Rolling a 1 might be bad for a Clink machine, but I assume that we’ll have more machines in future, for which lower-numbered boxes might be more useful. I think that if the randomness in Cog income is a problem, it’d be better to fix it either with basic income, or by changing the definition of a Clink machine to provide a certain baseline. (However, Cogs don’t do anything yet, so variation in Cog income may well not be a problem in practice; I can easily imagine a second sort of machine that generates some alternative resource from low-numbered boxes.)

s/k

i think you misclicked

no jumble, it’s a deferential and u voted against