Tuesday, November 27, 2012

I Am A Father



Our family sofa, from what I remember, was a disgusting shade of blue. This particular shade of blue was on the offensive, ready to be interpreted by my body in ways other colors couldn't. Tasting and swallowing a color isn't possible, but I'm positive that couch gave me a punch to the tonsils more than once. And between the cushions, there was a thick layer of crumbs and food particles that solidified together and sat just beneath the surface. My feet would sometimes itch while lying there and to get it scratched, I would shove my foot between the back of the cushion and just scrape it against shards of Doritos, dried-out cookie crumbs, and other decayed carbohydrates. It felt so good.

My father would sit beside me in his green arm chair with no arms on it and drink Old Milwaukee and watch TV. This was our nightly ritual. He would watch re-runs of MASH and Cheers and get drunk and I would doze off on the sofa, periodically scraping my foot against the crumb-laden scratching post until he decided it was time to eat. He would saunter over to our stove which had a permanent brown burn mark that stretched from one end of the panel all the way over to the other. It didn't all happen at once, it accumulated after so many nights of my father's midnight drunk cooking choreography.

The food was always prepared perfectly and was always served in under one hour. He may have burned the shit out of the actual stove several times, but never the food. It's beyond confusing as to how he managed that. It's as if the universe was watching him and had every intention to make him ruin, burn, or drop something, but then just decided "Fuck it, let him succeed. What's one more paradox?"

After we ate, I would doze back off, periodically scraping my foot against the crumb confetti under the cushion until he would say "Alright, time for bed" and he would carry me back to my parent's room where we would sleep until morning. I slept in my parent's bed, with my actual parents in it, until I was about thirteen or fourteen. That may seem strange and that's because it is.

Years later, as a spritely young college student, I met a French exchange girl. She was ethnic Armenian and had every bit of that Levantine merchant (as Hitler called them) mystique about her. Her frame was small, her body was thin, and she dressed like a hipster. I'm not really sure what a hipster is, but I assume it's someone who denies themselves the pleasure of food in order to wear clothes meant for 11 year old orphans in Kosovo. And that's what she looked like. So tiny, so brown, such bizarre clothes, I imagined her sitting on a dirt road in an Indian market, sitting next to a giant pile of some kind of red spices. That's how exotic she seemed to my extraordinarily white eyes.

Because I'm the type of person who likes to get way too personal way too fast and also because I have a very poor concept of acceptable social behavior, I walked up to her after class one day and said "Hey! Where are you from?" as I extended my hand like a vacuum salesman.

Her eyes widened and then she looked down at the floor and zipped her bag and muttered "France ..." and she said it with absolutely no confidence, as if she expected me to mock her for being French. I said "Oh, where exactly? Paris? Lyon?" and then scanned my memory banks for more French cities that I had skimmed on Wikipedia once. Nope. That's all I had. I remembered Strasbourg, but it was too late as she had already began answering and said she was from Paris and then rattled off the Blah-de-blah-Blah town from where she specifically came. Then my eyes widened because I realized that now I am completely in love with her. By the time we walked out that door together, I already had our wedding location and our first adopted puppy's name already picked out.

That first day was a complete blur. She asked if I had to go to another class and I said no even though I had a lot of classes left for the day. I ended up not going to any of them and sitting with her outside the cafeteria and talking nervously while heart-attack sweat piled on under my armpits. I can't remember anything I said except for one instance when I made her laugh. I seriously saw the roof of her mouth because her head slid back so far from giggling. At one point, I slipped and made a comment about how I was supposed to be sitting in Philosophy class and she said "I thought you said you didn't have class?"

My heart immediately took the wheel and sent a surge of "cute" to my brain and I used it to craft the most charming sentence ever said to any woman anywhere ever: "I lied because I wanted to spend time with you." She stared at me for a second and I smiled and widened my eyes and she started laughing and said "You don't have to do that! We can text!" and by the end of that first day, I had her number. Feeling high from the first step towards an exclusive, committed, monogamous relationship with her, I resigned myself from the table and said I was actually going to class. In reality, I was going home to take a shower. Humans are 95% water and at that moment, 94% of it was soaked into my shirt. Before I left, I held up my hand for a high-five, but for some reason, when she touched my hand, I clasped my fingers between her's and just held it like that for a second. Then I said "Byeeeee" and she said "Byeeee" in an equally high-pitched tone and we parted ways.

While I was at home that night, I had thoughts running back and forth about what I should do next. I have her number, so should I text her? Every ten minutes, I would pick up the phone, type a text, delete it, and then put the phone down. I did that all night until I finally decided that we would have no contact until we saw each other in class the next day. However, even that seemed like it wasn't enough, so I used every ounce of my overly-observant, borderline-stalker instincts and thought about every possibility that I could use to be closer to her. Then the perfect plan emerged: I would intentionally show up late. Sounds strange, but the desks were split into two and she sat directly behind me and the girl who sits next to me has a BFF in the same class. If I show up late, her BFF will take my seat and I'll be "forced" to take the one right behind it which just so HAPPENS to be next to her. With the confidence that my psychotic obsession with her had made a plan come together, I shut my eyes and went to sleep.

The plan worked. There was an awkward silence at first and I thought about how I was going to kill myself once I got home because of it, but then the professor gave us a group assignment. Group assignments are carte-blanche to interact with other students with every intention EXCEPT the group assignment. I can't remember exactly what it entailed, but I intentionally tried act serious about completing it just to see if she would follow along. Thankfully, she didn't and even tried to be cute and lighten the mood. Everything was falling into the place. I wanted to greedily rub my palms together like Scrooge McDuck.

