Tag Archives: Balance of Power

Upgrade, next chapter

Yesterday I was thinking of a game I used to play and it left me a little underwhelmed. It was not the fault of the game maker, the game was awesome. It gave me the thought that I was in the deep with the dodo’s of the Kremlin, or the White House. The game did what they promised, but I was thinking what this game could do with current technology and settings of DMS and some LLM. There is also the thought that the game was originally a little 2D. It all fitted on an 800KB disk so I am not surprised. But consider the idea what the current settings allow for.

The idea that they had with the political tables of then (1987) and what Mindscape was able to achieve. It started as a game of geopolitics during the Cold War, created by Chris Crawford and published in 1985 on the Macintosh by Mindscape, followed by ports to a variety of platforms over the next two years and I got the AtariST version in 1987. And as sources reveal, takes the role of the President of the United States or General Secretary of the Soviet Union. The goal is to improve the player’s country’s standing in the world relative to the other superpower. During each yearly turn, random events occur that may have effects on the player’s international prestige. The player can choose to respond to these events in various ways, which may prompt a response from the other superpower. This creates brinkmanship situations between the two nations, potentially escalating to a nuclear war, which ends the game. It is my advice not to ‘antagonise’ the opponent in the Pink Kremlin, or the Black House to avoid the nuclear holocaust that follows. And why leave it there, the complications of a EU could be added, so you can see how likely little you can do as as King Gustav on charge of that small sided Sweden (population 10.5 million) and we can build on this, we can evolve this with corporate powers and the influence they hold with the likes of Strawberry, Hippolytics, Smallsoft, and a whole range of power players. See what happens when you tweak that power (or nationalise their goods) then we get to the impact of social media like SnoutTome, QuickOunce, MyTransistor, DingDong, Toucan, Connected, ScryingStone and a whole range of other groups. You could see the direct impact that trolls have when they are clearly exposed and optionally with scenarios to solve. I would recommend to leave the intelligence groups to a later date (or a DLC) to properly test the settings you have there. It could be the first simulator for audiences and students of geopolitics and social standings later. That is before you add the mess that (WatchMyGrey, AmiSix, and their offspring in France, Germany as well as Mossad does to the worlds chaos (under their tutelage) 

I wonder how no one enacted this setting, it seems to be a decently solid training and educational simulator giving students to study multidimensional settings that geopolitics present in todays industry. I’ll bet you you can’t fit that on a 800KB diskette, but there is every thought that it can be done, the social sciences tables still exist and they can vouch for the until recent messes and they are basically ready for deployment. And now that we see the world for what it is, we might also include global religion as an influence and show you why the Catholic Church doesn’t have as much as it used to be.

It is merely a small snag that escaped my brain this morning, but I reckon that the old software settings could still apply to settings of today, you merely have to upgrade the setting and there is plenty of options here and as they were solidly stated on those basic settings of Social sciences, in todays world they could be used through Deeper Machine Learning to a much more powerful extend. See what some see and what you are not supposed to know (sorry Blaise Metreweli) but that is also the next challenge. Instead of shouting at Toucan, you could investigate the trolls on Toucan and see what the expected result is and who the culprit behind these pretentious stages are, not to be coy, but using that Strawberry Studio to see it on the big screen, or even as a user of the Hippolytics Moon streaming service get a new lease of opportunity. An educational simulator for students and investigators of humbug gets a new side of life.

Well anyway, that was my thought I had this morning. And the names have been changed to avoid  the guilty and make me less liable, a decently appreciative setting

Have a great day. I wanted to take a nice walk, but it is 34 degrees celsius out there, bit much for a long walk. Oh and Strawberry, fix your DoDo Dos version Hawaii 26.1, when you switch off your router before you switch off your wireless, the wireless keeps on scanning the ether, even AFTER you switch of the WiFi. Sloppy programming. 

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Gaming, Media, Military, Politics, Science

Remake

That is what we think. In movies, in TV series, in books and also in games. Yet the question becomes have we ever considered an evolving setting? 

That thought came to mind when I was considering the political settings we currently face. So in comes an old acquaintance all the way back from 1985. It was the Balance of power. I had the Atari ST version, but it originally came from the Macintosh. It was created on a system with 512Kb of RAM, all whilst the Atari ST had 1024Kb of RAM. These were simpler times, but the software was remarkable, even for those days. So now we have PC’s with a lot more (4000 times more). The PS5 has 16GB of ram and the BlueRay can hold so much more than a 800kb floppy. 

