Civilization 1 was my introduction to world history.

/s I credit Civilization 1 as well. Or should I credit my parents who had PC/XT at home when the price of PC/XT was that of 3 new (soviet) automobiles? /s

I sunk a decade into civ 2. Oh man, the memories. I wish gog would acquire rights to release that abandonware with soundtrack and everything. Running it yourself requires running it on top of win3.1 in dosbox now days, and it's still janky. I would legit pay $60 for a perfectly working copy.

In the same boat and it is great until I run into a more complex multi-faceted problem, pick a solution and end up 30 miles down the road before I realize I need to backtrack and try a different one.

If my childhood had more books and boredom I might have the patience to spend longer in the planning stage and less enthusiasm for the drinking coffee and pounding out a solution stage.

Mine had a lot of books and boredom.

I rarely regret just getting things done. Excessive planning is a much larger issue. I find it's usually better to just do something twice rather than spend too much time thinking about it.

Same. I suffer from analysis paralysis.

I've been thinking this a lot lately.

One absolutely fantastic upside for just getting it done is that even if you have to redo it from scratch, you have so much better real-world understanding of the problem space.

I'm inclined to think that this applies to majority of the things we do, but is often brought up regarding building products in the idea that one should build the first prototype quickly, just to be scrapped so the final solution can be built from clean slate, benefiting from all the knowledge the prototype helped us gather.

Most often, in my experience at least, the knowledge one gains from actually doing the thing (even badly) surpasses anything that could have been gained with excessive planning. To actually work, genuine effort including some planning is definitely needed, but I don't think that's too high a bar. At least not when compared to the skills and knowledge one would have needed to achieve the same success with "just" excessive planning up front.

My experience is that this works for following semi-intuitive man-made flowchart type activities (e.g. fixing a car). For truly novel endeavors with high-risk (e.g. if the risk is breaking something irreplaceable), the planning is essential.

My two biggest childhood hobbies were reading and video games. Frankly, grand strategy games like the Civilization series and simulation games like SimCity taught patience and planning much more effectively than any of the books.

What the books taught me was how to write clearly, if with a somewhat unorthodox style. Turns out that's extremely important for a software engineer.

I learned one of the most valuable lessons of my life from RuneScape. My brother and I, playing for years, had amassed something like 100k gold between the two of us. We wanted more gold and were reading a guide online about to get it. The guide recommended a simple process of buying and selling coal in a kind of arbitrage trade. My brother and I were torn if we should try it, reasoning that if it were so easy to make money then everyone would do it. But, on the other hand, the guide seemed like it should work.

In the end, we just followed the guide, and it worked exactly as promised. In literally a day we 10x'd our RuneScape gold to well over a million and had basically unlimited funds from running the coal trading arbitrage the guide described for as long as we played the game.

It's hard for me to put this lesson into words exactly - but it's something like if something seems like it should work explore it and find out if it does. But also something like "Don't discount something for being too obvious." This has helped me in my career where it seemed like there were obvious opportunities for something that were in front of me so I just did the obvious thing and wound up getting richly rewarded for it. This kind of idea was on my mind in most of major life decisions too.

way to figure out the efficient market hypothesis and why it could be wrong at such a young age!

What was the scheme? Buy coal certs at 800 per and sell at 1k?

I've forgotten the exact prices at this point (I want to say buying mid-20's per and selling mid-30's but that may be complete misremembering). The basic idea was hanging out in the dwarf mines where people are mining coal and giving low offers on coal, with a promise to increase price if they can sell in quantity (and in certs). Then, just turn around and sell the certs, once you had a lot of them, at a higher price in Varrock town square (or similar).

One other reason we thought this wouldn't work is that it seemed to us buying in large quantity should get a discount - bulk discount, right? But that wasn't the case. It was cheaper, per unit, to buy hundreds of coal than tens of thousands.

It's an old joke: An economist is walking down the street when he steps on a $100 bill lying on the ground. He spots it, but decides to keep walking and doesn't pick it up.

“After all,” he thinks to himself, “if that had really been a $100 bill, someone else would have picked it up already!”

It took me until this moment to finally realize this joke relies on inefficient market to work. Consider: what if everyone in the joke's universe was a rational market actor? The $100 bill would lie there until it got consumed by rats or otherwise destroyed by natural events. For the economists' reasoning to work, there must exist some actors who don't reason this way, and instead pick up the bill on sight.

How does this translate to the efficient market hypothesis in general? Not sure, but if I were to dig down into how rational actors handle such situations, I'd expect to discover the math works out over continuous domain, and the joke is a paradox because we tend to think of money in discrete terms.

