Over from the Patreon. If you haven't read Cass' Aven Cycle, it's really good stuff!
Today we're chatting with Cass Morris, author of the Aven Cycle, a historical fantasy set in an alternate Rome, and co-host of the podcast Worldbuilding for Masochists, an award-nominated podcast discussing the intricacies of worldbuilding in SFF. This means Cass is something of an expert on worldbuilding complexity in fantasy books, which is what I want to talk about today. SFF readers have a particular love of immersing ourselves in richly detailed worlds we can imagine ourselves in viscerally, but let's talk about how writers can actually bring that complexity of detail into focus without totally overwhelming readers.
So to start, I want to talk about political systems, because I love how you managed to make the deep sense of complexity on that front accessible. Ancient Rome: Not an uncomplicated governmental system! And that's before you introduce fantastical elements. People already have trouble understanding how our own governments work, so how do you teach the reader enough that you can play with that complexity for plot intrigue? How do you convey the sense of complexity so the reader understands it without totally bogging down the pacing with exposition?
CASS: Well, one big thing that helps is absolutely the editing process! I'm prone to going into far too much detail on the first try. Multiple pages of too much detail. An entire swamp's worth of getting bogged down. Laying out all the complexities helps me explain them to myself, but it's far more than a reader needs. After the first draft, I could carve out what was totally unnecessary, then simplify the rest enough to be comprehensible, just as, say, The West Wing simplifies the machinations of the White House and Congress without losing what's dramatically interesting about them.
Then, as with so many worldbuilding elements, I think you have to connect political worldbuilding to what a character needs and what's obstructing them. For example: Sempronius Tarren needs to win a certain election to get himself the right provincial posting to set up his longer-term goals. In seeing him make that plan, the reader learns a little about the hierarchy of offices and the powers endowed to each—not a full constitution's worth of details, but enough to understand why the office is desirable and valuable to this character in this moment. Then, the obstruction: His philosophical opponents don't want him gaining what they consider dangerous levels of power, so they throw legal challenges in his way, the same way the US Congress uses things like filibusters. Showing Sempronius' frustration at the block, followed by his own countermove to get around it, feeds the reader more information about how the system works, but through the more engaging lens of his thoughts and emotions.
CASEY: Ha, the existence of editing is a great point. I've done this the opposite way as well—drafted the bones of the story and then filled in later once I knew what kind of detail was called for. But I think the key that you bring up here is that you're focusing on what is relevant to the point-of-view character. They—and we, as the authors—might know and be familiar with all kinds of political nuances the reader isn't, but that doesn't mean you have to teach them all to the reader!
This can get tricky, because deep in the character POV they might notice all those signals, but the ones the reader needs are the ones that are directly relevant to the POV character's goal and its attending conflict. And moreover, it needs to be a specific goal, not something nebulous like, "I want to attain more power." You have a character who wants to accomplish something specific (e.g. win an election), and give them a limited number of people/obstructions who are the actual roadblocks—possibly not the person you'd expect to have the power to stop them, to indicate more nuance in a system, or you can mention in summary other contributing factors that are already in hand, things like that. But limiting the scope helps focus on a few areas to then flesh out in depth, which in turn creates the impression of more depth in general.
It's sort of counterintuitive, but in a way you have room to give more detail with fewer details. And I love how your approach bakes the exposition into the character's agency as they navigate their response to obstructions, because that is so helpful with pacing, too.
DJANGO: A good edit does indeed always help a lot!
For me the biggest barrier to depicting a complex government realistically is the sheer number of people involved. In any government of reasonable size there are hundreds, if not thousands, of potential decision-makers who might have impact on a plot. In a Roman context, beyond the actual elected officials (and there are plenty of those) you have all the other members of important families who didn'tget elected, or are planning to get elected next year, or who lend money to the candidates, or what have you. Thinking about the current US government, the number of characters I personally would recognize (as a more-or-less informed news reader) is both far less than the number who really matter and far morethen we can expect an average novel reader to keep track of.
There are a few techniques that have helped me in the past. The first is just an acceptable break from reality—power in novels tends to be way more centralized than it would "realistically" be. This is true even in very autocratic societies! To go back to my favorite example, in A Game of Thrones the number of major characters involved in the government is probably less than 20—the king, his family, the small council, and the seven Lords Paramount (Stark, Tully, Tyrell, and so on). This is enough that the book has a reputation for complexity and having a lot of characters, but compared to a real government of the type it depicts is probably an order of magnitude too low. GRRM wisely concentrates a lot of functions into personal rule because it works better dramatically for Mace Tyrell or Tywin Lannister to attend to stuff personally than having a hundred ministers and vassals all the time. (It's not a government, but in The Shadow Campaigns the army that the main characters are part of is under-officered in comparison to its historical counterparts—extremely so by British standards!—exactly because this means fewer named characters for everyone to keep track of.)
The other useful trick is to assign representatives—people who can stand in for a large bunch of similar people that we keep coming back to. If you need to write "someone convinces the members of Parliament to vote yes on something," and it doesn't work for there to be some single person who gets to make that choice, you can show the characters meeting with a small number of MPs, say three, and coming back to them several times. With the proper framing as a kind of montage, the reader understands that these are examples and extrapolates. This helps you depict the kind of thing that goes on in the government, which can be just as important as its formal structure. (For example, are you getting the MPs on-side by threats from the party whip, promises of future political favors, or payoffs and patronage?) Joe Abercrombie is particularly good at this, for example in his depiction of the Open Council in Before They Are Hanged.
CASS: Yeah, trimming down the number of people involved is definitely a big help. That's another place where I usually have far too many functionaries and side characters on the first go, then end up consolidating them in following drafts. You can also do a lot just depicting the literal halls of power—how full the building is, how many people are moving around, even the architecture itself can tell the reader a lot about the scale of the governing apparatus, in just a few words of description.
Trimming down the steps of a process also helps. If you look at something like how a bill becomes a law in the United States, it's a lot more complex than Schoolhouse Rock led us to believe! It's not just: 1. Propose Law; 2. Committee Debate; 3: Full Chamber Debate; 4: Vote; 5: Repeat in Other Chamber; 6: President Signs. There are many layers of hearings and markups and financial appropriations, and it's all recursive, because you might have to go through that several times! A little of that may prove interesting, if you can hang an exciting character moment on it or show a really neat procedural trick, but going through the full process will be torture for anyone but the wonkiest of policy wonks.
The Aven Cycle is a fantasy with a strong historical analogue, and I know you have a lot of experience with historical research, between your current dramaturgical work for Camp Halfblood and your formal academic training. So talk to me about how you use history to inform your worldbuilding without restricting your fictional playground with so much research the story becomes didactic. How do you choose what to focus on, and what to leave out? Since women are front and center in these books, I'd love to hear in particular how you focused their stories with a sense of historicity, and how much you could take or chose to invent based on your research.
CASS: I have always been hugely interested in social history: how people live their lives in a given place and time. Sometimes it's strikingly similar to how we experience life today, and sometimes it's so alien—and the same piece of history can be an example of both! I'm fascinated by all the pressure points a society faces and how we create both problems and solutions out of our dominant paradigms. Social history can be hard to uncover, though, because so many of our literary primary sources were composed by wealthy free men, which leaves out most of society. We generally see everyone else through the biased lens of those guys at the top of the heap—at least in what we think of as traditional source material. So, I like exploring less traditional sources.
In the early modern world of my academic training, we do have more surviving written work in the form of letters and journals, but we can also look to things like ecclesiastical records. I promise that's more fascinating than it sounds! Reading up on 17th century slander trials is wild, for example, because those record the exact words that people were using to insult each other—which in turn tells us a lot about what they considered virtuous and what was shameful. Or there's Henslowe's Diary, which gets into granular detail about the income and expenses of a theatre in the 1590s and 1600s.