This period of awkward silences and no-texting lasted longer than I would have liked, but it's because I was over-thinking every single ounce of intention which went behind every action. Then Charlie St. Cloud was released in theatres and that was our first date. We didn't actually go to the theatre, we stayed in her apartment and told stories and drank blueberry vodka (which I detest) and then decided to just not even attend. Part of me was elated because that meant we could be alone the entire night. The entire rest of me was feeling sick and my eyes were blood-shot red. Despite my wretched human body in which I was obliged to keep alive, I've never had a more fulfilling experience before. We told each other everything about our families. I told her everything about my crazy German parents, about growing up in Suriname with no electricity before we moved to Texas when I was a kid, how my mother always screams "You kids make me so nervous, I could just shit!" and all the rest. In turn, she told me about how her mother tries to treat every illness with Armenian folk remedies, like putting a wad of garlic in your ear for a headache and wrapping a hot stone in a towel and putting it on top of your stomach for a belly ache and then she told me her father died when she was about four years old. She started to cry and I told her that I couldn't feel what she was feeling because my father was a chronic alcoholic and chain-smoker and was still alive well into his early seventies. Nothing seemed as small as her existence when it was inside of my big bodied embrace at that point in time.

Of course, you can see where this leads. The usual pattern ensued: We spend time together, we become a couple, we only spend time with each other, and with time comes obligations and with obligations comes a commitment and with commitment comes a relationship and with a relationship comes sacrifice. My greedy plan was being fulfilled faster than I could have expected, but I wasn't ready. I just simply was not ready for the stares other men would give to her, almost graciously ignorant of how it might affect me, the fights we would have because of my insecurity, the days without speaking because I was stubborn enough to wait for her to come to me instead of the other way around ... but there was never anything through which we couldn't push. We made it through each, individual, hurtful phase.

Really, we did. My previous girlfriends, whom I still love and wish nothing but happiness upon, couldn't do what she did or tolerate what she tolerated. I even appealed to TeamLiquid for help several times regarding my attempts to learn her language and once to help write an apology letter (albeit deceptively) to show my proficiency. By the way, if anyone is wondering how that turned out, she read it and just said "You didn't write this." and the kissed me. That had a very Taylor Swift ending. It sounds like it couldn't be true, but with what was about to come before us, it almost seems insignificant.

My father passed away almost a year into our relationship. I say "my father" and "passed away" because this is the normal, distant language I'm expected to use. I accept it and will follow the protocol, but I will say this: My father passed away, but my daddy died. I can accept my father passing away and I will never accept my daddy dying. The negativity which this event unleashed on our relationship is what lead to its complete and utter Soviet-style collapse. I starved her of honest interaction and she responded accordingly. After my daddy died, I became completely demented. I became a cancer-phobe (since he died at 72 from cancer) and a hypochondriac. I was running to doctor after doctor, psychiatrist after psychiatrist and I wouldn't discuss a single aspect of it with her. The final nail in the coffin, straw on the camel's back, and mound on the grave was when I packed up and moved back in with my mother. And even THIS she was willing to tolerate. She loved my mother and my mother loved her and she understood that as a mother of four children who has never lived alone, she wants the youngest, the baby, me, to be back home with her in this time of my father's death. In her mind, it was a cultural obligation and as a good German boy, I will come back to my mother.

Except that I only became more distant. The idea of speaking with her on the phone would make my back erupt into this rash which felt like it would be with me seven weeks after my death. My embarrassment, shame, and above all, my complacency with my pathetic mental situation was defeating me. Utterly and hopelessly defeating me. There were nights when I would be in bed with my phone next to my hand and periodically I would turn over to see how many of her missed calls would rack up ... I think her record was over thirty calls. Thirty calls in one night. But I just could not bring myself to reciprocate. I just wanted to die.

My mother sprang to my rescue and arranged for me to go on a short holiday in Austria with my father's family, but this wasn't my first set of goodbyes to put into motion. Marie texted me and told me she was going back to France and this was my last chance to see or speak to her. I called her immediately after reading that text, but she didn't answer. I called again later that night, no answer. I tried to Skype her, no answer. Ready to just sink my head into my pillow for yet another night of hypochondria and loneliness, I turned out the lamp.

Then the phone rang.

It was her.

Her voice ... I could have fainted at the sound of it and not even the strongest smelling salts or most convincing Voodoo ritual could have brought me back to life ... her voice ...

Somewhere, out of my thick-tongued, dry-mouthed, hypochondria-ridden brain, I made the sincere promise of seeing her before she left for France. It was absolutely sincere. I remember when I said "I love you" before I hung up, she said "You should .... because I love you."

Thankfully, my sister was visiting from Austin at that time and she was going home regardless, so I rode with her with plans to stay for the weekend and that was how I found myself in her apartment that night. Every bit of my distance, neurosis, psychosis, every last scintilla of it vanished that very night. I kissed her, her mouth, her cheeks, her forehead, her eye-lids and then promised to kiss every part of her before she left. She even came back to my sister's house with me. I felt like a twelve old sneaking my girlfriend into my parent's house. What happiness I felt! We slept together on the couch, sleeping soundly to the Dirty Dancing DVD on repeat.

The next day, as my sister drove Marie and myself to the airport, my heart was completely steady, my mind was clear, and I felt normal. Not sad, not anything. Just completely normal. But somewhere along the line inside of that airport, around those people, I just couldn't say goodbye to her. I did what, in my mind, was keeping a theme alive. Kissing every part of her before she leaves seems like a theme, right? So, I lifted up her left elbow and kissed it. Without a moment's hesitation, I said "I'm gonna kiss the other one when you come back" and then she said "When you come here!!"

Her voice ... the excitement ... every single one of you would kill me if you knew that I never spoke with her after moment. Never sent her any Skype messages, any Facebook messages, no emails, nothing. You guys would tear me apart and you have every right to do so ... but Taylor Swift had a point. Sometimes, you have to believe in love stories.

"Remember that woman from work who bought all our furniture when we moved?" my mother asked on one awkward summer Wednesday morning

"Yeah ... Sandra, right?"

"Yes, well, her and her husband are moving to Montreal, their son is a doctor up there, and since daddy died, they want to leave that furniture with us."

"What are we gonna do with it?"

"Well ... let's just put it in the living room and then we'll have a big garage sale."

It seemed like a normal proposal, I had no ulterior or subconscious feelings towards the decision, so I welcomed that disgusting blue sofa back into our home. After all, it was the structure which hosted, comforted, and soothed me during my boyhood years. During this time of furniture transplantation, I tried sending emails to Marie, short and sweet, nothing too serious, and she responded in the equivalent tone. Knowing that it was over between us, I felt I had nothing to lose. One night, after becoming completely dogshit drunk, I wrote her a message which could carry every dead man's memories from the Civil War. That's how long and obnoxious it was. And, somehow, through the great unknown cosmic forces of physics and probability, she gave a favorable response. One thing lead into another, a different tone, a different medium of conversation, a different feeling ... but somehow, it wasn't different. It's what we are.

