Cursive alphabet letters

2/6
🖤💛💛🖤💛 BORIC 💚💚💚💚💚 CROWD
Tossup between the solution and CROWN and I went alphabetical. SB struggled mightily, and WB needed four.
Wordle1086 3/6* Grade: A 97%
⬜🟨🟨⬜🟨 B- 62 🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩 A+
https://gradle.app/#o80HCtRL9jKb
Scoredle 6/6* (my starter)
14,855 ⬜🟨🟨⬜🟨 BORIC (62) 🟩🟩🟩⬜⬜ CROOK (18) 🟩🟩🟩⬜⬜ CROSS (11) 🟩🟩🟩⬜⬜ CRONE (5) 🟩🟩🟩⬜⬜ CROUP (3) 🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩 CROWD
Scoredle 5/6* (bot's starter)
14,855 ⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜ SLATE (1,059) 🟩🟨🟨⬜⬜ CORNY (13) 🟩🟩🟩⬜⬜ CROCK (3) 🟩🟩🟩⬜⬜ CROUP (2) 🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩 CROWD
WordleBot 4/6*
⚪️⚪️⚪️⚪️⚪️ PLATE 🟢🟡🟡⚪️⚪️ CORNY 🟢⚪️🟢🟡🟢 CHORD 🟢🟢🟢🟢🟢 >!CROWD
Double letter counter: 3/9

Some letters I've been working on today. Inspired by Arabic characters. For some background, I'm working on a story where there's an endangered language, it comes into play a little more later on in the story but it's used fairly often all throughout. I use the english alphabet when I write, so making a written form was more just for fun than for any part in the story. The first image shows the most recent characters I've been using, it translates to "Old Yđani, endangered for centuries, and spoken by the Yđani people." Theres also some dialogue from the story. The other images are just the first tests for the lettering, as it's still in progress, but those other pages are old and don't show what many of the letters look like now.

I remember as a child, sometime after learning number symbols and what amount they represent, I had a teacher who wrote her 2’s with a big curvy loop instead of a sharp point so that it looked more like a backwards 6 than a 2.
I kept mistaking it for a 6 before realizing it was a 2 which frustrated me, especially since I already struggled with math as is. I don’t have dyslexia either, it just truly looked like a flipped 6.
I remember being so angry about it and ranting to my mom over it. I couldn’t understand why she would write 2’s that way, as in the wrong way.
Even now, when I see people write a 2 with a loopty-loop in it (even if it’s a small one) I get annoyed. Maybe it’s a leftover from cursive? I hate cursive as well.
Maybe I’m a hypocrite because I like to put a dash across my 7’s, although I initially did that to differentiate them from my 1’s. Now I write my 1’s like a lowercase L, but still keep dashing my 7’s because I like how it looks.
Are there any ways in which people write their numbers or their letters that y’all find annoying?

Hi, I'm part of NC, small neighborhood with ~100 homes. I'm wanting to have a metal letter which is the first letter in all our family' names, to be hung in front of the home. It will be approx 2' x 2' and just one of the alphabet.
I'm not sure what rules will it fall under? It is not a yard sign, and it is not a religious or holiday decoration; so what is it classified as?
I'm not putting in the door, as my door is black and several feet inside a short walkway, so door isn't visible. I want to put it in middle of the external the wall.

I've always had the biggest crushes on the fun-sized and buxom ladies in my orbit of friends and now I find myself at a point in my life where I have the time and motivation to potentially do something about that dream.
You ---- Under 5'4" and with ample enough assets to push past the standard first 5 letters of the bra alphabet (F? G? H?!). Witty, flirty, educated, laughs at corny humor, disease, drug and smoke free. Perhaps you share my enthusiasm for the Art of Teasing, lingerie, oral, enjoy extended sessions of foreplay and would love to have a partner focusing extra attention on your breasts and nipples? Bonus points if you might be lactating or want to start.
Proximity to Western/ Central MD and South/ Central PA region would be nice. Mutual attraction is key. I hope to exchange details and SFW pictures relatively early on but I will defer to you on when and how more risqué stuff gets involved.
Me ---- Married, father, Mediterranean Heritage, fit and athletic with nice arms and a runner's butt. Blue eyes, salt and pepper hair with matching beard scruff. Aside from starting my 'silver-fox' stage early - I don't particularly look or feel 40. Disease, drug and smoke free.
You’ve read this far - you're a Champ! If any of the above piques your interest, well - I'd love to chat and learn more about you. No low effort replies please - tell me about your favorite band / artist to break the ice!

