Yes, and so few people write actual games, just game engines.
My game is pretty crappy but I overcame a bunch of (mostly boring) technical issues to get it running on both Android and iOS. Here is a repo that sets up an Android development environment.
Has no one thought to ask what people mean by failure? I for one feel that there could be a lot to be gained by decreasing the emotional impact of failing, without going so far as to reduce people's desire to succeed.
It could be quite possible to fail (in objective terms), learn from your mistakes and try again, without suffering the social stigma or emotional impact of failure as that word tends to be understood.
The problem with running up against the limits is that it isn't always pretty. I've heard it said that "all exponential functions are really S-curves" which in this situation would correspond to a civilisation gracefully decreasing its growth as it approached the limits.
However, other curves are possible too. Overshoot and collapse can also occur.
The S-curve scenario can only happen under the following circumstances.
a) the limits are recognised by us
b) they are responded to immediately with no delay.
Another scenario, called "overshoot and oscillation" occurs when:
a) there is a delay in the response
b) AND the the limits that we have exceeded recover quickly. i.e. the limits are no erodable.
"Overshoot and collapse" occurs when we erode some resource that does not recover quickly. Unfortunately, I can think of many resources that are very erodable. The most obvious being fossil fuels which take millions of years to replace themselves. Top-soil and biodiversity are also examples of highly erodable resources.
Looks interesting. You should submit it on its own. In fact combined with The prof. Bartlett videos (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-QA2rkpBSY) it makes quite a good usage of arithmetic to counter McCarthy point of view.
I have read through these pages. Undoubtedly many of the things he states, particularly with respect to how long nuclear energy could supply us, are correct but only under the assumption that we don't continue to increase our usage of energy. It's hard to see how that assumption holds in a world that is continually growing its economies. Exponential functions grow very fast. (See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-QA2rkpBSY)
You may then counter that a decoupling of economic growth from its material and energy underpinnings is possible. This has yet to be effectively proven. We have only seen partial decoupling so far. For more information on this see the writings of Tim Jackson in his book Prosperity without Growth.
I also urge you to download this spreadsheet (from the BP website) showing the growth in usage of fossil fuels (http://tinyurl.com/2yhx7d). We may find alternatives to these but if we do, we will have to bring the alternatives online at roughly the same level to supply our societies with the energy they now require to function. This is no easy feat. It's good know, quantitatively, just what's required.