I think it's a good example of how rationality is a construct. We arbitrarily choose which rational framework makes the most sense in the situation and apply it.

Do you want to rely on the prior actor framework, or the react to what you see framework? That decision is not rational.

I like to view it this way: optimal decisions are not computable in practice. We never have enough data, nor enough time, nor is our brain particularly well-suited for this. We have no choice but to approximate, to use heuristics. This applies to both snap decisions and carefully applied formal models. The problem is, even the most rational of us sometimes forget they're just approximating, fudging both data and models at the edges, in order to get some result in finite time. They also forget to mention this.

The difference I see between what I wrote above and what you described as not rational choice of a framework is that, per my personal experience, it is possible to reconcile two conflicting seemingly rational frameworks. It just takes time to extend them past their edges until they meet. That is, extend each past the approximation cut-off point.

You've only created a new rational framework that you have irrationally chosen to use

It’s a little like the newcomb’s paradox. IMO the “rational” action is the one where given the circumstances you win. At least I’d one box in that problem every time given the way it works. In this example, it’s picking up the $100.

The efficient market hypothesis always confused me since it seems empirically false. Who is making the trades that make the market efficient in the first place? Plus people (even large groups of them) are often wrong. Startups and the massive value they can create are an example of that.

Markets are a prediction of predictions to some extent and people are far from agents that act only on hard numbers (and they’re often not wrong to do so). Markets are probably the best tool we’ve got for this, but they’re far from perfectly efficient.

I don't think I'd go this far.

In the EMH people do still trade, it's just that only those with new information trade profitably.

In the joke scenario, as a parallel, you just need the economist to model that there's a chance they are the first person to see the bill.

Then you have a game theory game, where your chance of being the first person to see the bill depends on what everyone else thinks their chance was to be the first person, and hence did or didn't pick up the bill.

Then there is some optimal mixed strategy where people try pick up the bill with a certain probability, and it all works out.

One wonders if the effect you're describing isn't the reason that self-directed entrepreneurship seems to be on a sharp decline in the developed world. Believe the media, let alone the internet, and one would imagine we have 8 year olds building nuclear reactors and curing cancer, in their basements. So how can this hare brained scheme you have ever possibly work? Surely somebody else would have done it by now.

> Believe the media, let alone the internet, and one would imagine we have 8 year olds building nuclear reactors

On the one hand, we do[0].

On the other, what you're describing is why I don't feel bad about the fact that, 15 years after I had the idea, I've still not learned to use MHD modelling software to experiment with an idea I've had that might make fusors a little more interesting.

[0] ok so they were 12 not 8: https://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/news/2020/10/middle-sch...

That is what I was referring to. Building a fusor is not a demonstration of genius so much as it is a demonstration of resources. You need thousands of dollars in parts (at least as his was built) and a significant degree of knowledge about safely managing radioactivity and handling electrical components carrying lethal levels of voltage.

None of this is obtained from genius, but from a father who's experienced in such and most likely an engineer. And I think this is why these sort of tales never have the implied follow through. The unstated implication is '12 year old builds nuclear reactor in toy room' is 'imagine what he'll be doing in 5 years!' And, the answer? Shit posting on Twitter, getting political, and trying to make a AR/VR startup.

Not exactly the Atlas upon which the world can comfortably thrust all of their hopes and expectations upon. And nobody is. Ramanujan [1] was a once in a millennia level of genuine abnormal genius, and he dedicated his entire life to a single pursuit. Yet even that mammoth of a man could but scratch the surface of that which is out there.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Srinivasa_Ramanujan

> The unstated implication is '12 year old builds nuclear reactor in toy room' is 'imagine what he'll be doing in 5 years!' And, the answer? Shit posting on Twitter, getting political, and trying to make a AR/VR startup.

If they really are asking the unstated question, they don't have good memories of their peers back at age 17.

{I think I was in the middle of my occult/goth/Wicca phase at that age, and now look at me: I use arcane knowledge, get called a wizard, I fly abroad to consort with dragons and werewolves (and other furries) and my familiar's names are Siri and Alexa… ;)}

Many times, the best solutions are very simple. These often seem obvious in hindsight, but were at the time either non-obvious or dismissed prematurely.

> I credit RuneScape with teaching me the value of delayed gratification

I credit RuneScape with teaching me to write Java code to write bots to do the work involved with the delayed gratification.

Then eventually created a GP selling business online.

