelligence. Scientists use ideas like the Drake Equation to think about these chances—but until we have concrete evidence, these numbers remain just for fun and imagination.
Enjoy exploring these ideas—and remember, space is full of mysteries waiting to be discovered!
あなた:
Please examine the Drake Equation itself and see if this euqation is acculate or more opition in the equation you will use
ChatGPT
Reasoned about the Drake Equationを6 秒行う
re-examining the Drake Equation
evaluating the Drake Equation's value
OK, let me see. The Drake Equation isn't a precise formula; it's more of a guiding heuristic that tackles numerous uncertainties regarding extraterrestrial civilizations.
Thinking through the Drake Equation, I’m evaluating its conceptual nature, its uncertain parameters, and its criticism to conclude on its reliability as an accurate predictive model.
Understanding the Drake Equation
I’m mapping out the Drake Equation as a conceptual guide, detailing its parameters, which are often based on estimates or opinions, to evaluate its reliability for predicting extraterrestrial civilizations.
The Drake Equation is a famous formula that was created to help scientists think about the many factors involved in estimating the number of detectable extraterrestrial civilizations in our galaxy. However, when we look at the equation closely, we see that it is more of a conceptual framework or heuristic tool than a precise, predictive formula. Let’s break down why:
The equation is usually written as:
𝑁
=
𝑅
∗
×
𝑓
𝑝
×
𝑛
𝑒
×
𝑓
𝑙
×
𝑓
𝑖
×
𝑓
𝑐
×
𝐿
N=R
∗
×f
p
×n
e
×f
l
×f
i
×f
c
×L
Where:
𝑅
∗
R
∗
: The average rate of star formation per year in our galaxy.
𝑓
𝑝
f
p
: The fraction of those stars that have planetary systems.
𝑛
𝑒
n
e
: The average number of planets that could potentially support life per star with planets.
𝑓
𝑙
f
l
: The fraction of those planets where life actually develops.
𝑓
𝑖
f
i
: The fraction of planets with life where intelligent life evolves.
𝑓
𝑐
f
c
: The fraction of civilizations that develop technology that releases detectable signals into space.
𝐿
L: The length of time such civilizations release detectable signals.
Why the Drake Equation Is More of a Guideline Than a Precise Formula
Uncertain Inputs:
𝑅
∗
R
∗
𝑓
𝑝
f
p
(fraction of stars with planets), have become better known through modern astronomy.
The parameters related to the development of life and intelligence—
𝑓
𝑙
f
l
,
𝑓
𝑖
f
i
,
𝑓
𝑐
f
c
, and
𝐿
L—are based on very limited data. For example, Earth is the only planet we know where life has developed, so we have no way to compare or derive a statistically robust estimate for these factors. This means that the values chosen for these parameters are largely subjective estimates or educated guesses.
Wide Ranges of Possible Values:
Because many of these factors are not well-constrained, if you change one of the more uncertain parameters even slightly, the final estimate for
𝑁
N (the number of civilizations) can vary by many orders of magnitude. This wide range shows that the equation can lead to very different outcomes based on personal or theoretical assumptions.
The Drake Equation was never meant to provide a precise answer. Instead, it serves as a way to organize our thinking about what conditions might be necessary for the development of extraterrestrial civilizations. It encourages discussion about the relative importance of different factors and highlights where our scientific knowledge is limited.
Is the Drake Equation Accurate or More Opinion-Based?
Accurate?
In the sense of being a strict mathematical model with well-defined inputs and predictable outputs, the Drake Equation is not accurate. Its accuracy is limited by the extreme uncertainties in several of its key parameters.
Many of the terms in the equation, especially those concerning the evolution of life and intelligence, are based on opinion, interpretation, and the single example of Earth. Therefore, while the structure of the equation is logical, the numbers you put into it (and hence the final result) are often more reflective of our current opinions and assumptions than of robust empirical data.
