Human language has 2 layers. Signifier and signified. Computers have 3. Signifier (variable name), memory address, (no human analog) and signified. (stored value) A pointer would be a signifier (word) for which the signified is the non-existent human analog to a memory address. You can have a word that refers to a thing that doesn't exist (e.g. unicorn) but it won't help the analogy.
In your example, the signifier 'coffee' is akin to a variable name. It is a signifier that dereferences to a value within the scope of our agreement. We can agree it holds the stored value of 65, allowing us to say something like butter = coffee - 60, bring me 'butter' eggs, but we don't have a memory address system so it's not the same process as a computer.
For a computer, there is a middle step to a variable dereference. It sees 'coffee' and first looks at the table of references, finds the variable 'coffee' has it's value stored at address 1
['coffee':1, 'butter':88, 'unicorn':73]
and then pulls the value (65) from the memory at address 1. A pointer would be another variable, such as '*monkey' (e.g. *monkey = &coffee, which can be read as "pointer monkey shall hold the value of the address at which coffee is stored") which would be added into the reference table as a variable stored at another address, say address 2, and would store in address 2 a value of (1).
Magic wish granted? Everyone gains enough patience to leave it to research until it can be used safely and sensibly. It was fine when it was an abstract concept being researched by CS academics. It only became a problem when it all went public and got tangled in VC money.
Any technology is cool if you look at it in isolation. I just can't get terribly excited because I generally doubt they will be used in a sensible/humane manner.
Med tech is looking cool. It's one of the few unambiguously good uses of AI. AI systems for reading scans, detecting disease, etc. seem like they could be used to make medicine faster, easier, and more affordable, but I have doubts that the tech won't just be used to increase profit margins and somehow mess things up to benefit insurance company executives.
CRISPR/synthBio looks like it could do amazing things, but I have to wonder how long until things hit the sweet spot, intersecting democratization of powerful tools and destructive ideology, and lead some lunatic or group of lunatics to develop a society destroying bioweapon.
It's hard to get excited about the development of a new power when you look at who's likely to hold it.
I tried seeing if the analogy could be made to work but I am unaware of any natural language with an analog to pointers. Natural language references generally frame the concept that serves as a pointer in relation to the object rather than as a particular object.
It's depressing how important this is. Walmart is core to a lot of American's purchasing. If Walmart decides to kiss the ring, even for a while, when they stop could determine when a wave of anger will hit, maybe even control the midterms. If they just pass on the prices now, many americans' cost of living is going to soar, right at the same time many of them will be facing layoffs as businesses choke to death on materials costs.
Anyone else remember what happened last time large numbers of americans experienced large amounts of free time? Do you think they'll be any happier when they are experiencing that level of free time without the benefit of CoViD stimulus? A lot of people are going to get hurt.
Some of the people I was supporting disappeared. Now it's just a couple creators who are still too small to get algo love.
Phedran is great, and if you are into chill gaming, you should check out her streams.
When you ask for something without 'grind' I have to ask if you know what you are asking. Grind is entirely subjective. It's not a mechanism of a game but rather what happens when you personally don't find a game mechanism fun/rewarding.
Take classic examples, like mining in... most games, really. It's smacking a rock. It doesn't have much variety. For some people, they love their own little game of 'hit the rocks in the most efficient way,' or they like to relax with music and bust rocks, or they feel like every rock is a loot box. Other people hate it for being too complex to automate and too simple to feel engaged.
The difference between 'grind' and an 'endlessly replayable part of the game' is how the player looks at it. You are asking for 'the drug to which you will never build a tolerance.'
That's life on an employer's schedule. You have to sleep. Only because you have to adhere to someone else's schedule do you have to go to sleep at a set time. If you could work whenever you wanted, you could choose when to sleep, when to wake, when to work, etc.
If I had a group like this, I would have so much fun with the first one. Player paranoia is one of my favorite toys.
They show up and the ruler is healing children. The ruler hires them to help people constantly, even lets themself be taken hostage to free the previous hostage, a little old lady. But the whole time, they keep speaking in indirect ways, leaving things up to player imagination, which player paranoia would fill with devils and monsters. There's nothing wrong with them, though. They really are just trying their best to help everyone. It'd be great because I know the players would be shitting themselves trying to figure out what nefarious plan is supported by setting up a hospital, despite there being zero reason to assume there is one.
I liked that it wasn't a parody of itself. Most of the writing could have been unchanged if it hadn't been anthro themed. And the writing was nice, nothing ham-fisted, and had some respect for the reader. I keep running into games where you've just talked to an NPC about how they need you to hit the blue button, and you've gone through a hallway of posters saying your goal is to hit the blue button, had a quest marker guiding you there that says 'this way to the blue button you need to press,' and your character still feels the need to speak to the air about the need to hit the blue button when you walk into the blue button room.
Found this with a quick search, but you could probably make it pretty readily. Solar battery packs exist and you wouldn't need much power. Wire up a cheap solar power brick and mount it in the corner of the window behind the blinds?
Human language has 2 layers. Signifier and signified. Computers have 3. Signifier (variable name), memory address, (no human analog) and signified. (stored value) A pointer would be a signifier (word) for which the signified is the non-existent human analog to a memory address. You can have a word that refers to a thing that doesn't exist (e.g. unicorn) but it won't help the analogy.
In your example, the signifier 'coffee' is akin to a variable name. It is a signifier that dereferences to a value within the scope of our agreement. We can agree it holds the stored value of 65, allowing us to say something like butter = coffee - 60, bring me 'butter' eggs, but we don't have a memory address system so it's not the same process as a computer.
For a computer, there is a middle step to a variable dereference. It sees 'coffee' and first looks at the table of references, finds the variable 'coffee' has it's value stored at address 1
['coffee':1, 'butter':88, 'unicorn':73]and then pulls the value (65) from the memory at address 1. A pointer would be another variable, such as '*monkey' (e.g.*monkey = &coffee, which can be read as "pointer monkey shall hold the value of the address at which coffee is stored") which would be added into the reference table as a variable stored at another address, say address 2, and would store in address 2 a value of (1).word address value coffee 1 65 *monkey 2 1Language just doesn't have the analogous concept.