Monthly Archives: September 2023

Diverse experiences, background and ethnicities is key to forming a group that will travel to Mars and form a colony, according to Professor Luke O'Neill.

Year after year, humans get one step closer to creating the technology capable of sending a human mission to Mars.

Experts predict a human mission to the red planet could be possible in the next 15 to 20 years as the research expands.

However, while engineering is essential to make the spacecraft, Prof ONeill told Show Me the Science its also essential to decide who is going to be on that spacecraft.

This mission to Mars would take three years, he said.

Youre going to be in a confined space they reckon the overall size of the spacecraft that will go there is about the size of an average campervan.

Imagine being stuck in a campervan with people for three years.

We like being together, were a social species, but anybody who remembers Christmas, by day three you can't wait to get out.

A recent study tried to dig deeper into the question of who can travel to and colonise the red planet through a simulation.

The simulation considered four personality types, Prof ONeill explained: agreeable people who are less inclined to be intensely competitive, sociable people who might not be thought of as important, reactive people who often have good technical skills, and neurotic people who get uptight about situations and worry a lot.

The study found that, while it was previously thought hundreds of people would be needed to colonise Mars, we only need about 10 to 50.

The simulation found the highest failure rate among the neurotic personalities.

Theres always a honeymoon period, Prof ONeill explained. The first few weeks everyone gets on great.

Then the traits begin to emerge what emerges early on is depression kicks in and some people get very low... theres also a lot of rudeness and shortness with each other.

The study found the best way to address this risk of depression is to make space travellers bond through shared meals and those space travellers are a diverse bunch.

If you have people with different backgrounds and different experiences in their lives, that predicts a better environment, Prof ONeill said.

It's partly because you're more interesting to each other, you can tell each other stories about your life and if youve all had the same lives there's not much to tell.

Original post:

Luke O'Neill: 'Diverse' group needed to form Mars colony - Newstalk

One hundred years from now, when baseball historians ruminate on the 2023 season while dodging dust storms in their Mars colonies, we can guess what they are most likely to observe.

With due respect to the great individual and team achievements weve witnessed and will yet witness this year, its the adoption of revolutionary new rules the pitch timer, defensive shift restrictions and bigger bases that serves as 2023s most historically relevant development.

So what have we learned from the new rules? What conclusions can we draw from the first season of the Pitch Timer Era and chronicle for our future Martian friends to find?

Here are a dozen observations.

1) Obviously, game times shortened.

There is no bigger takeaway from the timer, of course. As of this writing, the average nine-inning game time is 2 hours, 40 minutes -- a decrease of 24 minutes when compared to the same number of games in 2022 and the lowest such average since 1985 (2:39).

If we control for the run environment and events that typically increase game time (such as mid-inning pitching changes), then the year-over-year decline in nine-inning game times is 26 minutes.

And if you go back to 2021, which was an all-time high of 3:10 per game, we are down a half-hour compared to two seasons ago.

2) Game times did lengthen slightly in the second half.

Digging deeper, we do see a rise in game times within 2023 as players became more familiar with the nuances of the timer rules. In the first three weeks of the season, the average nine-inning game time was 2:38. In the most recent three-week span, the average time was 2:44.

How has this happened? One veteran pitcher said that hes learned to be comfortable stepping off the mound and using one of his allotted disengagements, rather than rush a pitch with a runner on base. Thats an interesting observation, because, as youll see later in this piece, the fewest violations have occurred between pitches with a runner aboard. When pitchers let the timer wind down and then step off, it adds 20 seconds to the at-bat. So thats one example of how adaptation to the timer has slightly expanded game times within the season.

All that said even if every nine-inning game were 2:44, that would still be the lowest average since 1986.

3) Pitch timer violations declined throughout the year.

Players adjust. Thats how they got to the big leagues in the first place, and they proved their adaptability as 2023 rolled along.

In the first batch of 100 games played, there were 0.87 violations per game (total for the two teams). In the most recent batch of 100 games, the rate was 0.34 per game. The rolling 100-game rate was never higher than that season-opening 0.87, and it got as low as 0.24 or about one violation every four games played.

