#simulating failures in distributed systems

[examsuccesslab]

CompTIA 220-1201 Exam Questions – Ultimate A+ Core 1 V15 Guide

The CompTIA 220-1201 exam, officially known as CompTIA A+ Core 1 (V15), is a foundational certification exam for anyone pursuing a career in IT support, help desk, or technical operations. This exam validates essential skills related to hardware, networking, mobile devices, virtualization, and troubleshooting, making it one of the most in-demand entry-level IT certifications worldwide.

In this guide, you’ll learn everything you need to know about CompTIA 220-1201 exam questions, including exam structure, question types, practice tests, performance-based questions (PBQs), and the most effective preparation strategy.

CompTIA A+ 220-1201 (V15) Exam Overview

The CompTIA A+ certification consists of two exams that must both be passed to earn the credential:

220-1201 (Core 1)

220-1202 (Core 2)

Both exams were launched in March 2025 and are expected to retire approximately three years after release.

220-1201 Exam Details:

Vendor: CompTIA

Exam Code: 220-1201

Exam Name: CompTIA A+ Certification Exam: Core 1

Exam Version: V15

Number of Questions: Up to 90

Time Limit: 90 minutes

Format: Computer-based test

Result Availability: Immediately after exam completion

Last Updated: January 03, 2026

What Are CompTIA 220-1201 Exam Questions Like?

CompTIA 220-1201 exam questions are designed to assess both knowledge and real-world technical ability. The exam does not rely on memorization alone—it focuses heavily on applied skills.

You can expect:

Multiple-choice questions (single and multiple response)

Scenario-based questions

Performance-Based Questions (PBQs) that simulate real IT tasks

PBQs often appear at the beginning of the exam and test your ability to configure systems, troubleshoot problems, and make correct technical decisions in simulated environments.

Key Domains Covered in 220-1201 Exam Questions

The Core 1 exam questions are distributed across five main domains:

1. Mobile Devices

Includes laptops, smartphones, tablets, accessories, ports, cables, and mobile device connectivity.

2. Networking

Covers IP addressing, common TCP and UDP ports, network components, wireless standards, protocols, and basic network troubleshooting.

3. Hardware

Focuses on PC components, CPUs, storage devices, RAID configurations, printers, motherboards, and internal connectors.

4. Virtualization and Cloud Computing

Tests understanding of cloud service models, virtualization concepts, and virtual machines.

5. Hardware and Network Troubleshooting

Requires logical troubleshooting of printers, hardware failures, and network connectivity issues.

Why Practice CompTIA 220-1201 Exam Questions Is Critical

Practicing updated CompTIA 220-1201 exam questions is one of the most effective ways to prepare for the exam. High-quality practice materials help candidates:

Understand real exam wording and difficulty

Improve speed and time management

Identify weak knowledge areas

Build confidence before test day

Many platforms provide 1,000+ practice questions, allowing candidates to study in test mode or study mode and create custom exams based on specific objectives.

CompTIA A+ 220-1201 (V15) Study Materials

A well-rounded preparation plan includes multiple learning tools:

Practice Tests

Full-length practice exams simulate the real test environment and reinforce exam readiness.

Practice Questions

Study-mode questions allow flexible learning, enabling candidates to focus on one topic at a time.

Flashcards

Flashcards are ideal for memorizing:

CompTIA A+ acronyms

Common TCP and UDP ports

IP addressing concepts

Wireless technology types

Peripheral ports and cables

These tools improve retention and speed during the exam.

Performance-Based Questions (PBQs) Explained

PBQs are one of the most challenging parts of the 220-1201 exam. These questions test real-world skills such as:

Smartphone email configuration (SMTP, POP, IMAP)

Public WLAN network setup

Printer troubleshooting

Identifying networking connectors and motherboard components

Designing desktop and workstation configurations

Hands-on PBQ practice is essential for success.

Final Thoughts

The CompTIA 220-1201 exam questions are designed to ensure candidates are ready for real-world IT support roles. With updated V15 objectives, performance-based testing, and a strong focus on hands-on skills, this exam sets a solid foundation for an IT career.

By using comprehensive study materials, practicing realistic exam questions, and mastering PBQs, candidates can confidently pass the CompTIA A+ Core 1 (220-1201) exam and take a major step toward long-term success in the IT industry.

[altaqwaelectric]

From Design to Deployment: How Switchgear Systems Are Built

In the modern world of electrical engineering, switchgear systems play a critical role in ensuring the safe distribution and control of electrical power. From substations and factories to commercial buildings and critical infrastructure, switchgear is the silent guardian that protects equipment, ensures safety, and minimizes power failures.

But have you ever wondered what goes on behind the scenes, from the idea to the actual installation? Let’s dive into the full journey — from design to deployment — of how a switchgear system is built.

Step 1: Requirement Analysis and Load Study

Every switchgear project begins with requirement analysis. This includes:

Understanding the electrical load requirements

Calculating voltage levels, short-circuit ratings, and operating current

Identifying environmental conditions: indoor, outdoor, temperature, humidity

Reviewing applicable industry standards like IEC, ANSI, or DEWA regulations (especially in UAE)

This stage helps engineers determine whether the project needs low voltage (LV), medium voltage (MV), or high voltage (HV) switchgear.