It is what we are. To put it into humane sentiments, I had even broken up with my current (at the time) girlfriend Emma, just on the off-chance that this could lead into something which would make me happy.

When I signed into Skype that night because she wanted to tell me the "big news" (which I knew was her returning to Austin, but to retain the mood, I played ignorant), I could not believe the image I saw. When that webcam flicked on, I just saw her sitting on her bed and holding up her right elbow and said "Are you gonna kiss this one, too?"

I nodded. I couldn't speak.

To skip past a few boring and minor details, we ended up embracing each other in person in a way which would make the Columbine shooters put aside their plans and think about sticking around on Earth for the possibility of having something similar to that. It was absolutely incredible. After deciding on being hosted by my mother for the rest of the holiday, she found herself in our home. Welcomed to the smell of roast beef and slightly raw potatoes (typical German odors), she collapsed into my mother's arms. I was shocked to see that she was so happy to be within the confines of the family which raised me, my mother's little baby. Not knowing what to do, I ran away to my bathroom and turned on the faucet and waited for those two to settle down.

They never did. When I walked outside to the patio, I heard my mother's dialogue and realized that she was explaining every detail of our family to Marie. Not every detail, but every single particle from the Austro-Hungarian Empire until that very moment. Trying to brush my mother off of Marie's back, trying to get Marie to pay attention to me, trying to get BOTH of them to settle down and call it a night ... absolutely futile. That first night turned into an all-night family revisionist history session. And the fault was on both parties, to be clear.

However, it wasn't always that boring. One night, while in bed with her, I told her the story of that disgusting blue sofa and how it is the EXACT same sofa we have in our living room right now. I told her how clean it is now, how different it feels now, but in my heart, that will always be MY sofa. She laughed so hard when I described my foot-scraping ritual. And how my dad always cooked when he was drunk. She couldn't contain herself. She would giggle so hard and then peer at me with these wifely eyes, that I could just FEEL the oxytocin building up inside of her membranes. All of these family history" shticks wore off very quickly. This is when things became a little ... aggressive. I had pushed her away, lost my mind, then kind of regained my good sense, then kind of lost it again, then suddenly I have her in my home with our old furniture, which provides MANY stories to make her laugh. But ... having her .... all good sense is absent. One night, we had sex with each other. It was my first time, it was her first time, and everything else is irrelevant.

She left, became settled back in Austin, had her first semester at U.T. right ahead of her. I'm still with my mother, doing what I can to help around the house. I re-painted the entire house, cut down all the cedar trees, even took some of the leftover cedar and had a beautiful plant-bed made for my mother ... just things like that. However, I couldn't live this life without any amount of sacrifice. I couldn't live this amount of happiness with having her back in my life without some form of responsibility ... I just couldn't.

In one very distant part of my mind, I knew this was coming.

When I received the call, I was wearing work-gloves and had just turned off a chain-saw.


"I'm pregnant."

I threw off my gloves and ran inside to make sure I heard that correctly? Did I hear really hear that?

At that point, I was almost delirious. I had tunnel vision.

I took off my gloves and gave them to my brother. I was going inside. How could I EVER TELL MY MOTHER? How could I ever tell my mother I made a girl pregnant before I was married?

I wanted to kill myself.

As I entered that house ... my mother comes RUNNING at me, SOBBING and says, verbatim "I just got off the phone with Marie ..." and then started sobbing again and saying how proud she is. How proud she is? Of me? For what?

My mother always wanted grandbabies and she wanted them from me and she wanted them from her. In her mind, this is the greatest gift she could have ever received.

In my mind, it's .... I don't know what it is. To be honest, I cannot comprehend what it actually is. Last night, I slept on that disgusting blue sofa in our living room. At one point, I woke up and turned over. I dug my foot between the backs of the cushions, but they're clean now. There is no crumb confetti to comfort me.

Slowly descending into this spiral of responsibility to which I have voluntarily assigned myself, I drifted off into a deep sleep.

At one point, I woke up because I heard the typical voice from my father:

"Alright, it's time for bed."

I was so groggy and tired, but I got up and lifted my arms up, waiting to be picked up by my father.

The reality seeped into my pores like an air-borne illness. My father is dead. He is not going to pick me up and take me to bed. His days of taking care of his children are over. They're over.

However, mine are just beginning.

Friday, November 23, 2012

The Themes of Dexter



ATTENTION: SPOILERS!

Season 1: Individualism. In the beginning Dexter followed Harry's code to the letter and never really let his own feelings get in the way. He never really questioned a way of life that came from within. Brian represented the antithesis of Harry's code; he was a free spirit with no rules. By the end of the season, Dexter's strict adherence to Harry's teachings ended up costing him his brother, "the only one he ever wanted to let go".

Season 2: Possession. Lila was the embodiment of dependence, she coveted Dexter to the point that it nearly brought down everyone around her. The opposite action is to let go, to free oneself of the bindings, the vices that sustain yet also chain us. Dexter struggled with this when he had to make his toughest decision yet regarding Doakes: "Kill me now or set me free!" It was either give in to his greatest weakness, the need to kill, or set him free and ultimately risk losing everything. Doakes brought up suicide, and even planted seeds of regret and shame in Dexter's mind, causing him to consider turning himself in—other ways of letting go. (Addiction lies in this same sphere so you were pretty much on the money here.)

Season 3: Trust. This mostly goes hand-in-hand with friendship, but it extends beyond that somewhat. There were parallels drawn between Dexter's relationships with Miguel and Rita. Friendship and marriage are ultimately built on the same foundation of trust.

Season 4: Responsibility. With family comes a great need for responsibility and priority (see also care, neglect, nurturing). Dexter eventually learned the hard way that you can't just make perfunctory appearances and not expect things that have been built up to degrade. (On a side note I think this was eventually illustrated in a clumsy way with the twist ending, but at least the point was clear.)

