After a few months in a box in a close, it is obvious that Cerium has a problem.

I have received a replacement Cerium die, with cerium in resin.
It seems screen is old and tmux is what I should use. Here are some findings and notes.
I found a decent Cheat Sheet.
There seems to be a problem with backspace in tmux on macOS. I installed tmux via pkgin, so if you use brew or something, perhaps the situation is different.
The simple fix I found here was to create a ~/.tmux.conf and add one line:
set -g default-terminal "screen"
or
set -g default-terminal "screen-256color"
Other solutions fixing tmux-256color with infocmp and tmp failed for me. I probably just didn’t use the right versions of the commands in the right way.
As I understand it, panes are resized with CTRL+B+ArrowKey. But CTRL+ArrowKey does something else on macOS. I have not decided if I need to solve this yet.
Scrolling was always a hassle in screen. In tmux, this is a nobrainer for me (again ~/.tmux.conf):
set -g mouse on
I got samples of 4 private casks from Smögen and a Smögen 8YO. I will try them all and see what comes out of it. I will have a standard Longrow available as reference, and that is a quite high bar for a Swedish whisky.
From most pale to most dark: Longrow, 8YO, P79, P135, P119, P103… at a quick glance.
P79: Quite fruity, no peat really, some vanilla. More bourbon after a while.
P103: Slightly more mellow and sweet than P79.
P119: More bourbon and caramel here.
P135: More subtle, unusual aroma, fruit or chemical, a bit sour. Feet.
8YO: Slightly peated, dry, wood.
Based on my nose alone, winner would be P119 followed by, P79, P103, 8YO, P135.
P79: Clearly peated flavour, quite rich and soft in flavour.
P103: Both peat and I would say sherry. A bit more raw than P79.
P119: Lightly peated, more bourbon than sherry.
P135: Mostly dominated by peat, but not so much, sour.
8YO: This is a peated whisky. Really nice.
From best to worst: P119, Longrow, 8YO, P79, P103, P135
I compared P135 with Floki, and found P135 better.
I compared P119 with Bushmills 16, and found Bushmills better.
Some private casks are much better than others. The buyer of P119 picked american white oak and got a very good result, the buyer of P135 settled for “bourbon” and got a really bad result.
P135 vs Deanston 15YO Organic: Smögen is darker and with a clearly peated aroma. Deanston has a more clean, alcohol dominated aroma. Tasting Deanston it has some nice saltiness and maltiness but it is quite thin. P135 has a quite fine classic peat flavour, and it beats Deanston.
P135 vs Svensk whisky för Ukraina: Smögen slightly darker. Ukraina has a more raw wood aroma, Smögen a bit more peated. Ukraina, slightly raw flavour, but quite complex and balanced with a nutty sweetness. Smögen has a more solid peated flavour, and wins.
P135 vs Bergslagen Gast: Bergslagen has a more raw wood aroma, P135 more peat. Bergslagen has a quite dry clean smoky flavour. Smögen a bit sour in a not so pleasant way. Bergslagen wins.
P103 vs Bergslagen Gast: Smögen is darker and more red. Bergslagen has a kind of raw wood aroma. Smögen a bit sweeter (perhaps not softer), probably some sherry. I taste Smögen after a splash of water, it tastes young and raw. Bergslagen has a pretty dry, somehow classic quite balanced peated flavour. I like Bergslagen better.
P103 vs Balcones: Balcones is darker, sweeter and softer. Smögen is more raw wood and some peat. Balcones has quite much bourbon flavour, with some unusual kick. It tastes nicer than Smögen.
P103 vs Glenmorangie 10: Glenmorangie is much paler, with a light fruity aroma. Smögen is heavier and sweeter on the nose. I taste Glenmorangie and this is a whisky I want to like, but it kind of disappoints me, tasting alcohol like a blend, not having the malty caramel flavours I expect. Smögen wins.
P103 vs Andalusia: Andalusia a bit darker, with a soft sweet aroma, some vanilla. Smögen is more raw and peated on the nose. Andalusia also tastes quite soft. Smögen is more for the experienced and curious drinker. Quite close, I prefer Andalusia.
P79 vs Bergslagen Gast: Smögen is darker, with a softer and sweeter aroma. It also tastes pretty sweet and soft. Bergslagen is more raw, sour. I like Smögen better.