In the ancient world, archaeology provides more information than words do. The layout of their houses, their furniture, their tools, their kitchen utensils, all of it shows us how people lived. Some of my favorite sources are funerary monuments. Thousands and thousands of these survive, and they document the lives of regular people. The majority, in fact, belong to soldiers or freedmen and their families. They used them to boast of what they'd made of themselves, proud that their children had been born free, proud of the businesses they built. The soldiers spoke about where they'd fought and what awards they won. Some of the most heartbreaking were set up by parents mourning for young children (putting paid to the myth that people didn't get attached to their kids because of high rates of child mortality). Each one is a declaration of the self in defiance of the oblivion of eternity, and I just find that so beautiful.
That's all a long way of saying: I look for the history that shows me people. Those are the details that I want to carry into the text: what they care about, what they value, and the material culture that attends those more abstract concepts. That's the history that ties to character, rather than just being an info-dump.
Even with all that archaeological information, though, we're still stuck with a dearth of information, particularly when it comes to the lives of women and other marginalized groups. So I've had to train myself to look at the absences, the gaps in the record, and try to fill them in, and to look at the sources written by men, then subtract out the biases those men held in order to get to something closer to truth.
It's like looking at the shadow of a tiger. It might give you an idea of the tiger's shape, but only from a particular angle. It may or may not tell you how big a tiger is. It won't tell you that a tiger has stripes, what a tiger sounds like, or what it eats. Examining the lives of marginalized groups in history is often trying to know them by their shadows.
What's clear, though, is that women exerted a lot of power "off-screen" in the ancient world. We have some gorgeous examples: Cornelia, mother of the Gracchi, held up as a paragon of virtue; much-married Fulvia, who ran street gangs, had a feud with Cicero, and waged war against Octavius Caesar; Agrippina Major, popular heroine who gave an emperor so much grief that he had her assassinated; her daughter Agrippina Minor, mother of Nero, whose autobiography is the lost text I'd most like to see miraculously rediscovered. I could go on and on—but I borrowed a lot from all of them when crafting the women of Aven. They were smart and resourceful despite the confines of their society, and whether they played within the boundaries or dared to transgress, they made an impact.
DJANGO: For me this is all about using history to inform my worldbuilding, rather than define it.
I like to think of using history as a case study, an example, rather than a blueprint to be literally followed. If you have a fantasy situation—a type of warfare, an environment, a resource distribution—history provides you with examples of how real people adapted to it, made use of it, and generally applied their ingenuity. People, by and large, don't do obviously stupid things (at least not for very long) and so generally the fact that a society was set up in such-and-such a way and lasted for hundreds of years means that it worked pretty well! (In our modern times of plenty, this can be hard to comprehend; for most of human history, "everyone not dying of starvation" was a great accomplishment requiring constant, unrelenting work.)
This is not to say, of course, that it had to be that way, or that any other way is "unrealistic." The key is to use the historical analogy to understand the kinds of thingsthat were challenges for those people. If they live in, say, a desert, they will have adapted to it in every way: dress, food, shelter, etc. When you read about how they lived, the important thing isn't to copy it exactly, but to make sure that your fantasy people have answers to the same challenges—this is what gives the book verisimilitude!
What I generally find is that no amount of me sitting down and reasoning out the problems people face, a priori, goes even a fraction of the way toward actually understanding those problems; history inevitably throws up fixes that people invented for problems I would never have even considered. (In late medieval France, knife-sharpeners carried circular whetstones—we're talking big, 50 pound stones—on their backs as they went from village to village. The rest of their setup could be constructed from local wood, but big stones of sufficient hardness were very hard to find, and drilling a hole through the middle for the axle was a capital investment!) Lifting these little vignettes for my fantasy society gives it that feel of realism I crave, while still leaving sufficient room to change the aspects of the past that I'm not eager to replicate.
CASS: What gets really fun there is, if you are using a specific historical inspiration but want to make really significant changes, figuring out what happens when you flick the domino. I'm working on a new project now that's a secondworld fantasy instead of an alternate version of our world, but it's inspired by early modern London and the vibe of Shakespeare's theatres. I'm working from that base because I want that aesthetic—but I also want this society to have gender equity, I want them to be accepting of queer identities, I want them to be polytheistic, and the government is more like Venice than England. Those are some really big changes from London in 1600, even before adding magic to the equation!
So then I get to figure out what else in society those things touch: clothing, industry, family structure, bureaucratic structure, and so forth. How would these people, with their worldview, find similar or different answers to problems than the historical examples I'm inspired by? This is why I love worldbuilding, because I find that such a fun game. There are so many possible answers, and I tinker until I find the ones that best fit the story I want to tell.
CASEY: Oh, funerary monuments is a great tip. There's a newsletter called Ælfgif-who? on biographies of early medieval English women, and it's fascinating to see what the author can construct from a combination of records and artifacts and the biases involved, what's said and what's conspicuously not said, what she can guess versus what there's hard evidence for. As a fantasist, I love the possibility space those gaps create that I can fill in.
As Django points out, people have been problem-solving throughout history, and that's not limited to wealthy men. If the records don't talk about what women were doing, it doesn't mean they were sitting on their laurels all day or just accepting whatever men figured out, and you can often get a sense for the space they occupied in the gaps—and if you can't, those gaps can give you ideas for what space they couldoccupy—in history, or in a story.
I think it's also worth noting that historical research can give you a sense of what kinds of social systems go together. I remember reading a fantasy book with a setting inspired by Japan that had all these features that have existed in Japanese history but not at the same time. So it was this mess of things that didn't make any sense together, because the author hadn't paid attention to the historical context.
I don't write historical analogue settings, but even for secondary world fantasy I find it useful to pay attention to what features can work together, and that's especially important once you start changing aspects to suit your story. A society with cell phones is not going to work the same way as one with post. A society where most people can't read won't work the same either! And this matters because it determines what kind of plots you can write, but it's also not super efficient to consider every aspect of the worldbuilding. Like, in a given story I may not need to know how laundry works, or the sewers, or what toys children are playing with. (Sometimes, sure! But not every time.)
But I probably need to know what people are wearing so I can describe them, so it matters what kind of clothing their technology could make and what it costs. I need to know how they communicate with each other, because they're going to do that in pretty much any story.
So I start with a character and plot concept and work backward to build the world around what the story requires them to do, and I do it in this order because otherwise I am exactly the person who will get lost in a worldbuilding rabbit hole at the expense of actually writing the story. But once I start figuring out some of the tentpoles like, This person's unique education makes them critical to the plot (why do they have that education? what education is available to other people?), or more generally, Our heroes will not be able to call for help because the message won't arrive in time (how far does the message need to travel, and how long will it take, and how long to get a response?), that starts to tell you the kinds of things that will be important to put together to make a world that feels internally consistent and enablesyou to tell your story.
If your heroine is rebelling against an arranged marriage, it's worth asking how common arranged marriages are and why and for whom. Like, the whole culture of debutantes in regency England emerged out of economic changes! Social institutions are intertwined, you can't just treat them as piecemeal. But if you do it right, the research gives you more things to play with that inform your characters' histories and choices rather than restricting you based on what "really" happened. Then it's just a matter of focusing on the pieces that actually matter to the story you're actually telling or enhance it in some way.
Lastly, I would be remiss in talking to you specifically about focusing an audience without asking how you use rhetoric to do that very thing (you can find Cass' deep dive on rhetoric in Hamilton, backed by Lin Manuel Miranda himself, on her Patreon). A common piece of writing advice is to never actually write the impossibly dramatic speech in fiction, because it will never be as impressive to readers, and instead focus on the characters' reaction or experience. Do you agree? And are there particular rhetorical devices you like to use to help focus readers' attention on what you want them to notice, whether it's a part of an argument in dialogue or in conveying information in the narrative?
CASS: Oh, you've done a dangerous thing, opening the door of rhetoric for me!
I love rhetoric so much. It's gotten a bad reputation in modern parlance, since most people only ever hear the word in a negative context—political rhetoric, violent rhetoric, and so forth. But rhetoric is nothing more and nothing less than structuring your words to achieve a desired effect. It's deeply woven into everything writers do, whether or not you're the kind of ultra-nerd who memorizes the Greek names for a few hundred devices. I think some of the best writers (like Shakespeare and LMM) do it in part instinctively, because they have such a good ear for how people speak and for the cadence of language, but it's also a skill that you can hone and train.