Let me explain my issue. When I go to the instagram search bar to begin a search. If I type the letter “q” for instance. And I ONLY type in one letter. It brings up 5 to 6 names of accounts. Quite a few of the accounts are of people I have either searched or clicked on their profiles on the explore page. But recently I noticed someone’s name that I haven’t ever looked up. It was a “dirty” account of a random girl on instagram. So that confused me. I decided to go through and hit every single other letter. I’d type in the letter “w” and again, I’d see most people I have searched, and then a few “dirty” female instagram accounts that I have NEVER searched or gone into. I thought instagrams algorithm only put up things you’ve searched or possibly be interested in based on other things you’ve searched. Could it be just giving me random people? I just don’t understand why it’s giving me stuff like this in every letter of the alphabet.

Let me explain my issue. When I go to the instagram search bar to begin a search. If I type the letter “q” for instance. And I ONLY type in one letter. It brings up 5 to 6 names of accounts. Quite a few of the accounts are of people I have either searched or clicked on their profiles on the explore page. But recently I noticed someone’s name that I haven’t ever looked up. It was a “dirty” account of a random girl on instagram. So that confused me. I decided to go through and hit every single other letter. I’d type in the letter “w” and again, I’d see most people I have searched, and then a few “dirty” female instagram accounts that I have NEVER searched or gone into. I thought instagrams algorithm only put up things you’ve searched or possibly be interested in based on other things you’ve searched. Could it be just giving me random people? I just don’t understand why it’s giving me stuff like this in every letter of the alphabet.

I remember an adventure game I played, where you could visit 26 subway or train stations, each representing one letter of the alphabet. There was also an "express" train that would stop at the vowels A, E, I, O, and U.
The game was maybe text-based or interactive fiction. I don't remember any graphics. I want to say you played a detective, and needed to visit different stations to collect clues and solve mysteries. Like, the D station was the Dry-cleaners and would be one step in the solution. I remember the train being the main part of the game, but it could be just one part of a larger game.
I was a child when I played in the 90s, so this could have been a children's game. It could have been created in any year before that. We played a lot of text adventures like Zork, and had an Atari among other PCs with MS-DOS.

That would be a PR problem.

