If I didn't trust the Guardian I would dismiss the photos as AI-generated. Even then I find this sort of thing difficult to believe . . . glad there were no injuries at least.
I hardly ever comment but I just wanted to say how much I enjoyed learning like this. Apart from the UI challenges on mobile Android (already noted by others), I wish it would cycle between more countries sooner (I kept getting Albania and Myanmar even after getting them right many times).
It looks interesting, but I always struggle to explain (and conversely when on the other side, to understand) the rules of card games to new players. Has anyone had success in bringing a game more complicated than Cards Against Humanity to their friend group? What did you find helpful?
If you're playing with a friend group that has zero experience with card/board games, you need to ease them into the hobby with a game that's quick to explain and get into. If anything takes more than 10 minutes to explain then people generally give up.
I had success getting friends to play games like Codenames, Fauna, Mountains of Madness, and Mysterium. There's a website called BoardGameGeek that gives each game a "weight" rating signifying how complex it is. Anything under 2/5 complexity should be easy enough for anybody.
I've had really good success with Monopoly Deal. Even if you hate regular monopoly (like me), I highly recommend.
Rules are very simple, yet the strategy is deeper. You essentially want to get 3 property sets, but there are all kinds of action cards that allow you to steal properties or sets, negate actions, charge people rent money...etc. Nobody gets upset either as a typical game takes like 10-20 minutes. You can play like 2-6 players iirc.
One of my favourite categories of game is the ones that can be taught in one minute, yet has interesting gameplay. Santorini, Quaridor and Orbito are all this category.
I've taught dozens of people to play Magic, although not in the past 10 years.
First, if at all possible, teach only one person at a time. Teaching multiple people a new game all at once is incredibly difficult for everyone.
Second, they need to understand the basic turn structure or play pattern if the game has one. If you can, print it out and use it as a play-aid.
Third, play several games open-handed with pre-constructed decks. Do not introduce the deckbuilding aspects of the game right away. Make the decks simple and basic. Ideally, create one deck for each "faction" in the game.
In Magic, Wizards made 30-card beginning decks in each of the five colors that were meant for teaching the game. This was 15 years ago or more; I doubt they still do it since Arena exists. They were all common, so nothing complicated. They were like... $10 a set or something. So you'd do the above and play a couple of games with different colors and let the new player find one they like. Then, once they feel experienced and played a game close-handed or with only one of us playing close-handed, I'd ask them which two decks they liked the best, and I'd pick two others. Then we'd each shuffle the two chosen decks together and play again. And watching a person's mind expand into what the game really was during that game was incredibly satisfying. Ideally, at the end, I'd just give them all five decks to keep.
> First, if at all possible, teach only one person at a time. Teaching multiple people a new game all at once is incredibly difficult for everyone.
Interesting observation! I haven't had this experience at all. I've taught lots of board games to people, usually to multiple at once. The thing I find tricky is when you have some people who have played before and they keep interjecting with details that either aren't relevant yet, or I was planning to mention at a better time in the explanation.
I think trading card games are different because everyone is kinda playing a different game. Their hands are all going to vary a lot, so they each get their questions and sticking points in a different order. Games like Magic are harder because you can play on other people's turns, and the game is very very exception-based (cards often break general rules).
Otherwise, yeah I think teaching board games to a group is not that much harder. Or playing card games for that matter.
I think it is a function of building up the concepts.
You might teach someone how to play Hearts which is pretty rules light. But once they understand that, other trick taking games already have a head start.
Another approach is to start with something where the rules are things on the cards so you learn them as you go. Sushi Go would be a good example of something like this and pretty approachable to start out.
Another good suggestion is something like No Thanks! Over time, people start to see that a new game doesn't have to be onerous. Slowly learning concepts like drafting and discards and tricks and whatever, makes it easy to introduce further games because it becomes "This is just like Game X but with new rule Y."
I thought the probe and subsequent responses were interesting insofar as they demonstrate carriers' handling of user location data and Call Detail Records.
This is still the only mobile game I play (besides chess, if that counts). Thanks for creating such a fun piece of software. It's snappy, beautiful, and tastefully done.
I know it goes beyond cell phones, but as someone who agrees with you and has the means and know-how, I find opting out through personal choice impossible. If you don't carry a cell phone, how do your loved ones reach you in an emergency? etc., so the only real way to win is through regulation. And the laws and enforcement won't change anytime soon for the reasons you mention. Super frustrating.
One solution is dumb phones! It's an idea I've been toying with but haven't committed to yet.
I think it could work. You can call, text (probably hard, I remember those swipe-out keyboards) so you should be good in an emergency. But that's it - the rest you do on your desktop, where you have far greater control over the software you use and far less data available (no location, no photos, etc).
The trouble is there's some gaps. If you want decent pictures, you'll need a camera. If you want to do something simple like check your email, it's a whole thing.
I think the trouble spreads further than that. In so many cases mobile phones have become the defacto tool for people that it's functionally impossible to survive without them.
I recently graduated college and by my senior year a lot of college functionality was done over phones (and phones only, no desktop or browser options). This ranged from ordering food at an official campus store, to requesting an advisior meeting or basic administrative functionality (tracking financial aid, filing a course exemption request). Granted, for the last you still could do it via other methods like email or an in person visit, but it was heavily deincentivized. Even the LMS switched to something that was designed as mobile forward.
The other thing I've noticed is that some countries like India effectively run on the phone and a dumb phone doesn't cut it for any business deals or even purchases. It's all done on the phone. You use your phone to order groceries, pay for them, and then track the delivery.
I'm actually flying now and things like TSA digital ID and CBP's MPC make it such a massive QoL difference that I think you'd be hard pressed to find people who'd willing go back.
