The reason why Monopoly forbids sale of properties below on-board price is to prevent losing players from selling everything at $1 to the person who angered them least.
This is not a rule of Monopoly.
And it would be trivially circumvented if it were: player A trades propery X to B for X’s face price + $1, trade back from B to A back for face price, finish by trading again from A to B for face price; possible in two trades if A has an extra property. This is also why the rules against between-player lending, gifting, and waiving rent that appear in most editions of Monopoly are moot. And if players cannot be relied upon to honor those agreements without official sanction by the rules, the players are deemed to have graduated; sweep the table clear of that garbage, hide the steak knives, and begin setting up a game of Diplomacy.
I checked the rules and you’re right. It’s not there. I thought that it was, but it seems to be more of a common house rule (and you’re right about it being easy to circumvent). Thanks for the catch.
And it would be trivially circumvented if it were: player A trades propery X to B for X’s face price + $1, trade back from B to A back for face price, finish by trading again from A to B for face price; possible in two trades if A has an extra property. This is also why the rules against between-player lending, gifting, and waiving rent that appear in most editions of Monopoly are meainingless.
I have actually done this in the past, although it was years ago with my younger siblings (9 to 10ish) who I wanted to see win more than my younger 16yo brother.
I was nodding along until the very end when it connected scubs to why programmers don’t want something like a Union. IME, that is just not the case. What I hear most people say is that they don’t think a Union will benefit them. Similar to how the hypothetical republican voter is a poor person who is convinced they will can become a millionaire, they believe that they either are or are capable of being a high performing developer and something like a Union will hurt their ability to benefit in the long run.
As for the content of the article, I have been coming to terms with the realization that I am a scrub over the last few months. It sucks, but the upside is: it gives you tool to determine what you should do. My reaction has been to aim at the following strategies
Try to create a company that does work which requires a high degree of quality in the software.
Find a company in an industry that requires a high degree of quality in the software.
Possible examples are things like cars (self driving) and space. But others exist as well, it’s a matter of finding them. That isn’t to say that solves very problem, but if one’s frustration is that some form of quality is not valued in the company they currently work for, and the company is doing fine then it might just mean that that industry does not benefit from high software quality and the developer should move on. If the industry doesn’t need high quality software to survive, why waste all that anger and skill (assuming on is actually good at delivering high quality software) on something that doesn’t even benefit from it?
I’ve created some personal OKRs for this year to explore moving on to an industry or company that does benefit from high quality, hopefully it will go well.
eleven thousand global variables. … Analysis of the program’s cyclomatic complexity reported 67 untestable functions
That’s not my idea of a place where quality is deemed important. I’m dubious that the self-driving aspect will make this any better, but I’m happy to be proven wrong.
Personally, I’ve come to see that unless you are getting fast and meaningful feedback where $$$ are involved, it will always be easier for management to say “just ship it, we have a deadline to meet” vs. “fix this, because this is the 3rd time our site went down and we’re losing millions of dollars”. Only in the latter case does quality have a chance.
Fortunately that’s a biased sample: we’re only hearing about the quality issues at the company whose firmware is visibly failing in public view. One of the specific points raised about Toyota is that they weren’t even sticking to the MISRA subset of C.
The rest of the auto industry might not be as bad as that on average. Given that the car industry has gone to the effort of creating a few things like MISRA C in order to make their software own easier for themselves to analyse, and my propensity for wishful thinking, I’m going to guess that it probably isn’t.
Hopefully. Even though apparently nobody in the car industry understands the first principles of security. ?
The article suggests that scrubbing is somehow inefficient. I tend to disagree. We need scrubs. They are the ones that promote change. Without scrubs, everybody would abide by the existing rules, and nothing would change. But sometimes the rules have to be changed, and then scrubs are very welcome.
This is an interesting point, and I think that you’re right that, sometimes, the people we call “scrubs” are useful or point to legitimate design flaws or oversights.
For example, in Contract Bridge, I’ve heard that it was once legal to bid at the 8 level, even though it’s impossible to make the hand (that would be 6 + 8 = 14 out of 13 tricks). This would be a “cheap” way to stop your opponent from making a Grand Slam (7-level) in exchange for the stiff but comparably minor penalty for failing to make one’s bid. Whatever “scrub” said that 8-level bids were a bad idea, arguably, improved the game. (It’s now banned to bid higher than 7NT.) This detail matters very little in casual play, but it’s the sort of thing that could break a tournament format.
Office politics is weird, when analyzed as a game, because it’s Nomic-like. The game is to modify the rules (and, unlike in Nomic, to know when to break them). In Nomic, generating a contradiction secures the victory; in office politics, contradictions are a given and rules must sometimes be broken.
As for the scrub programmers, my issue with them isn’t that they want to live in a world where only code matters and office politics doesn’t, because I would prefer to live in that world, too. It’s that their aversion to being political is, in fact, very political and puts them squarely on the side of the status quo.
