Posted on in Games, Stupid

The best poker variants are generally the worst ones

There are two kinds of poker nights: the serious kind, where people play Texas Hold ’Em all night, and the good kind, where the game is dealers choice, no one’s at risk of losing rent money, and you can play wild games like “Pass the Trash” and have two players split the pot with royal flushes. Going through some old files this morning I found a document I wrote up in hopes of organizing the latter kind of night—and it has awoken a desire to get something organized again soon.

I never finished it—lots of the odder games still need to have their rules laid out. But it did include a variant I made up called “Game of Thrones.” It was seven-card stud with the following additional rules:

  • King in the North: Kings are high and aces low.
  • Noble families: A “blaze,” or a hand consisting of five face cards, is a valid hand; it beats a flush and loses to a full house.1This apparently used to be a valid hand in regular poker; learning about it was, I think, the inspiration for this variant. However, this hand probably won’t occur often, especially with the one true king.
  • You may only have one true king: Each player can only have one king showing. if you receive another king up, it’s dead and you do not receive a replacement card. Kings in the hole are safe.
  • You win or you die: The winner must have a king or queen in their hand. If the winning hand doesn’t have one, everyone re-antes and the deal passes to the left. This happens even if everyone but you folds: you better have a king.

I am torn between being sad that we never actually played this and being relieved, because this game would have been chaos. On the other hand, it’s not even the dumbest game on the list:

Night Baseball is there! But the only notes for it are, “Jesus, are we really this drunk?”

Posted on in Fine Whine, Print, Web

Bring back the Morning Edition!

Of all the things that I miss most about the old print news paradigm, I miss discovery the most.

That feels like a weird thing to write today when there’s literally infinite content out there and it’s easy to fall down rabbit holes at Wikipedia or TV Tropes or Reddit, but that’s not the same type of discovery I’m talking about. Nor, exactly, am I talking about the kind of discovery that might get someone to read what I’m writing here—the ability to get your thoughts out into the world.

Instead, I’m thinking about the way that I used to read the newspaper every morning, or various weeklies when they came out: for the most part, I read them cover to cover. Starting on my high school commute, I would read the Times backwards to the front. I’d usually start with the Arts section, scanning the front page for the article that caught my eye first before ultimately reading every review, interview and blurb; then I’d move on to Sports and BusinessDay before reading the op-eds and then ultimately the news.

And the result was that I wound up exposed to a lot of stuff that I definitely wouldn’t have clicked on. I might not read an entire article about the new lead dancer at the New York City Ballet, but I’d see the headline and read at least the lede and the nut graf. In the front section, thanks to the old pyramid AP style, I could read about each item until I lost interest—but at least I could get the gist of things.

But today, when I only get the Times on the weekend and my local paper usually gets delivered after I have left for my commute to Manhattan, I’m reading most of my news on a tablet. And reading online, with its bottomless well of content, means that I’m reading far more narrowly than I did before. Because I can never have the sense that I’ve finished reading the paper for the day, I’m more likely to scan the headlines a few times a day and maybe click on four or five articles to read them in more detail. I’m missing a lot of things I would have discovered serendipitously in the past.

(more…)
Aside
Posted on in Music, Television

Quick thought 18 April 2023

What’s the odds that the final season of Barry will have a 100 gecs needle drop? 2:1? 5:2? “Most Wanted Person in the United States” would be a perfect fit. This is a show that ended an episode on “Davey Crockett” so anything is possible.

Anyway, Barry’s back! Our long national fever dream about fame and violence is coming to a discomfiting end!

Posted on in Law

Champerty is bad

The New York Times reported this morning that the founder of LinkedIn, Reid Hoffman, has contributed funding to E. Jean Carroll’s lawsuit against the former guy. And it made me think about how Peter Thiel funded a few different lawsuits against Gawker until succeeding with Hulk Hogan’s suit, which led to the Deadspin or Splinter folks introducing me to the concept of champerty.