Also led a PvP clan and ran a PHP forum for it.

The RuneScape metagame was where I acquired real-world software development skills.

Learned Java as a first language to write bots back in 2009. Present day, I’m 1.5 yrs into writing a market analysis/flipping site for OSRS, and it’s been a great way to play with time-series stuff, sysadmin, and front-end.

Gotta credit a good chunk of career success to RuneScape as well.

Something like ge-tracker? I always thought it sounded fun to work on something like that, but also a ton of work for a game I'd probably be bored with way before I'd be able to finish anything tangible. I'm guessing there's decent potential for profit though, so that might be a good motivator.

Yep, same basic premise as GE-tracker with higher detail visualizations and fancier stats/feature engineering on top. Flipping to max cash became a pandemic hobby of mine, so I started off with a handful of homerolled spreadsheets/Jupyter notebooks to cover blind spots that I felt GE-tracker was missing, and eventually decided I could make a better version of the same recipe on my own.

Same here. I credit competitive gaming scene for teaching me all kind of skills. I was never a sports guy. But when I start to watch how ppl train, compete, strategize and work in a team, I realized that so many meta attributes are crucial for one's success

SC2 is probably the most likely to produce entrepreneurs.

H3 taught real social skills and teamwork.

Engineering games, like Contraptions or bridge buildings, were helpful for me.

Roguelikes produces explorers and risk-takers.

I was a Master SC2 player and strongly disagree with this. SC2 is heavy on execution and ops, which are not good 0 -> 1 skills. SC2 also has very short feedback loops and no long term consequences.

The things I will say it has going for it is that it has an extremely steep learning curve and you have to grind. Though many other games also have these attributes at a sufficiently high level.

The reality is that most people who are very good at video games wouldn't be able to maintain the long-term discipline or focus to run a company, nor be able to handle the responsibility of leading a team.

I credit Civ I with my almost failing my GCSEs, but I guess I did okay in the end. But then I have in the decades since avoided games I could happily play all night :).

I credit eve online with teaching me how to run complex and effective counter intelligence operations but I've yet to use it in real life :(.

On the other hand how to inspire people and the importance of operational doctrine has been massively important.

Also spreadsheets..

EVE online taught me how CEO’s feel when one of their minions starts talking to them, and they have no idea who the person is, nor who hired them.

Also the value of realtime market information.

EVE online taught me that you can be CEO while being unemployed and living in a crappy appartment.

> Also spreadsheets..

The best skill in life

This is hilarious to me.

I love reading about eve, but I can't imagine ever having enough free time for it

I credit Age of Empires 2 for teaching me about managing an economy and medieval history. I credit Age of Wonders for teaching me what strategy really means.

Lots of other great games helped me build my English skills, most of all The Legacy of Kain series.

And Age of Wonders taught me that building a Wonder always let's you win. But I also yet have to find an opportunity to use it. Maybe I will build one in my garden and WIN!!!! I just need a 1000 wood, 1000 Food, 1000 Gold!!!

I have a vague memory of playing ‘Uprising’ and having no idea what the flavor text on the screen said. Somehow I made it work.

I used to play a lot of RPGs on the gameboy, but my English was still not good enough so I avoided reading. Sometimes I had my gameboy and a dictionary and I'd translate NPC dialogue one word at a time.

I remember Final Fantasy 1 on gameboy had a surprisingly open world and I could walk all over the map, and it had random monster encounters. I'd be fighting a lengthy turn based battle about every 20 steps, and it could be way above my level, and I was completely and utterly lost!

I spent so much time on that game. But I never progressed far into the quest. Playing it as an adult I realized one random NPC says there's a hidden cave to the east, and if you never read it's pretty much impossible to find.

Similarly in Pokemon, bumbling through caves in the dark until I go out the other side through sheer luck and grit. Turns out the move Flash just lights up the cave.

I had a similar thing happened with Zelda for the original Gameboy. There was some mobs in one of the first dungeons, that needed to be killed in a particular order, written on a plack. I spent months on and off trying everything, but it took a older friend borrowing it until I got past it.

Some games do but I've seen people roam aimlessly in FPS~ games (say assassin's creed, GTA), without even much fun, to the point I was questionning the potential benefits.

Later in life I also realized how 'real life' is a lot subtler than it appear. Using a weapon, being far out in the woods, crafting tools .. which are all things I did in video games but had no relation to the real life versions.

Makes me curious to try runescape though

Games showed me simple way on how to get better at things - just do it everyday, either practice or read about it

watching eSports showed me how big difference mentality and attitude makes

You should credit your parents with allowing you to have so much free time and good nutrition.