Season 5: Altruism. Story-wise it was sort of an extension of the last season because Dexter was dealing with guilt over his brief and neglectful marriage. The things he did for Lumen were essentially an act of contrition. He couldn't make things right with Rita, so he took in a battered and broken individual and selflessly took on her own darkness. He might have hunted these same individuals had he not met Lumen, but in the end he took his hands off the steering wheel and let her solve her own brief taking-on of the "Dark Passenger".

Season 6: Faith. Dexter never really takes on a spiritual side, but he gains a respect for the concept of faith. He didn't start to question whether there was a "God" per se, but Brother Sam was able to help him discover a capacity to trust that things will work out when they lie outside your control. Control is important to Dexter, so when Harrison was in the hospital, he felt helpless because there was literally nothing he could do but wait. Travis represented the dark side of faith by taking his Lord's name in vain. He was a person who chose to interpret mere words in a radical, concrete fashion, absolving himself of responsibility by saying this is "how it's supposed to be", while missing the bigger picture unlike Sam. Ironically, Dexter found himself hoisted by own petard when he decided to faithfully disregard the minute possibility that Debra would visit him at the church.

Season 7: Love. Pretty obvious so far, though I don't mean that in a bad way. The dangers of love make good and bad people alike suspend rationality and integrity; Debra's love for Dexter is great enough that it drives her to cover for his heinous crimes; Dexter can't bring himself to take out Hannah despite fitting his code quite well; Isaak chooses to pursue a frivolous vendetta, ignoring the fact that Viktor, objectively, committed some terrible acts. More on this one as the season churns on...

Saturday, October 27, 2012

A Long Way Home


I was day tripping to Vancouver from Seattle and stopped in for lunch at a little cafe. From my window I saw a young teenage girl out in the cold, squatted down in a closed up businesses doorway, holding a small bundle in her arms. She was panhandling, people were mostly walking by ignoring her. She looked just broken.
I finished up my meal and went outside, went through my wallet and thought I'd give her $5 for some food. I got up to her and she was sobbing, she looked like she was 14-15. And that bundle in her arms was a baby wrapped up. I felt like I just got punched in the chest. She looked up putting on a game face and asked for any change, I asked her if she's like some lunch. Right next door was a small quick-Trip type grocery store, I got a can of formula for the baby (very young, maybe 2-3 months old.), and took her back to the cafe though I'd just eaten. She was very thankful, got a burger and just inhaled it. Got her some pie and ice cream. She opened up and we talked. She was 15, got pregnant, parents were angry and she was fighting with them. She ran away. She's been gone almost 1 full year.
I asked her if she's like to go home and she got silent. I coaxed her, she said her parents wouldn't want her back. I coaxed further, she admitted she stole 5k in cash from her Dad. Turns out 5k doesn't last long at all and the streets are tough on a 15 year old. Very tough. She did want to go back, but she was afraid no one wanted her back after what she did.
We talked more, I wanted her to use my phone to call home but she wouldn't. I told her I'd call and see if her folks wanted to talk to her, she hesitated and gave bad excuses but eventually agreed. She dialed the number and I took the phone, her Mom picked up and I said hello. Awkwardly introduced myself and said her daughter would like to speak to her, silence, and I heard crying. Gave the phone to the girl and she was just quiet listening to her Mom cry, and then said hello. And she cried. They talked, she gave the phone back to me, I talked to her Mom some more.
I drove her down to the bus station and bought her a bus ticket home. Gave her $100 cash for incidentals, and some formula, diapers, wipes, snacks for the road.
Got to the bus, and she just cried saying thank you over and over. I gave her a kiss on the forehead and a hug, kissed her baby, and she got on the bus.
I get a chistmas card every year from her. She's 21 now and in college.
Her name is Makayla and her baby was Joe.
I've never really told anyone about this. I just feel good knowing I did something good in this world. Maybe it'll make up for the things I've f-ed up.

