Think Forward.

How being a parent, a game designer, and a Dungeon Master in DnD all stem from the same skill: worldbuilding. [re-written] 9856

GiANTS game design, 10 mon.
The role of a parent is to be the architect of the world within which their kids grow in, and inevitably grow out of. At least, that's what the experience of fatherhood has been for me, so far. For some, there is an obvious comparison to be made here with the role of a Dungeon Master (DM) in Dungeons and Dragons (DnD). This is a slippery slope that can quickly lead one to certain delusions, so let's nip that in the bud right now: a DM is not a parental figure to their players, a parent shouldn't attempt to control the fate of their children, and a game designer shouldn't be so obsessed as to turn their kids' life into a game. Let's keep those three things compartmentalized while we identify the root from which these roles all stem. The shared element between a game designer, a DM, and a parent is the skill of worldbuilding. But first, for those unfamiliar with the role of a DM or how DnD works, here is a gross over-simplification: DnD is a tabletop role-playing game where players control characters within a world entirely designed by the DM. The DM enforces the laws and nature of the world, as well as narrates consequences of the players' actions, and might control the actions of Non-Player Characters (NPCs), but poses no action in the story. The Players' characters (PCs) have complete agency over their own actions but cannot change the fundamental laws of the universe. So let's take the scenic route first, and explore worldbuilding as a DM. The flexibility and/or rigidity of a DM's rules in a campaign represent the very fabric of reality within the campaign, shaping the environment for the players. I've read fascinating background stories that DMs keep hidden indefinitely from their players, but are intrinsic parts of the campaign that allow the DM to sculpt a solid fabric of reality for their players to adventure in. For example, in one fascinating story that was shared on Reddit, the entire universe is the fabrication of a dying child's mind while in a coma, in which the main villain, an NPC controlled by the DM, is the incarnation of the child's understanding of death. The villain senses that the universe is begging to collapse and his mission is to prepare the universe for the end. The player characters are each manifestations of the child's mind struggling to prevail against death itself. While the players may never learn this backstory, it serves as a foundation for the DM to consistently enforce or bend the world's rules and limitations. Worldbuilding requires an unwavering belief in the reality you're creating, even if that world is fabricated. If a DM bends the rules - say, resurrecting a player's dead character - it has to mesh well with the rest of the universe they've built, otherwise the whole woven tapestry falls apart. Similarly, parents and game designers can and should apply worldbuilding principles to shape experiences, whether for children or players. As a parent, your worldview influences the environment you create for your kids. I am a person who grew up in an insidiously oppressive environment. I'll spare you the sob story, but I carried this baggage with me for most of my adult life, and eventually I realized that I had two choices: pass on my bleak reality to my kids -or- choose to view the world differently and pass that on instead. One thing that became very clear in that moment though was that ultimately, the worldview I adopt will shape the world my kids inhabit. To make this change, I had to mentally construct a new way of viewing reality - a better one - and believe in it fully. All so that I can authentically and sincerely pass on something truly good and healthy to my children. Anything less would just be a well-crafted lie delivered by a well-trained actor playing the role of a good parent. In other words, "fake it 'till you make it". One of the house rules I constantly repeat to my kids is: "we say what we do and then we do what we say." This is so simple, but it's rooted in neuro-science, human psychology, trust-building, and self-regulation, all of it based on my experience and research on the matter. They don't need to know the complexities of it, just that it works. They must be given just enough information that they can identify a clear and subjectively desirable objective, as well just enough tools to manage themselves towards their objective while navigating their obstacles. Just like you don't play a deckbuilding card game with full unlimited access to all the cards. You gradually unlock more options as you play. And you gradually unlock a deeper understanding of the overall game the more times you play the game, based on your interest in that game. This is true about life as well. For fun, here are some more of those bite-sized rules that I've created for my kids: - "Bad guys make trouble and good guys stop trouble." - Addendum to the previous one, revealed much later: "REALLY good guys make good things happen and REALLY bad guys stop good things from happening." - "The truth brings us together, and lies make us alone. Stay with me in the truth and we'll figure it out together." - "Failure leads to learning, which leads to more ways to have fun." - "Your feelings are like kids in the backseat of your car: listen to them, but don't let them drive." These rules are foundational to the world I'm building for them, but they're completely different from the ones I grew up with. I aim to provide a better reality - one with hope, agency, and a clear path to success. It's fascinating to realize that these rules are indeed almost arbitrary; I've chosen them as part of a world I've constructed, and it all comes down to my faith in my own system. Unlike the harsh environment I knew, my kids will grow up in a world where mistakes are just stepping stones to success. This new reality shapes their future, and allows my old one to fade into memory. I hear you, those with teenagers who don't give a rat's ass about anything and who actively reject everything around them like it's an Olympic sport. I'll admit my kids are still quite young, less than 10 years both of them. But you see, this is what's fun for me; it's a calculated gamble. I'm not here to enforce consequences - reality, the one I've shaped for them, will do that. They can lie, cheat, steal, party, and experiment, or just be lazy all they want, and if my reality is consistent and balanced enough, it will handle the consequences. If my rules are solid and coherent enough, they'll understand what went wrong and how to fix it. My role is simply to be present, help them pick up the pieces, and guide them back on track. Hell, if I'm lucky, maybe they'll even be able to identify nefarious activity from afar, and give it wide berth. Regardless of how they end up handling it, my goal is to watch them build their world on top of mine, as I slowly watch my own world crumble gracefully into memory and sink into the bedrock under generations to come.
GiANTS Game Philosophy GiANTS Game Philosophy