Step 2: Conceptual Design & Engineering

Once the requirements are clear, the conceptual design begins.

Selection of switchgear type (air insulated, gas insulated, metal-enclosed, metal-clad, etc.)

Deciding on protection devices: MCCBs, ACBs, relays, CTs, VTs, and fuses

Creating single-line diagrams (SLDs) and layout drawings

Choosing the busbar material (copper or aluminum), insulation type, and earthing arrangements

Software like AutoCAD, EPLAN, and ETAP are commonly used for precise engineering drawings and simulations.

Step 3: Manufacturing & Fabrication

This is where the physical structure comes to life.

Sheet metal is cut, punched, and bent to form the panel enclosures

Powder coating or galvanizing is done for corrosion protection

Assembly of circuit breakers, contactors, protection relays, meters, etc.

Internal wiring is installed according to the schematic

Every switchgear panel is built with precision and must undergo quality control checks at each stage.

Step 4: Factory Testing (FAT)

Before deployment, every switchgear unit undergoes Factory Acceptance Testing (FAT) to ensure it meets technical and safety standards.

Typical FAT includes:

High-voltage insulation testing

Continuity and phase sequence testing

Functionality check of all protection relays and interlocks

Mechanical operations of breakers and switches

Thermal imaging to detect hotspots

Only after passing FAT, the switchgear is cleared for shipping.

Step 5: Transportation & Site Installation

Transportation must be handled with care to avoid damage to components. At the site:

Panels are unloaded and moved to their final location

Cabling and bus duct connections are established

Earthing systems are connected

Environmental sealing is done if installed outdoors or in dusty environments

Step 6: Commissioning & Site Acceptance Testing (SAT)

This final stage ensures the switchgear is ready for live operation.

Final checks and Site Acceptance Tests (SAT) are performed

System integration is tested with other components like transformers, UPS, and generators

Load tests and trial runs are conducted

Commissioning report is generated, and documentation is handed over to the client

Conclusion

From idea to execution, the journey of building a switchgear system is highly technical, safety-driven, and precision-based. Whether you’re in power generation, industrial automation, or commercial construction, understanding this process ensures you choose the right system for your needs.

[monarchinnovation]

5 Types of Technical Drawings You Must Know

What is Technical Drawing?

Ever looked at a building and wondered how it came to life from paper to a real structure? That’s the magic of technical drawing — a precise, visual language used to communicate design intent, structure, and specifications of everything from buildings to mechanical components.

Importance of Technical Drawing in Modern Industries

Whether you’re into architecture, engineering, manufacturing, or construction, types of technical drawing is the foundation. They eliminate ambiguity and serve as a universal guide that ensures every bolt, beam, or brick fits perfectly.

1. Architectural Drawings

Overview of Architectural Drawings

These are the blueprints of creativity. Architectural drawings translate imaginative concepts into practical realities for builders and stakeholders.

Floor Plans

A top-down view of any structure, showing wall layouts, room sizes, and door/window placements.

Elevations

These depict the front, side, and rear views — showing how the building will look from different angles.

Sections

Cut-through views that show internal components, like ceiling heights, floor levels, and hidden elements.

Why It’s Essential in Building Design & Drawing

Architectural drawings provide a complete visual breakdown of how a building should be constructed, ensuring safety, function, and aesthetics are aligned.

2. Engineering Drawings

What Makes Engineering Drawings Unique?

While architecture focuses on form and space, engineering drawings dive deep into function and technical precision.

Mechanical Drawings

Showcase machine parts, assemblies, materials, and dimensions — down to the last bolt.

Electrical Schematics

Highlight wiring, circuits, and power flow, ensuring everything lights up and runs as it should.

Civil Engineering Blueprints

Used for roads, bridges, drainage systems, and more. These often include contour lines, cross-sections, and grading details.

How Engineers Use These for Precision and Safety

Engineers rely on these drawings for accurate measurements and reliable designs, avoiding catastrophic design failures.

3. Structural Drawings

Understanding Structural Load & Design

Think of this as the skeleton of any project. Structural drawings ensure that a building stands tall and strong, regardless of environmental challenges.

Reinforcement Details

Details on where and how much steel rebar goes into concrete slabs, beams, and columns.

Foundation and Column Layouts

These ensure load distribution is even and safe, especially in multi-story buildings.

Key Role in Building Design & Drawing Accuracy

Without proper structural drawings, even the most beautiful building design could crumble like a house of cards.

4. Piping and Instrumentation Diagrams (P&ID)

What is a P&ID Drawing?

These are life support systems for plants and industries. P&IDs show how pipelines, valves, tanks, and instruments connect in a process system.

Valve Symbols, Flow Lines & Instrument Tags

Each element is represented by a unique symbol or code, making it easy to understand even complex processes.

Applications in Plant and Process Design

Used extensively in chemical plants, oil refineries, HVAC systems, and water treatment facilities.

5. CAD (Computer-Aided Design) Drawings

Evolution from Manual Drafting to CAD

Gone are the days of drafting tables and T-squares. Today, CAD software brings designs to life faster, more accurately, and in 3D.