Rhetoric serves many purposes, and a lot of it is about crafting a character's voice, both in dialogue and in their POV narration. It lends a lot of texture to the story, and it's something I find particularly useful in crafting multi-POV books. Subtle shifts in how characters use language can help center a reader within each individual POV.
In dialogue, I think about vocal quirks that are marks of character and tell you something about the speaker, then I use rhetoric to craft the effect. Who's prone to using more words than necessary, either because they like hearing themselves talk or because they're babbling (devices like pleonasm and accumulatio)? Who likes intricate descriptions (enargia), and who's a champion of deadpan understatement (litotes)? Who, in a state of excitement or eagerness, asks too many questions without waiting for an answer (pysma)? Who's so pompous or instructive that they answer their own questions (anythypophora)? Not that rhetoric is the only tool for playing with these things, of course, but it's the frame I personally like best.
It gets particularly fun when I get to write political arguments, because those speakers are conscious of their own devices to the point of weaponizing them. They'll ask lots of what we call rhetorical questions (erotema), where there's an obvious answer that they're looking for; they'll repeat their ideas in sets of three (tricolon), because that helps the audience to remember them; they'll seize on an important word their opponent used and twist it around some other way (asteismus). They're deliberately showing off, and following the minutiae of the argument often isn't as important for the reader as understanding that they're tweaking each other and trying to one-up each other. The rhetoric lets me communicate those character dynamics in fun ways—similar to the "Cabinet Battle" scenes in Hamilton!
Writers have rhetorical tics, too, which can sometimes become a vice, if you're not aware of them, but which are also part of each author's unique voice. I'm particularly prone to a certain combo of devices: zeugma plus anaphora/isocolon. Zeugma is when two or more words, phrases, or clauses are dependent upon the same other word (usually the main verb of a sentence), as in "I love you truly, madly, deeply." All three adverbs hang on the same main verb. Anaphora is repetition of the same word or phrase at the beginning of successive clauses, and isocolon is parallel structure. "I came, I saw, I conquered" is an example of both: the repeated "I" at the beginning and the structure of "I + [past tense verb]".
I then sometimes layer that combo with auxesis, a series of clauses or phrases that gradually ascend in importance. You make a list, and the most important thing is last. That's the traditional definition, at least, but I had a professor who argued that auxesis can also work in the opposite direction, where your series diminishes rather than growing, and I do think that can be equally impressive, especially when you want to narrow a reader's or listener's focus. So, the zeugma-anaphora/isocolon-auxesis combo move gives me the opportunity to show a character becoming more intense or more pointed as they're working their way through a thought. If that ends up being shaped like self-correction, then it's also epanorthosis. I recognize that I'm nerding hard at this point! But this is what I find so fun about rhetoric: the devices don't operate in isolation, but layer and intertwine to craft specific moments and that desired effect on the reader.
As to writing the Impossibly Dramatic Speech—I don't think it is impossible, but I do think it's something to use cautiously. You have to pick your moment, for one thing, and it's not always the moment you might think. Not all magnificent speeches are Henry V bucking up his followers on the eve of Agincourt. Sometimes, the magnificent speech is a lover pleading to be heard, a con artist deceiving a mark, a sister quietly giving advice. (See? I told you I'm prone to the zeugma-anaphora/isocolon-auxesis combo!)
It's easier to get away with the big speech on stage or film, because there, the actor is an essential component of the equation. On the page of a novel, the writing itself has a heavier load to carry. So I think you can get away with presenting a well-crafted Impossibly Dramatic Speech in a well-chosen moment, but not all in one block. Interposing the speaker's words with other elements helps to break it up and remind the reader why the speech matters. Maybe you cut away to show the audience's reactions; maybe you cut inside the speaker's head to show them nerving themselves up for it, or debating what to say next, or consciously choosing where they pause.
And here I'll throw another device at you: within a speech, choosing to pause is called aposiopesis. Mark Antony does it at the end of the first bit of his "Friends, Romans, countrymen" speech, when he says he's been overcome with emotion, "My heart is in the coffin there with Caesar, and I must pause till it come back to me." Practically speaking, that gives the actor a break so they don't have to do 140 lines all at once, but it also gives the plebeians a chance to speak and the audience a chance to witness how Antony's words are having an effect. In a novel, a writer can effectively use aposiopesis in another way, breaking the speech up with descriptive elements, which helps to ground the lofty rhetoric back in the reality of the world and the immediacy of the moment.
CASEY: Rhetoric gives us so many tools to play with! Thank you for all those examples. I think it's worth highlighting your point that writers don't have to know what specific rhetorical devices are called to be able to employ them effectively. Adjusting sentence structure and word choice to match character or moment or the rhythm of the plot is doing exactly this work, paying close attention to howyour words are working.
Strategic repetition is a favorite of mine. I love repeating a structure multiple times in a row, particularly with paragraph breaks, because then the white space and alignment helps emphasize what I'm doing. That's something you can't do the same way in other mediums! I also love repeating a line a different character said and twisting its meaning in later dialogue—you have to in some way make sure the reader recognizes the reference, but there are lots of ways to do that.
With novels, we can't rely on visible reactions from the audience or an actor's delivery, but we can manage pacing with punctuation, with narration interspersed or removed. I also love doing the equivalent of an anime peanut gallery ("Did she do it?" "Yes, the attack landed!" "But look at her—now she's almost out of power; she only has one more shot. Will she last another round?") as a way to make sure the reader notices the undercurrents and how they're changing the stakes. And that works just as well in fraught conversations as fight scenes.
This can be especially important in scenes like political debates that are doing heavy interplay of character dynamics, but depending on the scene's goals, sometimes you can do this with telling, too, rather than showing—in The Hands of the Emperor,there's an anecdote about a character capping a joke perfectly; we never learn the joke or the reply, but the content of the words isn't what matters in this case as much as the context, that these characters having just met are able to match each other with no regard to the impropriety. That said, if we're instead in a romance where a plot beat hinges on one main character changing the other's mind, in almost all cases we're going to need that whole conversation to track the minute character shifts that drive romances at their core—and you can give those conversations extra impact by grounding them in the specific words they've said to and thought about each other before.
DJANGO: Rhetoric is an area where I don't have much training, I have to say, so I'll be the one who goes for "don't actually write the speech out." =) I do a fair bit of this in The Shadow Campaigns, in particular for Danton's magically-effective speeches in The Shadow Throne, which obviously aren't going to be replicated in text. In addition to the problems of being able to actually write a good speech—as Cass demonstrates, there's a lot more going on there then you might think!—it can also be hard to replicate the effect on an in-universe audience.
First of all, while the people in the book are hearing something delivered live, the readers are getting it written down, stripped of the power that a really good speaker can give it. Second, the diegetic audience are different people than the reader, with a different set of cultural assumptions and values. This can be as simple as feeling a stir of pride when language or music evokes national symbols, and goes all the way to complicated cultural markers and tropes. (What we'd today call memes!) The best rhetoric is often the most targeted at its specific audience, specifically because that can be so effective, but the result can leave modern readers cold. It's definitely one of those areas that depends on the author's strengths and the style of the narrative.
Cass, what have you been working on, and what's coming up for you next?
CASS: The Bloodstained Shade, Book 3 of the Aven Cycle, just released at the end of January. It's out in paperback and ebook now, and there's an audiobook coming in May. There will be a Book 4, someday, but at the moment I'm working on something entirely different—the secondworld fantasy inspired by early modern London that I mentioned earlier. That's still in drafting stage, and I'm so enjoying the ongoing application of everything I've learned about worldbuilding and writing craft in the past few years.
Event-wise, I'm doing a virtual workshop on developing magical systems for the Orange County Public Library on March 21st—open to anyone, whether you're an OCPL member or not! Then I'll be at RavenCon April 21-23 in Richmond, VA and at ConCarolinas June 2-4 in Charlotte, NC.
For more worldbuilding goodness, you can find me along with co-hosts Rowenna Miller and Marshall Ryan Maresca on Worldbuilding for Masochists, our two-time Hugo Finalist podcast! Available on all your favorite podcast platforms, with new episodes dropping every other Wednesday. We start our fifth year in June, and we'll be kicking off the season with a pretty exciting announcement!
I usually direct people to Twitter @CassRMorris as the best place to find me for general chatting, and while that's still the best place for now, with the increasing instability of the old bird, I'll also direct folks toward my LinkTree, which will always have the most up-to-date social media haunts, and my Substack, for major announcements and random acts of blogging.