Overall, since the All-Star break, there have been 0.30 violations per game. Two-thirds of games played this season (66%, to be exact) had zero violations, and 74% of games in the second half had zero. Of the players who have thrown or seen 100 pitches this season, 49% of pitchers and 68% of batters have not committed a single violation of the timer rules. Good job, guys!

4) Relatedly, there has been plenty of time on the timer.

Though the players pushed for more time on the timer for the postseason, there is no statistical evidence that 15 seconds with the bases empty and 20 seconds with runners aboard is not sufficient. Pitchers have had, on average, anywhere from 6.5 to 7.8 seconds remaining on the timer when they begin their deliveries, depending on the situation:

5) The defense commits the most violations.

Pitchers and catchers account for 71.1% of violations, while batters have been responsible for 28.9%.

6) Most violations occur between innings and batters.

Were into some serious timer violation minutiae now, but, for the insatiably curious, here are the percentages of pitch timer violations based on situation:

7) There is no evidence the timer caused more injuries.

We went in-depth on this subject midseason, about how injured list data is complicated and how MLB has seen a long-term increase in injured list days (particularly for pitchers) for decades, despite average game times gradually increasing in the years prior to the adoption of the pitch timer.

What weve seen this year is a decrease in both pitcher and position player injured list placements when compared to the same number of days last season and numbers that are relatively in line with recent full seasons (aside from the first full season post-COVID, when injuries ramped up dramatically).

8) The timer hasnt changed starting pitcher usage.

The increased pace hasnt led to starters fatiguing any earlier or lasting in games any longer than they once did.

9) Basestealing exploded.

The timer brought us back to the 1980s in terms of game times. The pickoff limits and slightly bigger bases didnt quite get us to the track meet that existed in that decade, but they definitely increased the aggressiveness on the basepaths, as the electric Ronald Acua Jr.can attest.

Stolen-base attempts have increased to 1.8 per game in 2023, a leap from 1.4 in 2022 and the highest rate of attempts since 2012 (also 1.8). The 80.4% success rate is not only a jump from 75.4% last year but the highest in MLB history.

The disengagement limit limited pickoff attempts from 6.0 per game to 4.9 per game.

10) But runners do still get picked off.

Perhaps the pickoff limits led some runners to be a bit too ambitious with their leads, because there have been more successful pitcher pickoffs this season (324) than in 2019 (291), 2021 (270) or 2022 (271).

Also, the stolen-base success rate is actually lower after two disengagements (78%) than it is with zero disengagements (80.6%), even though pitchers, predictably, rarely risk the automatic balk with a third pickoff attempt. There are less than 0.1 attempts per game in this situation.

11) More balls in play go for hits.

The goal of having infielders in their natural positions was to obtain more traditional results on balls in play. Weve seen that. The leaguewide batting average on balls in play (BABIP) has increased from .290 last season to .297 this season.

Predictably, given that extreme shifts were most prominently employed against left-handed batters, most of the improvement has come for lefties, who have seen their overall BABIP improve from .283 to .295 and their BABIP on pulled ground balls and pulled line drives increase by 35 points and 27 points, respectively.

12) Defensive shift infractions are exceedingly rare.

No real surprise here. The defensive shift restrictions requiring two infielders on each side of second base, within the outer boundary of the infield, is not especially difficult to abide by.

In more than 40,000 innings played this season, how many times has a defender committed an infraction, leading to an automatic ball? Only three! If youve witnessed one in person, go buy a lottery ticket and avoid lightning.

Read more:

Lessons learned from first season with pitch timer, new MLB rules - MLB.com

There is no shortage of researchers and industry titans willing to warn us about the potential destructive power of artificial intelligence. Reading the headlines, one would hope that the rapid gains in A.I. technology have also brought forth a unifying realization of the risks and the steps we need to take to mitigate them.

The reality, unfortunately, is quite different. Beneath almost all of the testimony, the manifestoes, the blog posts and the public declarations issued about A.I. are battles among deeply divided factions. Some are concerned about far-future risks that sound like science fiction. Some are genuinely alarmed by the practical problems that chatbots and deepfake video generators are creating right now. Some are motivated by potential business revenue, others by national security concerns.