Was doing some semi mathematical/philosophical thought experiments, and of all the things I did not expect to stumble on a paradox between these two concepts so I thought I'd share.
I'm going to give the main idea, but at the bottom I'll share some preliminaries for those unfamiliar with the relevant concepts, as in I explain it all so this post is still self contained. So if you're feeling lost below, skip to the bottom first. Even if you don't care for this specific argument, I think it's worth thinking about or extrapolating from the concepts in preliminaries, since a lot of people talk about God's infinite nature but don't often confront the paradoxes that have to do with infinity and are mathematically sound but can pose problems (the first time I engaged with it was after learning Cantor's theorem, since that seriously seems to imply either God's infinity is not the biggest infinity, or somehow not remotely definable/it doesn't even mean anything). So I think this is overall good practice.
EDIT (can skip this and go on to actual paradox if you’re getting impatient): While reflecting, I realized a lot of readers might think I'm a crank for writing something this technical on something related to God. I promise everything I wrote however is technically sound and coherent. The reason it is this technical is because it has to be to construct a logically precise question which God can no longer answer, if He's generous enough to share (even if we restrict to only being after an eternity) all His knowledge to any one person. And that's what it takes to show the paradox between being "the most knowledgeable you can conceive" with "the most generous you can conceive." I'm not myself convinced any of this argument is overkill.
The Specific Paradox
Suppose human lives are infinite, which you believe if there’s an eternal afterlife, then consider the set of “all knowledge humans would obtain after infinite time”. Obviously this set can be enumerated, f(1), f(2), f(3),… etc. Now what I'm about to describe is a construct that cannot really exist physically, but it is perfectly definable in math, in a sense that you can ask questions about it that have objective truth values. Basically define a modified Turing machine, but one where there is a second head, and instructions for when the second head takes a step, such that each step of the second head is essentially enumerating that set we just named (so in a single step it will print a new element of that set on the tape, wherever the head is). Now for this new type of machine, each such machine can be encoded with a number just like Turing machines, and such that you can code one machine to be able to simulate others when given the corresponding encoding. Each such machine can either halt or not halt like a regular Turing machine, and just like regular Turing machines, you can prove that no such machine in this class can solve the halting problem for this type of machine. This also means that the set of “all knowledge humans would obtain after infinite time” cannot contain the solution to this class of machine’s halting problem, since if it did that would be a contradiction with the fact this machine can enumerate that set as a feature.
Now, we can define a set, the set of all encodings of machines in this class, such that those encodings correspond to halting machines in this class.
If God is the most knowledgeable that we can conceive of, He can decide this set, can take any number and say whether it’s in the set or not.
That would imply God has more knowledge than the set of “all knowledge humans would obtain after infinite time.”
On the other hand, suppose a person really likes knowledge, and asks for “all knowable truths but after infinite time.” Then if God is the most generous we can conceive of, it seems not unfair for God to grant this, especially since the person is asking after infinite time, it’s not like they're even asking for it all at once/will ever really have it at one point in time. So it seems more than fair to grant that request, especially if you belong to one of the monotheistic faiths that believes heaven is where you're granted "whatever the heart desires that's possible." And it isn't inconceivable some nerd would want this, but if it is granted to them then it would contradict God being “the most knowledgeable we can conceive of,” since the set of numbers we described above and deciding it (meaning you can name whether an element is in it or not) would not be encompassed by the set of all of God's knowledge, since that would lead to the earlier halting contradiction we described. So you end up having one or the other, either the most generous we can conceive of or the most knowledgeable we can conceive of.
Analysis (skip below if you need preliminaries)
So a couple things. I'd like to repeat that even this request is somewhat restricted, since you're not even asking to be granted all of God's knowledge, you're asking to be “granted it only if we consider the set union of my knowledge at all future points of time.” And in fact, in some people's minds, "the most generous we can conceive of" would already pre-emptively entail an agreement to share all possible knowledge, since sharing knowledge is good no? So an explicit request isn't even necessarily necessary for this paradox.
Some other points. All of this falls under the framework that all knowledge in existence (including God’s knowledge) is a countable infinity, obviously God might instead have an uncountable amount of knowledge, but my issue with that is once you allow it, it becomes a “where do we stop” thing, because for every set you can define the set of all subsets of that set which will always be bigger by Cantor's theorem. So either the “set of all of God’s knowledge” is not even meaningful to talk about, or there is a limit, specifically a certain size of infinity where we stop at, and if it’s the latter then it seems very humanly arrogant to assume it’s any one specific cardinality (cardinality just means size but rigorously generalized to include size of infinities). Even if it's some specific uncountable cardinality however, you can easily modify this paradox to work with that cardinality as well.
You could also alternatively even reject any infinity exists, which would imply God is not an actual infinity and therefore can’t solve even the normal halting problem, that is a legitimate possibility too. But the property of being “greatest [insert property] that we conceive of” for most people is usually taken to mean an actual infinity, so they have to reckon with this. You could simply opt for agnosticism on this point, but in that case you cannot then use infinite as an adjective freely.
Ultimately, in the case that one does believe God exists and has an infinite nature and/or really does have attributes of the form "greatest [insert property] I can conceive of" (which would be infinite in certain cases like knowledge, e.g. even the standard halting problem has a solution but you provably need infinite knowledge to be able to solve it for instance, unless it having a solution is not in the possible knowledge you can conceive of, though that seems absurd), then this paradox illustrates that one of three things must be true:

1. God would grant the request of someone that desires “all possible knowledge given infinite time” but then God is no longer of the class of “the most knowledgeable we can conceive of” because there is a countable set of natural numbers we can even refer to that He cannot decide.
   
2. God would deny that request, and thus all possible sets we can refer to are decidable by Him, but then God is potentially not of the class of “the most generous we can conceive of."
   
3. God can’t grant that request to begin with because His knowledge is a greater cardinality than the natural numbers, and my usage of “infinite time” here was meant to be countable, although you could easily alter the paradox to include higher cardinalities in the request so this isn't really a point it just changes the goalposts.
   