P79 vs Bergslagen Two Hearts: Very similar color. Bergslagen has a more bourbon like sweet classic aroma. Smögen more raw young wood. I had added water to both but after tasting I add more. Smögen has a more raw wood flavour. Bergslagen is a more soft mature whisky, not peated. I prefer it to Smögen.
P79 vs Highland Park Valfather: Smögen is a bit darker. HP is more lightly peated and a softer aroma, and the same is true when tasting. Smögen is younger, more experimental and more peated and you can obviously prefer that. I think HP is the better whisky.
P119 vs Johnny Walker Blue Label: Smögen a bit darker and more red. JW smells soft like velvet, Smögen is a bit sweeter, more raw and more peated. I taste Johnny Walker, it is flawless but a bit boring. Smögen more flavour, first peat and a bit sour with a nice bourbon finish. JW may be more smooth and easy to drink, but it just does not taste that good, so I recommend Smögen.
P119 vs Springbank 15 Rum: Springbank is much paler. Smögen has a more oily raw wood aroma. Springbank a bit lighter, not really fruity but honey or something. More peat in Smögen. I taste Springbank and find it salted, balanced, hint of sulphur (so I add more water) and pretty nice. Smögen is more burnt, raw and much more young tasting, but with a surprisingly nice bourbon finish. Springbank tastes even better with extra water, like a desert wine of whiskies. I prefer Springbank.
P119 vs Tobermory 12: Smögen a little darker. On the nose Tobermorys main impression is sweet caramel, nice and balanced. Smögen is much more raw on the nose with some peat. Tasting Tobermory it has a rich balanced flavour, hints of peat perhaps. Smögen is more both sweet and sour, less balanced, but more flavour indeed. Tobermory is much more of an ordinary whisky, but I prefer it.
P119 vs Hazelburn 2007-2021: Smögen is darker, with a heavier, more raw-wood, peated aroma. Hazelburn is dry, malty, flawless, but when it comes to power it can not match Smögen. I taste Hazelburn and find what I found with my nose, also hints of peat and tropical fruits, and with a kick. Smögen has a more peated flavour, more mature than the aroma indicated, less complex than Hazelburn. Smögen is good, but I prefer Hazelburn in every way.
I have a MacBook Air 11-inch 2014. It runs Big Sur and it is stuck there (not Monterey or Ventura) so I can guess I have security updates for another year (to autumn 2023). This means I am beginning to look for a new MacBook, but I am not desperate.
My 11-inch was bough as an outgoing model, discounted, sometime in 2015 so it has given me 7 years of good use so far. When I bought it I paid not so little extra money get 8GB of RAM (instead of std 4GB) but I left it at standard 128GB of SSD. Later I have bought a 256GB minimal USB-key that is constantly plugged in for a total of 384GB of storage.
Looking at Apples baseline today (autumn 2022) that is 8/256 GB, twice as much as it was 8 years ago (where is Moores Law?). Using the same logic as in 2015 I would be buying the M1 Air with 16/256.
Apple typically supports a computer for 7 years, then releasing security updates for another 2 years. But this is no rule. Some models are luckier than others. We may assume the M1 Air will be abandoned before the M2 Air. But it could be different. Maybe Apple will support Apple silicon indefinitely because of environmental reasons. Maybe the M4 will be very different, and M1-M3 will all be dropped with the same future release of macOS. We do not know.
My 2014-Air is approching end of support. But I have to admit that is not the only reason I want to replace it.
Apple computers can not be upgraded when it comes to RAM, SSD or CPU. And Apple charges quite much for upgrades when you order. So it may make more sense to buy a computer that will last you for a few years (and a little longer if you are lucky) than to pay much extra for a computer that may last a few more years (if it is still alive and supported).
Assuming you want value-for-money when you buy a new Apple laptop there are a few strategies:
Buy the cheapest (outgoing) model that can support your needs today. Since Apple computers are relatively expensive this gives you all advantages of a Mac and a new computer at the lowest price. This is also a wise choice in the sense that the computer may fail, be lost or be accidentally broken.
Buy a discounted (outgoing) more premium model that can be expected to be useful for longer. The drawback is primarily that the computer will be supported by Apple for a shorter time after you bought it.
Buy a new model just when it shows up. Apple keeps models for 18 months or longer, and rarely lowers the prices much. So it makes sense to wait until they release new models and buy them immediately. This maximizes Apple support time.
Regardless, the best time to buy a Mac is when new models just came out.
