What's interesting is the creator of the site has listed on their linkedin that they're ... wait for it ... a co-founder at some generic AI startup with the goal of using AI agents to automate away manual jobs.
Fascinating. I was able to escape the suffering by simply not purchasing a top hat. An interesting lesson that the pursuit of conspicuous consumption is the root of one’s own suffering.
A strange game. The only winning move is not to play.
I'd argue it's not about selling everything. Instead, avoid buying things by default and trying to keep up with the Joneses. You don't need to move to the wilderness, you just need to choose to escape consumerism.
For example:
- Do you really need a new car, when a lightly used one will do just fine and will be more economical?
- Do you really need to upgrade to a new phone every year when your current one is still working fine?
- Do you really need to buy premium clothes from the mall when the ones from Target are much cheaper?
Trying to be gentle here but this is pretty out of touch.
- I have bought a new car exactly once in my life, and likely never will again. This is the same as pretty much every other person I know personally. The last vehicle I bought had over 300k miles on it.
- Does anyone buy a new phone every year? I've never met them.
- Do you really need the fancy clothes from Target when the ones from Walmart or Goodwill are much cheaper?
If you can't afford a surprise expense, you need to build up an emergency fund as a buffer. The first step in doing so is almost always to find opportunities to lower your expenses and put it towards savings. As a society, we've gotten very good at encouraging people to quickly spend all their money.
I'm not saying that's always sufficient - particularly if you're unemployed or your job truly doesn't pay a living wage. This is assuming you're at least being paid enough for basic subsistence.
At the end a strategic defense computer is asked to play Tic Tac Toe against itself and suddenly "learns" about no-win scenarios. Then it does the same with nuclear launch scenarios, and finds that they're all no-win. It decides that nuclear war "is a strange game", and "the only winning move is not to play".
Thanks, I caught the WarGames reference. Is there anyone not familiar with it? It's one of those pieces of widespread internet lore (though, of course, I actually watched the movie too, back in my youth).
I very intentionally meant that it also applies to Oiligarchy [1], an actual game (not a movie) where the winning move was not to play :)
The real message is that, even if you don't get rich and can't buy that clothing item that is 10x your nest worth, your work can provide for your needs and your family - rent, groceries, helping extended family...
(Worked at a couple of startups, didn't get rich, but had good experiences, paid for family needs, and put aside investments for the future.)
Yep, this is basically the world today. The only difference in the real world:
"What if I told you you can buy that $10 hat today using borrowed money that you don't have, pay $1/year interest for the rest of your life until you pay it back, but you have to earn $2/year more in order to have $1/year more to pay, but to earn $2/year more, your company has to earn $3/year more"
"Oh and you also need to buy insurance for that $10 hat because it's not yours, and you have to pay us for the insurance we're going to buy in addition to the insurance you're going to buy to insure us from you, so that'll be another $1, or you have to make $2 more to have $1, or your company needs to make $3 more, so now your company needs to make $6/year more"
"Oh and we're also going to devalue the $ so you actually need to make $10/year more because a $ won't be worth that much in a couple years"
What's interesting is the creator of the site has listed on their linkedin that they're ... wait for it ... a co-founder at some generic AI startup with the goal of using AI agents to automate away manual jobs.
So he's obviously on the winning side of this transaction. Hopefully the losing side is someone who isn't you. Maybe it's a VC fund.
I grok that as the author having a sick sense of humor. I like it....
This is filthy undercrow talk!
are we not all slaves to the top hat?
Are we the Baddies? Yes, and how interesting. I could vibe a game about that.
When did peddling dietary supplements and crypto go out of fashion?
Understandig how the hammer falls tells you where to stand to avoid it.
Fascinating. I was able to escape the suffering by simply not purchasing a top hat. An interesting lesson that the pursuit of conspicuous consumption is the root of one’s own suffering.
A strange game. The only winning move is not to play.
Once I realized I couldn’t decline, I left the website and left the top hat on the table.
That's easier to do in a video game, but I guess the real life analogy would be to sell it all and move off-grid to Alaska?
I'd argue it's not about selling everything. Instead, avoid buying things by default and trying to keep up with the Joneses. You don't need to move to the wilderness, you just need to choose to escape consumerism.
For example:
- Do you really need a new car, when a lightly used one will do just fine and will be more economical?