GiANTS Game Philosophy

I've been creating games for my kids for over 7 years, and turning boring workouts into games for clients for 15+ years. On this platform I'll share my observations on the nature of all types of games, to document the mentality behind making genuinely interesting and fun games, all in an attempt to make it more accessible for anyone to make games, for kids or in general.


500

0

Chapter 5: Synthesis- The Consilience of the Framework 43

Satta Abraham, 1 h.
- Philosophy -
3.2 min read.
The evidentiary power and utility of this integrated framework—Orbits, Latticework, Pipeline—lies in its consilience. It weaves breakthroughs from wildly disparate fields into a single, coherent explanatory tapestry, revealing a universal pattern of successful inquiry. From Ballpark to Trading Floor: The narratives of Moneyball and The Big Short are isomorphic: Both begin with a philosophical reframing of value (what makes a baseball player valuable; what is the true risk of a mortgage bond). Both proceed through scientific, data-driven discovery of a massive market inefficiency (OBP vs. price; real default risk vs. AAA ratings). Both culminate in the formulation and execution of a winning model (a roster of undervalued players; a portfolio of credit default swaps). They are the same story, told in different arenas. From Sideline to Boardroom- José Mourinho’s Tactical Objectivity: The strategic success of football manager José Mourinho, particularly in his early career at Porto, Chelsea, and Inter Milan, can be precisely deconstructed through this lens. Lacking a storied playing career, he was unburdened by the sport’s internal, dogmatic "ways of knowing." His Outer Orbit philosophy was defined with stark clarity: winning is the sole aesthetic. His Middle Orbit work became legendary: obsessive, scientific analysis of opponents, involving countless hours of video to identify specific tactical vulnerabilities in individual players and systemic gaps in team shape. His Inner Orbit genius was in formulation: he would design rigorous, often defensively-oriented game models tailored to exploit those precise weaknesses, demanding robotic discipline from his players. His famous 1-0 victories, frequently derided as "anti-football" or "boring," were direct, logical products of pursuing objective victory over subjective aesthetic approval. He demonstrated that objectivity often requires enduring backlash from a consensus invested in a different, more romantic model of the game. From Factory Flow to Protein Fold: Taiichi Ohno’s andon cord and Demis Hassabis’s AlphaFold: Both are profound interventions based on latticework understanding. Ohno designed a human-technological system to make local truth (a defect) instantly global, optimizing a physical manufacturing lattice. Hassabis built a computational system to infer the spatial relationship lattice of amino acids from evolutionary data, optimizing our understanding of the biological lattice. One is mechanical and human, the other digital and abstract, but both are solutions born from seeing a problem as a network of relationships to be modeled and managed. The Contemporary Imperative-The Age of the Synthesist: The historical drift of knowledge since the Enlightenment has been from integration toward fragmentation. The Renaissance ideal of the uomo universale (universal man) gave way to the Industrial Age’s demand for the hyper-specialist. The 20th century perfected the silo. The 21st century, however, presents us with a stark imperative that demands a synthesis, a return to integrated thinking, but now armed with powerful new tools and facing problems of unprecedented scale. Two convergent forces make the orbital, latticework methodology not merely beneficial, but essential for competent navigation of our time. The Nature of Our Tools: Our most powerful analytical engines—Artificial Intelligence (particularly machine learning and large language models) and, on the horizon, Quantum Computing—are inherently cross-orbital and lattice-native. Deploying AI effectively on any complex problem, from drug discovery to climate modeling to ethical dilemma resolution, requires precise philosophical framing (defining objectives, values, and constraints to avoid perverse outcomes), robust and curated scientific data grounding, and exquisite mathematical formulation of the model architecture and training paradigm. These tools fail, often catastrophically and insidiously, with fragmented, siloed, or philosophically unexamined input. They demand, and therefore will select for, synthesist thinkers who can navigate all three orbits and think in terms of interconnected systems. The Nature of Our Challenges: The existential problems that define our epoch are quintessential latticework challenges. They cannot be contained within academic departments or government agencies. They are not "physics problems" or "economics problems." They are system problems. The specialized intellect, trained to dig ever deeper into a single vertical silo, is architecturally unequipped to even properly define them, let alone solve them. These challenges demand minds capable of orbital thinking across the lattice, minds that can hold multiple models, trace second- and third-order consequences, and formulate strategies that are robust across multiple domains of reality. Objectivity as the Foundational Operating System. The pursuit of objective truth is not a passive state of receiving revealed wisdom. It is an active, disciplined, and often confrontational chase. It requires the moral courage to question foundational premises in the Outer Orbit, the intellectual rigor to map reality without favor or illusion in the Middle Orbit, and the creative potency to formally synthesize understanding in the Inner Orbit. It demands that we see the world not as a collection of unrelated events, but as a vast, dynamic lattice of interlocking causes and effects. And it is best navigated with the structured, self-correcting protocol of the Objectivity Pipeline. This framework proposes objectivity not as the cold, emotionless province of a narrow scientism, but as a universal operating system for understanding, a scalable, rigorous, and ultimately humane methodology applicable with equal force to the equations of a physicist, the ethical calculus of a jurist, the investment thesis of a historian, the innovation of an engineer, and the strategy of a state. Subjectivity is the fog of un-modeled complexity. The Orbits Model, the Latticework Theory, and the Objectivity Pipeline constitute the navigation system—the charts, the compass, and the piloting protocol. In an epoch defined by overwhelming information, pervasive misinformation, and tools of god-like power whose misuse carries existential risk, mastering this chase is no longer an intellectual luxury or a philosophical pastime. It is the essential meta-skill, the foundational logic upon which reliable judgment, effective action, and meaningful progress depend. The choice before us is not between a subjective world and an objective one, but between wandering in the fog and building a lighthouse. The architecture for the lighthouse is here. The materials are the disciplines of thought we have inherited and refined. The builders must now be us.