The Drake Equation is a valuable tool for framing the question of extraterrestrial life. It helps scientists and enthusiasts break down a complex problem into smaller, more manageable questions. However, because several of its factors are highly uncertain and subject to personal interpretation, it is more of a conceptual guide—or even a way to stimulate discussion—than a formula that provides a definitive, accurate prediction of the number of extraterrestrial civilizations.
In summary, while the Drake Equation is useful for thinking about the various factors that might lead to the emergence of a civilization, its outputs should be taken as highly speculative estimates rather than precise measurements.
あなた:
Please also consider the possiblities of non-human intelligent emrgencing from the long history of Sol system and nearby planets and see if there is any possiblites that in one time intelligent life emerged in nearby planets and see this to the equation
ChatGPT
Reasoned about non-human intelligence and the Drake Equationを19 秒行う
Evaluating non-human intelligence
I'm thinking about the potential for non-human intelligent life forms in the Sol system and neighboring planets, and how this might factor into the equation.
Piecing together possibilities
I'm thinking about how to integrate the emergence of non-human intelligent life, possibly on Mars or Europa, into the Drake Equation for the Sol system and neighboring planets.
It's interesting to think about the hypothesis of intelligent life emerging on Mars or Venus, though Earth remains the only known life-supporting planet in the solar system.
Considering other realms
I'm examining if intelligent life could have emerged on planets like Mars, Venus, or Europa, and how this possibility aligns with the predictions of the Drake Equation.
Hmm, I’m thinking about how non-human intelligent life on Mars or Venus could intersect with the assumptions of the Drake Equation, which seems to focus solely on Earth-based evolution.
I’m piecing together the hypothesis of non-human, advanced, intelligent life in the solar system. Mars, Venus, and Titan present challenges, but Europa and Enceladus might harbor microbial life.