That was merely the hardware, the setting of 1985. There no longer is a simple setting of bear versus eagle. The world is a lot more complex. Big corporations have global power, The simple setting of Russia versus America is gone. There is now the Commonwealth, the Arabian nations and there is China. It is governments versus corporations and all versus chaos and anarchy. So what happens if the game gets updated to include all these parameters.

So the ‘media’ is all about whitewashing using sports. So what happens if these parameters are included? What can we see when these thousands of elements are included? There might not be an actual AI yet, but the LLM’s with deeper machine learning could set a proper larger stage to test and use in the new Balance of Power. All set on actual premises. So what happens when this game actually include the extremists and what could the game dish out against the user who decides to become a president, a monarch or a CEO of a large company?

What can we make in the complexities of media and political charged players? Consider parts of the CCG Illuminati, created by Steve Jackson Games in 1980. What if the game has both elements so that any choice could evolve? The question becomes is there a market for this game. In 1985 the game sold over 250,000 copies. It was a time when almost no one had a computer. So what becomes of an evolved setting? I have no idea, in those times there were little games, the thousands of games were only starting to get developed  in 1985. So could a game like that work? I am merely one curious gamer. The connected setting is not merely can it be done, but could it work to a larger audience. 

A game where we can set the stage and can see if something is set in stone, or could it evolve if certain political players are not included? How could we consider if a technocracy could not exist, or the reverse. Could it become the only way out?

All questions we might ask and what happens if there is a game that gave you a likelihood of certain evolutions. 

All nice questions, but there is a larger stage. What happens is that LLM is in the cloud and you merely download a copy of the evolving parameters. In this what happens when we add a second game (for example) the setting of a game like the 4th protocol, based on the movie/book with Pierce Brosnan and Michael Caine. What happens when we add an MI5,FSB,CIA element? We try to remake the wheel, but what happens when we create an element that uses the same data file? We could look at different stages all based on the same data, so the second game would have all the people in place, it merely adds the names the other game doesn’t use, but it all fits the nearly same pattern. You see, all these players (Microsoft, Google, IBM, Amazon) are creating their own ‘AI’ version. But what happens, when we do the reverse? One data set allows for evolutions in games? It was never done before because these systems were not in existence. Now we have the power, the data space and hopefully the inclination to create a new type of game, and this could fit all the formats. It is merely an idea but there is a larger need to create a unique game. At present we largely get more of the same and someone needs to think out of the box and create something new. 

So, this is just an idea and perhaps the idea might not work. Yet I believe that systems like this allow someone to totally create something new and never seen before in gaming and it could lead to a new level of RPG games. I made mention of this 2-3 years ago. What happens when NPC’s in games create their own intelligence? I gave the setting in them, but there is a larger need. Something needs to learn NPC how to become more intelligent, so that we don’t get the laughable AC Unity crowds. NPC’s that keep on walking in the wall and intelligent responses in a game. You can either create a more intelligent NPC, or you can let the NPC evolve through LLM’s and that is where we need to go. An evolved remake of the Balance of Power is merely the setting that could work and create another game in the process as you prototype solutions. It is just a thought to have the weekend.

Have a great weekend, it’s Saturday now and 7 hours until breakfast (for me).

Leave a comment

Filed under Gaming, Military, Politics

Relaunching IP

It is a thought plenty of people have and I am no exception. I was contemplating things and then I realised in light of the news I covered in the last week that educating people is always better than telling them how it is. Some people are afraid that THEIR thoughts are all, but I am not the most intelligent person on the planet. I am more intelligent than mot and my IQ is around two point short from the setting that Alan Turing had, so I have that to sulk about. But the station to educate others, to teach them where to look and what to look for remains appealing. So there I was sitting and contemplating an old master called the Balance of Power. I had bought the game on the Atari ST and I loved it. The game was a little shallow, but it was new, it had never been done before and as such it kept my attention for a long time. 

Wouldn’t it be great if someone picked up that idea and turned it into something serious? No longer a mere US versus Russia, but geopolitical field that included espionage. The US, EU, Middle East (Iran or Saudi Arabia), Russia, China and Japan? Consider that we have ‘quotes’ like “Problem analysis is the process of understanding real-world problems and user’s needs and proposing solutions to meet those needs. The goal of problem analysis is to gain a better understanding of the problem being solved before developing a solution”, and there is massive support to consider. There is J. J. A. Tacq who gave us Social Science Research From Problem to Analysis (1997), there is From Secrets to Policy by Mark Lowenthal which is now in its 8th edition. Foundational materials that makes us think and consider a much larger picture. There are economic works that could help creating understanding. Even if one book gets implemented in that game it becomes a whole new beast and to get the kitty turned into a behemoth that scares every tiger in Asia work needs to be done. But the game that was meant for a 640Kb Computer now gets 10,000 times the resources and has a setting of a massive data warehouse that could enable larger prototyping than ever considered before. I see some bloggers (journalists too) working the same equation again and again, all whilst they could create something much more explanatory and insightful for all readers. Some might not care and that is OK, yet the Balance of power had appeal to a fair amount of gamers and I believe even now in a new generational setting I believe that this appeal will still be there. And the benefit of streaming implies that you can try and you can see how the pawns fall down, the rooks optionally stand up and the political board shows a lot more than you ever considered. 