2D vs 3D CAD

2D CAD is ideal for flat, simple layouts like floor plans.

3D CAD allows for realistic visualization, essential for mechanical assemblies and building walkthroughs.

How CAD is Revolutionizing Building Design & Drawing

With features like real-time editing, layering, and simulation, CAD has become the backbone of modern design and drafting.

Choosing the Right Type of Technical Drawing

Based on Industry Use-Cases

Architects go for floor plans and elevations.

Mechanical engineers need section views and assembly drawings.

Civil engineers rely on site and structural layouts.

Role of Project Scope and Objectives

The type of drawing depends on the end goal — whether it’s visualising a concept, instructing construction teams, or submitting permits.

Software Used in Technical Drawings

AutoCAD, SolidWorks, Revit & More

Each type of technical drawing has its own preferred tools:

AutoCAD – Universal for 2D/3D drafting

SolidWorks – Mechanical design

Revit – BIM and architectural modeling

SketchUp – Conceptual 3D modeling

Industry Preferences for Building Design & Drawing

Most architecture firms and civil companies prefer Revit or AutoCAD, while manufacturing teams lean on SolidWorks or CATIA.

Best Practices in Creating Technical Drawings

Accuracy and Detailing

A small error can lead to a big mess. Ensure units, scales, and dimensions are precise.

Use of Standards and Symbols

Follow global standards like ISO, ANSI, or BIS to maintain consistency across drawings.

Future of Technical Drawing

BIM Integration

Building Information Modelling (BIM) is a combination of architecture, structure, and services into a single collaborative platform.

AI-Assisted Drafting Tools

AI can now suggest corrections, detect clashes, and automate repetitive tasks, making technical drawing smarter and faster.

Conclusion

Technical drawings are more than just lines on paper — they are the visual DNA of every successful project. Whether you’re designing a skyscraper, assembling a machine, or planning a chemical plant, understanding the types of technical drawing is essential for clarity, precision, and collaboration.

No matter your industry, mastering these drawings helps turn visions into reality — one line, symbol, and annotation at a time.

[eccentric-nucleus]

i played some 'tavern master' and it really makes me think about how the vast majority of 'sim' games are just logistics simulators. this is a game about how to structure your tavern throughput to get your waitresses to efficiently take orders & bus tables. it's entirely about 'last mile' distribution of beverages and food. this makes how it totally doesn't care about anything before the last mile. click on a barrel and click 'refill' to instantly refill a barrel at any time. ditto with food supplies. but maybe the devs don't realize the game is all about waitress logistics because there's not actually any way to assign them to specific zones

when i was playing per aspera it was likewise very funny that a game all about constructing mines on mars didn't have any kind of dedicated shipment infrastructure. sorry, you can't make a train. it all has to be ad-hoc rover drone networks. you can make a 'hyperloop', though.

the source of the humor here is that... in real life so much of everything is logistics. empires have risen and fallen based on their ability to move things around. moving things from place to place is like 80% of all economic activity. i mean, i guess nearly 100% if you factor in how you can't really do anything with anything unless you have it, physically. video games are traditionally not very good at logistics mechanics unless they really wanna commit and be A Game About Logistics Management, because there's not really a lot of ways to high-fantasy up grain transport or w/e. (and the games that are all about logistics, like, transport tycoon or w/e, are usually still using very gamified mechanics like "you get paid more the quicker your deliveries are", which maybe makes sense for like, produce, but less sense for like, iron ore)

this was also kinda a big issue with uhhh endzone. that was a game where it was very easy for your logistics systems to collapse under their own weight. it's a very common failure mode in a lot of games: you get some bottleneck that doesn't get resolved and you don't realize until your entire manufacturing web collapses, and that's partially player error but also partially the game maybe not fully realizing how critical logistics management is to the game & giving the player tools to control that with the necessary fidelity over large systems

[blubberquark]

Excel, Word, Access, Outlook

Previously on computer literacy: A Test For Computer Literacy

If you’re a computer programmer, you sometimes hear other programmers complain about Excel, because it mixes data and code, or about Word, because it mixes text and formatting, and nobody ever uses Word and Excel properly.

If you’re a computer programmer, you frequently hear UX experts praise the way Excel allows non-programmers to write whole applications without help from the IT department. Excel is a great tool for normal people and power users, I often hear.

I have never seen anybody who wasn’t already versed in a real programming language write a complex application in an Excel spreadsheet. I have never seen anybody who was not a programmer or trained in Excel fill in a spreadsheet and send it back correctly.

Computer programmers complain about the inaccessibility of Excel, the lack of discoverability, the mixing of code and data in documents that makes versioning applications a proper nightmare, the influence of the cell structure on code structure, and the destructive automatic casting of cell data into datatypes.

UX experts praise Excel for giving power to non-programmers, but I never met a non-programmer who used Excel “properly”, never mind developed an application in it. I met non-programmers who used SPSS, Mathematica, or Matlab properly a handful of times, but even these people are getting rarer and rarer in the age of Julia, NumPy, SymPy, Octave, and R. Myself, I have actually had to learn how to use Excel in school, in seventh grade. I suspect that half of the “basic computer usage” curriculum was the result of a lobbying campaign by Microsoft’s German branch, because we had to learn about certain features in Word, Excel, and PowerPoint on Windows 95, and non-Microsoft applications were conspicuously absent.