• Github Code Pilot
• GPT 4
• ALpha code
• Codex

and now the latest creation: Github code Pilot X. yes indeed AI wont replace programmers entirely yet it will destroy the conventional taste of doing code. i dont get that argument that Calculators did not replace mathematician so AI wont replace programmers but in reality, there is no comparison between these 2 things. calculator just perform basic calculations it does not solve entire equation. but if we talk about AI those tools write large code snippets in seconds.

GTA Online is Rockstar's incredibly popular cash cow that has been keeping gamers busy since 2013. Although the game should be relatively mature at this stage in its life, it still has plenty of flaws, such as horrendous loading times. These loading time issues have annoyed countless players, and now one player has tracked down the root issue to improve performance.
GTA V fan T0ST recently picked up GTA Online again to finish some new heists that have come out since he last played, but he was "shocked (/s) to discover that it still loads just as slow as the day it was released 7 years ago." With some grit, determination, and perhaps even some spite, T0ST decided it was "time to get to the bottom of this."
gta online ridiculous load times fixed benchmark
In the process of digging into GTA Online, T0ST had to do due diligence and research to make sure no one else figured out the problem. Once it was established that no one had, he ran some benchmarks on his PC with an aging FX-8350 CPU, NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 GPU, 16GB of DDR3, and a "cheap-o" Kingston SSD. Though these parts may be old, they should be plenty to get GTA Online off the ground in decent time, but that is not what happened. According to the data in the blog post, T0ST got into the story mode in approximately one minute and ten seconds, whereas it took nearly six minutes to get into online mode. After some polling, it appears that many other users are having the same issue . What could be happening here?
gta online ridiculous load times fixed taskmanager
Using the task manager, T0ST found that his CPU was being eaten for around four minutes during GTA Online's load process. Perhaps it was just a bottleneck happening on his CPU alone, but that would not make much sense. To track down the issue, T0ST went to dump the running processes' stack, showing where the offending process is happening in RAM. This information, acquired through Luke Stackwalker, gave T0ST a place to look for whatever was causing issues.
gta online ridiculous load times fixed lukestackwalker
After falling down the rabbit hole of trying to track down where the memory pointed, it all started to come together through assembly code reading and obfuscation. Evidently, when loading into GTA Online, a whopping 10MB worth of JSON is being parsed. It seems that it is data for something called "net shop catalog," which is likely just all the things purchasable in GTA Online using in-game currency.
gta online ridiculous load times fixed parseloop
Why this parsing takes so long is due to a function used called sscanf, which, in this instance, can be loosely equated to reading Romeo and Juliet by reading one word, then rereading the play, and then jumping back to the next word in the play. Furthermore, there is another bad programming issue just beside sscanf, which goes through the entire list of JSON entries in an array, one by one, and checks to see if there are duplicates by comparing a unique ID assigned to each item called a hash. Ultimately, it is a lot of extra and unnecessary work that slows down everything.
To solve this issue, T0ST decided to write a .dll (Dynamic Linked Library) and inject it into GTA so that sscanf is effectively streamlined. Also, rather than running duplication checks, they can just be skipped as items inserted into the storage array will always be unique, as was set up during the parsing effort. Once T0ST injected the DLL into GTA with both issues fixed, he saw his load times go from around six minutes down to a solid approximate two minutes.
As T0ST explains, this "won't solve everyone's load times - there might be other bottlenecks on different systems, but it's such a gaping hole that I have no idea how R* has missed it all these years." Ultimately, Rockstar needs to dig into this issue to save all GTA Online players headaches during loading. If you want to see what T0ST did exactly, you can check out his GitHub here and see what is going on. In any case, perhaps we will soon get an official statement from the development company, so keep an eye on HotHardware for updates.

I just took on a new commercial student and there’s no nice way to put that he’s been nothing but a problem for every instructor he’s had. Busted his private ride twice times, instrument three times, and so far once on commercial. He’s had 6 different primary instructors before me since December 2021 when he started at our schools fast track program.
I tried really hard not to let his reputation get in my head and just do a couple remedial grounds and a flight or two before I sign him off but you would think he’s never even seen a plane before the way he talks. He unsat on aerodynamics so our first ground I planned to go over the lift equation, how w&b affects performance, and different types of stability but when I asked him to fill out a weight and balance sheet he couldn’t. I’ve been noticing that a lot with students on stage checks at this school too that they only know how to do it on foreflight so I asked him to do it that way and figured we would revisit w&b later or in the next ground. Nope. Didn’t know how to do that either. Said he was never shown how. I asked what he did for it on his checkride and he pulled out a sheet that was clearly not his handwriting or calculated for any flight with him.
The pilot weight was 95lbs and no passenger. I asked where he got it and he said it was in the folder where we keep the blank sheets. At that point we took a break and I decided to do kind of a mock stage check instead of a ground to see where he was at with everything else and it was almost all the same story. Didn’t know what holding out was or the difference between true and magnetic heading or any requirements in the different airspaces other than two way radios (which he said were always required, including class G) at this point we were out of time so while I was logging everything and checking us in I asked what his career plan was and he said that his dad owns a charter company and he’s planning on flying for him, which I guess is good because realistically that’s the only person that will hire him at this point assuming he ever manages to get his commercial.
I don’t know how to get him to put in any amount of effort and for whatever reason the chief pilot still wants him to finish up the program but this kid is nothing but a liability at this point. I don’t know how to get through to someone that has had every step of his life made out for him and that doesn’t care about money for rechecks or his record because daddy will solve both of those issues

I have been playing a LOT with [[Mindsplice Apparatus]] since it came out and have come up with this deck, which is proving to be pretty fun and powerful. If anyone has any suggestions for card replacements or the like it would be appreciated.
Deck List
The basic premise is to get Mindsplice onto the field and then cast Experimental Augury and Contentious Plan until the Big Scores and Pirates Pillage cost 1 mana. They are then mana positive spells.
Keep drawing and proliferating until you hit Finale of Revelation to draw ten and untap your lands.
This should set you up and give you enough draw and proliferate spells to find Electrodominance (with Solve the Equation) and hit for lots of damage. This will not probably be for 20 damage, so you can then fetch Electrodominance from the graveyard with Bond of Insight and cast it again.
This is all on the the same turn by the way!
The Magma Opus are there to make a treasure to start the process a turn early and the negates are there to protect Electrodominance.
The deck consistently wins on the one turn or if you are unlucky the turn after.
I might give this deck a go in modern by replacing the Electodominace with [[Grapeshot]] as this deck can easily cast 20+ spells a turn, but I do not have a lot of experience with modern, so it might not be any good there.
Any thoughts or comments would be appreciated.

Looking for a PDF of this textbook as it’s a bit out of my price range
TITLE: Elementary Differential Equations and Boundary Value Problems EDITION: 12th AUTHOR: William E. Boyce PUBLISHER: Wiley ISBN10: 1119777690 ISBN13: 9781119777694
Any help would be appreciated?

The rigorous definition of a differential is the ε-δ definition, right? Epsilon is your dy and delta is the cirresponding dx. But I don't see how this definition defines differentials in a way that prohibits nlrmal algebraic manipulation, I see it does the opposite. Isn't this definition saying the ε and δ (dy and dx) are non-zero finite values (even if they're infinitely small)? If that's the case, why is it 'frowned upon' to say things like
dy = (dy/dx)*dx
because the dx's in the denominators cancel? People say thinking of it like that is only a trick for helping you memorise it, I don't see why. Same thing with chain rule:
dw/dx = dw/dy * dy/dx (if w is a funtion of y and y is a function of x)
people say the demominators aren't cancelling, it's just a trick for memorisation.
Now, I understand that dx or dy alone are meaningless since they're infinitely small and that only together, dy/dx, do they actually have a meaning/finite value (how much one changes wrt the other), but I don't understand why it's frowned upon to algebraiclly manipulate them in differential equations. When solving differentials equations, you intend on integrating both sides at the end, which means the differential will have a finite value/meaning when you integrate the value the differential is multiplied by, so now you have the integration operator (∫...dx). I see people saying that students don't understand why this works and that this is justified for some other reason. Why is algenraic manipulation wrong here?

Hello, I just started my graduate course for weeks ago. I'm majoring in quantum chemistry and quantum computing. I majored in chemistry as an undergraduate student. I don't have much background knowledge for computer science. I have little experience about python by reading a beginning level book.
As one of the group leader wanted to make some regular machine/deep learning team meeting for several beginners, I just started to learn machine/deep learning.
In this group, we are "not developing" any machine/deep learning models. Some of the lab members using it just as a "tool" to solve some problems. ML/DL is not a main research topic in this group.
But as a beginner, I feel like little confused. That's because learning computer science is totally different from natural science.
When I study natural science, I read through the textbook, solving some exercises and summarize it. Following every steps to derive an equation. Then, I can understand it. If I couldn't, I have several strategies for it. Yes, I can study it anyway.
But when I study computer science, I feel totally different. There is no explicit mathematical expressions in some cases. Sometimes, it is hard to find out a relationship between a code and basic logic.
I feel like I'm lost. I feel studying quantum mechanics is much easier and clearer than learning python or pytorch. I can follow every steps explaining about quantum mechanics. But I cannot keep track of what's going on in these codes.
I cannot grasp how to start it.
Can you give me any advice for me?
One of team member told me to just type every words in the codes and try to run it anyway. Do you think it is a good way to learn it? But when I find any parts in a code that I cannot understand, I feel too uncomfortable.