I would like to know how those of you that believe in an omni[something] God and afterlife personally reconcile this paradox. As someone who does lean towards believing in a supreme monotheistic creator, I personally lean towards 2, that the knowledge precedes generosity, but I honestly don't have a philosophical justification yet.
Now, as I promised, here are some preliminaries:
Preliminaries
Countable and uncountable infinity, turtles all the way down
One relevant concept I brought up that might be unfamiliar to people, that I think should be the most well known though it's not central to the argument, is that of sizes of infinity. Honestly, I'm a little lazy so I'm just going to link this 8 minute video that does a marvelous job at explaining it. I know 8 minutes is a tough ask but I promise it's worth, and the rest in this post is self contained.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=elvOZm0d4H0
No technical background needed, a grade schooler can understand it, and I think it's worth learning about regardless of who you are, since Cantor's theorem really is one of humanity's greatest intellectual achievements.
Note he goes into the specific example of a countable infinity (the natural numbers) and how the first uncountable infinity is bigger (using the real numbers as an example). However Cantor's more general theorem applies to all sets, saying the set of all subsets of that set will always be a bigger set, even when our sets are infinite. Stated differently, there is always a bigger infinity. If you haven't seen this theorem before, depending on who you are this is either surprising to you or not surprising to you, and in both cases I can guarantee whatever reasoning you're using is wrong, but to see why watch the video :)
The exact proof in the video is a proof by contradiction similar to the halting problem proof I'll do below. But for Cantor's more general theorem I just stated, the proof while in the same spirit is a little more abstract than the specific example in the video, so I won't explain it here but feel free to check it out on wikipedia if you're curious.
Turing Machines
So the most relevant concept is that of a Turing Machine. While this may sound fancy, it's actually not hard to understand at all. Imagine a mathematician who can only write one symbol at a time. Except the chalkboard he's using to write is infinitely long. Do you get that? Then congratulations, you now know what a Turing Machine is.
Why the exact details of Turing Machines don’t matter
Sometimes people will present it as more technical, as a head that moves along an infinite tape writing only 0's and 1's. But that is basically what we just described, minus the limitation to 0 and 1. But the reason people use 0 and 1 is to show that in fact, this simplicity where you only have a 2 letter alphabet, is still powerful enough that you can use this model still to simulate other models that have a bigger alphabet. So the point when people do that isn't that we're intentionally restricting to 2 letters, but that 2 letters is all we need, even to do stuff that requires more! Even other details like the number of tapes or the dimension of the tape don't matter, since they can all simulate each other. So the point really is just that we can get away with something as minimal as possible, and that in some sense the details really don’t matter.
Why Turing Machines philosophically matter
Really the more relevant point though is that a Turing Machine is simply philosophically codifying what was already intuitive to humans, namely the idea of any finite procedure. Like an algorithm, a recipe, etc. As long as you allow instructions for behavior, and that behavior is allowed to be unbounded (while loop), then you basically have a Turing Machine.
On the other hand if you have a programming language with programs that contain if statements ("if [this] do [this"), for loops (which is just specifying an action to be done a certain number of times, but not infinitely), but NOT while loops (while [this is true] do [this'), then this is not a Turing Machine, because the "while" is the key, the infinite chalkboard, since what that opens up is the ability to never stop. Which might seem like a flaw at first, and it is in certain respects, but opening up that possibility is actually what gives computers the expressive power they have in solving problems believe it or not.
Footnote on Turing Machine usefulness in real life (can skip to next section if you don’t care): An asterisk here is that in real life there is no infinite memory so computers will always eventually stop, but A. we obviously don't want programs to run out of memory because they would have needed infinite memory anyway, both cause it's bad to use all memory but also you'd ideally want to know to stop it short before it meaninglessly loops like that and B. In some cases programs are meant to run for long enough/as long as possible before hitting some constraint that it's more or less still useful to model them as functionally infinite. Regardless for the sake of this paradox and mathematicians, even if it wasn't useful the idea of algorithms that might not stop still represent perfectly definable mathematical objects we can meaningfully talk about which belong to "the set of all possible knowledge".
Universal Simulation
Turing Machines are encodable. Once you settle on the specifics of the machine, like what the alphabet is etc (which isn't that important), then there will exist a way to encode each machine as a single whole number. And in such a way that you can define a Turing Machine that can in fact parse this number in order to simulate the machine.
You can even define a machine that takes in the encoding of any other machine, and all it does is simulate it, essentially a universal computer which is conceptually like your laptop at home. Also you can define the encoding scheme to involve every natural number, simply by having non valid encodings (which can also be recognized by machines as non valid) represent by default a basic machine that just does nothing. So essentially all natural numbers are Turing Machines. From now on if M is a Turing Machine, will refer to the number encoding it.
Undecidability of the standard halting problem
Anyway so because we have the possibility of our programs never halting, the halting problem is quite literally to decide whether a Turing Machine will halt or not halt.
(More specifically you have a number, and you want to decide if that number represents a Turing Machine that halts. Technically it's if the Turing machine halts on a specific input, so you would need an input in addition to the number, however we can actually change our encoding so that every natural number encodes both a Turing Machine and input for it. If you do that, then the problem really does become equivalent to "you have this well defined set of numbers, each representing Turing Machine-input pairs, and you're trying to decide for any number if it's in that set, meaning it represents a Turing Machine-input pair that halts" which is how I prefer to think of the halting problem, I'm just abusing my language and will keep doing so for consistency, but it's not that important).
Now if the halting problem is solvable, by a mathematician, computer, whatever, we can represent that as a Turing Machine Q that takes in an encoding of a machine and an input x, (so we can represent it's behavior as Q(, x)) and tells us whether M halts on x or never halts. You can then easily construct a machine Q' where Q'() does the following:
Q'():