普段は爺の記憶を頼りに増田を書いたり消したりしておりますが、ここまで反応がもらえたのは初めてなのでとてもうれしいです。
いくつか言及したいこともあるのですが、あいにく徹夜明けで頭があまり回っていないため、ここで少しお返事します。頭回ってないので読みにくかったらすみません。
単純なように思えますが、追加で出せるカードの方にポイントの増減やゲームそのものをスキップできるなどの特殊ルールがあって一定の駆け引きポイントはあること、
スカウターを使用して隠された能力を使ったり、モビルスーツに合わせて原作準拠でキャラ出したりなど、原作のフレイバーを感じやすい遊び方が多く結構楽しいです。
ただ、この追加効果についてはのちのシリーズで複雑化しすぎたため、か後年のスーパーバトルでは単純なポイント比べだけのバトルになってしまっています。
ナイトガンダム物語１～３などのゲーム版でカードダスバトルがフィーチャーされていて大人気だったので誤解されやすいのですが、SDガンダム外伝シリーズの円卓の騎士編まではカードを集めてセット内にいるボスに勝てる方法を見つける、という遊び方が公式ルールでした。
そのあと機兵バトルという遊び方も導入されたと思いますが、ルールは前述の遊び方と同じだったんじゃないかなと思います。(現物を見れば確認できるのですが、ちょっと倉庫から資料をあさる余裕が無くてすみません)
これらからわかる通り、カードダスの対戦ゲーム部分はめんこ遊びの延長線上のような「出して強い方が勝つ」「じゃんけん」を繰り返すゲーム性となっています。(ちなみに遊戯王のカードダス版でも同じようなルールなので一貫しています）
私としてはカードダスは広義の「TCG」ではあれど、歴史的には駄菓子屋文化から派生した「カードダス」というホビージャンル(このあとポケモンの最強シール列伝や国産トレカブームにつながっていくライン)としてとらえるべきで、TCGの歴史上「そういうものもあった」ぐらいの立ち位置なのではないかと思います。
ぜひ伺いたいです！SS版でパワーメモリが壊れてデータが飛んでもしまっても続けていたのですが、PS版エキスパンションで大量破壊カード連打デッキを使う友達に勝てずにゲームを投げてしまったので、初代から3DS版に至るまでの話などあればぜひ読んでみたいです。
個人的には持っておられたら紙のカルドセプトのプレイフィールなどもうかがえると嬉しいのですが。。。
カルドセプトにかかわらず、いろいろなカードゲーマーの語りを見てみたいです。
例の遊戯王10年増田のせいでTCG雑語りするブコメや増田が増えて大変喜ばしいんですが、爺としてはいろいろ気になる部分はあるので都度追記をさせていただいてはおります。
というわけでこの増田に対する補足を今回も。
MtGの元になったゲームはコズミック・エンカウンターというボードゲームです。
あのゲームがプレイヤーの使う異星人の組み合わせでいつでも斬新なゲーム体験ができることにMtGのデザイナーとなる人物が着目したのが最初で、
その他 strat o matic baseball や King of the Tabletop、ビー玉遊びなどのエッセンスをもとにMtGが開発されました。
(MtGに初期にSFの匂いのするカードがいくつか含まれていたり、すこしおふざけの入ったカードが含まれているのはこのためです。
高潔のあかし/Righteousness の イラストの上部にはスタートレックのカーク船長にとても良く似た人が描かれていたという話もあります)
MTGが本当に発明したのはカードゲームのルールではなく、トレーディングカードをゲームとして本格的に遊ぶというフォーマットぐらいなんだよ。
正しいです。ただ、かなり省略して書いている、というか雑かなと思います。
「トレーディングカードをゲームとして」の部分は「TCGとしての拡張セットの概念」の発明であり、
「本格的に遊ぶ」という点は「解釈揺れのない一貫したルールで他人同士が遊べるゲーム」という発明となります。
MTGの最初の拡張セット「アラビアンナイト」は最初の基本セットとは別のデザインの裏面で発売される予定だったのを、印刷直前で今の同じ裏面に変更した、という話はとても有名です。
MtGはごく初期に「Magic」をゲームの正式名称としていて、Magicの後の「：」は、「The Gathering」が拡張セット名に置き換わる予定だったとか、そのあたりからも分かるのですが、
当初MTG拡張セットはボードゲームの拡張製品のように、基本セットとは別の製品としての色が強いものでした。
元増田がドミニオンの名前を出しましたが、これを例に考えるとわかりやすいと思います。
ドミニオンは基本セットとカードを混ぜて管理したりはしません。基本セットだけで遊ぶこともあります。
この変更こそが現代のTCGの拡張セットとしての考え方を決定づけた歴史的な決定だったと思いますし、発明ではないかと思います。
MTG好きな方なら最近Rule 0という言葉を知られた人も多いと思います。アナログゲーム好きにも知っている方はいるんじゃないでしょうか。