Chapter 4: The Objectivity Pipeline- A Sequential Protocol for Execution 53

Satta Abraham, 2 h.
A theoretical framework, no matter how elegant, remains an intellectual curiosity unless it can be translated into a practical, repeatable protocol. The Orbits Model and the Latticework Theory converge into a disciplined, sequential, and recursive process I call ‘The Objectivity Pipeline’. This seven-stage pipeline provides the operational scaffolding to move from a nebulous, subjective problem to an objective, actionable solution. Define: Articulate the core problem, obstacle, or Wildly Important Goal (WIG) with surgical, unambiguous precision. Vague, multifaceted, or emotionally charged aims guarantee vague, conflicted outcomes. This is a pure Outer Orbit activity. Identify Variables: Catalog the key agents, forces, constraints, and measurable factors involved in the system. Move into the Middle Orbit. What are the inputs, outputs, and actors? Distinguish between independent variables (potential levers) and dependent variables (outcomes). Map Relationships: Diagram the causal, correlational, inhibitory, and influential links between the identified variables. This is the cartography of the latticework. Tools include causal loop diagrams, systems maps, influence diagrams, and process flows. The goal is to visualize the system's structure, revealing feedback loops, bottlenecks, and leverage points. Model: Construct a formal representation of the mapped system. This is the decisive leap to the Inner Orbit. The model can take many forms: a set of statistical equations, a system of differential equations, an agent-based computer simulation, a Bayesian network, or even a rigorously structured qualitative framework. The model is a simplified but functional analogue of reality, designed for manipulation and testing. Simulate: Run the model. Conduct experiments in silico. Test scenarios, stress-test assumptions under extreme conditions, and observe the range of potential outcomes the system logic produces. This stage provides a safe, low-cost environment for failure and learning before committing real-world resources. Verify: Return to the Middle Orbit. Collect new, out-of-sample empirical data—data not used to build the model—and check the model’s predictions against this observed reality. Does the world behave as the model forecasts? If not, the error is not in "reality"; it lies in an earlier stage of the pipeline. The process must recursively return to Definition, Variable Identification, Relationship Mapping, or Model Formulation for correction. Optimize: With a reasonably verified model, adjust the controllable variables within it to find the most efficient, effective, or robust path to achieve the goal defined in Stage 1. This is the stage of generating prescriptions and strategies. The Four Disciplines of Execution (4DX): The corporate strategy framework developed by McChesney, Covey, and Huling (The 4 Disciplines of Execution, 2012) is a streamlined, commercialized instantiation of the Objectivity Pipeline, designed for team-level implementation. Define: Focus on the Wildly Important Goal (WIG)—no more than one or two overwhelming priorities. Identify Variables: Differentiate between Lag Measures (the ultimate outcome metrics, like revenue or customer satisfaction) and Lead Measures (the predictive, influenceable activities that drive the lag measures, like sales calls or quality checks). Map Relationships: Create a Compelling Scoreboard that is simple, public, and visually maps, in real-time, the relationship between lead measure activity and progress toward the WIG. Model & Cadence: Establish a recurring Cadence of Accountability, a short, rhythmic meeting (e.g., weekly) where team members report on commitments, review the scoreboard, and plan new commitments. This cadence functions as a