Simulates Q, specifically running Q(, ) and thus checking if M halts on the encoding that represents itself.
If it does not halt, this program Q' halts.
If it does halt, this program Q' loops forever.

Now, what happens if we run Q'()? If Q' halts on itself then it loops forever, and if it does not halt on itself, then it halts, a contradiction. Yet this program is easily constructible if the halting problem is solvable, since it's built by simulating the program that solves that. Therefore that assumption must be wrong. So no program, no mathematician or anyone, can take in an encoding of a Turing Machine and some input, and tell us whether it halts or does not halt. The only way to do that would be if you have infinite knowledge, and I would assume most monotheists here upon learning about this problem really would believe "God can do it. God can solve the halting problem," thus implying God's knowledge is an actual infinite, since otherwise you would run into contradiction like this proof. In fact for some, this may even be used to reinforce why God must be of an infinite nature, that omniscience wouldn't be compatible with any fact to the contrary. The alternative is either believing He can't, or choosing agnosticism on such matters.
More turtles all the way down
Note that you can always define a new type of Turing Machine that's exactly the same but has an oracle that can solve the halting problem. Just like before this machine is also encodable. And just like the modified machine in the paradox this can't really exist remotely physically, even if we forgot finiteness constraints since we already showed the halting problem is unsolvable - this oracle is purely a theoretical construct. However, this new type of machine will have it's own halting problem that it can't solve for equivalent machines. And then you can define an oracle for that halting problem. But once again you'll just get an even higher level halting problem. So even if you can solve the halting problem there are higher level halting problems you still can't solve (google "arithmetic hierarchy" if you're interested, it's more general but basically quantifies how "unsolvable" a set is, yielding an infinite tower of classes, each containing sets "more unsolvable" than the last). Of course if you're like me, you would just shrug it off as God can solve all of these problems.
EDIT WITH SOME MORE THOUGHTS:
Just wanted to add you can also use the argument I presented to show that assuming the set of "all of God's knowledge" is a real infinite set (I argue in preliminaries why most who accept omniscience would agree it's infinite), you can always construct a question that's solution is not in the set, a paradox of omniscience alone since we can refer to a question that by definition can't be solved by God. To be fair this also runs into issues of epistemology itself, since you could use the same for the set of all knowledge in general, and therefore one could even argue that in some sense certain "truths" just don't exist/truth isn't definable. Which I guess has already been sorta established by folks like Tarski using other methods. In any case I presented the argument I'm giving as a generosity paradox, since once it's a question that is derived by being defined as unsolveable with respect to the set of all of a human's knowledge (which is what we're doing in some sense), that feels far more like intuitively it should have a solution by the being that's "the most knowledgeable we can conceive of" than a question that's specifically defined to be unsolveable with respect to all of just their knowledge (which again, defining it like that is what we're doing in some sense, though we need to do work to show it's well defined which is what the proof was). Maybe what I'm trying to say is, if omniscience alone can't deal with logical omniscient paradoxes, perhaps it should always at least maintain the hierarchy/superiority aspect of it, and that even that sorta goes into disarray if we allow a maximal generosity (in the context of this post, that being sharing all of one's knowledge, not necessarily all at once, I used a more relaxed condition, where it's in a way that they'd still get all of it given infinite time).

