Author Archives: theusernamewhichismine

A possible cure for Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy

Sarepta Therapeutics may have a cure out for Duschenne Muscular Dystrophy (DMD). It’s called SRP-9001, and while I hesitate to say it’s a Dragonball Z reference, I’m not sure why else it has that number. Either way it’s an interesting piece of work and I thought I’d write about it and what I know about it.

DMD is caused by a mutation in the protein dystrophin, a protein which is vital for keeping the muscle fibers stiff and sound. Our muscles move because muscle fibers pull themselves together, which shrinks their volume along an axis and therefor pulls together anything they are attached to. The muscle cell pulling on itself creates an incredible amount of force, and dystrophin is necessary to make sure that that force doesn’t damage the muscle cell itself. When dystrophin is mutated in DMD, the muscle cells pulling on themselves will indeed begin to cause deformations and destruction of the muscle cell itself, which leads to the characteristic wasting away of DMD sufferers. The expected lifespan of someone with DMD is only around 20-30 years.

Dystrophin is a massive protein, fully 0.1% of the human genome is made up of just the dystrophin gene. However a number of the mutations which cause DMD are point mutations, mutations in a single DNA nucleotide. If just that one nucleotide could be fixed, in theory the disease could be cured. For a long time genetic engineering and CRISPR/Cas9 has targeted DMD for treatments based on this idea of just fixing that one nucleotide.

However, Sarepta seems to be working on an entirely new theory. Deliver a complete gene to the patient which can replace the functionality of the non-functional dystrophin. This is called micro-dystrophin and it is less than half the length of true dystrophin. However it still contains some of the necessary domains of dystrophin like the actin-binding-domain. This is important because of how genetic engineering in humans actually works (these days). How do you get a new gene into a human? Normally, you must use a virus. But the viruses of choice (like AAV) are actually so small that the complete dystrophin gene simply would not fit in them. Micro-dystrophin, being so much smaller, is needed in order to fit the treatment into a virus.

So the idea would be that DMD patients cannot produce working dystrophin, but when SRP-9001 is given to them it would give them the genes to create micro-dystrophin for themselves. Then once their muscles begin creating this micro-dystrophin, it would spread throughout the muscle cell and take up the job of strengthening and stiffening the muscle cell just like normal dystrophin does. In this way the decay of their muscles would slow and hopefully they’d live much much longer.

SRP-9001’s road to FDA approval is not yet fully formed. They’ve done some nice clinical trials where they’ve shown that their genetic engineering drug does successfully deliver micro-dystrophin genes into the patients, and that the patients then use those genes to produce the micro-dystrophin protein. However as of right now they are still doing Phase 3 clinical trials and still awaiting the FDA to give them expedited approval. That approval won’t come until June 22nd at the earliest, but I believe it would still make it the first FDA-approved treatment for DMD.

So what’s going on with Amyloid Beta and Alzheimer’s disease?

This will be a very #streamsofconsciousness post where I ramble a bit about my work.

As I’ve said before I study Amyloid Beta in Alzheimer’s disease. I am very new to this field, so much of what is surprising to me might be old hat to the experts. But I’m quite flummoxed on what exactly Amyloid Beta is doing both in diseased and healthy brains. When I started this job, I read papers indicating that Amyloid Beta (henceforth AB) forms these large filaments, and like a bull in a china shop those large filaments will sort of knock around and cause damage. Damaging the brain in that way is obviously a hazard, and would lead to exactly the type of neuro-degeneration that is a hallmark of Alzheimer’s disease.

So because of this, it’s my job to extract these large AB filaments and take pictures of them. That way we can see exactly what they look like and why it is that they do so much damage. But then this simple picture changed. AB is made up of thousands of individual peptides, and I read papers saying these individual peptides might actually be what causes the disease by disrupting the neurons and causing them to die. But if that’s the case, then what are the filaments doing? Are they still causing damage by being big and huge, or are they entirely benign and a red herring? If they are benign, then my studying them and taking pictures of them might be leading us down a dead end.

And now I found that AB is also necessary for the development of a healthy brain. Now this in itself is not too out there, any medicine can turn into poison if the dose is wrong. So this could easily be too much of a good thing, or a good thing in the wrong place, that while normally AB helps a brain, in Alzheimer’s disease something has gone wrong to cause AB to kill nerve cells. But still it’s surprising.