GTA Online is Rockstar's incredibly popular cash cow that has been keeping gamers busy since 2013. Although the game should be relatively mature at this stage in its life, it still has plenty of flaws, such as horrendous loading times. These loading time issues have annoyed countless players, and now one player has tracked down the root issue to improve performance.
GTA V fan T0ST recently picked up GTA Online again to finish some new heists that have come out since he last played, but he was "shocked (/s) to discover that it still loads just as slow as the day it was released 7 years ago." With some grit, determination, and perhaps even some spite, T0ST decided it was "time to get to the bottom of this."
gta online ridiculous load times fixed benchmark
In the process of digging into GTA Online, T0ST had to do due diligence and research to make sure no one else figured out the problem. Once it was established that no one had, he ran some benchmarks on his PC with an aging FX-8350 CPU, NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 GPU, 16GB of DDR3, and a "cheap-o" Kingston SSD. Though these parts may be old, they should be plenty to get GTA Online off the ground in decent time, but that is not what happened. According to the data in the blog post, T0ST got into the story mode in approximately one minute and ten seconds, whereas it took nearly six minutes to get into online mode. After some polling, it appears that many other users are having the same issue . What could be happening here?
gta online ridiculous load times fixed taskmanager
Using the task manager, T0ST found that his CPU was being eaten for around four minutes during GTA Online's load process. Perhaps it was just a bottleneck happening on his CPU alone, but that would not make much sense. To track down the issue, T0ST went to dump the running processes' stack, showing where the offending process is happening in RAM. This information, acquired through Luke Stackwalker, gave T0ST a place to look for whatever was causing issues.
gta online ridiculous load times fixed lukestackwalker
After falling down the rabbit hole of trying to track down where the memory pointed, it all started to come together through assembly code reading and obfuscation. Evidently, when loading into GTA Online, a whopping 10MB worth of JSON is being parsed. It seems that it is data for something called "net shop catalog," which is likely just all the things purchasable in GTA Online using in-game currency.
gta online ridiculous load times fixed parseloop
Why this parsing takes so long is due to a function used called sscanf, which, in this instance, can be loosely equated to reading Romeo and Juliet by reading one word, then rereading the play, and then jumping back to the next word in the play. Furthermore, there is another bad programming issue just beside sscanf, which goes through the entire list of JSON entries in an array, one by one, and checks to see if there are duplicates by comparing a unique ID assigned to each item called a hash. Ultimately, it is a lot of extra and unnecessary work that slows down everything.
To solve this issue, T0ST decided to write a .dll (Dynamic Linked Library) and inject it into GTA so that sscanf is effectively streamlined. Also, rather than running duplication checks, they can just be skipped as items inserted into the storage array will always be unique, as was set up during the parsing effort. Once T0ST injected the DLL into GTA with both issues fixed, he saw his load times go from around six minutes down to a solid approximate two minutes.
As T0ST explains, this "won't solve everyone's load times - there might be other bottlenecks on different systems, but it's such a gaping hole that I have no idea how R* has missed it all these years." Ultimately, Rockstar needs to dig into this issue to save all GTA Online players headaches during loading. If you want to see what T0ST did exactly, you can check out his GitHub here and see what is going on. In any case, perhaps we will soon get an official statement from the development company, so keep an eye on HotHardware for updates.

I searched google for this problem and all the help and advice on how to solve this involved using Linux and running Sudo commands to purge and reinstall something called. But im using Windows 10 and not Linux unfortunately.
Can someone help me fix pdf export?

UPDATE:

Link to a possible solution I found for Linux: https://ask.libreoffice.org/t/cannot-print-anything-exporting-to-pdf-produces-blank-pdf-lubuntu-20-04/52285

Screenshot of Libreoffice pdf export (messed up): https://imgur.com/ulhJrDF

Screenshot of Microsoft print to pdf (works): https://imgur.com/a/pfS5TSw

Hi there. I live in a 4 Plex in Saskatoon with 3 really great neighbors (grateful for this). We have a shared garage with 4 parking spots.
The problem I need solving is, for some reason, two of my neighbors run/warm up their vehicles in the garage through the winter, sometimes for 15+ minutes with no doors open at all.
Today would be an optimal example. I go out to the garage. My car is showing a temp of minus 4 degrees celsius, and my neighbor had her vehicle running. I drove my child to school, came back home, and her car was still running with all doors closed.
Am I crazy to think this is completely unacceptable, especially in temps above -25 (which actually equates to more like -15 inside the garage)?
If anyone knows of any bylaws related to this scenario please let me know. Thanks!

somehow i managed to fail statics last semester. literally the easiest subject on the brain in uni.
but its the algebra. i hate it and was never particularly any good at it.
and the questions are dependent on each other, so if you fail to get the right answer on a question, chances are you just lost 5-6% worth of your grade on follow up questions.
i did excellently well in physics, and after a hiccup in my midterms i did do very well in my math final. these rely on your understanding of whatever it is you're doing, and calc. both i am okay with studying and solving. i could say i borderline enjoy studying physics for example.
i could spend an hour or 2 studying these subjects without the first hint of boredom. until i actually begin to get tired/ lose my focus, that's when i take a break.
but not statics, its like torture i swear, 2 givens, 12000 unknowns and every one of them has a weird angle. equations rarely are shorter than a line long, i remember one question needed solving 4 different determinants simultaneously to get god knows how many unknowns. etc. (i do know older students could find these examples laughable compared to whatever it is you're studying. but that's where im stuck right now)
and it doesn't even have much mental work. i could very well get up and lecture the material instead of the professor. if you don't give me solving to do, or stick to the simple fundamental problems. it *is* an easy subject in an abstract sense. but just not the type of subject i am suited to solve. or like for that matter. just pure labor honestly for me.
what advice do you have?

GTA Online is Rockstar's incredibly popular cash cow that has been keeping gamers busy since 2013. Although the game should be relatively mature at this stage in its life, it still has plenty of flaws, such as horrendous loading times. These loading time issues have annoyed countless players, and now one player has tracked down the root issue to improve performance.
GTA V fan T0ST recently picked up GTA Online again to finish some new heists that have come out since he last played, but he was "shocked (/s) to discover that it still loads just as slow as the day it was released 7 years ago." With some grit, determination, and perhaps even some spite, T0ST decided it was "time to get to the bottom of this."
gta online ridiculous load times fixed benchmark
In the process of digging into GTA Online, T0ST had to do due diligence and research to make sure no one else figured out the problem. Once it was established that no one had, he ran some benchmarks on his PC with an aging FX-8350 CPU, NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 GPU, 16GB of DDR3, and a "cheap-o" Kingston SSD. Though these parts may be old, they should be plenty to get GTA Online off the ground in decent time, but that is not what happened. According to the data in the blog post, T0ST got into the story mode in approximately one minute and ten seconds, whereas it took nearly six minutes to get into online mode. After some polling, it appears that many other users are having the same issue . What could be happening here?
gta online ridiculous load times fixed taskmanager
Using the task manager, T0ST found that his CPU was being eaten for around four minutes during GTA Online's load process. Perhaps it was just a bottleneck happening on his CPU alone, but that would not make much sense. To track down the issue, T0ST went to dump the running processes' stack, showing where the offending process is happening in RAM. This information, acquired through Luke Stackwalker, gave T0ST a place to look for whatever was causing issues.
gta online ridiculous load times fixed lukestackwalker
After falling down the rabbit hole of trying to track down where the memory pointed, it all started to come together through assembly code reading and obfuscation. Evidently, when loading into GTA Online, a whopping 10MB worth of JSON is being parsed. It seems that it is data for something called "net shop catalog," which is likely just all the things purchasable in GTA Online using in-game currency.
gta online ridiculous load times fixed parseloop
Why this parsing takes so long is due to a function used called sscanf, which, in this instance, can be loosely equated to reading Romeo and Juliet by reading one word, then rereading the play, and then jumping back to the next word in the play. Furthermore, there is another bad programming issue just beside sscanf, which goes through the entire list of JSON entries in an array, one by one, and checks to see if there are duplicates by comparing a unique ID assigned to each item called a hash. Ultimately, it is a lot of extra and unnecessary work that slows down everything.
To solve this issue, T0ST decided to write a .dll (Dynamic Linked Library) and inject it into GTA so that sscanf is effectively streamlined. Also, rather than running duplication checks, they can just be skipped as items inserted into the storage array will always be unique, as was set up during the parsing effort. Once T0ST injected the DLL into GTA with both issues fixed, he saw his load times go from around six minutes down to a solid approximate two minutes.
As T0ST explains, this "won't solve everyone's load times - there might be other bottlenecks on different systems, but it's such a gaping hole that I have no idea how R* has missed it all these years." Ultimately, Rockstar needs to dig into this issue to save all GTA Online players headaches during loading. If you want to see what T0ST did exactly, you can check out his GitHub here and see what is going on. In any case, perhaps we will soon get an official statement from the development company, so keep an eye on HotHardware for updates.