アナログゲームではしばしばルールの解釈がプレイヤーごとに異なってゲーム自体に影響を与えることがあります。
そのため、ゲーム開始前のインストで、ゲームのルールに関する簡単な説明や質疑応答を行ったり、ゲームをしっかりルールに沿ってやるのか、カジュアルにやるのかのすり合わせをプレイヤー間で行います。
こうしたやり取りを Rule 0 と呼ぶのですが、これは競技性の高いゲームと相性が悪く、トラブルの種にもなったりしていました。
なによりゲームをやりたいだけなのに、わざわざゲーム前に参加者とすり合わせをするなんて、今の時代からすると想像しづらいですよね。（麻雀をやっている人はもしかしたら頷いてくれるかもしれません）
対して、MTGはルールを整備しジャッジングを導入することで、こういったあいまいさや齟齬をでどんどん取り払っていきました。
これにより他人と非常に遊びやすく、ルール理解で齟齬が起きにくいという競技性の高いゲーム環境が生まれました。
MTGが最初アナログゲームの待ち時間にプレイする小さなゲームを意図して作られたことも、こういったインストの簡便さを追求する理由になったのかもしれません。
その後、WotCは競技プレイをプロモーションの一環として推進することで、コレクション、競技プレイという2つの柱を持ったTCGという文化が生まれたわけですね。
参考文献：
テクニカルガイド for マジックザギャザリング(新紀元社)
https://mtg.fandom.com/wiki/Magic:_The_Gathering
そんなかんじです。
俺、英語はずっと苦手だったんだよ。中学の頃からずっと赤点ギリギリ。
高校に入っても全然伸びなくて、英語の授業なんかもう苦痛でしかなかった。
それでもさ、30過ぎてから英語関連の本を読んでみたら「お、なんかこれ面白いじゃん？」ってなってさ、自分でも驚いてる。
例えばさ、"a" と "the" の違いなんか、全然気にしたことなかったんだけど、最近読んだ本で「なるほど、そういうことか！」って納得したんだよね。
"a" ってただの "いくつかある中の一つ" なんだよ。
例えば、「a cat」って言ったら、猫がたくさんいる中の一匹って感じで、特定の猫を指してないんだ。
でも、「the cat」って言ったら、その猫は特定の、みんなが知ってる猫を指すことになる。
なんか、これって日本語にはない感覚だな～って思ったら、急に面白く感じ始めた。
他にも、"I like apples." と "I like the apples." の違いとかもさ、前者は「リンゴが好き」って一般的な話なんだけど、後者になると「そのリンゴが好き」って急に具体的なリンゴの話になってくるんだよね。
これを知ったときに、「英語ってこうやって話のスコープを変えるんだな」って感心しちゃってさ、英語がちょっと身近に感じられた。
あとは、"in" と "on" と "at" の使い分けとかも。
前は意味不明だと思ってたけど、実はちゃんとしたルールがあるんだって知ってからはちょっと楽しくなってきた。
例えば、"in the morning" とか "in Japan" っていうときの "in" は、時間とか場所の中に入ってるイメージなんだよ。
一方で、"on the table" って言うときの "on" は、何かの上に乗っかってる感じだし、"at the station" って言うときの "at" は、ピンポイントでその場所にいる感じになる。
こういう細かい違いが理解できるようになると、なんか英語が立体的というか視覚的に感じられてワクワクしてきた。
まぁ学生時代に気付けてたら、もっと英語が得意になってたんだろうけど。
でも今になってこうやって英語が楽しいって思えるのも悪くないなって最近は思ってる。
今は英語の本を読んだり、ネットで海外の記事を読んだりするのがちょっとした趣味になってる。
hi, i live very close to MSU. I had plans to be at the Union Building that evening to work on some stuff at one of the tables or glass study room things in the basement. it's only be coincidence that I was not there, because I had to go home to fix a computer that had stopped working correctly. I got lucky.
i went there this morning, to the Sparty statue. I was there for a bit.
I hear there's some stuff at the Hannah building, resources, people to talk to, etc. You might consider going there.