We seem to think that old is gone, but games and simulators were more advanced because they overcame memory obstacles, I reckon that some programs can still make us turn out heads, especially when some of these programs were created with the limitations that 1985 had and considering that my Abandonware gave the game 4.6 out of 5 gives another reason to consider what was out there. And let’s face it, what do you have to lose?

Leave a comment

Filed under Military, Politics, Science

Update to include monsters

I was thinking of some of the old games I used to play, especially one I never mastered. The game was released in 1985; I played the Atari ST edition. The game was called ‘Balance of Power‘ and it was basically the east versus the west and through the interface you could interfere (take control of) the balance of power between east and west. In the end I got overly comfortable to the expression “You have ignited a nuclear war. And no, there is no animated display of a mushroom cloud with parts of bodies flying through the air. We do not reward failure“, yes diplomacy was never my forte. There was an update 5-10 years later when the 1990 edition was launched, I never played that edition.

I believe that the world is ready for a true update of that game. When we add the atrocities by Turkey only a few days ago, when we add the Khashoggi debacle and the impact of social media and spin doctors at the heads of media outlets we see that the world has changed to a much larger degree and the impact of what actually could happen is perhaps worthy of a new game. We need to see and play with the impact of ISIS minded forces as political parties play with the impact on a global stage. The fact that the USA is no longer a real superpower and the fact that the treasury of Saudi Arabia, the consumer base of India as the technology footing of China are much larger influences than foreseen; we get to debate a much larger spectrum of what the balance of power looks like. I believe that when the people see the impact of these elements, we see that the world reshapes almost like some Sim City version with larger repercussions. When we consider the global powers of Google and Facebook we see that the game of world politics gets filtered by economic markers. The evolution of what was once regarded as the ‘Balance of Power‘ is optionally now the stage for a larger form of balance (or is that a forum of balance) staged in a collection of seesaws where one resets the balance of two others. the old balance of power staged on the bear and eagle are outdone, less valid, the entire proxy war between Saudi Arabia and Iran clearly shows that and the impact of the media as they filter the news is also a larger impact and we have never been able to truly look at the impact there is, hence the idea of a new Balance of power, optionally called: ‘the Power to balance powers‘, the optional new truth that Turkey is the fourth power to instigate multiple genocides (America as it degraded the population of Native American tribes to zero, as well as the Catholic powers who removed well over a dozen civilisations, and Russian combined actions in 1931 and 1932) is something we need to consider in a much larger scope.

It is this stage where we look at the news and we are confronted with ‘The Kurds’ commander in chief explains why his forces are finally ready to partner with Assad and Putin‘, I have no way of seeing how this plays out, but there will be larger repercussions on many stages. It is time that the youth takes a serious look at the large issues that their parents are dumping on their doorstep, we need to figure things out and it is time that this is done out in the open, no longer hidden behind a screen of media filters and silencing diplomatic teams as they are trying to remain ‘non-accountable’ towards actions chosen.

The problem is not merely that we ignore the actions; the larger stage is that all kinds of ‘compromises’ are being made for the long term and the next generation needs to learn what those repercussions are and I believe that the right video game could do this. The previous generation was apparently taught that evil should never be allowed to win, yet 25 years after WW2 we all became complacent and we thought that evil was gone, evil never is and we all have optionally become part of evil as we condone the actions of many, hide behind the shallow needs that social media offers and we remain unaware as the news is decided by the wealthy (read: corporations) as they became the shareholders, stake holders and advertisers; they get to tell the media and the news what is important, what is filtered out. That is the stage where the balance of power can educate a lot of people just how dangerous our status is at present, not dangerous as if a war comes, we are beyond that, I mean dangerous as we have set the stage for multiple generations of anger, hatred and feelings of revenge, and a growing lack of tolerance towards one another. It is almost like a 4 seat seesaw and each of these seats is the balancing point for another seesaw, it becomes a game of trying to stay balanced, it also means that there is a lack of movement available, which implies that some parties will be about claiming actions when none (or that specific one) was not available.