The result is a cacophony of coded language, contradictory views and provocative policy demands that are undermining our ability to grapple with a technology destined to drive the future of politics, our economy and even our daily lives.

These factions are in dialogue not only with the public but also with one another. Sometimes, they trade letters, opinion essays or social threads outlining their positions and attacking others in public view. More often, they tout their viewpoints without acknowledging alternatives, leaving the impression that their enlightened perspective is the inevitable lens through which to view A.I. But if lawmakers and the public fail to recognize the subtext of their arguments, they risk missing the real consequences of our possible regulatory and cultural paths forward.

To understand the fight and the impact it may have on our shared future, look past the immediate claims and actions of the players to the greater implications of their points of view. When you do, youll realize this isnt really a debate only about A.I. Its also a contest about control and power, about how resources should be distributed and who should be held accountable.

Beneath this roiling discord is a true fight over the future of society. Should we focus on avoiding the dystopia of mass unemployment, a world where China is the dominant superpower or a society where the worst prejudices of humanity are embodied in opaque algorithms that control our lives? Should we listen to wealthy futurists who discount the importance of climate change because theyre already thinking ahead to colonies on Mars? It is critical that we begin to recognize the ideologies driving what we are being told. Resolving the fracas requires us to see through the specter of A.I. to stay true to the humanity of our values.

One way to decode the motives behind the various declarations is through their language. Because language itself is part of their battleground, the different A.I. camps tend not to use the same words to describe their positions. One faction describes the dangers posed by A.I. through the framework of safety, another through ethics or integrity, yet another through security and others through economics. By decoding who is speaking and how A.I. is being described, we can explore where these groups differ and what drives their views.

The loudest perspective is a frightening, dystopian vision in which A.I. poses an existential risk to humankind, capable of wiping out all life on Earth. A.I., in this vision, emerges as a godlike, superintelligent, ungovernable entity capable of controlling everything. A.I. could destroy humanity or pose a risk on par with nukes. If were not careful, it could kill everyone or enslave humanity. Its likened to monsters like the Lovecraftian shoggoths, artificial servants that rebelled against their creators, or paper clip maximizers that consume all of Earths resources in a single-minded pursuit of their programmed goal. It sounds like science fiction, but these people are serious, and they mean the words they use.

These are the A.I. safety people, and their ranks include the Godfathers of A.I., Geoff Hinton and Yoshua Bengio. For many years, these leading lights battled critics who doubted that a computer could ever mimic capabilities of the human mind. Having steamrollered the public conversation by creating large language models like ChatGPT and other A.I. tools capable of increasingly impressive feats, they appear deeply invested in the idea that there is no limit to what their creations will be able to accomplish.

This doomsaying is boosted by a class of tech elite that has enormous power to shape the conversation. And some in this group are animated by the radical effective altruism movement and the associated cause of long-term-ism, which tend to focus on the most extreme catastrophic risks and emphasize the far-future consequences of our actions. These philosophies are hot among the cryptocurrency crowd, like the disgraced former billionaire Sam Bankman-Fried, who at one time possessed sudden wealth in search of a cause.

Reasonable sounding on their face, these ideas can become dangerous if stretched to their logical extremes. A dogmatic long-termer would willingly sacrifice the well-being of people today to stave off a prophesied extinction event like A.I. enslavement.

Many doomsayers say they are acting rationally, but their hype about hypothetical existential risks amounts to making a misguided bet with our future. In the name of long-term-ism, Elon Musk reportedly believes that our society needs to encourage reproduction among those with the greatest culture and intelligence (namely, his ultrarich buddies). And he wants to go further, such as limiting the right to vote to parents and even populating Mars. Its widely believed that Jaan Tallinn, the wealthy long-termer who co-founded the most prominent centers for the study of A.I. safety, has made dismissive noises about climate change because he thinks that it pales in comparison with far-future unknown unknowns like risks from A.I. The technology historian David C. Brock calls these fears wishful worries that is, problems that it would be nice to have, in contrast to the actual agonies of the present.