The paper I read indicates that AB is necessary for process of synaptic plasticity. No time to get into the whole details, but synaptic plasticity underlies the formation of memories in the brain. Mice who do not have AB have a harder time forming memories and completing tasks than mice with AB. So now I’m at the point where actually AB is necessary for the formation of memories of a healthy brain, but then sOmEtHiNg happens and it caused Alzheimer’s disease, which is characterized by deficiencies in memories. So what is happening?!?!?

I… don’t know. I don’t know if anyone knows. But I wish I had the tools to study this further. The difficulty is that I’m not sure if I do. My setup is geared towards looking at those giant AB filaments I talked about earlier. Filaments have a big, rigid form and you can do structural analysis on them to get what is essentially a 3D model. But all these papers talking about the role of AB in healthy brains, they are talking about it in the small monomeric form. Small monomers don’t form rigid structures in quite the same way, they are more akin to a floppy noodle, there’s no rigid form to hang your hat on and so no clean 3D model can be made for them. So maybe I’m using the wrong tool for the wrong job. Or maybe it really IS the filaments that are doing the damage. I’m just not sure at this time and it’s racking my brain trying to know where I should go next.

This is a bit hard to post

I’m not going to share this post to any of my social media, but I wonder if it would be cathartic to put this out in writing

I’ve been feeling a little jealous of how many of my friends seem to be succeeding in their jobs and their research while I’m not. I’m not getting the data I want so I can publish papers, I’m struggling at writing as much and as well as I would like, and since I don’t work in industry I’m not making as much money or getting the promotional opportunities I want.

I’m just feeling a lot of jealously right now and that’s making it hard for me to sometimes talk about my own trajectory and the trajectory of others.

AI art killed art like video killed the radio star

Everyone knows the song “Video Killed the Radio Star” by the Buggles, it was one of the earliest big hits on MTV (back when it was still called Music Television). The song is pretty good, but it also speaks to a genuine fear and wonder about our world, that changing technology upends our social fabric and destroys our livelihood. The radio star who just wasn’t pretty enough for video, or couldn’t compete with the big production values of music videos, or just didn’t like dancing and being seen at all. That radio star is the Dickensian protagonist of the modern age, as they are tossed aside and replaced when new technology comes along.

This Luddite fear has pervaded throughout history. The loom-smashing followers of Ned Ludd are only the most famous, but there were silent actors who never made it in talkies. There were photo-realistic painters who could never compete with a camera. John Henry died trying to beat a steam drill. In each case, an argument could be made that the new technology removed some important human element. The painters could claim that photography wasn’t “true art”. And the loom smashers too probably believed that their handcrafts were more “real” and more deserving of respect than the soulless cloth that replaced it.

So why is AI art any different? Why should we care about the modern Luddites who want to ban it or restrict it? I say we shouldn’t.

AI art steals from other artists to make its images

common argument

No more than any artist “steals” when they learn from the old masters. It is a grievous misunderstanding of how AI works to claim that it cuts and pastes from other images, and an AI training itself on a dataset of art is no different than an art student doing the same whether in university or on their own. The counter-argument I’ve heard is “why are you ascribing rights to an AI that should only belong to humans! Yes humans can learn from other art, but AI shouldn’t have the right to!” I’m not ascribing anything to AI, the person who coded the AI and the person who used the AI have the right to use any images they can find, just as an artist does. And just as the output of an artist learning from old masters is itself new art, so too is the output of coding or using an AI that has been trained on old works.

AI art is soulless

common argument

As soulless as loom-made fabric is compared to hand-made. Or as soulless as a photograph is compared to a hand-painted picture. Being made with a machine doesn’t detract from something for me, and I think only bias causes it to detract from others.

AI art takes money out of artists’ pockets, it should be banned to protect the workers’ paychecks

common argument

Why is the money of the workers more important than the money of the consumers? Loom-made fabric competes with hand-spun fabric, should we smash looms to keep the tailors’ wages up? Are we ok with having everything cost more because it would hurt someone’s business if they had to compete against a machine? The counter-argument I’ve seen to this is that the old jobs replaced by AI were all terrible drudgery and it’s good that they were replaced, whereas art is the highest of human expressions and should never be replaced. Again I think this is presentism and a misreading of history. I’m sure there were tailors and seamstresses who though sewing and making fabric was the absolute bomb, who loved their job and though that their clothes had so much heart and soul that they were works of art in and of themselves. And I know there are artists in the modern day for whom most of their work is dull drudgery.