Right now, Autumn 2022, is not the best time based on the above. But we have a situation with inflation (and I would guess the upcoming M2 Pro and M3 Air will be more expensive than current lineup) and recession (Black Friday offers may be unusually good 2022).
As the M2 Air was introduced this year I looked at it and decided to keep my 11-inch 2014 until the M3 Air is introduced in the future, but a good enough Black Friday deal could perhaps change my mind.
Apple compters can not be upgraded (RAM/SSD). The problem with future-proofing by buying a very expensive computer (say M1 Ultra, 32/2048) is that it may take several years until you have any need for it, and by that time it may be the wrong thing anyway (or it has broken). Paying for a 2TB SSD today that you will not make use of until 3-4 years, or never, is simply not so smart.
The status of my 11-inch 2014 is:
So when I bought the 2014-Air I knew these things and I knew it would perhaps last so long. In that perspective, 7 years of service is good.
What are my new requirements?
The problem with CPU is… that it is currently the most limiting factor of my 2014-Air (i5@1.4Ghz), but no other laptops in 2015 would really have made a difference today anyway. When you are out of SSD, or when you are out of RAM, it really limits you and you need to replace the machine or change how you work with it. When your CPU gets old it is just a slightly degraded experience. What my computer is not capable of is to use my iPad as a second display, and that is just because it is a too old generation.
M2 Air 16/1024GB: this would be a convenient choice. However it is so expensive (twice as expensive as the computer it replaces).
M1 Air 16/1024: this would be a reasonable choice at a good discount. But this is a computer that already used 2 years of expected support. Buying it at full price (which is cheaper than the M2 Air) would have made sense when it was just released but not today.
M1 Air 16/256: At a good discount, this is the equivalent decision of buying my current 2014-Air in 2015, which turned out ok.
M1 Pro 14-inch 16/512: This is a machine that I usually consider too expensive (because I can lose it, pour Coca Cola in it, or it may just break after warranty). However at a good discount it definitely seems to give value for money.
M1/M2 Pro 13 Inch: This machine would be a “pro” option if it had SD-slot and Magsafe.
I live in Sweden so the prices are in SEK. Black Friday season has started and we see lower prices. But given that these are models that are 1-2 years old, to me it looks more like an adjustment for an older product than a real bargain.
The M1 Pro is down to 5/6 of the price. But what if that gives you just 5 years of supported usage instead of 6? Then I basically pay the same per day of usage, but I missed the first year when the model was the best. On the other hand, if the Pro is the right way to go (14-inch, better loudspeakers, SD-slot), this may be the last opportunity ever to pick up a Pro at this price point.
I have to say that Magsafe is something I really want. I am so happy Apple brought it back (otherwise I could considera Dell XP13 at a great Black Friday price). So M1 Air is a bit off the table.
I also like the idea of an SD-slot, not only to import photos now and then, but also to use for extra semi-permanent storage in the future.
Given what this looks like the only thing that tempts me is an M1 Pro.
M1 Air | M1 Pro | M2 Air | |
16/256 | 14495 | 18995 | |
16/512 | 17195 | 19990 | 21495 |
16/1024 | 19995 | 26495 | 23995 |
16/1024 (10 Core) | |||
Magsafe | Yes | Yes | |
SD-Slot (and HDMI) | Yes | ||
Age / Support | -2 years | -1 years | |
Better Display & Audio | Yes | ||
Lighter | Yes | Yes | |
Faster CPU/GPU | Yes | Yes |
I caved in an replaced my working, supported, fit-for-purpose MacBook Air 2014 with a MacBook Pro 14-inch, 10-core M1, 16/1024GB. I have used it for a month now, and I have not looked back.
I like the display, the audio, the keyboard, how it sits in my lap, that it is fast and has seemingly limitless battery life. I have not taken it out of my home or pressed it very hard yet though.
The most surprising thing is that I barely use the Mag Safe. I have an iPad Pro with a USB-C-charger. So when I put away my MacBook Pro I just put it on top of the iPad and plug in the same USB-C-charger. Since battery life is so good I don’t really feel the need to keep it plugged in when I work with it, thus the need for MagSafe is limited.
I have moved in all files from my NAS using syncthing that made some sense to copy to the laptop. That is less than 300GB used, out of 1TB. I think I will make use of more than 512GB eventually, but the extra cores compared to the cheapest M1 Pro or even the M1 will probably never make a difference.
I have used the SD-card once to import pictures from a camera.
