Critiqued by Antdem0n.
I had a lot of fun with this one, and I'll leave it open to suggestions for experiments.
I think this could be a really cool idea, the fact that it could potentionaly answer any question, and atleast one of the answers would always be the right one is pretty neat, and this might do well as the first real collaborative RPC article we develop on our own pretty nicely.
Nice one.
No need for a long experiment log in my opinion. It's fine the way it is, short and sweet.
i like the concept of this rpc but i do have some gripes with it. ill start with my biggest one which is how the concept of limited supply is never mentioned. the pages of this book are finite, there is a limited amount of questions it can answer, obviously, however this is never brought up as a concern in the piece. sure, a 100 pages with 14 lines each is a lot, but its still limited, plus, can you only ask one question per page? can the questions be erased? can the answers be changed? the way its written leaves a lot of vital and interesting questions unanswered. theres also a few undertones that feel unintentional, is the book a sentient being? it seems to have a sense of humor, (answering "what is the meaning of life" with 42) but at the same time this sentience isnt mentioned in the article. overall, i like the concept of this article, but it leaves a lot to be wanted.
I'd love to see the idea expanded upon. Trying to find true answers by asking multiple questions, or just asking very dangerous questions like paradox's.
Also maybe mention the limited pages, or that adding more pages to the notebook transfers the effect.
I am kind of enjoying that abusing anomalies for gambling purposes seems to be a chronic problem within the RPC Authority in the early articles I don’t think it was done on purpose but it’s definitely noticeable in the course of an archive binge.
Such is life in the Soviet Union