live, human-powered simulation, verification, and optimization loop, embodying stages 5-7 of the pipeline in a behavioral rhythm. The Lucas Paradox and the Anatomy of Perceived Risk: The Lucas Paradox, introduced by Nobel Prize winning economist Robert Lucas in 1990, refers to the persistent empirical observation that capital does not flow from capital-rich countries to capital-poor countries at the scale predicted by neoclassical growth theory, despite higher marginal returns to capital in poorer economies. This phenomenon is not a failure of investor rationality, nor is it primarily a behavioral anomaly. It is a failure of overly narrow models of risk and return. In its simplest form, the canonical model assumes that capital responds to differences in marginal productivity adjusted for measurable risk. Under those assumptions, capital should flow aggressively toward emerging and frontier markets. It does not. The paradox arises because the model omits structural variables that dominate realized outcomes in cross-border investment. The conventional framing treats the problem as one of portfolio optimization under uncertainty, focusing on variables such as growth rates, inflation, fiscal balance, political stability indices, and currency volatility. These variables are necessary but insufficient. Empirical research following Lucas has repeatedly shown that capital flows are far more sensitive to institutional quality, property rights enforcement, legal predictability, capital controls, sovereign credibility, and the risk of expropriation than to marginal productivity alone. Once these variables are incorporated, much of the paradox dissolves. A latticework-consistent approach does not redefine the problem as “exploiting irrational fear.” It reframes it as identifying structural wedges between theoretical returns and realizable returns. The relevant distinction is not between perceived and actual risk in a behavioral sense, but between modeled risk and true system risk, much of which is institutional, legal, and political rather than financial. A pipeline-compliant analysis therefore proceeds differently. It defines the problem as understanding why expected returns fail to materialize when capital is deployed across jurisdictions. It expands the variable set to include enforceability of contracts, durability of political coalitions, susceptibility to policy reversal, credibility of monetary and fiscal regimes, depth of domestic financial markets, and exposure to global liquidity cycles. It models the interaction between these variables, recognizing that risk is not additive but multiplicative. Weak institutions amplify shocks, truncate upside, and skew return distributions through tail events rather than through mean variance alone. Failing to be conscientious in pursuing objectivity using pipeline steps can have severe consequences at a global level making it an approach valid for consideration and study.

The Radiance of a Lady 54

Boucharfou, 2 h.
- Lifestyle - Poetry - Romance -
0.4 min read.
​Your love illuminates my heart, And you have forbidden me to reveal this honor. How can the light of your brilliance be dimmed When it radiates from everywhere? It shines like a sapphire, a diamond, or a jewel, And dazzles everyone with your blonde beauty. You do not believe in my love, In turn, While I can love no one else but you; This is my destiny, this is my faith. You are my heart and my soul, You are my destiny, you are my law. I cannot bear it when you are far away, beautiful woman, You who soothe my heart in flames. In you, I find all my vows, You who make my days happy. ​Dr. Fouad Bouchareb Inspired by an Andalusian music piece, "Bassit Ibahane" December 13, 2025 https://youtu.be/wlvhOVGyLek?si=5tt6cm0oChF1NQJJ

Chapter 3: The Latticework Theory- Reality as an Interdependent, Multi-Layered System 232