All in all, I now feel I would have been ok with any of the 16/512 configurations above, and given my MagSafe revelation, the M1 Air would have been a sensible choice. Now I paid 30-35% more for the Pro with more storage. If it does not die on me I am good with that.
I have been using Ubuntu since 6.06 I think, and before that I mostly used Debian. Before that I used Slackware, and I have occasionally tried Red Hat Linux (version 6 or 7, not RHEL) long ago as well.
I have mostly used Xubuntu because it is light, clean, traditional desktop-minded, and somewhat similar to macOS, and my current Linux PC is a Hades Canyon that I installed Xubuntu 19.10 to. That Xubuntu has been updated a few times, lastly from 22.04 to 22.10, and while I like a Debian based system there are somethings that have bugged me:
Some of these problems are perhaps caused by a system having been updated for several versions over a few years so it was anyway time for a clean install.
The HDMI noise was something I could not tolerate so I tried a Live Ubuntu 22.10 USB, and that worked fine. But I have recently read some things that made me curious about Fedora so I tried a Fedora 37 Live USB as well, and that also gave me good audio out. Both come with a new version of Gnome (Fedora more standard than Ubuntu).
I have never really been a Gnome fan. Checking out the Live USBs I realise that Windows 11, Gnome and ChromeOS are surprisingly similar. And in a way they are all pretty similar to macOS.
Deep inside I would like to use the Awesome Window manager. But I am not really willing to pay the price of learning and of not having the convenience (of a modern desktop). I have not tried Awesome so I do not really know.
So I am willing to give Gnome a chance instead of lingering on Xfce and Xubuntu. Those people who design Gnome must hate high information density – I have a problem with that.
Given I want to try Gnome I see some advantages with Fedora:
Installing Fedora 37 (BETA) was easy. I few thoughts after a few day:
On my Mac there is an application called Performance Monitor. In Gnome I have System Monitor. This is for a technical audience but System Monitor in Gnome feels underwhelming. This is where I would like higher information density, options to dock it the the menu (or something), and simply a better application. Honestly, Task Manager in Windows NT4 felt more professional.
On my Mac there is the “About this Mac” menu option. I like it much. I can immediately see details about my computer, both hardware and OS. It would make so much (more so than in macOS) sense to have this in Fedora: RAM chips, CPU model, Motherboard model, Installed hard drives, GPU model and VRAM, and so on. And what is my Gnome version? It may sound like a joke, but then you want to install and configure stable-diffusion and you need to know you GPU spec.
In the “Software” application I can see that there is a kernel update from 6.0.6.300 to 6.0.6.301. But it does not tell me I am on Fedora 37. And lsb_release is not available, as it is on Ubuntu.
I suppose it is possible to install more things and configure Gnome to make it a bit more tech-savy.
WARNING: The lamp prototypes suggested below may not be safe for general use: especially not around children, left unattended, or close to anything flamable.
I got a beautiful Oil lamp that I use much.
This lamp uses Lamp Oil (kerosene, paraffin oil). When I bought that I was a little chocked with two thing:
However this “real” Oil lamp does not run well on vegetable oil (I have tried canola oil). It runs for a while but I think the problem is that the viscosity is too high so the oil does not flow properly upwards through the wick as required.
I can buy canola oil for 25% of the price of lamp oil. And it is obviously not dangerous (since it is for cooking). However it is thicker and has a higher flash point. It is also supposed to not burn cleanly (leaving smoke and smell). So I was curious if I could design a simple practical and not too ugly oil lamp for simple (unused) cooking oil.
Skipping the failed designs here are the ones that kind of work.
What you see in the picture are five components:
placed inside a fireplace. This burns well: no smoke, no smell, burns for hours. I have read that vegetable oil consumes the wick faster than lamp oil. Perhaps that is true, but nevertheless the wick lasts much longer than it would have in a normal candle.
How about moving the metal washer with the wick to a small bottle?
This is a very simple design and as you can see in the (somewhat unsharp) picture it burns nicely. But it only burns nicely for about 60min, and then it burns barely for another 60 minutes and then it dies.
Only the canola oil in the bottleneck is consumed. After that it appears the height difference between the oil level and the washer/fire prevents the oil from ascending the wick (fast enough).
I tried filling an old candle jar with about 1cm of canola oil, and used a wick and a metal thing for this result.
This burns nicely! The sides of the candle jar does not get very hot, and the bottom of and the oil remains quite cool. The metal thing from a hardware store is obviously designed for another use.