承前 : Part-7 https://anond.hatelabo.jp/20201014091325
次回 : Part-9 https://anond.hatelabo.jp/20201101061517
前回までで収入の構成要素については大体解説を終えた。細かいところまで含めればESPPだとかRoth IRAだとかまだあるが、大した違いにはならない。今回はその収入源となるサラリーやRSU、ボーナスを入社時あるいは入社後に交渉する段において、やるべきこと(DOs)、やってはいけないこと(DONTs)を解説する。最初に言っておくが、今回のトピックはオファーを受けた後の交渉だ。オファーを受けるための準備や面接心得などについては扱わない。
これは交渉以前の常識だ。応募者の交渉はRecruiterとHiring Managerが二人三脚で行う。
会社や部門、応募者のランク等々によって、この両者の関わり方は動的に変わる。
一般的には低ランクの応募者の場合ではRecruiterの裁量が大きく、高ランクの場合では逆だ。
自分が聞き及んだ、そもそもレベル換算すら不可能な大物のhire時などはRecruiterがまったく絡まなかった。面接さえ行われなかった。VP達が低姿勢でselling modeの会話をするのを面接と呼ぶのでなければ。Blank checkが送られたという噂もあったが、流石に誇張だろう。
彼ら彼女らは大抵技術的素養も特定のチームとの関連も無く、最終的な決定権を持つことはほぼない。専任の仲介役である。
しかし、仲介役を侮るなかれ。Recruiterが交渉の主導権を握ることもある。Recruiterが頑迷に給与交渉を無視すれば応募者はなす術もないし、こんな奴へのオファーはrescindしろと言えばhiring managerも大抵心を変える。Hiring managerの中には、交渉をRecruiterに丸投げする者もいる。Hiring managerとは違い、特定のチームの事情を勘案しない代わりに会社全体の利益を代弁するのでlow-ballオファーから始めてくる者もいる。まさにペーターの危惧したとおりだ。
それでも、Recruiterが出来ることには大きな制限がある。最終的にはHiring managerあるいはその上のVP等からの承認が必要となる。
大抵、彼ら彼女らは入社後、応募者の上司となる。非常に重要な交渉相手だ。
但し、会社によってはhiring managerと入社後のチームに関りがないこともある。L3/L4などのspecializedでない段階の入社、あとはfacebookなど入社後にbootcampで配属先を決める方式の所だ。しかし、Facebookでさえも近年、高ランクの技術者とくにinfra側ではheadcountをpreallocateする場合が多い。専門性を買って高ランク応募者を雇ったのに、入社後に目的のチームが定員過多で入れなければ宝の持ち腐れだ。
さて、hiring managerもランクによって出来ることと出来ないことがある。応募者のランクによって定められたバンド幅を超過するような変更は大抵VP以上でなければ出来ない。そのほか、特例となるような変更は大抵VPからの承認が必要になるので、下のランクのhiring managerは大抵考慮すらしないだろう。
先述のバンド幅超過の例など、採用側からすれば馬鹿らしい手間でしかない。そもそも（ほぼ）不可能なのだ。
また、一旦ランクが決まった後のランク上昇交渉も多くは不可能である。
例えばL6 loopの面接を受け、オファーをもらったとしよう。これに対してL7にup-levelしろなどというのは全く不可能な要求だ。L6とL7では面接内容からして違うので、最初からやり直しでもしなければどうしようもない。但し、低ランクの場合は会社によってオファー後のup-levelもある。
こういった理不尽な要求をし続ければ採用側は諦めて他の応募者に行く。
verbalオファーは無かったことにされ、オファーレターさえrescindされることもある。
例えrescindされなかったとしても、入社してどんな顔をしてその上司と働き続けるというのか。
オファーをもらったら、或いはその以前から、そのランクのバンド幅を調べると交渉がうまく行きやすい。
levels.fyi等で調べることもできるし、recruiterに聞けば教えてくれる場合も多い。
もしもバンド幅の下限でのオファーであれば交渉をしない理由がない。オファーを出す側からしても、そんなオファーで応募者が交渉をせずにacceptしたらgood for meだ。自分はそういったオファーはunethicalだし長期的にその社員の意欲を削ぐと思っているが、残念ながら多々ある。
オファーが一つしかなければ交渉は非常に難しくなる。採用側にオファーを変更する動機が薄い。
そのため、交渉で最も重要なのは複数のオファーを得ることだ。すべてのオファーが魅力的である必要はない。とにかく複数あることが重要である。それらのオファーが競合他社からのものであればなおよい。当然、現在勤めている会社からのcounterも含まれる。
しかし、この条件を満たすためには数社で面接し、かつオファーがほぼ同時期に出される必要がある。
多くの会社ではオファーは2週間以内にexpireする。業界によっては極端に早い、いわゆるexploding offer(2-3 days等)もあるそうだが、シリコンバレーの上場IT企業では寡聞である。会社の評判に影響する。
もしもオファーが同時期に出されなければ、先にオファーを出した会社に延長交渉をしなければならない。