This is a comprehensive list of what I believe to be the most needed quality of life improvements for the players that still maintains the developers intended gameplay balance. If anyone has ideas of things to add, remove, or change to this list, sound off in the comments. I am not affiliated with Game Loft in any way and have no sway over their decisions, but maybe we can all make our voices heard and let them know what we want moving forward (after the latest bugs and crashes are fixed of course).
General Gameplay

1. Not requiring villagers to be in your current area (valley/isle) in order to get their profession bonus
2. Increase the surface area of tables (4 square tables shouldn't have a 1 square tabletop considering that the top is the widest part of most tables)
3. No more limit on how many mannequins can be placed in a single room and the ability to place them outside
4. Add a recycle function for all crafted items that costs dreamlight/star coins and gives you all your resources back, or is free but only partially refunds resources.
5. Critter and villager schedules should be tied to an in game clock so people with fixed schedules don't lose access to certain characters/critters
6. Every week should have a new quest that can earn you a furniture/wardrobe item so people who can't afford moonstones have a reason to log on every week (and give people who have finished all the quests ways to continue interacting with the villagers)
7. Add a job board that allows you to assign villagers to gather one selected resource for you related to their profession (1 villager at a time per profession, the more valuable the resource you choose the longer it takes to generate it, can only gather up to a certain amount that depends on item value, can only gather resources related to their profession, and the items won't count toward your duties)
8. Add a friendship level to all unlocked critter companions that can be increased by equipping, petting, playing with(with the play wheel or other critter toys), and feeding them (with food bowls). The levels of this friendship will unlock new features like the ability to gather items around you (as long as they are still highlighted blue), and place/pose them for all stances in photo mode (not just the critter stance); this would also apply to critters in companion homes, not just ones equipped in the wardrobe menu
9. If a player is in range to interact with anything that isn't their critter, prioritize that over petting their critter
10. All furniture with an animation should cycle indefinitely until toggled off by the player (especially fireworks)
11. Give Daisy's challenges the same reset schedule as Scrooges shop instead of a 24 hour timer
12. Allow feeding critters to count towards dreamlight duties even if you have already fed them that day
13. No repeat memories.
14. Alternative to no repeat memories is to have the repeats go into your inventory so that you can trade them with other players to help each other complete them
15. You shouldn't be able to get nothing or a trivial amount of star coins from digging. Every time you dig you should get 1-3 resources or a small chance for a chest
16. Add an option to switch off bonuses in the bonus menu (ex. you want to fish from white ripples or mine a gem vein when you're saving your pickaxe charges for stone or iron)
17. Add an FOV (Field of view) Slider in the options menu
18. Allow us to visually change the weather like the time of day (ex. make it rain without watering our crops for free or being able to catch fugu) and add a weather icon in the HUD so we know when it's actually raining even if we have rain turned off or fake rain turned on (HUD is only changed if we have manually changed the weather visuals)
19. Allow skin color to be applied individually to our male and female avatars like every other aesthetic aspect in the wardrobe section
20. Allow us to remove villager houses from the valley or make the valley bigger by expanding biomes or adding new ones. It has to happen eventually because you can't have infinite growth in a finite world (you would still have to place their house somewhere if you wanted to spawn them in to hang out or do their quests)
21. Alternatively you could add a hotel run by some Disney/Pixar character (My vote is Snow White as the owner with the 7 dwarves as staff). You can upgrade the hotel to increase its capacity up to 10-20 rooms. You would then be allowed to remove up to that many houses, moving the occupants to the hotel. But you would first need to do a quest for every household that requires you to decorate a hotel room themed towards the house. You would be required to meet tag requirements that match the house such as traits that it has and the Disney universe it's from so the occupants feel at home (similar to Daisy's boutique challenge) IDEA CREDIT GOES TO USER - Euraylie
22. Allow players to reskin villager houses. Adding more ways for us to blend them with our valley builds IDEA CREDIT GOES TO USER - Noggindrilln
23. Save makeup to a mannequin along with clothes when editing it so we don't have to manually change our makeup every time we change our outfit
24. Allow us to visually change large chests into other storage items we have unlocked, including TOM items (to allow players to make more creative and aesthetically pleasing storage areas)
25. Stop making non quest items unsellable. They take up valuable space in your storage (ex. night shards, training manuals, etc.)
26. Pathing fill button. Much like how we can hold a button to delete all connected pathing, we should be able to make a pathing outline and hold a button while selecting one of the outer pathing to completely fill the inner area
27. Make smart transfer completely fill all stacks inside storage while leaving the remainder in your inventory (ex. don't leave a stack of 50 of an item in your inventory just because the storage can only hold 20 more. Put 20 in and leave 30 so we don't have to manually split the stack every time)
28. Add a smart withdraw button so that you can transfer all items from storage that are already in your inventory
29. Allow pathing to be placed 1 square at a time to allow closer placement to the edges of biomes and bodies of water
30. Make craftable hedges that can be placed and extended like fences for custom sizing. Adding harvestable leaves that change with the real life seasons (Light green & flowery - spring, dark green - summer, Red/Yellow/Orange - autumn, snowy pine needles - winter) that can be used to craft the hedges along with wood and soil IDEA CREDIT GOES TO USER - Literary_Lady
31. Craftable bird nests that can be placed in trees and hedges for your flying critters IDEA CREDIT GOES TO USER - Literary_Lady
32. Allow players to flip the orientation of objects (ex. Assymetrical objects like the L-counters can be rotated, but the crook of the "L" always faces the same relative direction)
33. Add a buyback function to Goofy's stall that allows you to buy back anything you may have sold accidentally within a certain time or item amount window

