If I love “unreliable shifting cities” narratives, like Dark City, Fallen London and the City of Saints and Madmen books, what similar kinds of settings might I like?
Ostrich is delicious. I’ve eaten it in a restaurant once and cooked it myself two or three times. It tastes like a red meat, but cooks like white meat, so you have to be careful because it can overlook in a snap.
As someone who plays just draft, I really like that. I could see myself picking up several valuable dinosaurs in early rounds and then grabbing that as an enabler because nobody else would want it.
Well damn. I loved the original trilogy and I have been saying for ages that I want a remake using modern game design and technology. But based on that website and trailer, I don’t think I’m getting what I wanted. Marathon had a multiplayer mode, yes, but the core was a single player story that made you feel like you were all alone in the world. This looks like not that.
“A Clockwork Orange”, famously, was set in a post-Cold War setting where the West and Russia had grown close, and the who,s thing was written in a dialect that was part English and part Russian. But I agree with the other poster that in general it’s too much work.
I use an app called “Recipe Keeper”. Once the recipe page with all of the garbage has loaded, I hit the “share to Recipe Keeper” button, and it strips out all of the garbage and just shows the recipe.
I feel like the cafeteria is the best scenario, because there isn’t an imbalance of needs like this. Pay a flat fee per year and get a lunch every day, or every work day, or whatever. Economy of scale would mean that it would save the subscribers money.
…huh, this could actually work. The one downside is that people nowadays expect variety in their food and cafeteria food tends to be samey. But if you could solve that, this is a good idea.
Here’s the problem. Let’s say you have a doctor club, where everyone pays the same amount regardless of how often they use the doctor. For people who need the doctor a lot, that’s great. They pay a lot less than they would if they had to pay per visit. For people who just need one checkup a year, they end up paying a lot more than if they just paid for their annual checkup. And they would quickly figure that out, and drop out of the program.
So now the people who are all basically healthy aren’t in your pool anymore. They’re paying for their annual checkup at another doctor. So only the people who need the doctor a lot are paying in. So you have to hire more doctors and increase the cost of the program, because everyone who is in it needs a lot of doctor time.
But then the same thing happens again. People who need more visits a year are getting more out of the program than they are paying in, and people who need fewer visits a year are getting less than they are paying. So the people who need the fewest doctor visits drop out. And so on as the cycle repeats.
You get the idea. There’s a game theory term for this that I am forgetting, but the result is spiraling costs and more dropouts. This is why the ACA (for you non-Americans, that’s the Affordable Care Act, which was attempting to reduce US healthcare costs) had a health insurance mandate. Requiring everyone to be part of the program is the only way to make something like this work.
I had never heard of it before, but I just looked it up and the setting sounds perfect. Thanks!