The good thing with this design is that it is simple (jar+metal thing+wick) and that not so much oil goes into the lamp. You can easily reuse pretty candle jars that are already designed for the purpose.
I would not guess that most spirit burners (or oil lamps) work well. But SPIRI-1 from Böhm Stirling-Technik works perfectly with canola oil. The good thing is that it is (roughly) the size of a tealight so you could replace your disposable tealights. The bad thing is that it is quite expensive.
First I think vegetable (canola) oil is underestimated for decorative light at home. However I can see that tealights can be sold and managed in a safe way and are easier to use.
It often requires two matches to light the canola, because the flash point is very high. However I think the high flashpoint is also good for safety.
Cheap candles and tealights are made of petroleum and they don’t necessarily burn cleanly without leaving unhealthy particles in the air. I can not guarantee that the canola oil also does not leave any particles in the air, but the oil itself is not toxic at all.
I have never been the exercising type. I walk quite much. But I don’t run, I don’t lift weights, I don’t like to get exhausted and I don’t like when it hurts.
Having passed the age of 40 I realized I am not getting younger, healthier or stronger. Although a little bit heavier – not overweight at all, but skinny-fat.
In the autumn of 2018 I listened to Jordan Peterson talking about his book 12 Rules for Life. This particular lecture was about Rule #4: Compare yourself to who you were yesterday, not who someone else is today. Peterson mentioned in his lecture that if you make small consistent improvements over a long period of time, you will eventually make significant improvements in the long run.
Inspired by this I set up a scheme of exercising that works for me:
That is it!
I started out with very low ambition. The first weeks I did ridiculously little exercise. But after 8-9 weeks I saw some improvements, I had got the habit, and I did not want to fail and give up. I have now done this for a little more than a year, and not a single week I have failed to improve.
A few more things:
This is my weekly (every 4 week printed) progress:
Week 49 1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29 33 37 41 45 49 a) 195 320 380 400 420 435 440 450 460 460 460 460 460 460 b) 30 30 35 50 60 65 70 75 80 80 c) 40 75 105 120 120 120 120 120 125 130 130 140 140 140 d) 29 80 100 120 155 160 165 165 171 175 175 180 180 180 e) 60 85 105 120 120 120 120 120 120 125 125 125 125 125 f) 30 45 60 75 80 90 100 100 120 120 135 150 155 170 g) 20 30 35 40 45 55 60 65 70 70 80 h) 30 45 50 50 50 50 50 50 i) 15 20 25 25 30 j) 15 30 35 35 40 k) 60 60 Total 354 605 750 855 955 990 1050 1095 1161 1215 1260 1310 1380 1415
The different exercises are here named a-k (the important thing is that you find exercises that you like) and the number can be seconds or repetitions (sometimes this is for two sides so I do twice as many). So I think it is a good guess that I exercise almost one hour per week, but that is effective time. I would not be able to do this in a gym in one hour, that would be too heavy.
As you can see it levels out a bit. It is hard, I sometimes hate it, but I improve and I do not give up!
In the beginning I set up a few goals: new personal records when it comes to pushups and planks for example. I reached those and now my goal is to be able to walk on my hands. So I do see results! Also my body looks and feels different.
Motivation will not take you too far. There comes a day when motivation simply fails you and you can lose a good habit. However, if you are disciplined about systematic improvement, you do not fail even when your motivation is low.
If you already exercise regularly and you are happy about it, you are probably already better than I will ever be. But if you really do not exercise and you are aware that you and your body would benefit from it, I think this is a method for you.
Start out with very low ambition. You need to negotiate with yourself (as Peterson says). Perhaps you can do 10 pushups and 10 situps the first week? And 11 the next. Do it, you have nothing to lose. And after a few months giving up on your good development is harder than doing those damn pushups.
I think for me a weekly goal has been good. Some days are just not good days but I can make my weekly goal anyway.
I have previously run Mojave 10.14 on an unsupported MacBook Pro thanks to Mojave Patcher. Now Catalina (10.15) is out, and so is Catalina Patcher (1.1.7).
The only story to tell is a short story of success:
No need to patch manually, to choose hardware, or anything. All just smooth.
I was running 10.15(.0) for a while, but it never upgraded minor versions. With MojavePatcher, macOS upgraded itself, often resulting in an unbootable system (until patched again with a more current MojavePatcher). With CatalinaPatcher it seems macOS simply does not upgrade. I will not tell you what did not work, but what I finally did.
