Coming soon!
4 Likes
Nope. Social processes exhibit coevolution. More here.
A point emphasised by Kauffman is that co-evolution takes place within an ecosystem, and cannot happen in isolation. In a human context a social ecosystem includes the social, cultural, technical, geographic and economic dimensions and coevolution may affect both the form of institutions and the relationships and interactions between the co-evolving entities (the term entity is used as a generic term which can apply to individuals, teams, organisations, industries, economies, etc.).–emphasis in the original
The fact that your vocabulary and knowledge of these concepts is limited is not really my problem.
It would be a nice immersion deepening thing to talk yourself out of random encounters.
I dont know how much random it could get and how much it would break bots, but for an rpg game it is usually a staple set of features. Random encounters, dialog boxes.
Dialog boxes, but EVE doesnt even have that. So much for engaging gameplay. 
1 Like
No.
They bot because it means they can run them while afk, asleep, at work etc.
IE: Earn resources while not playing the game.
That is what my bot-test suggestion is supposed to prevent/limit.
Get this through your thick skull.
My proposal:
-Cuts 33% uptime off botters that run bots while they sleep.
-Cuts 66% uptime off botters that run bots while asleep + a standard 8hr workday.
-Cuts 100% uptime off botters that run bots whilst afk, 23/7.
My proposal cant stop, only inconvenience, botters that run bots while at their PC.
But it can completely fk botters that run bots while they are NOT at their PC.
THAT is the purpose.
There are two possible cascade benefits from this (aside from the obvious uptime reduction as above, and hence reduced illegitimate isk/resources being introduced into EVE):
-1) The uptime reductions while they are afk, may be enough to stop some/most bot operations as no longer worth it as isk/resources/hr vs PLEX/cash to sub them.
-2) CCP can focus its resources/efforts more efficiently on the remainder, as well as potentially using bot-test failures as flags to investigate potential botters.
Neither of those is a dictionary, so at best you can be saying “other people use it wrong too.” Also neither of those sources tries to define coevolution, but they use it as a literal analogue to biological Darwinian evolution.
Furthermore, every example you have cited is for a living/thinking system, not an inanimate object like a bot. All of your “proof” is only proving my argument.
You are really bad at logic:
- You used a bunch of biological words “coevolution”, “smart”, and “dumb”. Which was clearly an analogical use of the words.
- I said I didn’t like the analogy, because we aren’t talking about a living thing. And I feel the analogy blurs the lines of some very import issues in the world.
- I even ceded the fact that some “experts” in the world do that same thing and I disapprove of it.
- You then take the following positions:
- Insist that the words aren’t biological
- But cannot provide a single definition to support this
- Say that it isn’t an analogy
- Then provide examples of the words being used as a biological analogy to “prove” the previous two points.
- Insist that the words aren’t biological
That isn’t how logic works. Maybe you don’t know what an analogy is?
Like someone else said about the pejorative meaning of “arguing semantics,” we all know what you meant, so why are you still trying to prove what you said was “right” when it wasn’t. Everyone knows what you meant, but it wasn’t what you said. If you continue this off-topic insistence, I will continue to refute your lack of logic and inability to use a dictionary, but it isn’t really adding to the topic at hand. But, maybe that’s your plan as you don’t care about solutions that solve all botting, only solutions that effect other people’s botting.
Non-living things and systems do not “evolve.” They do not change over time, they are changed over time. This is a distinction between being the subject or the object of change. Living/thinking things change, constructed things are changed by living/thinking things. When we use biological words like “evolution” and others we are making an analogy, not literally saying that the thing that cannot change on its own changes. See also “anthropomorphism” and “personification” for related subjects of applying biological ideas to inert objects as an analogy.
Practice your singing?
–Helpful Gadget
1 Like
I have a proposal that would stop 100% of botting 100% of the time. It’s the easiest proposal yet! Just shut off the server. No more bots!
Dumb ideas are still dumb for the same retarded reasons.
The fast talk skill may actually have another use!
While I’m inclined to follow this view on the textbook definition,I feel it will be amended as is it’s wont.
Here’s why,the objections are vocalized. When people want something to a high degree it is only a matter of time before it becomes material. Autonomous AI is one of those. Going back to a date,time that predates Asimov. This has been a thing.
Evolution,Co-Evolution,natural selection,unnatural selection can and will be intermingled in thought and as described above will eventually become material manifestations. Even if they derive from an immaterial source.
The question that needs addressed is will those who conceive the foundations on “co-evolutionary thought” actually like where and what their conclusions yield? Just because something is wanted does that mean its a benefit?
Ask this guy. He started a revolution of sorts and it now has its own evolutionary path. Is that evolution as quoted by Darwin or something else?
And just for giggles.
I hope it doesn’t make anyone squirm too much.
OK I confess. I hope it drives the splinter deep in the mind.
You want to shut down servers.
How dumb/retarded is that?
“If I cant bot, nobody else should be allowed to play!!1”
GTFO, botter.
I disagree. A week or so before the announcement, I went to a RMT site mentioned in the reddit thread by a guy that said he RMT’d for 1.5 years, and there so about dozen people selling everything from ISK/PLEX to Titans…easily 50+ listings. After the announcement, it was down to 2 people selling ISK/PLEX and skill injectors. I doubt it was a coincidence that those sellers disappeared after a week the forum firestorm…
Not to say you’re wrong, but you do know that that is anecdotal at best, right?
–Curious Gadget
Can still be true.
Agreed, but it could also mean that she stumbled across a site that was on the list to be “raided”, and they just hadn’t gotten to it yet.
If she had visited 20 or so sites before and after the event with the same results, It would lend more credence to her statement.
Currently she offers a single data point, which isn’t nearly enough for a decent conclusion.
–Researcher Gadget
2 Likes
She cant link the site/s here, nor screenshots.
Your point on her post being anecdotal, is noted, but does not mean it is untrue.
I think we’re not on the same path here.
I will accept her recollection as factual. No linking needed.
I’m saying there is a possibility that she witnessed an anomaly.
Her conclusion may or may not be true.
More data (sites visited in this case) would increase the chances of her conclusion being true.
Right now, with just one anecdote… flip a coin. It’s just as accurate.
She’s allowed her belief, of course, but data trumps belief with science - and good policy reading.
–Researcher Gadget
1 Like
Its to be expected that CCP wrecking 32k accounts would have repercussions on RMT sites.
As I said, your point on her post as anecdotal is noted, but thats that.
Unless you can provide evidence as to your other claims on the topic, or to show her anecdotal statement was false, it ends there.
What other claims?
–Very Confused Gadget
You havent substantiated her anecdotal claim as false in any of these claims by you. All of them are speculation.
Inb4 further pointless derailment.
They just open another site. Those susceptible to the fear mongers may have bailed but the others are determined. Same ■■■■ different day.
2 Likes