Visual Basic and VBS seemed like a natural choice to give power to end users in the 90s. People who had already used a home computer during the 8-bit/16-bit era (or even an IBM-compatible PC) were familiar with BASIC because that was how end-users were originally supposed to interact with their computers. BASIC was for end users, and machine code/compiled languages were for “real programmers” - BASIC was documented in the manual that came with your home computer, machine code was documented in MOS data sheets. From today’s point of view, programming in BASIC is real programming. Calling Visual Basic or .Net scripting in Excel “not programming“ misrepresents what modern programmers do, and what GUI users have come to expect after the year 2000.

Excel is not very intuitive or beginner-friendly. The “basic computer usage” curriculum was scrapped shortly after I took it, so I had many opportunities to observe people who were two years younger than me try to use Excel by experimenting with the GUI alone.

The same goes fro Microsoft Word. A friend of mine insists that nobody ever uses Word properly, because Word can do ligatures and good typesetting now, as well as footnotes, chapters, outline note taking, and so on. You just need to configure it right. If people used Word properly, they wouldn’t need LaTeX or Markdown. That friend is already a programmer. All the people I know who use Word use WYSIWYG text styling, fonts, alignment, tables, that sort of thing. In order to use Word “properly“, you’d have to use footnotes, chapter marks, and style sheets. The most “power user” thing I have ever seen an end user do was when my father bought a CD in 1995 with 300 Word templates for all sorts of occasions - birthday party invitation, employee of the month certificate, marathon completion certificate, time table, cooking recipe, invoice, cover letter - to fill in and print out.

Unlike Excel, nobody even claims that non-programmer end users do great things in Word. Word is almost never the right program when you have email, calendars, wikis, to-do lists/Kanban/note taking, DTP, vector graphics, mind mapping/outline editors, programmer’s plain text editors, dedicated novelist/screenwriting software, and typesetting/document preparation systems like LaTeX. Nobody disputes that plain text, a wiki, or a virtual Kanban board is often preferable to a .doc or .docx file in a shared folder. Word is still ubiquitous, but so are browsers.

Word is not seen as a liberating tool that enables end-user computing, but as a program you need to have but rarely use, except when you write a letter you have to print out, or when you need to collaborate with people who insist on e-mailing documents back and forth.

I never met an end user who actually liked Outlook enough to use it for personal correspondence. It was always mandated by an institution or an employer, maintained by an IT department, and they either provided training or assumed you already had had training. Outlook has all these features, but neither IT departments nor end users seemed to like them. Outlook is top-down mandated legibility and uniformity.

Lastly, there is Microsoft Access. Sometimes people confused Excel and Access because both have tables, so at some point Microsoft caved in and made Excel understand SQL queries, but Excel is still not a database. Access is a database product, designed to compete with products like dBase, Cornerstone, and FileMaker. It has an integrated editor for the database schema and a GUI builder to create forms and reports. It is not a networked database, but it can be used to run SQL queries on a local database, and multiple users can open the same database file if it is on a shared SMB folder. It is not something you can pick up on one afternoon to code your company’s billing and invoicing system. You could probably use it to catalogue your Funko-Pop collection, or to keep track of the inventory, lending and book returns of a municipal library, as long as the database is only kept on one computer. As soon as you want to manage a mobile library or multiple branches, you would have to ditch Access for a real SQL RDBMS.

Microsoft Access was marketed as a tool for end-user computing, but nobody really believed it. To me, Access was SQL with training wheels in computer science class, before we graduated to MySQL and then later to Postgres and DB2. UX experts never tout Access as a big success story in end-user computing - yet they do so for Excel.

The narrative around Excel is quite different from the narrative around Yahoo Pipes, IFTTT, AppleScript, HyperCard, Processing, or LabView. The narrative goes like this: “Excel empowers users in big, bureaucratic organisations, and allows them to write limited applications to solve business problems, and share them with co-workers.”

Excel is not a good tool for finance, simulations, genetics, or psychology research, but it is most likely installed on every PC in your organisation already. You’re not allowed to share .exe files, but you are allowed to share spreadsheets. Excel is an exchange format for applications. Excel files are not centrally controlled, like Outlook servers or ERP systems, and they are not legible to management. Excel is ubiquitous. Excel is a ubiquitous runtime and development environment that allows end-users to create small applications to perform simple calculations for their jobs.

Excel is a tool for office workers to write applications to calculate things, but not without programming, but without involving the IT department. The IT department would like all forms to be running on some central platform, all data to be in the data warehouse/OLAP platform/ERP system - not because they want to make the data legible and accessible, but because they want to minimise the number of business-critical machines and points of failure, because important applications should either run on servers in a server rack, or be distributed to workstations by IT.

Management wants all knowledge to be formalised so the next guy can pick up where you left off when you quit. For this reason, wikis, slack, tickets and kanban boards are preferable to Word documents in shared folders. The IT department calls end-user computing “rogue servers“ or “shadow IT“. They want all IT to have version control, unit tests, backups, monitoring, and a handbook. Accounting/controlling thinks end-user computing is a compliance nightmare. They want all software to be documented, secured, and budgeted for. Upper management wants all IT to be run by the IT department, and all information integrated into their reporting solution that generates these colourful graphs. Middle management wants their people to get some work done.

