(source: was picker in a 3M warehouse)

That's what I was after. I know some people play in a much more involved way but when I played so many years ago I love the plot and setting, but really worked the mechanics. It may have been you got a DM or group that was just not suited to you.

am curious, could you elaborate a touch on these? TIA

equally, can you reasonably say you failed?

However there are domain cases where empty lists still make sense, so you're still going to have to account for them in a rational way, and that means logically consistent, and I guarantee we will be back to what you don't like. But that's ok.

Now where you've pissed me off is this bit

> n this case, one possible solution is to not have the concept of "falsy" and "truthy"

and

> forcing 'all' to take a mapping closure

Perhaps you could un-piss me off by explaining what the bloody hell those two are supposed to mean – pretend I'm a language designer that interested in your idea (which actually I am) – what are you asking me to implement?

> When people understand the causes and consequences of past events, they are better equipped to navigate present challenges

To a small degree. Most of this boils down to the bleeding obvious, like "avoid war when you can because it's hideously expensive", treat people with decency etc. is there really much more to it than that?

And you talk about cultural continuity – some of these continuities are not good, q.v. the Taliban. Also cultures change very rapidly – the kind of homophobia that was acceptable or even encouraged when I was a kid is now seen very much as a serious transgression or crime (speaking as a straight bloke, I'm glad it; I'm very glad things have changed). We haven't achieved gender parity in pay, we getting there. You can't stick your hands all over a woman as you could in the 60s and expect to get away with it (ditto good).

Well I don't know. I can't say I'm convinced by what you've written but I appreciate the answer anyway. Thanks.