More practically, many of the researchers in this group are proceeding full steam ahead in developing A.I., demonstrating how unrealistic it is to simply hit pause on technological development. But the roboticist Rodney Brooks has pointed out that we will see the existential risks coming, the dangers will not be sudden and we will have time to change course. While we shouldnt dismiss the Hollywood nightmare scenarios out of hand, we must balance them with the potential benefits of A.I. and, most important, not allow them to strategically distract from more immediate concerns. Lets not let apocalyptic prognostications overwhelm us and smother the momentum we need to develop critical guardrails.

While the doomsayer faction focuses on the far-off future, its most prominent opponents are focused on the here and now. We agree with this group that theres plenty already happening to cause concern: Racist policing and legal systems that disproportionately arrest and punish people of color. Sexist labor systems that rate feminine-coded rsums lower. Superpower nations automating military interventions as tools of imperialism and, someday, killer robots.

The alternative to the end-of-the-world, existential risk narrative is a distressingly familiar vision of dystopia: a society in which humanitys worst instincts are encoded into and enforced by machines. The doomsayers think A.I. enslavement looks like the Matrix; the reformers point to modern-day contractors doing traumatic work at low pay for OpenAI in Kenya.

Propagators of these A.I. ethics concerns like Meredith Broussard, Safiya Umoja Noble, Rumman Chowdhury and Cathy ONeil have been raising the alarm on inequities coded into A.I. for years. Although we dont have a census, its noticeable that many leaders in this cohort are people of color, women and people who identify as L.G.B.T.Q. They are often motivated by insight into what it feels like to be on the wrong end of algorithmic oppression and by a connection to the communities most vulnerable to the misuse of new technology. Many in this group take an explicitly social perspective: When Joy Buolamwini founded an organization to fight for equitable A.I., she called it the Algorithmic Justice League. Ruha Benjamin called her organization the Ida B. Wells Just Data Lab.

Others frame efforts to reform A.I. in terms of integrity, calling for Big Tech to adhere to an oath to consider the benefit of the broader public alongside or even above their self-interest. They point to social media companies failure to control hate speech or how online misinformation can undermine democratic elections. Adding urgency for this group is that the very companies driving the A.I. revolution have, at times, been eliminating safeguards. A signal moment came when Timnit Gebru, a co-leader of Googles A.I. ethics team, was dismissed for pointing out the risks of developing ever-larger A.I. language models.

While doomsayers and reformers share the concern that A.I. must align with human interests, reformers tend to push back hard against the doomsayers focus on the distant future. They want to wrestle the attention of regulators and advocates back toward present-day harms that are exacerbated by A.I. misinformation, surveillance and inequity. Integrity experts call for the development of responsible A.I., for civic education to ensure A.I. literacy and for keeping humans front and center in A.I. systems.

This groups concerns are well documented and urgent and far older than modern A.I. technologies. Surely, we are a civilization big enough to tackle more than one problem at a time; even those worried that A.I. might kill us in the future should still demand that it not profile and exploit us in the present.

Other groups of prognosticators cast the rise of A.I. through the language of competitiveness and national security. One version has a post-9/11 ring to it a world where terrorists, criminals and psychopaths have unfettered access to technologies of mass destruction. Another version is a Cold War narrative of the United States losing an A.I. arms race with China and its surveillance-rich society.

Some arguing from this perspective are acting on genuine national security concerns, and others have a simple motivation: money. These perspectives serve the interests of American tech tycoons as well as the government agencies and defense contractors they are intertwined with.

OpenAIs Sam Altman and Metas Mark Zuckerberg, both of whom lead dominant A.I. companies, are pushing for A.I. regulations that they say will protect us from criminals and terrorists. Such regulations would be expensive to comply with and are likely to preserve the market position of leading A.I. companies while restricting competition from start-ups. In the lobbying battles over Europes trailblazing A.I. regulatory framework, U.S. megacompanies pleaded to exempt their general purpose A.I. from the tightest regulations, and whether and how to apply high-risk compliance expectations on noncorporate open-source models emerged as a key point of debate. All the while, some of the moguls investing in upstart companies are fighting the regulatory tide. The Inflection AI co-founder Reid Hoffman argued, The answer to our challenges is not to slow down technology but to accelerate it.