Somebody somewhere in the C-suite is always viewing IT as a cost centre, trying to fire IT people and to scale down the server room. This looks great on paper, because the savings in servers, admins, and tech support are externalised to other departments in the form of increased paperwork, time wasted on help hotlines, and

Excel is dominating end-user computing because of social reasons and workplace politics. Excel is not dominating end-user computing because it is actually easy to pick up for end-users.

Excel is dominating end-user computing neither because it is actually easy to pick up for non-programmers nor easy to use for end-users.

This is rather obvious to all the people who teach human-computer interaction at universities, to the people who write books about usability, and the people who work in IT departments. Maybe it is not quite as obvious to people who use Excel. Excel is not easy to use. It’s not obvious when you read a book on human-computer interaction (HCI), industrial design, or user experience (UX). Excel is always used as the go-to example of end-user computing, an example of a tool that “empowers users”. If you read between the lines, you know that the experts know that Excel is not actually a good role model you should try to emulate.

Excel is often called a “no code“ tool to make “small applications“, but that is also not true. “No Code” tools usually require users to write code, but they use point-and-click, drag-and-drop, natural language programming, or connecting boxes by drawing lines to avoid the syntax of programming languages. Excel avoids complex syntax by breaking everything up into small cells. Excel avoids iteration or recursion by letting users copy-paste formulas into cells and filling formulas in adjacent cells automatically. Excel does not have a debugger, but shows you intermediate results by showing the numbers/values in the cells by default, and the code in the cells only if you click.

All this makes Excel more like GameMaker or ClickTeam Fusion than like Twine. Excel is a tool that doesn’t scare users away with text editors, but that’s not why people use it. It that were the reason, we would be writing business tools and productivity software in GameMaker.

The next time you read or hear about the amazing usability of Excel, take it with a grain of salt! It’s just barely usable enough.

[bltngames]

Review: Hotshot Racing

(For this review, Hotshot Racing was played on the Nintendo Switch and the Personal Computer)

If you were to ask me what the most important features of a racing game are, somewhere near the top of the list would be artificial intelligence. Racing games are one of those genres, like fighting games or shooters, where simulating how real human people play the game is vital to the experience. They are inherently multiplayer concepts, even if you’re playing by yourself.

Focus on multiplayer artificial intelligence has waned over the last 15 years. With the rise of the premium multiplayer subscription, it’s more important than ever before to drive players to play matches with flesh-and-blood human beings online. Thus, advancements in “bot” (simulated human player) development hasn’t just slowed down, but in some cases actively regressed. Epic Games, once home to some of the smartest, most robust first person shooter bots in Unreal Tournament, now features bots in their popular Fortnite Battle Royale that fumble around the map with low attention spans and aim like they're blindfolded.

Humans are hard to simulate. The basic functions of a player are easy to emulate -- navigation, aiming, and so on, but it’s the organic logic underneath that proves to be the primary challenge. Humans have lapses in judgement. Humans make mistakes. Mistakes compound on other mistakes. A person wins or loses a given game because of a constantly cascading sequence of decisions, all feeding in to and out of themselves. Whether they realize it or not, every individual person is their own infinite web of chaos. For a computer, which operates in a binary of either perfect success or total failure, no amount of processing power can make for an accurate duplication.

As such, artificial intelligence has to “cheat.” Flaws are introduced into the simulation in order to throw the player a bone. Intelligence almost doesn’t even enter the equation; instead, it’s more about developing a bot that the player simply believes is human, like some kind of a magic trick. It’s a tight balancing act -- if the bot is too good, it looks like an unfeeling terminator. On the opposite, well… compare my Fortnite example up above. There’s a sweet spot that must be hit: smart, but not too smart. Dumb, but not too dumb. It’s easier said than done.

Racing games are a special category here. On top of simulating a human, they must also simulate an automobile, with all of its physical interactions. Tire friction, suspension bounce, weight distribution, and horsepower efficiency just to start. I’d argue that this lends to a much greater tendency for natural mistakes to occur, as the two different simulations (vehicle and player) interact and bounce off of each other. This has led to racing games relying on a handicap known as “rubberbanding.” Essentially, if the player is doing a little too well, the game will start giving tiny advantages to the computer-controlled racer. A boost to top speed, a reduction in weight to improve handling, whatever it takes to ensure the player does not remain unchallenged for very long.

Which finally, at long last, brings us to Hotshot Racing. Developed by Lucky Mountain Games, with assistance by Sumo Digital, it attempts to capitalize on the growing faux-retro-3D trend. It promises visuals to remind you of Sega’s Virtua Racing or Namco’s Ridge Racer, but with decidedly modern vehicle physics and a bit more content than any of those old games could muster.