Saturday, October 6, 2012

Realistic Body Armor as an Example for Managing Design Space in Games



A lot of creative disciplines share a very important aspect, which is the management of space. Napoleon was known to say that strategy is about management of space and time (he was also known to have said he was more keen about the latter, since space could always be recovered), and in a lot of ways that's what creative design is about. I'm a lot more amateur at music than I am at games as a field, but one of the first things you learn in digital music creation is that you only have a few dimensions to work in and once they're filled you are just adding what amounts to useless white noise that makes your sound bad, especially in a song (other audio may vary).
Here's what I mean, and forgive the tangent into music but trust me it'll make sense in a minute. In music you have three spatial dimensions you can fill, basically, until your track is "full". You have the in-out direction, or volume, which represents how close something is to you (louder is closer). A special thing about volume is that in digital recordings (and to an extent in analog recordings unless you're willing to go the extra mile and invent custom formats for getting crazy with) once you hit a certain threshold of volume, you're completely done. Above +-0dB? Nobody's going to hear it unless they're listening in an audio workstation that has a higher bit depth; to the normal man listening to the .mp3 at home that's just going to clip completely off and be a bad sounding noise. So, you always have to consider the volume dimension. The left-right axis is represented by panning, which quite literally moves the sound more left or more right. The up down axis is a little metaphorical, because we say a sound is high or low in pitch, but it helps to think of it as a third dimensional axis to go with in-and-out and left-to-right.
Just like in film (I swear that although this gets farther a-field it'll come back to games) if you place any element at the same intersection of these three points in space the more difficult it will be to resolve to the senses, so the same for music - if you have an actor behind another actor relative to the camera, the other actor may as well not be there because he is effectively invisible since the first actor is in the way of the shot, and this also works for sounds in music that share the same pitch, panning, and relative volume (although usually two of the three is enough to make it kind of muddy). Basically what I'm saying here is that in film and music, you need to manage space to make sure each thing has its place, and also that, just like in volume, you can't overload something with too much stuff, otherwise it gets bad (in the case of music it clips, in the case of film... well... I'd imagine it'd be distracting, but I'm not even a hobbyist when it comes to films so I won't pretend to be able to talk there).
ANYWAY, back to games. You say you want a more realistic damage model? Great, so do I. For ages I've wanted to see a completely realistic implementation of modern body armor. You get shot? Does the armor catch the bullet? Broken rib at the worst; you're not going to be out of the fight if your life is at stake but you won't have a good couple weeks after that because of the bruising. You want evidence of that? Go check out the North Hollywood shootout, where the bank robbers were shot dozens of times in their body armor with nary a pause noted. Were they bruised to hell and back? Definitely yes. Did the body armor keep them in the fight? Also definitely yes (until the big guns arrived, at least). I'd give quite a lot of money to see a game that takes body armor beyond Counterstrike's primitive "damage ablater" model, but I am quite aware that this would end up a very niche game. Why?
Here's the connection you've read what is probably far too much text for me to get to. Just like in films and music, and even the strategy of war, in game design you need to manage space. Design space. That is to say, you need to manage the amount of crap in your game. Now I'm not just talking about budgetary and man-hour concerns, which are entirely valid meta-reasons to be concerned about how much stuff you put in your game to be fair, but that if you put too much stuff in a game it becomes a bad game.
Now I know /r/games is primarily devoted to digital games - ones that involve keyboards, mice, joysticks, CPUs, whatever, but this is actually a trend most evident in tabletop gaming. A lot of the biggest tabletop games, like war games or roleplaying games, generally tend to suffer from a condition known generally as "bloat", or perhaps "rules bloat", or "product bloat", or whatever is getting bloated but the point is it expands a lot. The single best example I know of this is in fact the archetypical Dungeons & Dragons, which beginning in its 2nd edition (a good clue here is that it even had two editions or more to begin with - you don't see Monopoly with more editions) began to release tooooooooooooooons of supplementary rules-based products. In part this was originally because the company that published the game, TSR, was going horribly horribly bankrupt and was clutching at straws at stay financially afloat (there's that meta-concern again!), ... but this process continued in the game's third edition (in fact the "d20 system" on which 3rd edition D&D was based became so prolific that it's hard to find a game that wasn't given an attempted conversion into d20, sort of like if somehow Crysis 3 would be a smash hit and everybody starts hopping on the CryEngine for their sequels instead of whatever engine they were using before) ... and the fourth edition ... and in fact is known to be such a problem that the game's designers are specifically trying to address "reducing rules bloat" in the fifth revision of the game all these years later.
So, what does this have to do with walking with a limp? Basically, walking with a limp takes space. Getting more damage when you're shot in the head takes space. More realistic damage models, by virtue of being more complicated, take more space. If you want to make a game that doesn't overflow into bloated land, and thus remains in the territory of "good", you need to cut other things to make space for this complex realism. This is why a game like ARMA II really doesn't appeal to most people, because even though it made some compromises (for instance its flight and vehicle models aren't particularly simulationist even compared to something like Battlefield 3, which is known to be an arcade style shooter not unlike Call of Duty, just with bigger maps and vehicles and some other fancy widgets tacked on) its core gameplay is still fairly dense and complicated because reality is fairly dense and complicated and that's what it is attempting to portray, a fictitious reality simulator.
Even in the realm of simulation games, then, there is no "everything simulator". There's a train simulator, there's a plane simulator, there's even a "mostly infantry combat with some vehicles and stuff thrown in there" simulator (the aforementioned ARMA II), but there's no "everything simulator" because there isn't enough room in a design paradigm to simulate everything.
So, and this is the end I promise, back to your question. Why are there no games that use injuries instead of a health system? Because stripping injuries from the game leaves the design space less cluttered and makes room for other more important core features that would be distracted (and thus after a fashion detracted) from if you included realistic injury models. Your given Call of Duty clone isn't concerned with the slow methodical gameplay that injury modelling is a large part of, and therefore they have no reason to clutter up their game by including it. They could, make no mistake. Call of Duty has an enormous budget and some of the most talented game designers on the planet working on it... which is precisely why they don't even though they could.
So, back to me. I, like you, would love to see a more realistic injury model in a game. I'd love "Realistic Body Armor: The Game". But... that's exactly what it would be, and make no mistake. The game would be about having realistic body armor because that eats so much of the design space, especially since it's ground nobody's really trod on before so it'd take more effort (thus opening us back up to those meta-concerns again). It wouldn't be about a lot of other things because, again, there's no space for that. In my head I'm having a hard time taking the concept beyond "well, it's like Counterstrike, but the guns are like in Receiver and the body armor is realistic". So, basically, the reason that more games don't have more realistic damage models, even though they could, is because it unnecessarily clutters a design space that has no use for such a mechanism. Unless those injuries further the archetype the game is trying to promote? Basically wasted space.

Why we will never have true realistic first person shooters



We won't, because it won't really make any particular kind of sense in most modern popular multiplayer shooters.
You see, realism has some massive drabacks: it's slow, boring, and imbalanced. Think about what would happen if Battlefield had a realistic flight model with a realistic flight ceiling. A single jet or chopper pilot could dominate the battlefield without putting himself in much danger. Snipers could position themselves at strategic positions and only really have to worry about enemy snipers and vehicles. Close-quarters combat would be nearly nonexistant, and most engagements would be fought by eliminating all opposition from afar, and then slowly walking in to take over enemy bases.
But to improve the game, they've added respawning. They've lowered the flight ceiling so that everyone knows there's a jet around at all times, and so that anti-air could be a bit more effective. The battlefield is limited in landscape size so that the entire battle is focused around a few choke points. All of this has been done to improve the game experience; to make engagements between you and an enemy happen often, and with both players understanding that there's an engagement.
This last part is especially important. Games that have lots of 1v1 battles within a larger game are popular. I think it has to do with the adrenaline rush you get when you're walking around, spot an enemy, the enemy spots you, and it's a short one-versus-one match to the death, followed by the victor running off to find another target to kill. Even in games that aren't as fast-paced (ArmA, DayZ), these moments make the game. Nobody likes walking around and suddenly dying because an enemy shot you in the face without you being able to do anything about it. People like being put against an enemy and trying to out-skill him.
Now think about what happens if the damage model becomes more realistic. The first person to fire a bullet will have a far greater advantage, and will win a lot more engagements. Engagements will also be a lot shorter: the first proper hit will be fatal or incapacitating enough so that the opponent can't do anything anymore. Although this can be quite interesting and exciting (high tension level), it changes the entire nature of the game significantly.
In engagements where one person is left crippled, and the other is left dead, the game may become rather annoying. If the game has respawning, this means that even though one person was the victor of an engagement, his crippled state means that he'll spend the next few moments in the game being bored/annoyed at his character's health, especially if he has a broken bone and can't move effectively around the battlefield. The loser of the engagement died and lost the engagement, but he's able to respawn into a fresh body and continue to have fun! So, really, who was the victor in that engagement? The one who died, or the one who got crippled?
So, only having a realistic damage model in a multiplayer shooter won't really work, as respawning becomes an issue. Introducing a new feature (the realistic damage model) broke another. So now this problem has to be fixed, perhaps by removing respawning altogether, which will in turn create another problem (people being bored after dying). And so on, and so forth.
Perhaps there is a nice solution for this, but I doubt that it'll be able to break into mainstream multiplayer gaming, and I bet that these games with truly realistic damage models will continue to be a niche.