UI

1. Add submenus for colors and patterns so you don't have a bunch of retextures clogging up your wardrobe and furniture menus (ex. You click on foodie loafers in your shoes and then a dropdown menu appears where you pick the color you want)
2. Add sort functions (alphabetical, newest, oldest, etc.) and search baalphabetical section index (the side bar with the clickable letters that bring you to that letter) for all shop/furniture/wardrobe/cooking/crafting menus IDEA CREDIT GOES TO USER - NotSoEvilQueen for the section index
3. Add furniture categories (ex. lighting, decor, etc.) for the furniture section of the crafting bench
4. Show all tags for selected items regardless of whether or not you are in the dreamsnap category (this includes scrooges shop and crafting menu)
5. Have all selected filter tags sorted the same way the dreamsnap section is (items with the most matching tags at top and fewest at the bottom instead of only items that match all selected tags)
6. Add 2 item counts for selected items in the crafting bench menu (1 for items in your inventory/storage and 1 for items placed in your valley) so you know how many items you already have before making more
7. Reset the crafting menu to the item you just crafted after crafting instead of auto scrolling back to the top
8. All items that show up as pathing and fences in your furniture menu should also show up in that category at a crafting table (ex. bumblestone fences, zircon tiles, etc.)
9. Have the back button hide the currently selected item in the shop and crafting menus instead of taking us out of the menu entirely (ex. when you select an item, it brings up a window on the right for that item. You can change the item by selecting a different one, but the only way to remove the window is to exit the menu altogether and reenter it without selecting an item)
10. Add a dropdown menu for all trees and underbrush that have multiple variations so you can actually select which one you want to place
11. Add a menu for selecting which memory to put on a frame/TV to replace the repetetive toggle
12. Add a button that you can press in furniture mode while your cursor is over an item that takes you to the item in your inventory so you can quickly add copies of an item you've already placed

Cooking

1. Add a section for restaurant orders in the cooking menu (only available when cooking in Chez Remy)
2. Add an option to turn off cooking/meal animations to make cooking faster
3. Allow us to select recipes from our history so we can autofill multiple copies of a dish with specific ingredients we've already used without having to manually select specific ingredients every time
4. Add a toggle near the autofill button to use the most valuable non specified ingredients instead of the least valuable when auto filling (when cooking with the purpose of selling)
5. Add an item counter so you know how many of a particular meal you already have in your inventory/storage before you make it
6. Widen the cooking pot so that some of the longer food items don't get stuck at the top of the pot if dropped directly into the center (PC only)
7. Classify almonds as dairy/oil like peanuts are instead of as a fruit
8. Organize the "all meals" tab alphbetically (there are already tabs for each meal type, so the "all meals" tab doesn't need to be organized by meal type as well) IDEA CREDIT GOES TO USER - NotSoEvilQueen

Touch of Magic

1. Every "Basic" item should have its own 50-100 TOM limit instead of having 50 for wardrobe and for furniture respectively. When entering the customize menu, you then have to select one of the basic items which takes you to a submenu where you can choose from your designs or a plus icon that you can select to create a new design for that particular item
2. Remove the limit to how small and increase the limit of how large you can scale motifs
3. Add the ability to scale length and width of motifs separately
4. Remove the layer limit in TOM or at least increase it to 100
5. Allow you to purchase TOM furniture from Scrooge with star coins, or make them craftable with resources, after you have purchased them from Daisy
6. Add sign posts/billboards to daisy's shop
7. Allow us to display multiple TOM items on a single mannequin. Or at least put generic clothes on the uncovered areas so I don't have a pantsless guy advertising my shirts