Why are we born only to die? This is a question we have been trying to answer ever since we as a species first evolved the ability to ask such questions.
Let us first briefly consider our ability to ask such questions and how is it we can formulate any questions at all. There has been some discussion recently on how we in essence 'hallucinate' our reality. While this is true to a large degree, it would be more accurate to say that we 'read' our reality. We process the stimulus we receive from external world and then transform it into language through the neural dynamics found in our cortical thalamic complex.
As we develop and mature our cortical/thalamic complex gradually creates a VR type experience for our consciousness, so gradually we no longer see what arrives at our eyes but rather is what is constructed from the direct sensory experience in the occipital lobe of the cortex - our visual center. By the time we are adults our awareness can no longer directly perceive the external world. It can only see and hear the reprocessed reality as it is reconstructed from direct sensory stimulus, in our cortex. As adults we never see the outside world. We don't see the mountain. We only see the image of a mountain created in our visual cortex. Only when we encounter something that cannot be fit into any existing linguistic category do we see it before filtering and reconstruction within cortical visual centers.
We linguistically interpret and assign meaning to raw stimulus within our cortex which determines our subsequent response and behaviors. Under normal conditions if what we are experiencing cannot be translated into our existing vocabulary then we cannot act coherently and we will either freeze up or become completely uninhibited and out of control. The parsing of external reality into language is a reflex and it is normally beyond our ability to perceive this neurological process as it is occurring.
The answers to the nature of life, why we are born and die and how we can ask such things all lead to the same place and if one question is answered then all of them will be. Therefore I will begin with the nature of life itself. I will use one of the tools that western science adopted early in its history and that is dissection. Lets first dissect life and look at it in the detail that has been revealed throughout the hundreds of years we have been using this tool.
The first medical dissections were performed at the University of Salerno in about the 12 century. Now all these years later we have dissected much and we now have little pieces of everything lying around everywhere. Now we are dissecting some very large things and some very small things. Dissection reveals information contained or hidden beneath the perceptual paywall of physical boundaries like the biological membrane of the cell, or an organ like our skin or the boundaries of the earths gravity.
What we see in the modern world is the result of centuries of dissection and reassembly. Now after all the thousands of years of humans history there is one item that has been produced many more times and in larger quantities than any other single thing made by humans and their ancestors. Most people have no idea what this item is or how it works yet humans have made more of it than anything else by orders of magnitude. These are transistors which require more electrical energy than anything else ever mass produced by humans to perform their function as intended and have given rise to server farms that need the energy of a small city to function. This is a result of a history of dissection and reassembly without any underlying worldview or morality to guide the technological exploitation of the discoveries uncovered through the process of dissection and analysis.
Now at the pinnacle of our evolution we have completely remade ourselves and the world and the results appear to be anything but enlightening and emancipating. We have server farms that are using the energy of a small city and space tourism is well on its way. Unfortunately during our history of dissection we have ignored certain things discovered that do not support the underlying ideology motivating our technological innovations. The problem hasn't been in the scientific process but in what aspects of what we have discovered that have been followed up and not relegated to the the dark shelves of history and ignored. Our cultures idea of progress and evolution as a driving force of nature may be entirely misplaced and as 'superstitious' as any of the other antiquated views our culture has abandoned and transcended along the way.

The long delay in accepting the evidence of developmental neuronal death has been regarded as an historical enigma. Here is how the puzzle may now be solved. Nineteenth-century biologists saw that development has an overriding telos, a direction and a gradual approach to completion of the embryo, and also saw a terminal regression and final dissolution of the adult; but a fallacy arose when the progression and regression, which coexist from early development, were separated in their minds.
Development was conceived in terms of progressive construction, of an epigenetic program—from simple to more complex. For every event in development they attempted to find prior conditions such that, given them, nothing else could happen.
The connections and interdependencies of events assure that the outcome is always the same. Such deterministic theories of development made it difficult to conceive of demolition of structures as part of normal development, and it was inconceivable that construction and destruction can occur simultaneously. It became necessary to regard regressive developmental processes as entirely purposeful and determined. For example, elimination of organs that play a role during development but are not required in the adult or regression of vestigial structures such as the tail in humans were viewed as part of the ontogenetic recapitulation of phylogeny. Regression in those cases is determined and is merely one of several fates: cellular determination may be either progressive or regressive.
The idea of progress in all spheres, perhaps most of all in the evolution and development of the vertebrate nervous system, has appealed to many thinkers since the 18th century. Such ideas change more slowly than the means of scientific production; thus new facts are made to serve old ideas. That is why the history of ideas, even if it does not exactly repeat itself, does such a good job of imitation.
In the realm of ideas held by neuroscientists, the idea of progressive construction, of hierarchically ordered programs of development, has always been dominant over the idea of a plenitude of possibilities, from which orderly structure develops from disorderly initial conditions by a process of selective attrition.
DEVELOPMENTAL NEUROBIOLOGY Fourth Edition Edited by MAHENDRA S. RAO MD and MARCUS JACOBSON (Page 396).

How revolutionary could be the idea that there is a plenitude of possibilities, from which orderly structure develops from disorderly initial conditions by a process of selective attrition. The universe is not learning, experimenting, progressing, evolving and neither are we. The universe is already full of a 'plentitude of possibilities' and it already is what it is and is already all it will ever be... as are we. Whatever it is we think we are observing it is not progress or evolution in any sense of the word but is rather the processes of 'selective attrition'. The universe is something else much more and we are a part of it and need to look no further than within our selves since we are also part of that 'fabric' of the universe. Humans are not standing atop the pyramid of life but we are only one of many different morphological manifestations of the natural processes of 'selective attrition' which find us only different and in no way better than the other morphological and metabolic forms and components of the earths biosystem and its holobionts.

Recognizing the “holobiont”—the multicellular eukaryote plus its colonies of persistent symbionts—as a critically important unit of anatomy, development, physiology, immunology, and evolution opens up new investigative avenues and conceptually challenges the ways in which the biological subdisciplines have heretofore characterized living entities. https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/full/10.1086/668166

The processes of attrition affects 2 vectors in the realization of a particular existence from a plentitude of possibilities. In order for life and consciousness to exist in the earths biosystem 2 vectors must work together to maintain a fragile stasis between reoccurring periods of geological and cosmic instability. These vectors influence morphology and metabolism. Morphology is influenced and regulated by viruses and that still ill defined aspect of our biological reality they represent. Multicellular metabolism is regulated and influenced by chromosomal and nucleic genetics. When the environment changes then the viral component of the tree of life induces morphological changes in the life forms currently inhabiting the biosphere. Within the nucleus of the cell the genetic code is changed now producing biological forms that after development have the metabolism to exist in the new environment. Life consciousness has within it already all the plentitude of possibilities needed to exist in many different potential worlds and it doesn't need to evolve as it is already capable of arising in almost any conditions. Look at the many amazing ways that nature is already incorporating plastics into its ecology.
Unfortunately for us, our ill fated venture into space has triggered processes of attrition between these 2 vectors that are now adapting the morphology and metabolism of the earths biome in response to the time many of its lifeforms have already spent living in a gravity free environment. The different forms of life we have have brought too and from a gravity free environment are also changing. Switching from a model based on evolution and progress to one based on a preexisting plenitude of possibilities may affect the statistical significance of our predictive models. If we are not progressing and evolving towards something then what exactly is it we are doing with all our technologies but creating the conditions for our own morphological extinction?
The human species is an embodiment of the force of attrition in nature. As a species we have introduced a plentitude of possibilities into the biosphere by reshaping ourselves and our environment through our behaviors and in doing so we have fulfilled our biological function. The model is no longer based on the idea of progress so our behavior as a species need no longer be seen as progressive but as simply transformative. The organisms with the largest genomes are creatures like amoebas and lungfish which could be considered as very important gatekeepers and librarians of the biological information accumulated from eons of harvesting 'information' from an ever changing plentitude of biological possibilities. This information is stored within many levels of biosystem and are all connected by the viral and microbial ocean in which the overall biosystem is immersed.