Thinking that your job and only your job is the highest form of human expression and should never be replaced, well to me that just shows a clear lack of empathy towards everyone else on earth. No one’s job is safe from automation, but all of society reaps the benefits of automation. We can all now afford far more food, more clothing, more everything, since we started automating manual labor. Labor saving creates jobs, it doesn’t destroy them, it frees people to put their efforts towards other tasks. We need to make sure that the people who lose their jobs due to automation are still cared for by society, but we should not halt technological progress just to protect them. AI art allows creators and consumers to have more art available than they otherwise would. Game designers can whip up art far more quickly, role-players can get a character portrait without having to pay, this lets people have far more art available than they otherwise would. In the same way that the loom let us have far more clothing available than we otherwise would.

AI art is always terrible

common argument

I find it funny that this often comes paired in internet discourse with “I’m constantly paranoid and wondering if the picture I’m looking at was made by AI or not.” There’s a very Umberto Eco-esque argument going on in anti-AI spaces. AI is both terrible and easily spotted, but also insidious and you never quite know if what you’re seeing is AI, and also everyone is now using AI art instead of “real” art.

If real art is better than AI art, wouldn’t there be a market for it still? There’s still a market for good food even though McDonald’s exists, if AI art is terrible and soulless than it isn’t really a danger to anyone who can’t make good art themselves. And if AI art is always terrible, then why are so many people worried about whether the picture they’re seeing is AI-made or not? Shouldn’t it always be obvious?

This is very obviously an emotional argument. If you can convince someone that a picture was not made with AI, they’ll defend it. If you convince them it was made with AI, they’ll attack it.

This was a vague disconnected rant, but I’ve become sort of jaded to the AI arguments I’ve seen going on. I had thought that modern society had somewhat grown out of Ludditism. And to be frank, many of the people I see making anti-AI arguments are supposedly pro-science and pro-rationalism. But it seems that ideology only works so long as their “tribe” doesn’t ever get threatened.

So, what exactly was the metaverse?

This may just prove that I’m an out of touch old fogey, but I never cared for the metaverse hype and am not surprised it failed. Yes Meta, the company which renamed itself for the metaverse, hasn’t yet admitted defeat, but at this point I’m willing to say it failed. The metaverse was never explained to me in a way that made it seem both feasible and viable. “Imagine you could train surgeons in the metaverse, they wouldn’t need to train on Cadavers and Patients!” Yes, imagine the quantum leap in technology that would be required to allow for that kind of haptic feedback. Because it isn’t enough to know where everything is and what it looks like, knowing how much resistance the body gives to you as you force your way into it is also very important, and you don’t get that playing VR Surgery. “Imagine you could go to the office in the metaverse!” Why would I want to do work with a VR headset on my head?

I know I’m more than a year late to the party, but I never understood just what the metaverse was supposed to be or accomplish. To some people it was a Sci-Fi future like the matrix (impossible). And to others, it was clearly just a solution in search of a problem. But the most audacious thing is that for a while, it seems every company wanted to be a Metaverse company. I was recently pointed to a hilarious ETF themed for the metaverse. They’ve got Meta in their, that’s fine. They’ve got AMD and nVidia, yeah I guess graphics cards would be needed. Then they have Coinbase. Why the hell is Coinbase a metaverse company? I looked it up and some people were trying to tie “Web3” to the Metaverse, and that crypto would be the currency of the Metaverse. Crypto cannot even reliably operate as a currency of any kind, so it sure isn’t taking over the Metaverse.

Then it seems that every gaming company of any size was a metaverse company. EA, Take Two, Nintendo? Yeah, they made the Virtual Boy, so I guess they know what a shitshow VR headsets can be. But if the best people could think of for the metaverse was VR gaming then that says a lot about how little though was even put into the concept.

Now, Web3 and Crypto in general are already their own solution in search of a problem, but nothing every dies with a bang, it just fades away. And I think we’ll have a long time yet before Crypto and “The Metaverse” finally fade. Even after Facebook realizes how terrible their new name is, some other company will probably take up the banner to scam investors. But I cannot ever see myself replacing my gaming PC or any human interaction with a VR headset.

It’s official, we’re now being taxed to pay back Peter Thiel

I posted a while ago about how the Biden administration was bailing out SVB without calling it a bailout. Basically Silicon Valley billionaire and hedge fund managers (like Peter Thiel) put all their money in a bank well in excess of the 250,000$ FDIC insurance limit. That limit is a known risk. If the bank you use goes bankrupt, and if you exceed that limit, the FDIC is only obligated to give you back 250,000$. Doesn’t matter if you had 250,001$ or 999,999,999,999$, FDIC is only obligated to give you 250,000$.