when we see the media, we are pushed to the question ‘What is the omitted Information that Remains Missing?‘, this is a spin on two levels, the first is ‘Which question should have been asked?’, which brings us to ‘Has a quote or testimonial been taken out of context?‘ this is harder to answer, but it is an influence, which gets influenced by: ‘Is someone approaching the issue from a different set of values?‘, as well as the stated answers ‘Are the claims supported by well-done research as well as based on reliable sources?‘ and that is the foundation for merely looking at the media how it filters information, the entire stage becomes a much harder game to program, yet should it not be done because of that?

And that is all before we get to the political and diplomatic stage on “If the answer is not helpful, can we change the question to make it so?” these two elements interacting in media causes all kinds of communication (read: presentation) issues whilst both sides remain intentionally ignorant to the equation. The next generation needs to be educated on what a mess this generation is creating. That part is seen (only in part) with: ‘12 Hours. 4 Syrian Hospitals Bombed. One Culprit: Russia‘ (source; NY times), with the quote “The Russian Air Force has repeatedly bombed hospitals in Syria in order to crush the last pockets of resistance to President Bashar al-Assad, according to an investigation by The New York Times“, which was set to events on May 5th 2019, many newspapers gave that information when it happened, the repeat from the NY Times gives us the quote “Russia’s position as a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council has shielded it from scrutiny and made United Nations agencies reluctant to accuse the Russian Air Force of responsibility“, this is important as the United Nations Security council is now presented as an umbrella that offers a shield from actions it was supposed to stop, a stage we knew existed, but not to the degree we see now.

So when we see the NY Times quote: “Nabad al Hayat Surgical Hospital in southern Idlib Province served around 200,000 people before being destroyed in a Russian airstrike on May 5” which comes with assisted high resolution graphics of 40 mega pixels or better whilst we look at the exploding hospital, we wonder how lucky that photographer was, or perhaps someone knew in advance what would happen, we are left with too many questions and no real explanation that fits the morality and values within us.

It is becoming more and more important that we see the world as it is now being pushed by the monsters among us, we like to set the stage to merely Iran, Turkey, ISIS and Hezbollah, yet the real monsters are the ones claiming to fight the atrocities and in the end merely facilitate to it, it goes beyond the wear events, the technological feats we see in regards to 5G is also a global impact, and we can go on and on on all the events that are part of the stage, and it would soon become too complex. Perhaps that too would be the strength on any new version of ‘Balance of Power‘ the fact that too many issues are intertwined for several reasons. Yet when we add greed to the mix, the game becomes awfully transparent, add to that the actions by some making claims that they cannot prove; the created stage of carefully phrased denials, all out in the open and when we ask specifics we are left with half-baked answers that are not answers at all. This is a part that plays a role in all this, we seem to forget that governments have a duty to properly inform us, yet in the listing from government, through corporations to media to the viewer, we forget that there are three iterations of information, all bound by their own personal issues. It is almost an applied variation from Mark M. Lowenthal ‘Intelligence: From Secrets to Policy‘, the application of stages towards the drive of any policy (governmental or not) is also baked into the media and is subject to what we are allowed to see. Consider that impact, as well as the impact of data on the whole, it might become a massively complex new game, yet when we are able to show the impact of these elements to the people, we would optionally get a much more informed person, one who ends up asking the right questions, the questions that politicians, CEO’s and CFO’s fear. When that part comes out in the open, we get a first stage to truly fix things.

Yet with my sense of humour, we should make a lot more space to include the stages that Darrell Huff introduced us to when we were given ‘How to Lie with Statistics‘, and this gets us to today, we know that the balance of power is not merely what we have, what we get and how we get there. There is an internal stage where political power is also set to the stage of people in jobs (as enabled consumers) that was proven ages ago. Yet how that stage is managed is an entirely different matter. the pushed stage where enablers, facilitators and consumers become the ‘have group’ the rest will be the ‘have not’ group.

As we got told today (source: the conversation), we see this stage in Australia, “Centrelink generally requires evidence of looking for 20 jobs per month in order to keep receiving Newstart“, that sounds fine in theory, yet in the applied practice we see that the job search government links to a job search collector, whilst the seeding player of this group is another matter. So when we look at IT jobs in Sydney we see: ‘594 jobs with 715 positions‘, with the largest bulk (over 90%) being Adzuna, yet the reviews from some are stating that this source is riddled with ‘scam’ mentions, as well as overly positive claimed stages. There is a larger issue afoot and there is not enough scrutiny, even as the people can go to really valid places like Indeed, LinkedIn and Jora; the choice we see in the governmental site calls for question of scrutiny.

