The phrase he used, "playing to extinction", very much reminds me of what's happening now across most entertainment categories, broadly speaking (autoplay, loot boxes, slot machine-style gaming content, etc.)
Why haven't we discovered life yet amongst the vastness of the stars?
Because they wanked themselves to death in VR pleasure palaces.
Also, one would hope that those that are so addicted that they are fine to just haul-off and piss themselves would be able to think ahead and simply wear a diaper.
Riiiigggghhhhttttt
To give an example, slot machines in Nevada must pay out a minimum of 75% of the take. Additionally, no programming/odds updates or machine resets may be made to the slot machine until the machine has sat idle for a minimum of 4 minutes; and if an update/reset is being made the machine _must_ clearly display that this is occurring.
So the sick thing here is that each loss does in fact bring you closer to the winning spin. One of the only real strategies of slot machines (in the sense that there can be a strategy to a game of luck) is to stand around idling watching other people lose, then after someone leaves a machine with a bad run you immediately drop in to the spot and start playing the same machine.
Machines plural - which means a machine that just paid out (in a casino with a large group of machines) can theoretically pay out again before a machine that has a string of losing spins.
win = rand() < .75The takeout is configurable. With older machines they have to be manually set at the machines, but with more modern machines it is controlled by a server. The period of time while the takeout remains unchanged is referred to as a cycle. Casinos are generally free to change the takeout so long as it is a minimum of the regulated amount. Then there are the regulations requiring idle time at the machines like I mentioned in my previous comment. Additionally, the casino may need to notify the gaming commission prior to making a takeout change depending on local regulations.
What I'm objecting to is your idea that machines are more likely to payout after they've lost for a while. Each spin is independent of previous spins. The 75% is just a statistical average over the long run.
To me that implies that the machine is keeping track of a period of time to make sure it pays out 75% during that period.
Each spin is random and independent of whether it's been on a losing streak or not.
My intent was not to imply that each individual losing pull increases the odds, but more that if you just keep rolling the same two dice long enough eventually it's going to come up snake eyes. And this leads to people (especially gambling addicts) continuing to pull that lever after they are long past what they can afford. They know if they just keep pulling the lever (or more likely pushing the bet max button these days) that eventually it has to pay. But the reality is the casinos are predators that feed on that behavior.
Most casinos actually have a much higher takeout rate than the legally required minimums as well; it's very common that they are set closer to the 90-97% range. It's generally observed that a higher takeout will result in more money for the house. With a higher takeout people are more likely to keep winning a bit and feel like they are getting lucky, so they will actually spend more money than if the aren't hitting at all.
Worse yet with progressives is they may even span multiple casinos. So that grand prize someone is grinding for and wasting their money on... it may never hit at that casino.
1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Game_(Star_Trek:_The_Next_...
Huh. That appears to be a mostly-accurate summary of Wikipedia's description of the episode, which heavily features the term "addicted". But it's an awful summary of the episode itself, which doesn't use the concept of addiction at all. (Also, the game doesn't autoplay; it is shown on screen requiring effort from the player.)
The game is a malevolent agent which intentionally makes very specific modifications to the players' minds. The relevant concept is infection, not addiction. The plot of the episode is essentially identical to that of the TNG episode Conspiracy[1], or the Buffy episode Bad Eggs[2].
And while not completely identical, the plot is also very similar to Invasion of the Body Snatchers[3]. It's a very, very common theme. (As shown by the fact that TNG did it twice!)
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_(Star_Trek:_The_Nex...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bad_Eggs_(Buffy_the_Vampire_Sl...
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_the_Body_Snatchers
- People neglect their responsibilities in order to indulge their addiction.
- People consume their resources (e.g., by selling their property) in order to indulge their addiction.
- People fail to achieve their goals because they are distracted by their addiction.
- People alienate their social contacts, either through neglect (see above) or through what is seen as excessive focus on their addiction.
None of these elements appear in the episode. No addiction-related themes appear in the episode.
Here are the plot elements that do occur in the episode:
- A foreign influence infiltrates the group and spreads uncontrollably. It is difficult to perceive directly.
- The foreign influence brainwashes and enslaves everyone who is exposed to it, substituting its own goals for theirs. Far from neglecting responsibilities, brainwashed victims will happily do extra work for no other purpose than to further the foreign goals.
- People who should be absolutely trustworthy, such as Captain Picard or Wesley's mother, are "replaced" by impostors who share their knowledge but whose goals are nefarious. (In this case, the person is not replaced in their entirety, but their mind is replaced with a new one.)
How would you describe that plot?
If you want a TNG episode themed around the perils of drug use, that would be The Naked Now, where the altered mental state of the crew threatens to destroy the ship. If you want one themed around addiction, that would be Hollow Pursuits, where Barclay's "holodiction" severely interferes with his performance of his duties.
I don't have the clip handy but at one point a character points out to Wesley something along the lines of "want to know the trick to this game? It plays itself!"
> ALYSSA: You know what the secret is, don't you? Don't force it. If you just let the game happen, it almost plays itself.
But at the beginning of the episode, you see Riker playing:
> ETANA: Concentrate. Make the disc go into the cone.
> RIKER: How do I do that?
> ETANA: Just let go. Relax. You'll do it.
> the first one misses, the second is a success
( http://www.chakoteya.net/NextGen/206.htm )
You could make the argument that everyone misses their first shot for no other reason than that it gives them a false feeling of accomplishment when they make the second one.
But it would make more sense to say that victory in the game comes from assuming a particular state of mind, presumably one that allows the game to do its thing.
You don't need to "let the game happen" for an autoplaying game to play itself.
1. Medium: Mechanical reel > Digital reel
2. Gameplay: Fixed odds > Adjustable odds > Programmatic adaptive odds
3. Experience: Pull the lever and win or lose > Pull the lever and win even if you lose (e.g. get back change) > Swipe a card and win even if you lose > Swipe a card and watch the game auto-play until you're out of money
After reading that book (in 2014), I made my last Facebook post (the history of the slot machine) and promptly downloaded my data and deleted my account. I'm paraphrasing but Crawford's point was basically that social media is a socio-emotional slot machine.