It honestly makes for a weird first impression. This is a retro-looking game that does not feel like any retro racing game I’ve ever played. Some would undoubtedly argue that’s for the better; like with most sports games, there’s this sense that more simulation is always better. Even modern “arcade” racers like Need for Speed or Wreckfest run pretty robust physics simulations under their hoods, even if they do not necessarily adhere to the rules of reality. But I’ve honestly never seen a problem with this -- I will readily go back to something like Daytona USA or even Stunt Race FX on the Super Nintendo, and never feel especially bothered by their primitive simulations. To me, racing is often more about the sense of speed, how well the controls respond, and the track design than any notion of feeling “realistic.”

That’s not to say it’s really a negative that cars in Hotshot Racing have some vague facsimile of modern weight and “realism” applied to their driving physics, I guess. It’s just something that takes a little bit of getting used to, because seeing these cars drift and sway like the racing games of today is a little anachronistic to the era being called back to. If you still burn a candle for the eventual release of the long-lost Kickstarter darling “90’s Arcade Racer,” know that this isn’t that game. I think it’s fair to say it’s trying to scratch a similar itch, but it’s doing so in a very different way.

One of the more important things Hotshot Racing brings to the table is a roster of personalities to race as and against. When you think of characters in a racing game, your mind probably more naturally gravitates towards something like Mario Kart or some other similarly kid-friendly cartoon racing franchise. For most "serious" racing games, your opponents are unknowable, faceless competitors, but Hotshot gives them voices and identities. Every character in the game has a garage of four cars unique to them, in addition to having their own story to tell. It’s nothing especially deep; most plot manifests in a single cutscene played at the end of a given grand prix, sort of like what you'd get for finishing arcade mode in a game like Street Fighter 2. It’s just a snippet, a taste of what motivated these people and what they’re going to do after winning, but it’s enough.

It goes back to what I said earlier, and how it’s important for the player to believe the artificial intelligence is more than just a computer. Making the racers into characters, with identifiable personalities, faces, and dialog goes a long way to fleshing things out and makes you connect with what’s going on just a little bit better. Or at least, that’s how things would work in theory.

The problem is… well, none of that matters. Put simply, the actual artificial intelligence you race against kind of sucks. In fact, it’s hard to even call them competitors, because your opponents seem to be running a different race where you straight up don’t exist. During any given event, your rival computer drivers seem to be totally blind to your presence, as they will spend the entire race trying to drive straight through you. I don’t know how else to explain it. This isn’t a simple case where the computer drivers are a little aggressive, because they usually aren’t racing to be destructive. They never seem to specifically go out of their way to attack, they just don’t seem to be able to see where you are, and make no effort to react to your presence. You happen to be in their way, so they plow through from behind, ram from the side, and generally just knock you around as if you were invisible.

A side effect to this is something I’ve started noticing in games that bear the Sumo Digital name: computer drivers can hit you way harder than you can hit them back. Whether rubbing against a rival car or engaging in a full-on collision, computer drivers always seem to be able to overpower player vehicles no matter what. In Hotshot Racing, I’ve encountered multiple scenarios where a computer driver shoves me around with little effort, but any attempts to return the favor and my car may as well be made out of styrofoam for how little impact there is. I know Sumo Digital only assisted Lucky Mountain Games on the back half of developing Hotshot Racing, but this has been a consistent element I’ve noticed in Sumo’s Sonic Racing games, too. The computer can be as aggressive (or as blind) as they want, but human players are never allowed to retaliate in a way that feels meaningful.

The worst, by far, is what I mentioned earlier: rubberbanding. “First place” in Hotshot Racing is an often endless war of attrition, where no matter how fast you drive, there are always cars nipping at your heels. Hotshot Racing has a boost system, wherein by drifting or drafting you charge up a segmented meter. Once a segment is full, you can burn it for a burst of speed. I’ve spent 2, 3, even 4 consecutive boosts in a row and the same three opponents were still right behind me, aiming to blindly smash my car out of the way. Hard, medium, or easy mode, it doesn’t matter. They are always there, just a few feet from your rear bumper, magically closing the distance to constantly steal your lead.

From a game design perspective, I understand why rubberbanding exists. It’s to keep the player feeling challenged and engaged. Spending too long in first place going unopposed can start to feel boring. Some game designers view that as a turn off. Races are meant to be battles. At the same time, being able to totally shut out my opponents and gain huge leads makes me feel good. Hotshot Racing robs you of that sense of total domination because of some artificial rule of competitiveness. It’s not that the computer-controlled racers are better than you; they don’t seem to race with any sort of great care or skill. Instead, they catch up and pass you strictly because the Hand of God bends the rules to accommodate them. That doesn’t feel very challenging and it certainly doesn’t feel fair.

That being said, the pseudo-realistic physics mentioned earlier do have their own downside: I found it a little too easy to lose control of my vehicle and spin out. If you brush against a wall wrong or get bumped by a rival during a drift, you often find yourself in a tailspin and unable to recover. Combined with the blind artificial intelligence and the rubberbanding, you have a recipe for getting frustrated. I want to feel confident in my losses, not because I couldn’t predict what Mr. Magoo was going to do next. To add insult to injury, the rubberbanding only gets more prominent as you move up in difficulty, so expect to get spun out more and more as you progress through the game.