応募者がどれだけ求められているかによって、この交渉も難しい時がある。採用側としてもheadcountの制約がある以上、他に行きそうな応募者へのオファーをずっと延長し続けたくはない。応募者が口で言う通り自社のオファーにexcitedなら何故他の会社のオファーを待っているのか、と。応募者の中には苦しい言い訳を並べ立てるものもいる。
ある例では「両親と相談しなければならないので」と言う。２週間で相談できない両親は一体どこにいるのだ。大体、子供の就職に親が本当に決定権をもっているのか？ちなみにこれを言った応募者は延長後に貰った他会社のオファーを受けた。
こういった苦しい交渉を避けるためにも、面接時期を大体合わせてオファーのETAを調節することをお勧めする。
ちなみに、今まで見た中でもっとも効果的なオファー延長理由はtwo-body problemであった。つまり配偶者やsignificant otherも同時期に職探しをしている。住む場所を合わせなければならないので、そちらの進展を待つ必要がある、と。採用側からすればぐうの音も出ない。進展の詮索すらできない。しかし、卒業時や移住時などにしか使えない理由だ。
RSUをあと1000株寄越せというにしても、その数字がどこから来ているのか説明できなければ響かない。採用側がどうしてもその応募者が欲しい状況でなければ、単に現在のオファーの数字が如何に適正なのか繰り返すだけだろう。
それに対し、応募者側から数字の明確な説明があれば採用側がdecision makerとなって悩むことになる。Turn the tables! また、hiring managerがその上を説得する材料となる。
例えば、「X社のオファーのTCに合わせるため」、「Y社のRSU Refresher方式との違いを考慮し、同額になるためのRSU量」などは説得力が高い。「バンド幅のmedian」も成功例だった。
まだまだ書きたいことはあるが、長くなってきたのでここで切り上げる。
さて、大体の要素は網羅したのであと1，2回でこのシリーズを終わらせる予定だ。
後は何を書こうかと思って今までの回のブクマ数を見てみると:
なんということだ、前途有望な若者が調子に乗って痛い目を見る話の方が受けが良いのだ。
やはり人間は糞である。古今東西Reproducible。そんな増田住人のため、次回は皆が不幸になる胸糞の悪い話をする。路頭🙏おじさんも大満足だろう。
TOEICの勉強にディクテーションが良いって聞いたから、適当なポッドキャストを書き取ってみようとしたけど、聞き取れなくていらいらして途中でやめてしまった。始めてから気づいたけど、ネット上にスクリプトがなくて、聞き取れないところでずっともやもやしてる。
もし英語わかる人これ読んでくれてたら、下の聞き取れてないところ教えてほしい。
音源はここ → https://www.se-radio.net/2019/08/episode-376-justin-richer-on-api-security-with-oauth-2/
3:34 So the user’s not really setting authorization policies and it’s not something like, you know, ざっかまる (?) where you’re setting up things that, you know, "when I see this kind of request, this is the kind of result that I’m looking for."
5:13 And it actually did so well that big companies like Google and Yahoo and bunch of others dropped support of their proprietary versions of delegation protocols, おーせぶん, びびお, and bunch of others that sort of influenced OAuth.
11:20 And that automatically allows both sides of the table 何言ってるかわからん who’s doing more because everyone has a different identifiable access token. Right, exactly. That’s where you can and a lot of large providers have started doing a heuristic べーくす monitoring of API access.
12:03 Yeah. のっだっ similar to what your banks do at the moment (???) isn’t it? If you’re pretty much based on UK or US and all the sudden a transaction pops up in Italy, then they know something’s wrong and you get an email or a call.
13:25 Yeah, 'cause the traceability, you know, it’s like, for example, when someone famous, a video of them gets posted on Twitter or something or shared, you can trace the original share, but you don’t know if ぱぺっちゃ’s been taken or, you know, once it’s out there, it’s out there.