But that would be unfair to the billionaires. After all, why should they ever suffer the consequences of their actions? So instead the administration promised that every single depositor would be made fully whole. This was spun as them protecting the little guy, but the little guy was already covered by the 250,000$ insurance. I don’t have more than that in the bank, neither does anyone else I know. If my bank goes bankrupt, I will be fully paid back because my deposit is far less than 250,000$. If you have more than that amount, then you are solidly rich and do not need a government bailout.

But the bailout came anyway. The FDIC handed out money to cover the billionaires and hedge funds. Now that money has to come from somewhere. Biden promised it wouldn’t come from the taxpayers of course, but it still is coming from the little guy. It’s coming from our bank accounts.

Every person who owns a bank account is paying a small amount of tax into the FDIC insurance program. It won’t show up as a line item in your bank statement, but it’s there all the same. But for every bank account held by a bank, they have to pay a little bit into the FDIC. That cost naturally gets passed on to the holder of the bank account, just like every other tax. When the tax on cigarettes rises, the price of cigarettes rises. So too is it with bank accounts. You won’t see the tax as money rushing out of your account, but you will see it as less money going in. The bank will pay you less interest on your deposits because they have to take some off the top to pay for the FDIC insurance. And if there was no FDIC insurance, you’d get more interest.

You can see this exact same scenario if you look at big bank accounts. There are some banks with accounts which hold millions, even billions of dollars. The FDIC is only obligated to pay back 250,000$ in the case of bankruptcy, but a responsible billionaire who does not need a government bailout will pay for deposit insurance which covers more than the 250,000$ FDIC limit. That deposit insurance will decrease the amount of interest paid on the deposit, or even remove the interest entirely to pay the insurance. If you have to pay for insurance, you get less interest.

Everyone with a bank account has to pay for FDIC insurance, we don’t even get a choice. And now we need to pay for even more insurance to refill the FDIC’s account since they emptied it to bail out Peter Thiel

The FDIC plans to hit big banks with a tax to refill its account. This is being spun as a progressive redistribution from the rich to the poor. It’s the opposite. If a tax is levied on Walmart, Walmart just raises its prices, and the Walmart customers pay that tax themselves. The vast majority of Americans have their money in a big bank like Bank of America. So the big banks are going to pass this new tax onto their depositors, just as they pass the FDIC insurance tax onto us. You and I will be receiving less interest on our deposits now, because the FDIC spent all their money on Peter Thiel and co. Take from the poor to give to the rich, socialize loses and privatize profits. It’s 2008 all over again.

I know the amount is small. It’s probably going to be no more than a few dollars in lost interest in my account. But a few dollars times the 100 million or so Americans who bank with big banks makes the few billion dollars needed to bail out Peter Thiel and co. And it shouldn’t be this way, we should not be paying for their mistake.

And I know I keep harping on Peter Thiel, but it’s because a bunch of so-called “progressives” are refusing to even contemplate that this is a bailout taking money from the poor. By ignoring the context you can see SVB and its depositors as “the little guys” and Bank of America as “the rich” so taking money from Bank of America to give to SVB depositors is re-distributive. But it isn’t so. SVB was the bank of billionaires and hedge funds, Bank of America is the overwhelming bank of America’s poor and middle class. Taking from Bank of America to pay back SVB’s depositors is taking from the poor and middle class to pay back the billionaires. And reminding those “progressives” of exactly who is being paid back is just something I feel I should do.

Final thoughts on Crusader Kings 3: A distinct lack of place

Some final, disjointed thoughts on CK3.

Crusader Kings, more than any other game in Paradox’s library, is primarily event-driven. The game lets you set up as the king of England, and then set up schemes to go to war with your neighbors or build up your finances, or whatever else. But the primary way you’ll interact with the game is actually random events. This is where the problems start, and they don’t stop.

Some of the events are quite fine, there are a lot related to the “lifestyle” you choose for your king that are honestly quite good. If you’ve focused on a war education, you’ll get events where your king trains in mock battles, or debates strategy with his marshal. If you’ve focused on learning, you’ll get events to translate old books.

But many of the events have no sense of time, place, or consequences. And those annoy the hell out of me. There is an event where a cult believes that the head of a saint has rolled down into your castle. Nevermind that most castles would be built on high ground, the cult wants to be allowed to search your castle and find the head. If you tell them no, then a few months later the cult leader will break out, hold your king at knifepoint, and if you still refuse to let him search the castle he’ll decapitate you.