There also isn’t a lot to do with your vehicles, either. For many, tuning is an important aspect of racing games, going all the way back to 1989’s “Super Off Road” in the arcades. No upgrade path is available for any of the vehicles in Hotshot Racing, with a basic unlock system geared towards limited cosmetic tweaks. There's tons of tracks to race on, and you constantly earn currency for winning races, but I never cared about spending any of it, because there wasn't much worth buying. Arguably the specific mid-90′s era that Hotshot Racing is aiming at wasn’t really heavy on upgrading or modifying around vehicle stats, but neither were they focused on visual customization either, so it does feel a little arbitrary what they chose to modernize about this experience and what is intended to be a retro tribute.

Beyond standard racing, Hotshot does offer a few alternative modes, but none of them are spotlight features. “Barrel Barrage” has you earning an explosive barrel to drop behind you at every checkpoint until the track becomes a minefield. “Drive or Explode” takes the concept of 1994’s “Speed” and straps a bomb to your car that will explode if you slow down for too long. Finally, “Cops & Robbers” is a confusing push-and-pull where you must steal money as a robber and alternatively wreck other racers as a police officer. Of the three modes, “Drive or Explode” is the clear winner, as it most easily fits into the standard three-lap structure the game centers around. “Barrel Barrage” is merely okay, and benefits more from an increased number of laps, as things slowly get more and more dangerous as you progress. These modes would also benefit if I didn’t get thrown back to the menu after every race; they really needed some kind of Grand-Prix-style playlist.

“Cops & Robbers” deserves its own entire paragraph for what a weird idea it is. It’s less about stealing and arresting and has more in common with the “zombie” modes seen in other games, where everyone gets converted to a specific team until there are no more players left. The idea is that you start with a pot of money that slowly depletes, and you have to race to the next checkpoint to cash out. The faster you get there and the higher amounts you cash out with, the more the cops specifically will target you. Once they wreck your car, you become one of the cops, and it’s your job to wreck the remaining robbers until they all become part of the cop team. Once all the robbers become cops, winners are tallied based on who stole the most money. On paper, this works, because it plays into the game’s slap-happy nature, but in practice I would find myself miles ahead of my fellow robbers and once I finally switched over to a cop, I had to slam on my brakes and wait for everyone else to catch up. By then, the computer-controlled cops had usually done most of my work for me and I lost for... being a better robber than a cop, somehow? It left a lot to be desired.

All of these modes can be played online, where presumably human players would make them more balanced and fun, but finding random pick-up games proved difficult in the time I spent with Hotshot Racing. Now, to be fair, I didn’t try especially hard -- racing games have always been a single player experience for me, as should be obvious by my spiel on artificial intelligence. But I did spend a couple nights trying to match into an online “Quick Race” on the Switch, where I universally came up empty handed. On the PC version of Hotshot Racing (which I received as part of a Humble Bundle), the application completely froze upon trying to start a “Quick Race” lobby, forcing me to ALT+F4 to close the game. For what it’s worth, the Switch version does also include a “local multiplayer” option for playing wirelessly with friends in the same room, and all versions support traditional split-screen.

Despite all of these shortcomings, I just can’t bring myself to hate Hotshot Racing, and it’s hard to pinpoint why. I’m definitely in love with this aesthetic -- the retro visuals, the upbeat music, the blue, blue skies (that I see), it all appeals to a certain part of my brain that likes razor-sharp, ultra-clean polygons. The introduction of named racers with backstories and character-specific “endings” is a really smart, fun idea. I just wish it was more fun to actually, like… run a race in this game. I understand the necessity behind concepts like rubberbanding, but it feels like the artificial intelligence cheats just a little too much, and as a player I don’t feel like I can do a lot to fight back. Running a good race isn’t always good enough.

Some games deliberately incite a feeling of disempowerment in their players, and that can be a totally valid design decision. But should that really be the goal of this kind of racing game? I guess I don’t have an answer for that, but I do know that I probably won’t be going back to Hotshot Racing very often.

[mostlysignssomeportents]

Quantifying the meritocratic delusion

Our societal narratives are invisible by dint of their ubiquity, but they are far more important in stabilizing the status quo that all the cops and jails and domestic surveillance agencies put together.

Take inequality: when a few have much, and the many have little, the primary means of preventing the many from seizing the wealth of the few isn't burglar alarms - it's legitimacy.

If you can convince people that wealth is both earned and deserved, you can save a lot on armed guards, vaults and CCTV cameras.

The aristocracy once used the church to effect this legitimacy: as the English crown's motto goes, "Dieu et mon droit" ("God and my right").

The aristocratic legitimacy story makes it a literal sin to question inequality.

As the aristocracy gave way to merchant princes, society needed a new stabilizing story: the tale of the market, whose invisible hand allocates capital to the most deserving.

It's a highly circular form of reasoning, of course: "I am deserving because I am rich; I am rich because I am deserving."

Naturally, this self-serving logic attracted ridicule.

Notably, the sociologist Michael Young wrote a satirical, dystopian novel mocking this idea called "The Rise of the Meritocracy."

His coinage, "Meritocracy," was meant to deflate the delusion that wealth was merit and merit was wealth.

Instead, the term was adopted by the very people it was meant to lampoon: soon, capitalism boosters and defenders of inequality began to proclaim themselves to be "meritocrats" and defended the institutions that had enriched them as "meritocratic." Yeah, it's weird.