Friday, October 5, 2012

How 4.5 Petabytes can be compressed to 42 Kilobytes



Theoretical part by I_Wont_Draw_That

Compression comes down to information theory, which is the branch of mathematics and computer science devoted to describing the amount of information in some string of characters. The attack involves compressing a string which is extremely long, but also contains an extremely low amount of information.
Consider the string: abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz
That is 26 characters. However, the amount of information stored in it may be lower. I could instead represent it as "the english alphabet", which is only 20 characters, and you still know what I mean. Given enough context, I could represent it as "alphabet". And given a shared understand that "0 means abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz", I could represent it as 0.
Now consider this string: aaabbbaaabbbaaabbbaaabbbaaabbbaaabbbaaabbbaaabbbaaabbbaaabbbaaabbbaaabbb
That's 72 characters. But what if I gave you something like: 
0=aaa 1=bbb 010101010101010101010101
That's only 36 characters. Or what if I compressed it more? 
0=aaabbb 000000000000
That's only 21 characters. So we compressed our input from 72 characters to 21 characters without losing any information. This is effectively what zipping a file does. It builds a dictionary of common patterns, aliasing them to shorter strings, and then uses the aliases in their place.
The fewer unique substrings there are, the more compressible the data is, because the dictionary can be smaller, so each alias can be shorter. What happens, then, if the entire input is one pattern repeated many, many times?
For instance, suppose the original string had been 0 repeated a trillion times. To write that string out completely would require 1 terabyte (1 byte per "0" times a trillion of them). But as you just saw, I can easily represent it just as well as "0 repeated a trillion times", which is much, much shorter. That's basically what's happening here. The original content is extremely large, but equally simple, so it compresses into almost nothing. When inflated, it's gigantic.
This extreme runs the other way, as well. For any given compression algorithm, there are inputs which cannot be compressed at all.

Practical part by Rohaq

Basic zip bombs are pretty easy to make.
Create a massive file, let's say, a gig in size, which is full of zeroes, then zip it up. Because the content of the file is uniformly repeated throughout, it compresses very easily:
$ dd if=/dev/zero bs=1024 count=1000000 | zip zipbomb1.zip -
  adding: -1000000+0 records in
1000000+0 records out
1024000000 bytes (1.0 GB) copied, 9.97309 s, 103 MB/s
 (deflated 100%)
$ ls -lh zipbomb1.zip
-rw-r--r-- 1 me me 971K 2012-08-01 18:21 zipbomb1.zip
(The above is under Linux, and pushes 1024*1000000 '0' characters into a zip file with standard compression)
Copy that zip file ten times over. Then add all of these zip files into a single zip file. Because the file content across each zip file is exactly the same, again, this compresses very well:
$ zip -9 zipbomb-lvl2-1.zip zipbomb*
  adding: zipbomb10.zip (deflated 100%)
  adding: zipbomb1.zip (deflated 100%)
  adding: zipbomb2.zip (deflated 100%)
  adding: zipbomb3.zip (deflated 100%)
  adding: zipbomb4.zip (deflated 100%)
  adding: zipbomb5.zip (deflated 100%)
  adding: zipbomb6.zip (deflated 100%)
  adding: zipbomb7.zip (deflated 100%)
  adding: zipbomb8.zip (deflated 100%)
  adding: zipbomb9.zip (deflated 100%)
$ ls -lh zipbomb-lvl2-1.zip 
-rw-r--r-- 1 me me 28K 2012-08-01 18:26 zipbomb-lvl2-1.zip
(The above adds all of the copied zip files into the zip file zipbomb-lvl2-1.zip with the highest level of compression)
Now copy that zip file ten times over, and zip it them all up again. Rinse and repeat, let's say 10 layers deep.
So following from the compression basics people have been mentioning, ignoring individual file headers, etc. the above could be compressed as something as simple as:
[[[[[[[[[[[0]{1024000000}]{10}]{10}]{10}]{10}]{10}]{10}]{10}]{10}]{10}]{10}
Now a virus scanner comes along, and then attempts to scan the zip file. It decompresses the first set of zips, then decompresses each of those, then decompresses each of those. Eventually it gets to the lowest layer, and attempts to decompress these files into memory. At this point you're attempting to decompress 1010 1GB files into memory, so unless you have about 9.3 exabytes of RAM at hand, you're in trouble, and since some scanners automatically scan new files, well, you could be in trouble as soon as you receive or open the file.
Scanners nowadays generally have checks in place to make sure that they're not affected by zip bombs, however, which is probably why MSE is no longer detecting it as a threat.

