In modern terms I imagine that variety plays into it to a degree. Grains you can use to make a lot of different foods, make animal feed, reduce to corn syrup or ethanol or whatever other products (in the US at least that's the majority of our corn production) and so on. Even before you get into the question of long-term investments versus immediate payoffs under capitalism (how long does an orchard take to start paying off?) there's just more varieties of products and a deeper market for cereals.

So I'm not able to provide the kind of proper citations that I want to here, but it looks like there are a few factors here. Most importantly, cereal grains have a very short growing season, which in some instances lets you get multiple crops from the same land in a year. More importantly, it massively increases your resiliency. Like, it you plant an orchard of walnuts or something, it takes a decade between planting and being able to actually harvest, by which time your community has starved or moved along if that was your primary source of food.

Of course potatoes and yams also have a fairly short season, and you do see yams come up as a staple in parts of Africa, for example. But the other big advantages cereals have are in preservation and byproducts. Grain will dry itself out and keep for a long time compared to most other crops, and can be ground into flour, fermented into alcohol, boiled and eaten as raw grain, etc. Potatoes don't keep nearly as well, going to seed a relatively short while after harvest. Additionally, the threshing process gives you straw in addition to the grains, which can be used as building materials, animal feed, and a variety of other things. Most plants don't lend themselves to that many purposes as easily, though this is hard (in my inexpert opinion) to judge correlation vs causation on. Did we find lots of ways to use straw because we were already growing grains and therefore had a bunch of straw leftover? I don't know and I don't know how to find out, or even if it matters on a broader scale.

However, one specific consequence of this contrast is that in 18th-centuey Ireland the absurdly complex chains of subdivided plots being leased by multiple layers of absentee landlords meant that for most Irish farmers maximizing nutrition per acre was vital for being able to feed their families on the meager lands they could afford to cultivate. This is a large part of the reason why they took to the potato so strongly when it was introduced, and in turn is part of why the same blight that had swept through all of Europe with minimal fanfare absolutely devastated the country. It's not the only reason, but it was a large part of setting the stage for what happened next.

Anyways, thanks for giving me an interesting question to research instead of doing any of the shit I actually needed to be doing.

I particularly appreciate the argument he makes about the tech industry pivoting from creating value to exercising control. I disagree that this trend is specific to the tech industry, but with the possible exception of Monsanto they have been the most successful at it.

With the obvious failings of the American state to perform it's basic duties and the cross-pollination of the American political and corporate elites it seems plausible that at least some factions in the tech industry are awaiting an opportunity to take advantage of this weakness they've created and exercise that control over the functions of the state directly. I feel like I should be saying this into a webcam from behind a cartoonishly-large desk in between shilling for nutritional supplements, but I'd be lying if I said I didn't fear what rough beast, it's hour come at last, slouches towards Bethlehem to be born.

I mean, to be fair that's not unique to them - software engineers have been worse than physicists in assuming that all of reality and human experience is downstream from their chosen field.

I was trying to reply by way of linking a piece by Robert Kingett that had been shared here some time ago that, in excruciating detail and with righteous fury distilled to cold analysis, explained why AI is absolute shit for accessibility aids. His experience is in the realm of physical disability rather than neurodivergance, but that only makes the problems more starkly illustrated rather than unique.

Unfortunately I couldn't find that piece, but I found this one and needed to explain to the kid why I randomly laughed out loud.

I'm not going to start a punch-up with a dev team or maintainer who believes that AI tools can help good programmers do good work or whatever, but time and again we see that, just like crypto before it, you aren't inviting good programmers to work with you. You're inviting the bros. AI bros and crypto bros are a specific type of Guy. I'm sure there were dotcom bros in the 90s. This is not a new problem, even if the current economic circumstances makes being this type of Guy more viable than ever, apparently.

It's not just that the tech is bad (though it is bad), it's that it's uniquely privileged by culture and economics to empower the worst assortment of morons and grifters outside of Wall Street (and also inside of Wall Street, because of fucking course it does).

Pete Steinberger shares his OpenAI bill on Twitter. The headline number is $1.3 million in the last 30 days.

But in his (own) defense, it takes so many tokens to do so many bad ideas at once.

Update!

The rich fuckers are apparently inclined to acknowledge this as ridiculous, at least in part. Here's hoping that this doesn't stall out and at least some Americans get to report at least one unambiguous public policy win in 2026

My God, it's like if Mark Rosewater was also a Nazi.

Cards on the table, I love M:tG as a game design nerd, and the color pie is a really well-done tool for keeping the game interesting and fun over it's very long history and even longer list of expansions and extensions. From a mechanical perspective, it strikes a beautiful balance between allowing the player to do exactly what they want and preventing the player from just doing everything. Without the color pie, it's easy to see deck building descend into an attempt to assemble the strongest individual cards. It's telling that basically every other CCG has some kind of mechanism to solve the same problem, but I don't think any of them have done it as cleanly or in a way that so smoothly enables players to combine mechanics and elements from different colors.

From a narrative perspective it's a great story engine that allows for all the disparate settings, characters, even genres that the game has explored over its life to still have a cohesive identity - to rhyme. I would argue that part of why the world's beyond sets have seemed wrong is because the settings weren't designed from the ground up to align with that narrative tool, and no matter how good the actual card designers at WotC are it just isn't going to rhyme properly, like trying to translate poetry to a different language family. But that's beside the point.

As a psychological model of the world? I mean I guess it's a tool for categorizing and narrowing down the ways that different people interact with each other or the world or whatever. But that's fundamentally not what it's for! Even as bad as the science behind the MBTI or whatever might be, at least they were designed from looking at actual people and intended to categorize them and understand them. This is the equivalent of trying to do therapy based on people's fucking Hogwarts house. Hell, even that was actually intended to fucking categorize people. Like, even without getting into all the ways that he's extending and distorting the actual color pie as used in Magic to match his own fixations, the whole project is so blindingly wrong-headed from the start that it ought to be an old BuzzFeed listicle and not something that people actually use in any clinical setting, even if it is just his wacko girlfriend.

[To save space, the following several paragraphs of increasingly incoherent ranting and raving are to be filled in by your own imagination. If you do not have an imagination you can consider using an LLM of your choice before going off to fuck yourself]

One thing I found really interesting in your recent more reflective writing was part of your experience with hereticon 1:

I think one of the hardest things you can do, and the greatest gifts you can give someone, is give the situation to them straight when they invite you somewhere. I would realize later that the ‘protection’ I felt in a lot of left-leaning circles was a lot more transitory and a lot less honest than what the supposedly irredeemable far-right conference had done for me.

One thing that I see in some broadly left-leaning communities when engaging with some of these concerns is to effectively dismiss the women who have been victimized, often with some reference to the face-eating leopard party. (This doesn't seem to happen as much here at awful.systems, which is one of many things I'll say in favor of our community's standards and practices of moderation and whatever else). This is obviously cruel and unfair to those women, but I want to ask about the underlying idea that the way that these social groups or organizations treat women who talk about SA in those communities is consistent with their general political ideologies, since it seems like there's something missing from that idea beyond the simple lack of empathy.

I actually didn't refresh to see this until after I had read the pair of "A Normie Girl in Rationalist America" posts (Part 1) (Part 2) and wanted to echo the thanks for sharing your experiences.

But I listened and agreed that you had serious concerns about certain aspects of this technology. I even agreed when you talked about how frustrating it was that specifically other people wanted to do bad things. I listened as you asked whether I had any options to address those concerns! What more do you want from me before you agree to let me do and say whatever I want!