At its core, "meritocracy" is eugenics: the belief that some people are just intrinsically better than others (that's why you often hear plutocrats boasting of their "good blood" - think of Trump here).

Sometimes it's dressed up with coded language like "self-control" or "grit," but ultimately, it's about some in-born spark that both demands that the meritocrat lead the rest of us, and that they be rewarded for it. You can tell you deserves to rule because they are ruling.

As with all eugenics stories, meritocracy is trivially disprovable pseudoscientific nonsense.

Stipulate for the sake of argument that there are "meritocratic" traits that some of us are born with.

One thing we know about hereditable traits is that they follow a normal distribution - a bell curve. If merit is a heritable trait, then it should follow that same distribution.

But recall that "merit" is the excuse given for inequality: the market is a system for uncovering and rewarding merit, matching quanta of merit with dollars in a precise ratio (Bill Gates's $114b and Jeff Bezos's $196b tells us that Gates possesses 58% of Bezos's merit).

And unfortunately for meritocracy's coherence, the actual wealth distribution follows a power-law curve, not a bell-curve. The zottarich are an order of magnitude richer than the gigarich, who are an order of magnitude richer than the ultrarich and so on.

Plutocracy is asymptotic to infinity.

And while eugenics fails to account for this distribution there's another hypothesis that turns out to be a good fit: the rich are lucky.

Enter "Talent vs Luck: the role of randomness in success and failure," a paper from a group of U Catatania researchers that proposes a model for explaining deepening inequality.

https://arxiv.org/abs/1802.07068

A breakdown in MIT Technology Review explains it well. The model assumes that N people have various talents "around some average level, with some standard deviation."

https://www.technologyreview.com/2018/03/01/144958/if-youre-so-smart-why-arent-you-rich-turns-out-its-just-chance/?itm_source=parsely-api

"The computer model charts each individual through a working life of 40 years. During this time, the individuals experience lucky events that they can exploit to increase their wealth if they are talented enough.

"However, they also experience unlucky events that reduce their wealth. These events occur at random."

After 40 simulated years, the agents in the simulation have a wealth distribution that looks a hell of a lot like ours.

They run the simulation repeatedly, and get the same distribution every time. In other words, markets allocate capital primarily by luck, not merit.

However, I'd like to see another version of this experiment that adds in immorality: a willingness to cheat and steal. Given the state of the plutocracy, I hypothesize an even stronger correlation.

[twitchesandstitches]

biggestcuttlefish replied: What about games where you have to roll under? V:

(in reference to this post)

------

“Okay, so for THIS game,” Sekhma said, carefully handling Tia’s special size-gambling dice to her. “We’re going to go with a rolling under system.”

Tia looked blank. “Whuzzat?”

“You really don’t know?”

Tia shook her head.

“You roll for a target number; you have to hit under that number for it to be a success. It’s considered better for more consistent results, and might prevent us from getting too big or too small.”

Tia looked vaguely disappointed at the lack of exceptionally large numbers in her RPGs, but she nodded. Their latest games had tended towards the sort of settings and systems where ‘dice adders’ were a basic mechanic for powering up, and as a result, they had briefly needed to use an entire continental shelf as a gaming table.

“Let’s try it out.” Sekhma consulted a chart. “Okay, let’s say... doing a basic kitbashing of a gadget in-game. Difficulty is ten.” She rolled a ten-sided dice; this was a roll impossible to fail, and it was meant to simulate very easy or trivial challenges; the only way to fail was something catastrophic happening to the dice, and storytelling bizarre failures was part of the point of it.

It landed on a nice, even 6.

Sekhma grew a little over a foot taller, her breasts, butt, and gut all also growing a foot out each (and rounder to boot). Her imposing musclegut, a firm and round potbelly framed in soft but well-shaped abdominal muscles, seemed even more impressive now. “Okay!” She said, impressed. “Looks like this system adds the base difficulty as well as the end result. So still some major growth but it’s not gonna be, y’know, outrageous or anything.”

“Neat!” Tia agreed.

Now Tia rolled, at a difficulty of 6; she got an 8.

Tia shrank by about a foot and a couple inches; the rest of her body dwindled to match. “Looks like fails shrink you by the number you roll and the difficulty!”

“Sure thing.” Sekhma now noticed that something had appeared above the dice. They were glowing faintly, and the light settled into a holographic display of numbers; a bright and shiny 14. “Okay, what’s up with that?”

“Dunno. Roll the dice?”

Sekhma shrugged and rolled them up and out. They clattered, and she got an 11. The number changed, briefly, to 25.

And Sekhma grew two feet taller, her curves and belly all expanding by 25 inches as well!

Her clothes shrank under the onslaught of expanding flesh; her muscle gut loomed more ominously, her thighs and hips flared dangerously off to the sides as her butt magnified itself into an impressive bubble-cake. Her breasts were now crowning her huge gut, drooping faintly against the top curve.

“Okay,” Sekhma said. “Looks like size lost is stored on the dice and distributed in winning rolls. That’s an interesting wrinkle.”

“Does this mean roll under ain’t so good?”

“No, no, this could be fun!”