Any technology critical to national defense usually has an easier time avoiding oversight, regulation and limitations on profit. Any readiness gap in our military demands urgent budget increases, funds distributed to the military branches and their contractors, because we may soon be called upon to fight. Tech moguls like Googles former chief executive Eric Schmidt, who has the ear of many lawmakers, signal to American policymakers about the Chinese threat even as they invest in U.S. national security concerns.

The warriors narrative seems to misrepresent that science and engineering are different from what they were during the mid-20th century. A.I. research is fundamentally international; no one country will win a monopoly. And while national security is important to consider, we must also be mindful of self-interest of those positioned to benefit financially.

As the science-fiction author Ted Chiang has said, fears about the existential risks of A.I. are really fears about the threat of uncontrolled capitalism, and dystopias like the paper clip maximizer are just caricatures of every start-ups business plan. Cosma Shalizi and Henry Farrell further argue that weve lived among shoggoths for centuries, tending to them as though they were our masters as monopolistic platforms devour and exploit the totality of humanitys labor and ingenuity for their own interests. This dread applies as much to our future with A.I. as it does to our past and present with corporations.

Regulatory solutions do not need to reinvent the wheel. Instead, we need to double down on the rules that we know limit corporate power. We need to get more serious about establishing good and effective governance on all the issues we lost track of while we were becoming obsessed with A.I., China and the fights picked among robber barons.

By analogy to the health care sector, we need an A.I. public option to truly keep A.I. companies in check. A publicly directed A.I. development project would serve to counterbalance for-profit corporate A.I. and help ensure an even playing field for access to the 21st centurys key technology while offering a platform for the ethical development and use of A.I.

Also, we should embrace the humanity behind A.I. We can hold founders and corporations accountable by mandating greater A.I. transparency in the development stage, in addition to applying legal standards for actions associated with A.I. Remarkably, this is something that both the left and the right can agree on.

Ultimately, we need to make sure the network of laws and regulations that govern our collective behavior is knit more strongly, with fewer gaps and greater ability to hold the powerful accountable, particularly in those areas most sensitive to our democracy and environment. As those with power and privilege seem poised to harness A.I. to accumulate much more or pursue extreme ideologies, lets think about how we can constrain their influence in the public square rather than cede our attention to their most bombastic nightmare visions for the future.

See more here:

Opinion | Elon Musk, Geoff Hinton, and the War Over A.I. - The New York Times

The Imperium of Man keeps on missing several rare STCs they could get their hands on.

The Imperium of Man is not exactly known for its technological advancements. Its a stagnant and hidebound place that resists change. Indeed the Imperium is living in something of a dark age. Most of its technology is salvaged from prior human civilizations. Its this that has driven a lust not for new discoveries, but for re-discovering past knowledge. Despite searching for lost technology the Imperium keeps overlooking some obvious sources. Lets take a look at those.

The single greatest repository of past human knowledge, and the holy grails of Imperial technology are the STCs. These are objects created during the Dark Age of Technology. This was of course, in fact, a golden age, that was ended by something. An STC or Standard Template Construct represents one of the highest of technological advancements. These generally took the form of massive machines filled with a huge number of blueprints. The STC could build any of these blueprints with ease. They were generally used to aid in mankinds colonization of the galaxy.

An STC can also refer to an individual blueprint or vehicle. This might be part of a larger STC or found on its own. Each one of these is hugely valuable. The Land Raider came from one such STC. The Leman Russ from another. Finding one can change the face of war. Arkhan Land found a small handful of STC blueprints and became known as one of the greatest minds in Imperial History. Wars are waged over a single blueprint. And yet the Imperium seems to ignore a number of rich sources.

If you ever looked at all the crazy stuff House Van Saar gets in Necromunda and wondered why the Imperium doesnt have it, here is why. You see House Van Saar has access to a near complete set of STCs. It turns out the Van Saarwas a colony ship in the Dark Age of Technology. Thanks to Warp stuff it ended up on Necromunda much later than planned. The ship contained a large type STC that was powered by some kind of AI. Its from this trove of Pre-Imperium technology that Van Saar draws its strength. Despite being active for several thousand years, and clearly displaying very advanced tech the Imperium at large hasnt really come after them.