Let’s break this down:

No sense of time. This game is set in the middle ages, your character is a king. Kings don’t just walk around on their own like it’s a Hollywood movie. They have guards, servants, and hangers-on at every point in time. Why can a cult just barge into a castle and confront the king? Why can the leader then sneak into the king’s bedroom? If security is this lax, then why are peasant revolts in the game so unsuccessful? This event makes it seem easy to barge in and kill the king whenever you want. This sort of thing breaks the illusion that the game is a living, breathing world because the event runs contrary to the actual logic of its setting and to the logic of the rest of the game!

No sense of place. Again, this is an event that happens in the castle of a king. Those things tend to be located on high ground and are heavily fortified against invasion. This is because both foreign kings and disgruntled peasants would love a chance to kill the king and either take his land or get reprieve from his taxes. Yet these facts are ignored to create and event where a head rolled into your castle and a bunch of cultists have barged in.

No sense of consequences. If the cultist does succeed in killing your king, there isn’t any reaction from the rest of your family or friends. You just start playing as your heir and the cultist wanders off. And if you weren’t happy at the cultists barging into your throne room earlier, you aren’t allowed to just have them all arrested and thrown in the dungeons, even though that’s the logical action to them breaking into your castle and demanding to break into it further. The actions of this event have no consequences outside the event itself. Either they search the castle and you get some small bonus, or they kill you and you play as your heir. In a game that gives mechanical benefits to you hiring bodyguards and hangers on, none of those things matter as the cultist will just waltz in and cut your head off because the event demands it.

This is just one event out of many, but it is very indicative of all of them. If you’re studying a foreign language, far off kings will teleport across half the map to knock over all your notes, even though again you’d be presumably studying in your own damn castle. All this because the game wants you to develop rivalries but can’t do so based on the actual conquering that happens in the game. If you have a cat, a foreign king may sneak into your catapult armory to launch the cat out of a catapult, again despite that making no sense in the time and place and this presumably happening on your army grounds where you should have soldiers capable of subduing him. The game desperately wants to spice things up with a small handful of events, but none of those are written well enough to be in any way meaningful or interesting. So instead they try to go over-the-top and just completely break the spell that this is an actual game about medieval kings and such.

More on Crusader Kings 3 and inheritance

I wrote recently about how it feels CK3 was made for the Devs to have fun and not the players. I’ll add a few more final thoughts on the specifics of my Gavelkind/partition gripe.

So to reiterate, Gavelkind aka Partition was an inheritance law in Crusader Kings 2 in which your children each inherited a title on your character’s death. Since you then played as one of those children, each generation you would end up weaker than what you started with. Players didn’t like this and so the first thing anyone did in a game was change their succession laws to “not Gavelkind.” Primogeniture, Seniority and Elective were all different choices with interesting drawbacks but they solved the problem of getting weaker every death quite nicely.

In Crusader King’s 3, the dev team decided that rather than improve Gavelkind so it was more fun, they would just lock people into Gavelkind as the only possible option. Now it’s impossible to switch out without either being a Bohemian or having some very late game tech (games often end early when they player gets bored however). Even elective monarchy doesn’t stop Gavelkind anymore.

I feel this was entirely the wrong move. Gavelkind isn’t fun, they should have made it more fun instead of locking you into it. CK2 had a very weak way of trying to make Gavelkind be viable, by increasing how many holdings you could have without penalty. But it was rare that a character could actually conquer or inherit enough holdings to made that useful, so it didn’t actually matter.

I’d much prefer it if CK3 made this succession law useful in a way that would be interesting to the players, then went back to allowing us to pick succession laws early.

Here’s an idea: since in Gavelkind every child inherits equally, maybe make it that under this succession law the player can pick who they will play as next. Not pick their heir, just who they will play as. You often get into a situation where your eldest child is a moron whereas your second oldest is smart, strong, handsome, and highly skilled. Without doing game-y shit like killing off your own child, their is now no way to play as that second son instead. I’d make it so that Gavelkind lets you play as them.

The eldest child would still inherit the highest title. Your older brother would still be the king or emperor while you’d be stuck as a count. But since you’d now be playing as a character with tons of good traits, you’d have to resources to climb your way back up. Even better is this would create a dynamic way for the player’s power to scale down during the game. The game becomes very boring very quickly once you created an empire, created your own faith, and are now too strong for anyone to challenge you. Players also don’t like losing wars, so they tend to just rage-quit instead of continuing play if something bad happens to them. This creates a dynamic where the player’s power goes exponentially up forever, and nothing can challenge them besides very boring and arbitrary RNG.

