Nice! So, the question becomes, would it be wise to allow multitaskability and/or interruptability to be set by hand. On the one hand, if a person is irritated by a particularly unrealistic multitask, they could always go in and try to define them more satisfactorily. On the other hand, if it has been defined by hand, changes that would be handled automatically by the default, such as adding a self stirring pot, could mean forcing everyone who defined a multitask by hand to redo them.
I’m usually programming with the primary goal of eliminating error, always thinking in terms of removing user interaction where it is tedious, forcing user interaction where it is necessary. Cdda is probably more like, don’t require user interaction, but allow it if the user gets irritated enough by a particular result. I’m assuming that’s the difference between the c++ and json code. I’d love to take on some tiny, unimportant task to see how it all works. My biggest mental hurdles are setup tasks - learning to use github, and maybe a new IDE (I’ve been using Qt for a long time now, I see cmake there but not supported, so don’t know if it’s rational to try to work on cdda using Qt.)
And like I said, it’s an awesome exploit! This is a zombie apocalypse. If a survivor finds a use for something in that reality that is not as it was intended by its creator, but that increases survivability or quality of life, is it a bug? Or is it just that survivor adapting and overcoming?
Hmm. Self-stirring pot. Which takes more skill, the professional version requiring a rotor, a tiny motor, and a control circuit, or the makeshift version, requiring a robot arm, rubber glove, spoon, string, rope and pulley system, and a waterwheel? And, yes, THAT rope and pulley system, because it would be furniture!