Or in most cases, it's parental neglect with both parents working full-time jobs with barely enough time to take care of themselves?

From what do you infer "in most cases"? What are your statistics?

Parental availability has been steadily declining for decades - the same decades where video game usage took the place of other activities. You can do your own research. If it's difficult to get hard data, use soft data and draw inferences, but don't invalidate what data we clearly have and from which plenty of valid use can be extrapolated.

No one else gamed with their parents? No one else games with their kids? My anecdata disagree with the causal link you're suggesting, fwiw.

Books and video games were my way of being 'out of sight, out of mind' as a kid. Sadly, the less interaction I had with my parents, the more peaceful my life. I loved being left alone during the summer time.

i credit the original sid maiers pirates in teaching me at least some english, you swashbucklers and cutthroats.

I'm happy you got all of that from video-games and in no way I'm advocating against video games for everyone.

But, in my life, I credit sports for everything you said.

With the added benefit of a healthy neurology and biology in general. Something video games - and the digital world, as a whole - have been demonstrated to be detrimental. I mean, by serious studies.

Studies don’t investigate something as complex as the total impact of video games or anything else in all contexts.

You get individual studies of the impact in terms of say specific reflexes or some aspect of depression for some subset of games, but you would need a comprehensive set of studies for every single context to build a holistic picture which we simply don’t have.

Occasionally it’s enough to find major downsides such as with smoking’s really negative health impacts and say it’s not worth it. But for most things, including video games, there isn’t a single overwhelming downside just some negatives and other positives.

People want a black and white world where they can say “_ is good/bad,” but in the real world meat, carbs, video games etc isn’t that simple they are good and bad at the same time. Many people would be better off by reducing meat and carb consumption but that doesn’t mean a worldwide ban on consuming them is a good idea.

> Studies don’t investigate something as complex as the total impact of video games or anything else in all contexts.

Why not? What's the purpose of saying it's good for cognitive performance if cognitive performance isn't tested seriously?

Try at least two or three dimensions of it. Outside the video gaming context of course.

Otherwise just say: video gaming is good for getting better at video gaming.

That would be an honest conclusion.

> Why not?

Because there are simply far to many variables involved. On one dimension you have type of game, but that variety impacts everything else.

Mario Party and Call of Duty for example may impact peoples emotions differently.

Tetris and StarCraft are both test actions per minute in a different way which may mean different things for reflexes etc.

Hours per week are another dimension, someone spending a few minutes per day playing Wordle is obviously different than someone who only works a part time job to have more time for their MMO addiction.

Finances is another dimension with actual free games being well free but some people spending their life savings on loot boxes in “Free to Play” games.

Degree of socialization is again varies wildly with a surprising number of marriages starting from MMO’s but single player games obvious don’t have that.

Exercise is another with some people getting a real workout playing beat saber and others getting embolisms from sitting to long with their addiction.

Etc etc.

Are you including “basic economics” in the list of things sports taught you? Curious how that would be learned.

If you look closely, it isn't hard to see that sports became major industries, collectivelly moving trillions of Dollars worldwide every year.

If you are interested in economics, you can learn a lot from it.

In an intersection with behavioral economics, you can even learn a lot of business from observing sports.

I agree that the digital world can have detrimental effects, but I don't think it's alone in that. I have many friends, a brother, and a wife who also credit sports for all of the above, with the added benefit of a the trauma and lifelong pain from the injury that forced them to quit. Books honestly seem like a complete win. Hopefully my daughter will benefit from the safest parts of all 3.

Agree that reading books is a great habit to take.

It's sad that an injury from a physical exercise can cause a lot of trauma indeed, but I don't think practicing it is inherently bad because of that.

An accident can happen related to anything in life. People die from coconuts or tree branches falling upon their heads. We won't say trees or coconuts are inherently bad because of that.

I credit Quake Live / OpenArena for teaching me anger management.

Quake III Arena / QuakeLive training for mind warp speed and hand/eye coord.

I credit

- AoE for laying the groundwork of my love of history and archeology.

- Skyrim for making me finally learn how to create 3D art, which I still do as profession today.

- All those weird Japanese games that tell you that you don't have to conform to the predefine notion of what should and shouldn't be videogames.

Of course it doesn't replace real learning. It's hilarious when some gaming-addicted argue that 'videogames made me smart! see that research!'

Hell no Bob, smart people out there spend most of their time learning and play videogames just occasionally.