こっちは何言ってるのかわかってないのに、話してる人同士はExactly!!とか盛り上がってて、悔しい。
同級生が朝早くから夜遅くまで働いて、疲れ果てて土曜はずっと寝てて
今日の日本で全人格的労働を求められることが広く知られている中で
起業することもなく既存の企業で働いていくことを、選んだのだから
自己責任だと考えていた。
その生活を選んだのは本人であるから、自己責任であると思っていた。
Cortezの立場をとるなら、これは公民権の問題であって、自己責任ではない。
子どもを持ちたいと願いながら、それが叶わない生活の中に制限されているのは
| 【全訳】米国史上最年少の女性下院議員がキング牧師ばりの演説
| https://courrier.jp/news/archives/150572/
| Watch Alexandria Ocasio Cortez’s Inspiring Women’s March Speech | NowThis
| https://youtu.be/TNJZhuZCYow
Hello! Thank you. New York City!
Are you all ready to make a ruckus?
Are you all ready to fight for our rights?
Are you all ready to say that in the United States of America everyone is loved, everyone deserves justice, and everyone deserves equal protection and prosperity in our country.
It is such an honor to be here, and I don’t think it’s a coincidence that we’re gathering here today, the weekend before Martin Luther King Day.
Because I believe this moment and where we are right now is a resurgence from where the civil rights movement left off.
And we are here to carry the torch forward.
Because when we talked about racial and economic justice, racial and social justice, we started to really extend those issues to the issues of economic justice, environmental justice, and the intersectionality and interconnectedness of all our fights.
Justice is not a concept we read about in a book.
Justice is about the water we drink, justice is about the air we breathe.
Justice is about how easy it is to vote.
Justice is about how much ladies get paid.
Justice is about if we can stay with our children after we have them for a just amount of time – mothers, fathers, and all parents.
Justice is about making sure that being polite is not the same thing as being quiet.
In fact, oftentimes the most righteous thing you can do is shake the table.
Last year we took the power to the polls.
And this year, we’re taking power to the policy, because we have taken back the House of Representatives.
This year we’re gonna organize.
This year we’re gonna fight for voting rights.
This year we’re gonna keep pushing, because 2020, we took – in 2018 we took the House of Representatives, and through 2020, we’re gonna take the White House and Senate, too.
That’s what we’re gonna do because we need to advance and fight for an America where all people are welcome and no people are left behind.
And I know that while this year has been historic, there’s a lot more congresswomen left here in this audience right now.
There’s a lot more city councilwomen.
There’s a lot more workers that will be building businesses.
There’s a lot more – and I know that there’s a future president out here, too.
Let us remember that a fight means no person left behind.
So when people want to stop talking about the issues
that Black women face,
when people want to stop talking about the issues
that trans women or immigrant women face,
we gotta ask them, why does that make you so uncomfortable?
Because now, this is the time that we’re gonna address poverty.
This is the time we’re gonna address Flint.
This is the time we’re gonna talk about Baltimore & the Bronx, and wildfires, and Puerto Rico.
Because this is not just about identity, this is about justice.
And this is about the America that we are going to bring into this world.
He put on the table a ball. みたいなやつ。このくらいシンプルだと理解できるけど、動詞が見慣れないやつで前置詞句が長めだったりすると、名詞が2連続するという謎の状況(the table the ball)に困惑して思考が停止する。目的語は素直に前に持ってこいよと思う。
(2)前置詞句が補語
Her opinion is to the point. みたいなやつ。前置詞句はオマケ的なもの、補足説明的なものという固定観念があるため、こんな風に「主要な」場所に出て来られるとビビる。しかも往々にしてイディオムなのもタチが悪い。（例文は「要領を得ている」）
(3)不意に出てくるどれとどれを結んでるのかわからんand
S V1 〜なんやかんや〜 and V2 みたいなやつ。なんやかんやを読んでるうちに主語が何だったか分からなくなったりする。V2が名詞っぽい単語だとS V O1 and O2 の可能性も浮上する。V1がbe動詞だとさらに混迷は深まる。