Thursday, October 4, 2012

The Four Forces of Nature


There are four "fundamental interactions" -- these are the four very basic types of forces that affect particles. They are the strong interaction, the weak interaction, the electromagnetic interaction, and the gravitational interaction.
Electromagnetic: we're most familiar with this interaction, and it has the most direct effect on our day to day lives. It is very, very strong -- many orders of magnitude stronger than gravity. The EM interaction dictates all of chemistry. If you've ever picked something up, or felt friction, or drank water, oranything that has nothing to do with radiation, nuclear forces, or gravity, then it's dictated by the electromagnetic interaction. The study of the electromagnetic interaction at the quantum level is called QED: [1] Quantum Electrodynamics, and is mediated by the photon. Richard Feynman made a lot of progress here.
Strong Interaction: if we look closely at the nucleus of an atom, we'll find that the strong interaction shows up in two places: it holds protons and neutrons together inside the nucleus, and it also holds quarks together to form protons and neutrons and other hadrons. The strong interaction is even stronger than EM--but its effects fall off very quickly with distance so we don't really experience it at the macroscopic scale. We discovered the strong interaction because we couldn't figure out how EM could hold things together inside the nucleus. The study of the strong interaction is called [2] Quantum Chromodynamics, and is very interesting.
Weak Interaction: This one dictates radioactive decay; the forces are mediated by the W and Z bosons.
Gravity: gravity is very, very weak -- many orders of magnitude weaker than the strong force. We don't see gravity at human scales; it only appears at galactic sizes (planets, stars, etc). Because it's so weak, it's exceedingly hard to study. When looking at subatomic particles, the EM and Strong forces are so much more powerful than gravity that it's nearly impossible to see the effects of gravity at a small scale. Because of gravity's weakness, we have not been able to study it closely at the quantum level. Gravity is "split off" because it's too weak to study at a quantum scale. It's hard to see and it's hard to study. Perhaps if we understood more of its characteristics at the quantum scale we'd get some more hints about how to reconcile the maths.
Now it turns out that some very smart people discovered that Electromagnetism and the Weak interaction are actually two aspects of a single interaction which we call "the electroweak". Electromagnetism and radioactive decay are therefore two facets of one "parent" interaction -- leaving us with only 3 fundamental interactions! We also have strong evidence to suspect that the Strong interaction can be combined with the Electroweak interaction, and I think we've made progress there, but I'm not up to date on this.
So there's evidence that the Strong, Weak, and EM interactions can be combined into one. Given that, whywouldn't we be able to bring gravity into the mix? We should be able to unify the four into one big theory, and show each one as a different facet of the "unified field theory". The main problem is that we don't understand gravity as much as we'd like to, because it's too weak to study. We haven't figured out the math yet -- because with our current understanding of gravity, the math doesn't work out correctly. If we could more accurately characterize gravity (perhaps there's something that's too small to see yet), our understand of gravity might change slightly and we'd be able to fit it in with the others.
Slight clarification: We don't understand quantumgravity as much as we'd like to. General relativity, however, gives us an excellent framework for macroscopic gravity. Our main issue is using what we know from relativity in conjunction with quantum physics. Einstein's relativity works so well that it's hard to imagine describing gravity any other way; this is what I mean when I say "we don't understand quantum gravity well enough"--we understand gravity excellently, but we don't understand it at the quantum level.

Tuesday, October 2, 2012

Why don't hair cells heal themselves like cuts and scrapes do? Will we have solutions to this soon?



I work on the development of neurosensory cells in the cochlea, with the goal being figuring out the secret to hair cell regeneration.
Mammals have lost the ability to regenerate hair cells (the types of cells that translate sound waves into a neural signal) after damage. Birds and reptiles, however, have maintained that ability, and after enduring trauma or infection, or drug-induced hair cell loss, a non-sensory supporting cell will transdifferentiate (change from one differentiated cell type to another) into a mechanosensory hair cell. Why exactly can't mammals do this? Well, we're not exactly sure. There are all sorts of inhibitory signals within the mature mammalian cochlea that prevent cell division or transdifferentiation (which is also one reason why we never see any cancer in this system; the body basically has all the proliferation completely shut off). So we try to figure out if there are ways around this apparent moratorium on proliferation/differentiation in mammalian cochleae, and if there's a way to open up the possibility of regenerating hair cells in mature mammalian cochlea.
With gene therapy or viral vectors, we have been able to grow hair cells in vitro. That's true, in fact it doesn't even take anything that complicated to grow hair cells in culture - you just need to dump atoh1 protein (the master gene for hair cell development) on some competent cells and they will turn into hair cells (they'll even recruit neighboring cells to become supporting cells). But that doesn't really help us regenerate hair cells in mature mammalian cochlea - those cells aren't really competent to respond to that signal once they're past a certain point. There's been a few studies that have succeeded in generating transdifferentiated hair cells from support cells using genetic systems to overexpress those genes that direct a hair cell fate - but this only lasts about a month after birth before you start losing that effect. And on top of that, the functionality of the hair cells that were generated was questionable. And of course, these animals were genetically engineered to have these genes turned on at certain points, this is obviously not a viable option to translate into human treatment.
So it still remains that gene therapy is probably our best shot to regenerate hair cells in a mature human cochlea. The only problem is we don't know exactly what combination of genes will do the trick on a mature cochlea. So a lot of work is done on figuring out how this happens normally, then trying to find a way to manipulate that system. Since this is my field, I could go on forever about this, but I don't want to start getting too tangential or far out, especially since I don't have time to look up sources (gotta go work on some of my mice right now) but if y'all have any questions I'll do my best to answer them when I get a chance.

Monday, October 1, 2012

Why do you like your own mirror image but hate your photo image?



It is an extension of the mere-exposure effect/hypothesis. Very basically, it states that the more you see or hear something, the more you like it. Because we see our "reflected" image far more than our "photo" image, we subjectively like it more.
Here is one study from the literature that found support for the hypothesis - Reversed facial images and the mere-exposure hypothesis. (Warning: possible pay-wall for full article, abstract can be viewed by anyone however).
As a summary, the abstract states that they took 33 female college students and a close female friend (in study 1) or a lover (study 2) and had them rate a picture of the participant as well as an image like one that the participant would see in a mirror as well as a "true" picture, like one would see in a photo/real-life. As the researchers hypothesized, the participant rated their "mirror" image as preferable, while their friend/lover rated their "photo" image as preferable, supporting the mere-exposure hypothesis.
For those behind the paywall: In study 1, the participant preferred their mirror print 21-12, the friend preferred the photo print 20 to 13. In study 2, (different as instead of friends, the girls identified and brought lovers) the participant preferred their mirror print 20-8, the lover preferred the photo print 17-11 (only 28 continued in the study). Note that by the statistics, the difference between lovers and friends in their preference of the photo image is non-significant.
I also wonder if beyond simply mere-exposure, some element of self-image is involved. People may self-identify with their mirror images far more than their photo images and thus become disconcerted when seeing themselves "looking wrong" due to the reflection of the minor imperfections in symmetry most of our faces contain. Pure speculation on my part if this cognitive connection exists, however, so take it with a grain of salt.
As a note to anyone interested, google has a great academic search function called Google scholar (http://scholar.google.com). You may only get access to abstracts, but it is a great first source to go to beyond wikipedia.