Photo/Dreamsnaps

1. Add a dialogue option to any character (must be level 10 friendship with completed main friendship questline) you're hanging out with to get them to stand still and stop following you. Then when they are in this mode you can talk to them again to return them to normal function or select one of their poses or animations. Because they are also considered as no longer following you, you can do this with multiple characters to set up intricate dreamsnap scenarios
2. Illumination radius for all lighting fixtures should be increased to make night shots more viable (and to generally improve the night time atmosphere)
3. Allow players to hold tools in pictures (give people an incentive to purchase tools from premium shop)
4. Have all TOM items disappear when you are in photo mode so they don't disqualify your dreamsnap attempt if you're not aware they're in frame
5. Alternatively just allow TOM in dreamsnaps. If you can share them in Daisy's shop, why not in dreamsnaps
6. Add a quest from Vanellope that gives you access to a virtual valley. You access it through a portal or computer and it brings you to an empty valley (no furniture, buildings, trees, etc.) so that you can set up outdoor dreamsnaps in it without destroying sections of your valley just to have to rebuild them again. You can't get resources in this valley and it resets every week for the new dreamsnap. All furniture is returned to your inventory, but any inventory items you may have placed would remain (all items placed on tables would be moved to the ground). There would also be an extra category in the furniture menu for spawning virtual villagers (only up to 1 of each villager you have unlocked)
7. Get rid of outfit challenges. Having tag requirements for your outfit makes it difficult to craft an outfit that looks good and fits the theme for the week. Plus everybody already puts together an outfit to match the decor challenge and most people add decor to match the outfit challenge anyway. Just have tags for decor and outfits both apply to the current challenge
8. Game Loft needs to be clear on exactly how tags and votes affect our score so we know how much we need to prioritize having a lot of tags over making a bettecleaner image to garner votes with.
9. Increase the voting moonstones to 10-25 a day instead of 50 a week to incentivize more voting and daily log ins
10. Add a 10-15 second timer to votes so people don't just vote randomly and actually have a reason to analyze each photo (would also benefit complex submissions that aren't easy to digest in 1 second and reward players for putting in more effort)
11. Prevent NPC dialogue boxes from opening up while you're in photo mode
12. Add a toggle when riding attractions to make them visible/invisible in photo mode
13. Remove blinking from all player, critter, and NPC stances in photo mode

Online/Multiplayer

1. Add the ability to interact with all ancient machines instead of just the cooker
2. Multiplayer dreamsnaps (Dreamsnaps can still only be submitted by host to disallow multiple people submitting the same dreamsnap). Outfit tags from guest players will not contribute to the host's tag count
3. Host player can still access furniture menu
4. All players should be able to talk to villagers and do quests
5. Allow all players to enter the host's house so we can give house tours as well as valley tours
6. Allow fast travel
7. Allow us to feed critters in other players valley without counting towards the hosts daily feeding limit
8. Allow players to remove the Multiplayer hub if they don't want it or add the functions of the hub to the plaza well since it is a permanent fixture, and it is already how every other character enters your valley anyway
9. Allow scramblecoin requests between players

DLC

1. Add an "Excavator" to the ancient machines in the timbending table that can remove respawning clutter (holes, rocks, mushrooms, etc.) and give you the resources.
2. No limit on how many ancient gardeners can be placed in one biome at a time
3. Give auto cookers and gardeners the ability to generate memories
4. Give the trolley tracks a function by letting the trolley move along them (so long as the track it's on is a closed loop) and maybe even add a train down the line. And give players the ability to ride them like the attractions.
5. Allow us to move or turn off the timebending orbs that spawn across the isle and valley
6. Add a coin flip to scramblecoin to determine who goes first (shake up the strategy meta a little)
7. Increase scramblecoin rounds to 6 or have gold coins start spawning on round 3
8. Allow players to dismantle timebending resources directly from our storage instead of requiring them to be in our inventory
9. Allow players to select seeds from our storage while interacting with an ancient gardener instead of requiring them to be in our inventory

Hey there! Here is the brand new 10 Questions Weekly Quiz by You Know What - this time, each answer starts with a different letter! Take your best shot and let us know how much you scored in the comments.
You can find the quiz here.

Hey there! Here is the brand new 10 Questions Weekly Quiz by You Know What - this time, each answer starts with a different letter! Take your best shot and let us know how much you scored in the comments.
You can find the quiz here.

Hey there! Here is the brand new 10 Questions Weekly Quiz by You Know What - this time, each answer starts with a different letter! Take your best shot and let us know how much you scored in the comments.
You can find the quiz here.