https://www.science.org/content/article/meet-obscure-microbe-influences-climate-ocean-ecosystems-and-perhaps-even-evolution

It is creatures like these along with long living organisms like trees and fungi that are at the heart of the biosystem while the human species seems doomed to be little more than a brief biological storm arising and passing away in but a few minutes of geological time. We are no longer talking about a universe born from simplicity and its slow progression towards consciousness of which we are the ultimate manifestation.
Consciousness is the fundamental universal force that gives rise to the biological reality we inhabit. Most everything around us has consciousness and it flows through the underlying fabric of our existence via 'fields' generated by metabolic life, much like how electricity moves along a wire...flowing via the field surrounding the wire and not really within the wire itself. It is what is perceiving the perceptual experience created within the cartesian theatre of our human mind. It is the cortical thalamic complex that creates the unique type of perceptual experience that humans have. There is nothing unique about human consciousness only our perceptual experience. The human experience does not represent any type of progression or evolution of consciousness along an evolutionary timeline.
The only thing modern humans bring to the table is their own unique type of perceptual experience which is initiating behaviors that results in biological information that will find its way throughout the biome and will be stored for eons to come and long after we as a species are gone.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2818-3

The organisms found colonizing plastics in the ocean, termed the ‘plastisphere’ [20], are clearly distinct from microbial assemblages found in the surrounding water [21] and can differ from those colonizing natural surfaces
https://microbiomejournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s40168-021-01054-5

The introduction of plastics into the ecology represents a new type of information that the natural biological world is already starting to use in many creative and unexpected ways.

The study of the basic philosophies or ideologies of scientists is very difficult because they are rarely articulated. They largely consist of silent assumptions that are taken so completely for granted that they are never mentioned. The historian of biology encounters some of his greatest difficulties when trying to ferret out such silent assumptions; and anyone who attempts to question these "eternal truths" encounters formidable resistance. In biology, for hundreds of years, a belief in the inheritance of acquired characters, a belief in irresistible progress and in a scala naturae, a belief in a fundamental difference between organic beings and the inanimate world, and a belief in an essentialistic structure of the world of phenomena are only a few of the silent assumptions that influenced the progress of science.
Basic ideological polarities were involved in all of the great controversies in the history of biology, indicated by such alternatives as quantity vs. quality, reduction vs. emergence, essentialism vs. population thinking, monism vs. dualism, discontinuity vs. continuity, mechanism vs. vitalism, mechanism vs. teleology, statism vs. evolutionism, and others. Lyell's resistance to evolutionism was due not only to his natural theology but also to his essentialism, which simply did not allow for a variation of species "beyond the limits of their type." Coleman (1970) has shown to what large extent Bateson's resistance to the chromosome theory of inheritance was based on ideological reasons.
One can go so far as to claim that the resistance of a scientist to a new theory almost invariably is based on ideological reasons rather than on logical reasons or objections to the evidence on which the theory is based. (Page 835).
https://www.epitropakisg.ggrigorise/Mayr_GrowthOfBiologicalThought.pdf

What do we see when we look at a lion feeding on a fresh kill that is still alive while being eaten? Or a grizzly bear keeping its prey alive for days as it eats it? How about a herd of orca's slowly killing a blue whale? We look away in horror and disgust because we have no idea what it is we are actually observing. Our everyday perceptual experience provides no insight into what is actually happening as this untamed savagery unfolds before us. We have no words for the world as it really is since we very rarely ever perceive it as it really is before being processed and recreated in the cortical thalamic complex. That is what we see and we do not see the outside world as it really is.
A lion consuming a deer is not unlike 2 galaxies colliding. When one animal eats another 2 very large populations of trillions of separate and specialized cellular organisms merge together combining all their biological information as it is being generated in real time. This biological material is processed within the lion and then the viral components and other transgenic organisms move this information between different creatures picking up bits of information and moving it around the biome to be integrated into existing info and/or stored for later retrieval and integration.
Very little information is lost when the biosystem is working correctly. When it is not working properly then much information can be permanently lost very quickly. We see this as viruses mutate as they pick up new pieces as the processes of recombination unfold. In times of biological instability plagues are common as insects and rodents are very effective means of consuming this biological information before it is lost due to factors such as changing climatic conditions producing famine. The goal is not evolution or progress but the maintenance of a repository of biological information that allows the biosystem to self regulate its morphology and metabolism. If the organisms that act as gatekeepers, storehouses and librarians are lost then the whole biosystem will collapse.
It the the fundamental energy of consciousness as it 'flows' through metabolic life that powers the biosphere. Earths metabolism and morphology may not look like anything resembling how morphology and metabolism may arise elsewhere in the universe. Unusual organic molecules are being found in the atmosphere of Titan. One such molecule has only been previously found in interstellar clouds. As these molecules break down fairly quickly something must be producing or metabolizing them to maintain their presence in atmosphere. Like electromagnetism if consciousness is also a fundamental force then we can expect it to be active and appear in many different ways in different environments.

In two separate data sets, the team identified a strange fingerprint as that of cyclopropenylidene. Its presence is surprising – it’s a very reactive molecule, so in a warm(ish) environment like Titan’s atmosphere it should readily break down into other forms. As such, C3H2 has previously only been detected in interstellar dust clouds, where it’s too cold and diffuse for these kinds of chemical reactions to take place.
https://newatlas.com/space/titan-atmosphere-cyclopropenylidene-weird-molecule/

Life and consciousness is what is most unique about out planet so most likely related to... https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/06/200609190725.htm
The nature of consciousness as I am describing it gives rise to one quality that would make space travel somewhat irrelevant. This quality is also behind much of the fuss and importance that humans have made about different types of 'spiritual' experience from their earliest beginnings. Our consciousness is not attached to our own perceptual experience but can move freely, along metabolic highways, between all the perceptual experiences, arising anywhere in the universe right now. Every point on the torus is connected to every other point. The perceptual experience of the lion and the deer can be experienced and perceived through the shared dynamics of our own metabolic entanglements as we are all made from the same stuff. It is the 'one topology' suggested to exist in Velinde's and Hooft's model of entropic gravity and the cellular automaton. Morphology is the universal vector for perceptual experience. Metabolism is the universal vector for consciousness.

https://phys.org/news/2021-11-quantum-realm.html - "If a phenomenon produces a large amount of entropy, observing its time-reversal is so improbable as to become essentially impossible. However, when the entropy produced is small enough, there is a non-negligible probability of seeing the time-reversal of a phenomenon occur naturally.
Malotki does admit that the English and Hopi systems of tense are different since the English system distinguishes past from non-past, whereas Hopi distinguishes future from non-future https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hopi_time_controversy

Biological organisms produce heat/entropy. Think about how significant it is that life can live in external temps well below its own internal heat. Metabolic cellular processes are producing this heat. Biological organisms are not unlike little suns with their ability to produce internal heat. Our bodies are literally made up of trillions of little suns. From metabolism/consciousness arises morphology/perceptual experience. The positive energy generated by the activities of morphological organisms, each with their own spectrum of perceptual experience, counters the negative heat energy of the many metabolic states of consciousness which permeate the universe. When an organism is producing more entropy than the system can absorb that organism is removed or reabsorbed and replaced with one whose metabolism is in balance with rest of biome. When there is too much entropy things like the 'time-reversal of a phenomenon occurring naturally' are no longer available as part of our perceptual experience or vocabulary. Invariably most spiritual practices inadvertently result in the production of less entropy or in the balancing and stabilization of existing entropic forces.
The shamans of old may of been much more in tune with things then we give them credit for. It is a shame that most of their languages and way of life are gone. Like the American Indian I hold the view that the animals and plants around us are our older brothers and sisters and we should learn from them, take our place beside them and not seek to dominate and control but to share the world with them. We have become a species of attrition and seem incapable anymore of transcending our own nature. We cannot help but destroy what we cannot dominate and now we have turned on each other as there is very little left in the natural world for us to conquer. We are no more aware of what we are doing than the couple of meteorites that changed life forever for the dinosaurs. Maybe as Emerson suggested we have learned to ride in a carriage and lost the use of our legs while our giant follows us everywhere.

Game Ready & Studio Driver 531.41 has been released.

