It’s counterintuitive but I learned this best by playing RTS games. If you don’t spend money your opponent can outdo you on the map by simply spending their money. But the principle extends, everything you have doing nothing (buildings units etc) is losing. The most efficient process is to have all your resources working for you at all times.
If you don't have savings to spend for a potential change of tactics, larger players, groups or players with different strategies can easily overtake you as your perfectly efficient economy collapses.
Going to also echo the comment that this isn't an RTS
> It’s counterintuitive but I learned this best by playing RTS games. If you don’t spend money your opponent can outdo you on the map by simply spending their money.
OK, hear me out over here:
We are not in an RTS.
Edit: in real-world settings lacking redundancy tends to make systems incredibly fragile, in a way that just rarely matters in an RTS. Which we are _not in_.
Why he wouldn't say it about HDD space? You buy HDD to keep them empty?
And as for the money analogy, what's the idea there, that memory grows interest? Or that it's better to put your money in the bank and leave it there, as opposed to buy assets or stocks, and of course, pay for food, rent, and stuff you enjoy?
1. Store your money in a 0% interest account—leave RAM totally unused—or put it in an account that actually generates some interest—fill the RAM with something, anything that might be useful.
2. Store your money buried in your backyard or put it in a bank account? If you want to actually use your money, it's already loaded into the bank.
Imperfect analogies because money is fungible. In either case though, money getting spent day-to-day (e.g. the memory being used by running programs) is separate.
It’s counterintuitive but I learned this best by playing RTS games. If you don’t spend money your opponent can outdo you on the map by simply spending their money. But the principle extends, everything you have doing nothing (buildings units etc) is losing. The most efficient process is to have all your resources working for you at all times.
If you don't have savings to spend for a potential change of tactics, larger players, groups or players with different strategies can easily overtake you as your perfectly efficient economy collapses.
Going to also echo the comment that this isn't an RTS
It's why I wake up at 3am to make sure my agents aren't waiting on me :D
> It’s counterintuitive but I learned this best by playing RTS games. If you don’t spend money your opponent can outdo you on the map by simply spending their money.
OK, hear me out over here:
We are not in an RTS.
Edit: in real-world settings lacking redundancy tends to make systems incredibly fragile, in a way that just rarely matters in an RTS. Which we are _not in_.
Why he wouldn't say it about HDD space? You buy HDD to keep them empty?
And as for the money analogy, what's the idea there, that memory grows interest? Or that it's better to put your money in the bank and leave it there, as opposed to buy assets or stocks, and of course, pay for food, rent, and stuff you enjoy?
Money analogy could better be put as one of:
1. Store your money in a 0% interest account—leave RAM totally unused—or put it in an account that actually generates some interest—fill the RAM with something, anything that might be useful.
2. Store your money buried in your backyard or put it in a bank account? If you want to actually use your money, it's already loaded into the bank.
Imperfect analogies because money is fungible. In either case though, money getting spent day-to-day (e.g. the memory being used by running programs) is separate.
> about money in the bank?
Yes, generally. That's the entire idea behind the stock market.