Satta Abraham, 22 h.
- Philosophy -
2.5 min read.
The conceptual framework commonly referred to as “Latticework Theory” integrates formal ontological analysis with applied epistemic reasoning. Willard Van Orman Quine’s analytic ontology, as outlined in "On What There Is" (1948), establishes rigorous criteria for identifying entities, categories, and relations within complex systems, providing a foundation for understanding which elements and interactions are structurally significant. Charlie Munger’s notion of a “latticework of mental models,” as articulated in his speeches and compiled in "Poor Charlie's Almanack" (2005), complements this by advocating for the disciplined integration of knowledge across domains to improve strategic decision-making under uncertainty. Together, these perspectives underpin a framework in which authority, information, and incentives propagate across layers of agents and institutions, producing outcomes that cannot be inferred from the isolated properties of components. Deviations at any node can be corrected when feedback is accurate, timely, and actionable. Failures occur when feedback is impaired, misaligned, or ignored. This framework provides a lens for analyzing industrial operations, national governance, financial systems, and technological risk in a unified, empirically grounded manner. The Toyota Production System (TPS), developed by Taiichi Ohno and detailed in "Toyota Production System: Beyond Large-Scale Production" (1988), exemplifies this framework at the operational level. TPS integrates authority, information, and incentives to align local actions with system-level objectives. The andon system, which allowed assembly line workers to halt production upon detecting defects, transmitted local observations directly to organizational decision nodes, enabling immediate corrective action. Empirical analyses, including studies of manufacturing efficiency, demonstrate that this configuration reduced defect propagation, accelerated problem resolution, and increased overall reliability compared to designs that optimized individual workstations independently. For instance, companies implementing TPS principles have reported defect rate decreases of around 60 percent, reflecting the structural alignment of authority, information, and incentives rather than isolated interventions. Singapore under Lee Kuan Yew illustrates the same principle at the national level. Between 1965 and 2020, per-capita GDP rose from approximately $517 to $61,467 in current U.S. dollars. By 2020, public housing coverage reached approximately 78.7% of resident households. Scholarly analyses attribute these outcomes to a central coordinating constraint: administrative meritocracy combined with credible enforcement. Recruitment and promotion emphasized competence and performance, anti-corruption measures ensured policy credibility, and social and industrial policies aligned skill formation, investment, and housing. These mechanisms were mutually reinforcing, producing system-level outcomes that cannot be explained by any single policy instrument but rather by ontological reasoning. Financial markets and strategic advisory practice demonstrate analogous dynamics. Many successful hedge fund managers and macro investors, such as George Soros (who studied philosophy with a strong historical focus) and Ray Dalio (who emphasizes historical pattern recognition in his investment principles), draw on deep historical expertise. Studies and industry insights highlight the value of humanities backgrounds in finance, with hedge funds actively recruiting liberal arts graduates for their ability to provide broader contextual understanding. This expertise enables pattern recognition across interacting variables, resource constraints, institutional incentives, technological change, political legitimacy, leadership behavior, and stochastic shocks, while facilitating analogical judgment about systemic regimes. George Soros’s concept of reflexivity formalizes the empirical reality that market prices and participant beliefs mutually influence one another. In feedback-dominated systems, quantitative models fail unless interpreted in historical and structural context. Historical insight therefore provides an advantage in long-horizon investing, geopolitical risk assessment, and capital allocation, as evidenced by the track records of such practitioners. The Boeing 737 MAX incidents of 2018 and 2019 provide a negative case that clarifies the ontology’s conditions. Investigations revealed that the MCAS system relied on single-sensor inputs, information about its behavior and failure modes was inconsistently communicated to operators, and engineering authority was constrained by commercial and schedule pressures. Incentives prioritized rapid certification and cost containment over systemic reliability. Local anomalies propagated to produce two hull-loss accidents with 346 fatalities. Analysis demonstrates that robust interconnection alone is insufficient. Outcomes depend on the alignment of authority, accurate information, and incentive structures that empower corrective action. Across manufacturing, national governance, finance, and technology, the same structural principle emerges: effective outcomes require the alignment of authority, information, and incentives, with feedback channels possessing sufficient fidelity and remedial capacity. Misalignment in any dimension produces fragility and amplifies errors. The Orbits Model operates within this substrate, with inner orbits requiring empirical validation and outer orbits constrained by systemic coherence. Empirical evaluation relies on archival records, institutional data, and observable system outcomes, providing a unified framework for analyzing complex adaptive systems. The Latticework framework thus integrates ontology, applied epistemics, and structural empirics, combining theoretical rigor with practical observation across domains.