It seems a single group of Tech Priests once investigated but vanished. And thats it. How has the greater Imperium missed this treasure trove? Cawl can find out of random bits of STC hidden away in Necron tomb worlds, but not this one hiding in plain site? Crazy.

Subscribe to our newsletter!

Get Tabletop, RPG & Pop Culture news delivered directly to your inbox.

Another obvious source of STCs is the Leagues of Votann. The Leagues possess advanced tech and weapons that appear in many ways quite ahead of the Imperium. As abhuman off shoots they also get their tech from the Dark Age of Technology. In fact, it appears that they are even led by STCs. The Leagues are led by the Votann, these are massive gestalt AIs that are filled with knowledge, including STCs. In fact, they sound like they are just the old large-type STCs and very similar to the one owned by the Van Saar of Necromunda. And it makes sense. These are effectively the cores of old human colonies, sent out to claim squatters rights on various planets.

Now the Leagues keep the nature of the Votann a secret but does the Imperium really not know anything? Or guess? This is a huge and rich trove of knowledge. The Imperium has fought wars before over a single STC blueprint. Would they really ignore the possibility of getting their hands on complete databases? Like the Van Saar the Leagues show of their advanced tech all the time, but the Imperium and, more shockingly, the Adeptus Mechanicus just doesnt seem to care too much. Its all a bit odd.

Dont even get me started on the Dragon of Mars and what technological secrets it held in the very bosom of the the Adeptus Mechanicus.

Let us know about any other potential sources of STCs, down in the comments!

Abe is that rare thing, an Austin local born and raised here. Though he keeps on moving around, DC, Japan, ETC., he always seems to find his way back eventually. Abe has decades of experience with a wide range of tabletop and RPG games, from historicals, to Star Wars to D&D and 40K. He has been contributing to BOLS since almost the start, back when he worked at and then owned a local gaming store. He used to be big into the competitive Warhammer tournament scene but age has mellowed him and he now appreciates a good casual match. He currently covers 40K tactics and lore, as well as all things Star Wars, with occasional dabbling in other topics. Abe remains in mourning over the loss of WFB to this day.

Read the original here:

Warhammer 40K: The Imperium Is Ignoring A Lot Of STCs Sitting ... - BoLS

Summary

Cities and towns play a significant role in the expansive universe of Starfield, offering explorers much-needed places to rest and refuel, but some settlements are better than others when it comes to vibes. Starfields Settled Systems have several cities that stand out among the abundance of civilian outposts on remote planets, each showcasing the distinct culture and lifestyle that blossomed from the type of planet they are on and factions associated with their community. The intricacies of each citys culture and faction considerably impact how they feel and which are better places to visit.

Many will visit most of the major cities in the Settled Systems as part of Starfields main questline, but the smaller towns can be easy to miss. These settlements typically offer a perspective that is lacking in the city hubs and has some unique gear that cannot be found elsewhere, particularly when it comes to Starfields ship-building feature. Despite the potential gear benefits, most may find that they spend more time in some settlements than others, based on the citys location and convenience of navigation. However, atmosphere and community also play a considerable role in determining which of Starfields cities have the best vibes.

Related: "An Instant Classic": Starfield Review

Gagarin Landing is one of Starfields toughest small towns. It began as a factory settlement that built mechs during the Colony War. When the war ended, however, and mechs were outlawed, Gagarin Landings economic prosperity ended with it. Currently, its a rough, industrial town that relies on mining to keep it afloat. Its community is relatively small compared to other towns of its size, with only a couple of shops to visit. As a result, Gagarin Landings vibes arent so great.

Related: Starfield Guides (Tips, Ships, Weapons, & More)

Cydonia is the oldest settlement in Starfield, and its age certainly shows. The city is situated under the surface of Mars, which causes a host of health problems for its residents, including breathing dusty air due to the proximity to its mining facility. Frequent explosive detonations shake the city, knocking dust loose from the enclosed surroundings. Cydonias mining industry is crucial to the United Colonies, supplying precious metals the Deimos company uses to outfit the UC Navy. Its community is full of hardworking, charming people, but its plain to see that Cydonia doesnt have the best of vibes.