Programming scrubs want different rules (and so do I) but they’re not willing to step into the meta-game and fight for those changes. Consequently, they make us very weak as a group, and easy for the colonizing MBA culture to exploit.
This is not a rule of Monopoly.
And it would be trivially circumvented if it were: player A trades propery X to B for X’s face price + $1, trade back from B to A back for face price, finish by trading again from A to B for face price; possible in two trades if A has an extra property. This is also why the rules against between-player lending, gifting, and waiving rent that appear in most editions of Monopoly are moot. And if players cannot be relied upon to honor those agreements without official sanction by the rules, the players are deemed to have graduated; sweep the table clear of that garbage, hide the steak knives, and begin setting up a game of Diplomacy.
I checked the rules and you’re right. It’s not there. I thought that it was, but it seems to be more of a common house rule (and you’re right about it being easy to circumvent). Thanks for the catch.
I have actually done this in the past, although it was years ago with my younger siblings (9 to 10ish) who I wanted to see win more than my younger 16yo brother.
I was nodding along until the very end when it connected scubs to why programmers don’t want something like a Union. IME, that is just not the case. What I hear most people say is that they don’t think a Union will benefit them. Similar to how the hypothetical republican voter is a poor person who is convinced they will can become a millionaire, they believe that they either are or are capable of being a high performing developer and something like a Union will hurt their ability to benefit in the long run.
As for the content of the article, I have been coming to terms with the realization that I am a scrub over the last few months. It sucks, but the upside is: it gives you tool to determine what you should do. My reaction has been to aim at the following strategies
Possible examples are things like cars (self driving) and space. But others exist as well, it’s a matter of finding them. That isn’t to say that solves very problem, but if one’s frustration is that some form of quality is not valued in the company they currently work for, and the company is doing fine then it might just mean that that industry does not benefit from high software quality and the developer should move on. If the industry doesn’t need high quality software to survive, why waste all that anger and skill (assuming on is actually good at delivering high quality software) on something that doesn’t even benefit from it?
I’ve created some personal OKRs for this year to explore moving on to an industry or company that does benefit from high quality, hopefully it will go well.
I assume you’ve seen writeups on the awfulness that is code quality in embedded devices such as cars? For example,
from http://www.viva64.com/en/a/0083/, which talks about the Toyota unintended acceleration problem.
That’s not my idea of a place where quality is deemed important. I’m dubious that the self-driving aspect will make this any better, but I’m happy to be proven wrong.
Personally, I’ve come to see that unless you are getting fast and meaningful feedback where $$$ are involved, it will always be easier for management to say “just ship it, we have a deadline to meet” vs. “fix this, because this is the 3rd time our site went down and we’re losing millions of dollars”. Only in the latter case does quality have a chance.
Fortunately that’s a biased sample: we’re only hearing about the quality issues at the company whose firmware is visibly failing in public view. One of the specific points raised about Toyota is that they weren’t even sticking to the MISRA subset of C.
The rest of the auto industry might not be as bad as that on average. Given that the car industry has gone to the effort of creating a few things like MISRA C in order to make their software own easier for themselves to analyse, and my propensity for wishful thinking, I’m going to guess that it probably isn’t.
Hopefully. Even though apparently nobody in the car industry understands the first principles of security. ?
Haha, the excessive negativity is not necessary. There is a reason I used the word “possible”.
The article suggests that scrubbing is somehow inefficient. I tend to disagree. We need scrubs. They are the ones that promote change. Without scrubs, everybody would abide by the existing rules, and nothing would change. But sometimes the rules have to be changed, and then scrubs are very welcome.
This is an interesting point, and I think that you’re right that, sometimes, the people we call “scrubs” are useful or point to legitimate design flaws or oversights.
For example, in Contract Bridge, I’ve heard that it was once legal to bid at the 8 level, even though it’s impossible to make the hand (that would be 6 + 8 = 14 out of 13 tricks). This would be a “cheap” way to stop your opponent from making a Grand Slam (7-level) in exchange for the stiff but comparably minor penalty for failing to make one’s bid. Whatever “scrub” said that 8-level bids were a bad idea, arguably, improved the game. (It’s now banned to bid higher than 7NT.) This detail matters very little in casual play, but it’s the sort of thing that could break a tournament format.
Office politics is weird, when analyzed as a game, because it’s Nomic-like. The game is to modify the rules (and, unlike in Nomic, to know when to break them). In Nomic, generating a contradiction secures the victory; in office politics, contradictions are a given and rules must sometimes be broken.
As for the scrub programmers, my issue with them isn’t that they want to live in a world where only code matters and office politics doesn’t, because I would prefer to live in that world, too. It’s that their aversion to being political is, in fact, very political and puts them squarely on the side of the status quo.
Programming scrubs want different rules (and so do I) but they’re not willing to step into the meta-game and fight for those changes. Consequently, they make us very weak as a group, and easy for the colonizing MBA culture to exploit.