This Gavelkind change would change that. All the player’s heirs are equal under this succession law, so having the player choose who they will play as would be perfectly fine. And yet it would let the player lose a lot of power without rage quitting. This would be especially fun for players who play the genetics game, as choosing to continue on as a minor noble with all the good traits would be more rewarding for them than continuing as a powerful emperor or king.

In CK2 as a republic you could even choose your heir this way. Normally your heir was the oldest member of your Dynasty as a republic, but there was a special minor title called “designated heir” that let you get around this. You could do something similar in CK3 (although minor titles have been removed). Just call it “father’s/mother’s blessing” and draw parallels to the story of Jacob and Esau (it is a game all about catholic royalty, remember).

Mechanically I’d like to stress that my idea wouldn’t change how the inheritance works. If you choose to play as your youngest son instead of your oldest, you’ll still be choosing to play as the weakest successor. But it gives Gavelkind an actual reason to exist and be fun. If you want to stay powerful every generation, you pick Primogeniture. If you want to play the election game, you pick Elective. If you want to reunite your family lands after handing out vast tracks to your uncles, you pick Seniority (and for god’s sake don’t limit Seniority to only Bohemians!). But if you want to choose your future, you can stick with Gavelkind, the “historically accurate” inheritance law.

Crusader Kings 3: Should the players have fun, or the devs?

I can’t find the quote right now (and I have a headache so I don’t want to), but a quote attributed to Sid Meier is that in a video game, the goal should be for the player to be having fun, not the devs. I think of that a lot because one of the reasons I hate modern Paradox is because they think it’s the other way around. The player should dance to the dev’s tune, and if they’re not playing “right” then the devs need to “fix” that.

I say this because I recently posted about playing Imperator: Rome, and one of my friends thought it would be funny to gift me Crusader Kings 3, since I said in that review that I didn’t plan on ever buying another Paradox game. And when I started playing my gift, the first thing I realized is that CK3 is definitely a game that looked at CK2 and decided “the players weren’t playing right, we need to fix that.”

There’s a ton of things I could say about CK3. I’ll briefly mention that the lack of a ledger, most UI elements, and a MINIMAP make this by far the most tedious Paradox game to play. There’s some good ideas but it’s way to hard to get to any of them, pointlessly so. The whole thing needs a UI redesign from the ground up, but that’s not what I’m here for.

In CK2 and CK3, you play as a feudal family through the generations. From lord to lord you get to take the reigns of some feudal noble and expand your kingdom, fight off rebels, go Crusading, and what have you. As it’s a dynastic game, decisions about succession and titles are paramount. To cut to the chase, the primary inheritance law is called “Gavelkind” or “Partition,” in which the realm is divided among the ruler’s children. So if you hold 3 counties and have 3 sons (assuming male-preference), then each son inherits 1 county. This makes it difficult when your character dies and you start playing as the eldest son, since you’ve become 1/3 as strong as you were before.

This means that Gavelkind succession in CK2 was an endless loop of getting strong, realm partitioning, and working your way back to square 1. Most players hated it, and so the first piece of advice given to new players was always “get rid of Gavelkind.” It was fun to choose different succession laws for different occasions. Seniority let you reunite family lands as elderly, title-holding members of your dynasty were the primary inheritors. Primogeniture meant only your eldest son inherited. And elective meant you could choose your heir as long as you could game the election. It was pretty fun.

Then the devs saw this and decided that the players were playing “wrong.” They needed to be spending more time in Gavelkind as it was “historically accurate.” So now Gavelkind is renamed “partition” and it’s almost impossible to get out of it. Elective succession laws only apply to kingdom level titles, so your counties and duchies still get split on death even if you’re elective. Primogeniture has been relegated to being only available at the tail end of the game. To add, they’ve removed the ability to actually start at the tail end of the game, so you can’t even get any use out of Primogeniture since most people’s games will end much sooner when they get bored. And finally seniority succession is now locked behind a cultural tradition available only to the Bohemians. Because I guess no one else is able to just study the idea and decide “hey, we’d like to do that too.”

The game still isn’t historically accurate by any means. Succession was never this cut and dry. But the devs are having more fun now and the players less, so that’s really all that matters, isn’t it?

I’ve bought my friend Kenshi in return for CK3, and I feel I’ll quickly fall off of this one much like Imperator. It’s definitely not bad, but it’s moving in a direction I don’t appreciate.