Hopetown is a quaint little settlement built around the ship manufacturer HopeTech. It was established by the companys founder, Ron Hope, as a colony to house the employees of the starship factory. Its community is made primarily of these workers. Aside from the HopeTech factory, there is little to see or do in HopeTown, which has only a bar and a small weapons shop, so it doesnt see many tourists. At the same time, it leaves little in the way of luxury for the residents. While its a peaceful settlement, HopeTowns vibes could certainly be better.

The Key is home to Starfields pirate faction, The Crimson Fleet, so its the perfect den for the galaxys criminals. The spaceport was used to serve its corresponding prison, The Lock, on the planet below. However, a massive prison break led to the spaceports capture, and pirates have inhabited it ever since. There is no denying that there is a certain camaraderie that develops between the outlaws, but its worth noting that whatever friends a pirate makes could be willing to sell them out for a better paycheck, which makes The Keys vibes sketchy at best.

Neon is one of Starfield's most visually striking cities, but its seedy reputation makes it a place worth visiting for only brief amounts of time. The city is officially known as a pleasure city, where people go to unwind, sometimes with the hallucinogenic drug Aurora, which is legal only in Neons Astral Lounge.

Related: Starfield: How To Get a House In Neon

However, the city is mired by poverty and criminal syndicates in the Ebbside and Underbelly districts, making Neons Core the safest place for tourists. The bright lights and party life are enough to give Neon some great vibes, but there are better places to look in the Settled Systems.

Paradiso is Starfields dedicated resort colony with some of the best vistas in the game. It has a relaxing beach area and a lively rooftop bar for guests to enjoy. Its an expensive hotel to stay at and certainly attracts wealthy clients, but there is no doubt that Paradiso offers a good time to those who can afford it. However, it cant be ignored that the resorts staff are treated poorly and live in run-down shacks on the opposite side of the hotels property. Paradiso has a lot going for it, but it is admittedly an acquired taste.

New Atlantis is the first major city people visit in Starfield and is a testament to the ideals of the United Colonies Faction. On the surface, it is a very welcoming city that people from many walks of life can call home. Its home to Constellation and the capital of the United Colonies.

Related: Theres One Starfield Side Quest In New Atlantis You Should Do ASAP

However lovely the surface is, the UC government does a remarkable job of pushing the less desirable aspects of New Atlantis underground to an area known as The Well, where the citys impoverished residents live. However, New Atlantis is an excellent place to visit overall, and its scenic architecture and nature help bring some great vibes to the city.

New Homestead has some of the most enjoyable vibes out of all of Starfields settlements. While it is only a small colony boasting a couple of shops, it has one of the most charming communities in the game, making it a lovely place to visit. Characters can embark on a guided tour led by one of New Homesteads most enthusiastic residents, where they can learn about the colonys history and culture.

The settlement is also home to the longest-standing restaurant in the Settled Systems, the Brown Horse Tavern. New Homesteads peaceful nature and dedication to preserving old-earth culture make its good vibes stand out among the rest of Starfields cities.

Akila City is one of the most down-to-earth cities in Starfield. In the heart of Freestar Collective space, Akila City was founded on humble beginnings by a lone explorer named Solomon Coe. It started as Coes small camp, which he hoped would grow into a city, and this hope came true in spades. Akila City is home to many families, businesses, and the Freestar Rangers.

Unfortunately, as with other cities, Akila City has its share of residents whove fallen on hard times. However, the reliance on community is strong in the city, so its common for more fortunate residents to look out for the less fortunate. Moreover, Akila City is one of the most beautiful locales in the game, especially during sunset.

Starfields massive open world creates the opportunity for many ways of life to emerge, so each settlement is worth experiencing to get a better feel for what its like to live in this universe. Doing so will deepen the players investment in the story and the lore behind the games many factions. No matter the city's vibe, players should make a point to explore everywhere in the Settled Systems to see what Starfield has to offer.

Source: Bethesda Softworks/YouTube

View post:

Every Major City & Town In Starfield, Ranked By Vibes - Screen Rant