I have another comment on this post which goes into more detail about what those commands look like if that's interesting to you at all.

I found the original game to be quite fun. It's mostly about solving logical puzzled about how to safely navigate the wrecks, and given you have very limited signals about what's going on, can be stressful and engrossing.

Duskers is at its core a puzzle game. It could be executed just as well with an ASCII rogue/nethack style UI.

At its core, you have a few different drones that have some basic capabilities, and you can outfit them with a few additional capabilities (modules) each if you find components. You choose derelict space hulks to salvage, and once you enter them, some rooms/doors will be locked, or unpowered. You have to choose what rooms to go to to unlock and power other rooms. Some rooms may have unknown in them, which may attack you at some point when you're in the room, or if you leave the door open move to other rooms. Some drones can detect movement, some can't (IIRC). Sometimes you need to herd those lifeforms between rooms by remotely opening and closing different doors. The drones look for scrap in rooms to gather, which is used to build modules.

The rooms are all numbered, the doors are all numbered the drones are all numbered. You control the drones and parts of the ship you have access to through command line options, which have shorthand equivalents. e.g. (the below is mostly from google/gemini since I didn't want to go look them all up to remember)

navigate 1 r2 — Moves drone 1 to room 2.

navigate all r1 — Sends all active drones back to room 1 (the docking bay).

move 3 r4 — Uses the shorthand move instead of typing out navigate.

d12 — Toggles (opens or closes) door 12.

a2 — Toggles airlock 2.

close d1 d2 — Explicitly closes doors 1 and 2.

close all — Closes every single powered door on the ship immediately.

close r3 — Closes all doors attached to room 3.

gather — Tells the active drone to harvest nearby scrap metal.

gather all — Orders the drone to systematically harvest all scrap in its current room.

generator — Connects a drone to a power inlet to restore power to a room's grid.

interface — Connects a drone to a powered terminal to extract ship logs or systems.

tow 2 — Forces drone 2 to attach to or detach from a salvageable object (like an upgrade or broken drone).

stealth — Actives the stealth utility to move through rooms undetected by infestations.

You can string multiple commands together sequentially by separating them with a semicolon (;). Each drone operates its queue in parallel.

navigate 1 r3; gather all; navigate 1 r1 — Drone 1 goes to room 3, sucks up all the scrap, and drives back to safety.

navigate 2 r4; tow 2; navigate 2 r1 — Tells drone 2 to go to room 4, hook up a towable item, and pull it back to the airlock.

More jobs is good, but if we're going to look at this through the lens of industry returning, it's a lousy return, even before factoring in that we probably lost a lot more factories than we're gaining datacenters.

Whether you see that statement and read it as "obviously the delivery truck is better" or "obviously, going myself is better" is going to be primarily based on how far away from Costco you live, and how much you buy when you go.

I live a bit more than a mile away from Costco. I often buy 25-60 items, for each of the about weekly trips. There's enough large items that a normal delivery truck that could safely navigate and stop often in residential areas would have no change of fitting 100 people's purchases into it in a way to be easily offloaded (just the toilet paper and paper toweling would take up significant space). It's much less wasteful on almost all metrics for me to go to Costco. That's before we get into the fact that most of what I'm buying is produce and other food stuffs I wouldn't want shipped for worry they would spend longer than I wanted out of refrigeration.

If I lived an hour away that calculation turns out entirely differently, at least as long as there's enough people close by with purchases to gain efficiencies of travel.

> there is one giant "network" of all your nodes

From what I understand they're saying, the point is that you get easy connections to things that aren't "your" nodes, sort of like allowing me to connect one of my tailscale nodes ad-hoc to one of your tailscale nodes, when our accounts are not related in any way prior to us doing that, and without me having to allow your node onto my network or you allow one of mine onto your network and have to deal with the specialized ACLs for that, since it's just a direct connection between two nodes.

Also, many stupid or nonsensical statements can often yield wisdom if you meditate on them enough. Indeed, many (most?) zen koans are so simplistic that to get any usefulness out of them you have to insert you own assumptions and try to determine how it might apply.

There are two aspects to the type of question that was asked. How do you prevent people from ha I g to make choices which are rational and good for their options but still really bad overall, and how do you convinve/educate people about available options they weren't aware of so they don't make outright bad choices when better ones are available that they are unaware of.

There are many possible answers to "why did you take off to the west and ride trains and sleep in parks and steak to feed yourself", but most of them aren't "well I just felt like leaving my entirely stable, loving and supportive friends and family." What to an outsider seems like a poor choice to a specific person imight seem like the decision that saved their life, even in retrospect.

In this case, since the number of cool down days is configurable, even if everyone was using it we would still likely see a somewhat smooth curve for adoption, since not everyone will choose the same delay and the delay time will likely map closely to how people want to habdke risk.

It's all a trade off, just like it's always been. This just makes it simpler to act on what you want your risk/comfort level to be.

To bring ng this back to the discussion at hand (and to be redundant, as it's been mentioned here already), there are many aspects of using an LLM that are not purely about the output from a single or few well formed prompts. Additionally, if the end results are very similar, these othrr aspects will have an outsized influence on people's perspective of the tools, as they're the only differences worth choosing one model over another.

Of the two possible worlds where in one this reimplementation matches what some see as annoyances in the interface or in another they mostly match the interface except for a few cases where the purposefully diverge (for no good technical reason), IMO the latter is far worse and causes more enexpected behavior.

At most, add a special flag to opt into different default behavior so nobody is surprised by running the same command on different systems and getting different behavior.

People far too often forget the absolutely vital aspect information plays in the free market, and anything that increases information (for example, how long a good should be expected to continue to function) is a net good, when compared to a complete lack of information about that.

Would it, if legally required at the point of sale of the good the source code is based on and utilizes? I doubt creditors claiming ignorance of state law works well as a defense.