The Two Sides of Marijuana


There is increasing evidence that marijuana can cause long term damage to young people, namely teens.
There is truth in both sides of the spectrum. There are limited studies done on Schedule I drugs, because of it's listing it is considered to have no medicinal value. To understand why Marijuana was listed as a Schedule I drug you have to look back through history to the early 1900's. The medical problems with marijuana stem from side effects, long term and some that only affect some users and addiction. The societal problems extend far beyond that. It is best to take what information is available, from both sides, and come to conclusions from the facts.
Is a good pro marijuana advocacy groups listing of studies relating to marijuana:
The National Institute of Drug Abuse:
There was a study done on the effects of marijuana use on youth in Canada. They found that smoking marijuana before the brain is fully formed (The medical community agrees that your brain fully forms around the years of 18 to 25) can create long term issues. Here is a quote from the researchers study:
“Teenagers who are exposed to marijuana have decreased serotonin transmission, which leads to mood disorders, as well as increased norepinephrine transmission, which leads to greater long-term susceptibility to stress,” Dr. Gobbi stated.
Interesting the second link from the same doctor and resource states that in another study they found that synthetic THC in low doses was a potent anti-depressant, but that in high doses it reversed itself and can worsen depression and other psychiatric conditions like psychosis.
This recent study from the University of New South Wales finds that
Heavy teenage cannabis use linked with anxiety disorders in late 20s
Here is a CBC Nature of Things documentary that. explores studies on teens who start smoking marijuana before the age of sixteen are four times more likely to become schizophrenic. That's the startling conclusion of some of the world's top schizophrenia experts, whose research is featured in the new documentary The Downside of High
We should legalize it, tax it, and regulate it so teenagers under a certain age aren't legally able to buy it. Drug dealers have no regulated body to manage them, or any formal code of ethics. The major problem, both from the standpoint of marijuana being bad, and it being good, is the absurd declaration of making marijuana a schedule I drug, which means it has no health benefits and thus no studies will be done on it's benefits or dangers. Let us not forget that the marijuana prohibition laws were passed largely due to racism and as a means to keep poor minorities below the white man. This is why there is such a large black and latino population still in jails, many for non violent drug offences.
The drug policy of the United States and the eagerness of it's allies to adopt it's policies has done nothing to prevent the usage of drugs or prevent it being sold. If anything it has criminalized it, glamorized it, made it taboo, and thus there is no education.
The drug policies of the future focus on education, health, and science.Like with Portugals staggering results. The drug policies of today are archaic machinations of a predominately racist white power structure that permeates the United States Government and most western nations.
People who pick a side tend to stick with information that confirms their ideas, instead of reasoning and science. Unbiased facts.
I would also like to state than when quantifying the dangers of a drug you have to look at it from a few different angles, addiction, side effects, long term effects, and how dangerous a lethal dose would be for each drug. Obviously drugs like alcohol, and nicotine via tobacco on an overall scale can cause a lot more damage than marijuana, but marijuana shouldn't be free from the scrutiny of science just because of a previous and currently flawed policy.
Members of the Independent Scientific Committee on Drugs, including two invited specialists, met in a 1-day interactive workshop to score 20 drugs on 16 criteria: nine related to the harms that a drug produces in the individual and seven to the harms to others. Drugs were scored out of 100 points, and the criteria were weighted to indicate their relative importance.
There are instances where psychotropics are used to treat addiction from drugs or alcohol. A doctor in BC Canada was shut down by government officials after treating 150-200 patients using ayahuasca with some success.
And instances like this, where a team of researchers in Norway have analyzed previous research into LSD and have come to the conclusion that a single dose of the drug may work just as well against alcohol addiction as daily doses of medications currently in use today.. There are cases like in this documentary that explores the potential medicinal value of LSD and psilocybin for people suffering from cluster headaches but can't because it's illegal. It is time to give up our idea that legal drugs are ok and illegal ones have no value, because it isn't rooted in science. We must look at the potential of drugs previously found to have no value, because it has the power to change the way we look at addictions and drugs.
Watch this documentary about LSD, Albert Hofmann, and it's use in Canadian Psychiatric Institutions in the 50's and 60's, as well as a brief history on LSD. The Doctors from the institutions treated severe alcoholism with LSD, and found it to work quite well. The patients having a psychedelic experience saw how much they were hurting their family, and the harm they were doing to their lives. The Doctors themselves ingest LSD to see what it might be like for a patient suffering from schizophrenia. It is wild watching these old, scientific men, recount their experience of LSD. A beautiful documentary in a sober or non sober state.
Here is a torrent (TPB).
If you are really interested in the history of drug prohibition in the USA, the issues with the legal system, and want to watch documentaries about these issues, this comment has a long list of them.
I envision marijuana horticulturalists to work closely with scientists and the medical community in the future because they are an untapped resource when it comes to the studies. There is also limited research into CBD and CBC, but studies are slowly being done.
I have a huge problem with both the culture of misinformation and prohibition, as well as the modern drug culture that fosters no respect for drugs.
I disagree with the recreational use without the awareness that it is medicine and that you are self medicating, and from the standpoint of media glorifying it to teens in music, movies the internet, and television, without them having proper understanding of what it does.
I approach drug use from an anthropological standpoint, that human beings have been experimenting for thousands of years with them, and previous to this generation of drug use, drug use in almost all areas of the world was regarded as spiritual, a source of knowledge. People who were witch doctors, or medicine men, had intimate knowledge of powerful plants. This knowledge has come and gone in cycles, wiped out only to resurface.
In closing, we know a little about cannabis, and new studies are done all the time. Imagine though, if we started studying this plant during the spiritual awakening of the 60's. How much more we would know about it, it's effects, and what potential uses it could have as medicine.