Article Here: https://www.nvidia.com/en-us/geforce/news/diablo-iv-geforce-game-ready-drive
New feature and fixes in driver 531.41:
Game Ready - This new Game Ready Driver provides the best day-0 gaming experience for the latest new games including the open beta for Diablo IV featuring NVIDIA DLSS 2 technology. Further support for new titles leveraging DLSS 2 technology include The Last of Us Part I, Smalland: Survive the Wild, and Deceive Inc. Additionally, this Game Ready Driver supports Resident Evil 4 and the addition of DLSS 3 technology to Forza Horizon 5. Lastly, this Game Ready Driver offers full support for the technology preview of Cyberpunk 2077’s Ray Tracing: Overdrive Mode.
Applications - The March NVIDIA Studio Driver provides optimal support for the latest new creative applications and updates announced at NVIDIA GTC including NVIDIA Canvas 1.4 and a myriad of new functionality for NVIDIA Omniverse. In addition, this NVIDIA Studio Driver also introduces support for the new RTX Video Super Resolution for GeForce RTX 40 and 30 Series GPUs.
Fixed Issues

• Adobe application stability issues using 531.18 [4008751]
• Enscape crash at startup with 531.18 [4008190]
• Beamr - Issue with AV1 encoding in PTD=0 mode [3981172]
• Derivative TouchDesigner - NVAR: crash when using multi-person tracking [3808674]
• [Forza Horizon 5] Rainbow like artifacts in game after driver update [3839021]
• [Portal with RTX] "Background application max frame rate" setting is getting engaged while game is in focus [3897352]
• Disable Horizon Zero Dawn Resizable Bar profile on Intel platforms [3759681]

Open Issues

• Toggling HDR on and off in-game causes game stability issues when non-native resolution is used. [3624030]
• Monitor may briefly flicker on waking from display sleep if DSDLDSR is enabled. [3592260]
• [Halo Wars 2] In-game foliage is larger than normal and displays constant flickering [3888343]
• [GeForce RTX 4090] Watch Dogs 2 may display flickering when staring at the sky [3858016]
• Increase in DPC latency observed in Latencymon [3952556]
• Applying GeForce Experience Freestyle filters cause games to crash [4008945]
• Assassin’s Creed Origins stability issues using 531.18 [4008770]

Driver Downloads and Tools
Driver Download Page: Nvidia Download Page
Latest Game Ready Driver: 531.41 WHQL
Latest Studio Driver: 531.41 WHQL
DDU Download: Source 1 or Source 2
DDU Guide: Guide Here
DDU/WagnardSoft Patreon: Link Here
Documentation: Game Ready Driver 531.41 Release Notes Studio Driver 531.41 Release Notes
NVIDIA Driver Forum for Feedback: Link Here
Submit driver feedback directly to NVIDIA: Link Here
RodroG's Driver Benchmark: TBD
NVIDIA Discord Driver Feedback: Invite Link Here
Having Issues with your driver? Read here!
Before you start - Make sure you Submit Feedback for your Nvidia Driver Issue
There is only one real way for any of these problems to get solved, and that’s if the Driver Team at Nvidia knows what those problems are. So in order for them to know what’s going on it would be good for any users who are having problems with the drivers to Submit Feedback to Nvidia. A guide to the information that is needed to submit feedback can be found here.
Additionally, if you see someone having the same issue you are having in this thread, reply and mention you are having the same issue. The more people that are affected by a particular bug, the higher the priority that bug will receive from NVIDIA!!
Common Troubleshooting Steps

• Be sure you are on the latest build of Windows 10 or 11
• Please visit the following link for DDU guide which contains full detailed information on how to do Fresh Driver Install.
• If your driver still crashes after DDU reinstall, try going to Go to Nvidia Control Panel -> Managed 3D Settings -> Power Management Mode: Prefer Maximum Performance

If it still crashes, we have a few other troubleshooting steps but this is fairly involved and you should not do it if you do not feel comfortable. Proceed below at your own risk:

• A lot of driver crashing is caused by Windows TDR issue. There is a huge post on GeForce forum about this here. This post dated back to 2009 (Thanks Microsoft) and it can affect both Nvidia and AMD cards.
• Unfortunately this issue can be caused by many different things so it’s difficult to pin down. However, editing the windows registry might solve the problem.
• Additionally, there is also a tool made by Wagnard (maker of DDU) that can be used to change this TDR value. Download here. Note that I have not personally tested this tool.

If you are still having issue at this point, visit GeForce Forum for support or contact your manufacturer for RMA.
Common Questions

• Is it safe to upgrade to ? Fact of the matter is that the result will differ person by person due to different configurations. The only way to know is to try it yourself. My rule of thumb is to wait a few days. If there’s no confirmed widespread issue, I would try the new driver.

Bear in mind that people who have no issues tend to not post on Reddit or forums. Unless there is significant coverage about specific driver issue, chances are they are fine. Try it yourself and you can always DDU and reinstall old driver if needed.

• My color is washed out after upgrading/installing driver. Help! Try going to the Nvidia Control Panel -> Change Resolution -> Scroll all the way down -> Output Dynamic Range = FULL.
• My game is stuttering when processing physics calculation Try going to the Nvidia Control Panel and to the Surround and PhysX settings and ensure the PhysX processor is set to your GPU
• What does the new Power Management option “Optimal Power” means? How does this differ from Adaptive? The new power management mode is related to what was said in the Geforce GTX 1080 keynote video. To further reduce power consumption while the computer is idle and nothing is changing on the screen, the driver will not make the GPU render a new frame; the driver will get the one (already rendered) frame from the framebuffer and output directly to monitor.

Remember, driver codes are extremely complex and there are billions of different possible configurations. The software will not be perfect and there will be issues for some people. For a more comprehensive list of open issues, please take a look at the Release Notes. Again, I encourage folks who installed the driver to post their experience here... good or bad.
Did you know NVIDIA has a Developer Program with 150+ free SDKs, state-of-the-art Deep Learning courses, certification, and access to expert help. Sound interesting? Learn more here.

-Why would the author of Quant use Norm.S.Inv and other excel functions to explain how to do a calculation that we can only do on the BAii+? Show me the calculation by hand. This is nonsense. -Throughout this whole curriculum, various authors are like "the answer is to set up this really long equation that looks like this. Then you solve for x". No steps are shown on simplifying the equation/showing your work to get to x.
Back at it. I know, f me right?

Thinking is mental activity that’s remembered, as opposed to mental activity that isn’t remembered. Thus there is a step that proceeds thinking: translating mental activity into a form recollectable through short-term memory. My essay is a description of the basic, initial steps taken to translate mental activity into thought (there’s a readable and downloadable PDF on my homepage, pressureoflight.ca).
This simple model of thought (where mental activity is translated into a form recollectable through short-term memory) points to a simple practice for quieting the mind: focusing on non-communicable-thoughts instead of communicable-thoughts, and remembering that communicable-thoughts are words, visualizations, or something else that can be externalized for the benefit of another conscious mind, or for the benefit of the future-self.
I believe this exercise is inherent to meditation. Meditation practice asks the practitioner to remain still and quite-minded for some duration of time. The stillness is a commitment to doing nothing in the near future, so that the fairly typical thoughts that are inventories of what I’m going to do today, how I might solve this problem, or what steps I should take to do this or that, become communications to nobody in the near future, nobody that cares to hear the inventories anyway. Meditation also positively-reinforces attention on non-communicable internal-events. Focusing on the breath is focusing on an experience-of-awareness that the meditating mind knows does not need to be translated and remembered for any future-self.
So here’s a practice for quieting the mind, that makes sense in the context of my essay: focus on non-communicable thoughts, remembering that thoughts, feelings and experiences-of-awareness that you can communicate to other people are also communicable to yourself in the future. You relieve your future-self of the burden of remembered-thinking by focusing on feelings that can’t be described, such as those that are associated with very specific places or loved-ones, or on conceptual understandings that don’t consciously stick around, and instead fade away like a dream remembered for only a few moments after waking up.
Thoughts are always remembered, so thoughts can be thought of as access to a future self. I believe this concept applies to both the self and to external-actors. Marketing campaigns want to establish the thought inside many conscious minds that is some equiavlent to, “in the future I want to remember to buy that”. My essay describes how remembered-thinking also establishes abstract concepts for a future-self, that have to be for a future-self because abstracts are language’s pinnacle-success in establishing infinite-permanence through remembered-thinking.
We all have to remind ourselves to buy certain things, and we all have to remember which teams we are supposed to ‘believe’ the same incentives as. We all have to sacrifice our capacity to conceive of the infinite in order to survive in a world that insists on understanding, with perfect certainty, who we are and what we’re going to do.
Fight that force. Don’t squander your capacity to conceive of the infinite.