- Do you really need to upgrade to a new phone every year when your current one is still working fine?
- Do you really need to buy premium clothes from the mall when the ones from Target are much cheaper?
Trying to be gentle here but this is pretty out of touch.
- I have bought a new car exactly once in my life, and likely never will again. This is the same as pretty much every other person I know personally. The last vehicle I bought had over 300k miles on it.
- Does anyone buy a new phone every year? I've never met them.
- Do you really need the fancy clothes from Target when the ones from Walmart or Goodwill are much cheaper?
How does that go for Americans who cannot afford to pay for a $400 surprise expense out of pocket?
https://www.federalreserve.gov/consumerscommunities/sheddata...
Let them eat crow.
If you can't afford a surprise expense, you need to build up an emergency fund as a buffer. The first step in doing so is almost always to find opportunities to lower your expenses and put it towards savings. As a society, we've gotten very good at encouraging people to quickly spend all their money.
I'm not saying that's always sufficient - particularly if you're unemployed or your job truly doesn't pay a living wage. This is assuming you're at least being paid enough for basic subsistence.
Sell what all? Isn’t everything just for rent now?
Your reply reminded me of the free game Oiligarchy by Molleindustria (which made quite a few indie hits in my opinion).
In that game, if you played "well" you ended up destroying the world. The only winning move was, indeed, not to play.
I think OP is referring to the 80's movie WarGames - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WarGames
At the end a strategic defense computer is asked to play Tic Tac Toe against itself and suddenly "learns" about no-win scenarios. Then it does the same with nuclear launch scenarios, and finds that they're all no-win. It decides that nuclear war "is a strange game", and "the only winning move is not to play".
Thanks, I caught the WarGames reference. Is there anyone not familiar with it? It's one of those pieces of widespread internet lore (though, of course, I actually watched the movie too, back in my youth).
I very intentionally meant that it also applies to Oiligarchy [1], an actual game (not a movie) where the winning move was not to play :)
---
[1] https://www.molleindustria.org/en/oiligarchy/
In case you're wondering, there are 106 CEOs / companies, and at 107 it just loops around.
PRs to add web-llm welcome ;)
though I would argue the current state is more reflective of reality...
cheers
This is a play on words from this (excellent) NYTimes Opinion piece by Jasmine Sun [1] titled "Silicon Valley is bracing for the permanent underclass"
[1]": https://www.nytimes.com/2026/04/30/opinion/ai-labor-work-for...
(Gift article)
How does it come up with the CEO and business' name? I assume there's gotta be finite number and the game has to end (?) Anyways, sick game.
There's a pre-generated list with 106 entries, and when it reaches the end of that list, it loops around.
CAWn't believe how hard this hits
I feel stupid but I could not bring myself to click the "sign" button and continue gameplay.
A lot of electronic contracts are done like that and... nope, not clicking it... Mmmmm.... nope.
Reminded me of a book called Finite and Infinite Games
It’s a book I have tried to read 10 times. It’s to complicated, my context window is to limited.
The one by Simon Sinek? I've just picked it for reading this week
The real message is that, even if you don't get rich and can't buy that clothing item that is 10x your nest worth, your work can provide for your needs and your family - rent, groceries, helping extended family...
(Worked at a couple of startups, didn't get rich, but had good experiences, paid for family needs, and put aside investments for the future.)
So that's how you become a galactic civilization!
Beautiful
It never ends…
Super cool concept
Well done! Fun and satirical
I honestly love the look of the website. It makes me want to play/make a 2d scroller.
thank you! and noted ;)
This is quality
Brilliant
hey when does this game end?
never stop grinding
Yep, this is basically the world today. The only difference in the real world:
"What if I told you you can buy that $10 hat today using borrowed money that you don't have, pay $1/year interest for the rest of your life until you pay it back, but you have to earn $2/year more in order to have $1/year more to pay, but to earn $2/year more, your company has to earn $3/year more"
"Oh and you also need to buy insurance for that $10 hat because it's not yours, and you have to pay us for the insurance we're going to buy in addition to the insurance you're going to buy to insure us from you, so that'll be another $1, or you have to make $2 more to have $1, or your company needs to make $3 more, so now your company needs to make $6/year more"
"Oh and we're also going to devalue the $ so you actually need to make $10/year more because a $ won't be worth that much in a couple years"