Why on earth did I mention that?

We see that the balance of power is set to what is done and what can be achieved, yet when we are confronted with a stage that is not available or realistic, how will we interact? When we are set in a stage of age discrimination on a stage where our issues are not heard, or set in a long winded stage of registration where the IT parts fails too often, the government gets to optionally report that no complaints were received. In Australia the mess with Centrelink data matching, the failing Biometrics Identification Services, the UK failures on IT in the NHS and the list goes on where the costs keeps on adding billion after billion, that directly impacts a government, its budget and its waning options, very much issues on a larger scale and the claim we see with “aggressive ICT outsourcing has led to agencies being left at the mercy of external vendors“, whilst there is no proof that growing the internal options would not have resolved the issue. It is a stage where corporations have a hold over the government, pushing cheaper solutions (another reference to age discrimination get pushed to the backbench and no solutions come forward. this is a direct application of the earlier mentioned ‘in the listing from government, through corporations to media to the viewer, we forget that there are three iterations of information, all bound by their own personal issues‘, which in the application of the Balance of Power means that corporations have a much larger option to disable or limit government actions. That is what the impact of corporatocracy is. In the original games there was no real corporatocracy, nowadays there is. The US is perhaps the strongest example and the impact we see in the FDA and DEA (see yesterday’s article) as well as the ATF limited through the powers of the NRA and by corporations addressing attachments to governmental needs we see a larger impact of where governments show limitations on the world stage.

Yes, the entire game has become a lot more complex which in the end leads us to the question, is any application of the ‘Balance of Power‘ still actual and realistic? That is partially seen in 2013 when the NY Times gave us: “Eight major companies, led by Google and Microsoft, are calling for tighter controls on surveillance of their customers’ data by governments“, yet the opposite was never put in place, the existence of Cambridge Analytics, the application of selling consumer data as well as the abuse of data collection through apps has never been stopped. We get all kinds of options to market through mined data giving a larger rise to corporatocracy, whilst the media remains silent on the dangers of corporatocracy. So when we see ‘This is what happens when corporations run the government‘ (Washington Post, March 2019) and ‘Australia’s march towards corporatocracy‘ (the conversation Feb 2017) we see merely two mentions on Google search page one, whilst he situation set the stage that there should have been dozen of clear mentions and investigations, yet the media seemingly have almost zero mentions, how is that? I think that there is a clear stage where corporations do not want to see any mention if possible and as I mentioned earlier ‘in the listing from government, through corporations to media to the viewer, we forget that there are three iterations of information, all bound by their own personal issues‘, and here we see how ‘through corporations to the media‘ is directly inhibiting exposure. The Balance of Power would be an awesome game if we can incorporate it into a new game, especially when we see how the media and corporations make sure that a lot of the information will not be shown, active censorship in nations that proclaim freedom of speech and freedom of expression, when you own the printing house you get to tell the people what they care about, we apparently forgot about that small part again and again.

It is the beginning of a rigged game where the next generation gets to pay for the screw ups of the current generation, feel free to ignore or deny that, yet when we consider the US with a debt of $21 trillion, the EU has around € 10.1 trillion and on a global scale we see that the Global debt had reached an all-time high of $184 trillion in January 2019, we see that the Balance of Power is a term that has become debatable, a stage where banks are basically in charge, limiting or directing the options that any government is allowed to consider. The original game never anticipated that reality, but there you have it. John Perkins tried to inform the audience with ‘Confessions of an Economic Hit Man (2004)’, yet even after Berrett-Koehler published it, gaining an instant bestseller, whilst the major U.S. media refused to discuss Confessions or the fact that, because of it, terms such as “EHM” and “corporatocracy” were now appearing on college syllabi. A stage where the media claiming to advocate freedom of speech, whilst we see that its absence is allegedly corporation controlled, a direct (still alleged) piece of evidence showing that whatever balance of Power we envision, when it is set to nations and governments we get less than 50% of the players in view, making a larger injustice to the people.

In this, I wonder who exactly the real monsters are; are they identified by the acts of nations like Turkey, Iran and North Korea, are they the acts by organisations like ISIS, Hezbollah and Hamas, or are the corporations and the media they control a lot less innocent in all this. Will the next generation be ready for what we, the current generation have facilitated for?

I honestly do not know.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Gaming, IT, Media, Politics