These days “champerty” is not considered a crime anymore, and to that end it has been renamed to the more anodyne “litigation finance.” But it still kind of sucks! Rich folks being able to fund lawsuit after lawsuit against a desired target until they get a result is yet another thing that’s poisonous to the rule of law, and it doesn’t matter whether I like or hate the target in any given case—

—Hang on, I am just getting word that the article continues:

Mr. Hoffman is part of the so-called PayPal Mafia, a network of well-connected tech executives and investors who got their start at the payments company in the late 1990s. That crew includes the tech mogul Peter Thiel, who is a prominent Republican donor and has secretly funded lawsuits. In 2016 Mr. Thiel paid $10 million for the wrestler Hulk Hogan to sue the media outlet Gawker Media for an invasion of privacy, ultimately leading to Gawker’s bankruptcy.

Holy fuck! I probably shouldn’t be posting this!

Posted on in Climate, Economy

A few quick thoughts on the new EPA regulations

This morning the EPA announced new proposed regulations to move the economy toward electric cars, and it’s stronger and faster than I would have expected:

The proposed tailpipe pollution limits for cars, first reported by The New York Times on Saturday, are designed to ensure that 67 percent of sales of new light-duty passenger vehicles, from sedans to pickup trucks, will be all-electric by 2032. Additionally, 46 percent of sales of new medium-duty trucks, such as delivery vans, will be all-electric or of some other form of zero-emissions technology by the same year, according to the plan.

The E.P.A. also proposed a companion rule governing heavy-duty vehicles, designed so that half of new buses and 25 percent of new heavy trucks sold would be all-electric by 2032.

(New York Times)

I don’t think there’s any way to argue against the new proposed regulations as a net good: according to the Times, these new rules will get us over the line for reducing carbon emissions by half by 2030. The rules on their own should slash emissions by 10%, with the other 40% projected from the passage of the Inflation Reduction Act last year.

There are bound to be the usual legal challenges and whining from the expected corners, but there are some legitimate concerns as well. The article notes the potential for pushback from automobile unions (an electric car requires less labor to assemble than a gas-powered car, the Times reported), and the environmental impact of making all those batteries isn’t great. But really, I’d love to see even more focus on transit and density than what we got:

  • The bus rule is probably the most interesting one. While the car fleet rule is getting the most attention, the requirement that 50% of buses sold will need to be zero emission will have the fastest impact. New cars can stay on the road for 25 years, while most transit properties replace buses on a ten-to-twelve year schedule.1Interestingly, shorter buses have it rougher than longer ones: a 40-foot bus can usually run for 15 years, while a 30-foot will operate for ten. Not that I didn’t have a special place in my heart for 5138, a 1981 Orion UTS was still running in 2004. There will be a much higher proportion of non-combustion buses much more quickly, and hopefully that will help drive charging capability in urbanized areas.
  • Infrastructure challenges are coming. Charging capability and range anxiety are going to be the major sticking points for the public to accept the new rules. We are a car-light household, and we generally only drive a couple of times a week for groceries and errands. But when we do drive, it’s generally more than 90 miles as we are visiting family back in New York. That could be challenging—especially since we don’t have a garage or driveway to charge a larger battery.
  • Fewer cars overall is still a better goal, even if the federal government can’t regulate us that way. If there was frequent enough service between the Lehigh Valley and New York, I wouldn’t worry about the range anxiety so much—I could just hop on a train or a bus to visit the family. If there was better bus service locally—or a walkable supermarket—I wouldn’t even need to drive to get groceries. Enhanced transit, and walkable neighborhoods could reduce emissions even further, especially now that many people are able to work from home.

Of course, what I’m talking about there is the idea of the “15-minute city,” where everything a person needs for daily life is within a 15 minute walk or transit ride. Unfortunately, a certain segment of the population has already been poisoned against this idea by some conspiracy theories that make the “death panel” discourse look sane and dignified. Any federal nudge in that direction would unleash all kinds of stupidity. You can’t blame the Biden administration for wanting to avoid that!