After this, my MacBook Pro 6,2 came up with 10.15.4 and all seems fine. Even TimeMachine.
So upgrade minor version seems to be about reinstalling full versions.
This was an easy update, I did just as for 10.15.4.
Everything seems to be working just fine.
Same as for 10.15.5. It is actually the same version of Catalina Patcher (1.4.4) that I ran again to download latest Catalina from Apple.
As a D&D Dungeon Master I occationally need to create maps, and I discovered Wonderdraft. I have tried it a bit and I will make notes in this post (and update as I learn) hoping it could be useful for other people thinking about getting Wonderdraft.
I spent a few hours the first evening I got Wonderdraft and I produced two real maps for my D&D campaign. One is a town, and I think I need to learn more to make good town maps, but it is ok. The other one is a more black and white map with towns, paths, mountains, rivers and a few named places.
One feature that surprised me was that I can import a picture (a PNG scan of a map) and it makes a map of it. It does not get good, but at least you get the basics. If you have a map with coasts and forests and towns and you just want the proportions right this is useful.
I learnt a little later that you can rotate a symbol using they keys: . and , before placing it.
The Wonderdraft web page is quite clear that a powerful computer with a decent GPU is needed or recommended. I have tried a few different computers and reasonably small maps (1920×1280).
What I am saying here is that for my initial, not so large or complex maps, I am satisfied with the performance of 2014 computers and newer, running macOS and Windows: Wonderdraft was snappy and immediate. With the painfully slow machines there is a 1s latency on everything. But it works.
Map size matters much though! I tried some assets on the MacBook from 2010 and used 800×600 maps. Then performance was acceptable (although I had occational crashes).
There is a community for extra free assets with Wonderdraft. I did things backwards, but I recommend you make it easy for yourself.
I started working with manual downloads, manual unzip, manual placement of folders in my asset-folder, and Mythkeeper simplifies it all very much.
A little while ago I wrote DM lost in Forgotten Realms. I have been thinking a bit more, and I even talked to my players (who thankfully are not into Forgotten Realms lore).
There are some problems with Forgotten Realms (or Faerûn, the continent where most things happen):
The good thing is that if you want some type of place to run your campaign, it is very likely that such a place exists in Faerûn. The bad thing is that when you start looking around (or just back a little in time) it probably gets very twisted compared to your expectations, like:
This is not far away in Mordor. You find it most everywhere. You may argue that Forgotten Realms is big, and I can change what I don’t like… and that is what I intend to do.
This is just my idea of turning Forgotten Realms into something we like better in my group. I am just drawing out the primary ideas.
After Time of Troubles, Spellplague and Second Sundering things did not calm down. Instead both Good and Evil tried to dominate and the deities kept being active.
16th century was a century of war, death, fire and destruction throughout Faerûn, and in the end of it some major players were beginning to get enough of it, among them Lord Ao (the overgod). Lord Ao established some new principles and managed to have them enforced.
The other deities mostly accepted. They were wounded, tired of war, imprisoned or not achieving their goals on Faerûn or elsewhere.
17th century, was a century of unusually little magic in Faerûn as many spellcasters were dead after the wars and the deites (including Mystra, deity of magic) were quite absent. Instead hard working mortals formed city states or smaller countries than had been seen before. Rangers started roaming the growing wilderness in the name of Silvanus, and druids settled around the lands.
18th century was the end of the Dark Ages of Faerûn. The newly born Faerûn is a beautiful wild mysterious place with scattered villages and towns inhabited by hardy, brave people.
Spellcasters are found across the lands. The old deities are rediscovered, as is arcane magic. Attitudes to magic vary, from hostile to friendly, and often curious.
Lawful ambitious mortals are aspiring to form new empires in the present power vacuum, both good and evil, but the lands remain mostly wild and chaotic. Among the good there is some appreciation for the beauty, the wilderness and the relative peace under neutral Silvanus. The evil on the other hand see much potential and quite little resistance.
The (low magic, nature oriented, somewhat) Moonshae Isles fell less into chaos than other lands. You find the isles not too different from what they were bofore Time of Troubles. Lycantropes, vampires have faded and Kazgoroth has not been seen in long, remaining the symbol of evil on the isles.
The heartlands (the Sword Coast to Cormanthor) saw great destruction and devastating wars during 16th century. However the cities of the heartlands were not all completely destroyed, some remained and some has been rebuilt. The heartlands is where hard working mortals have gathered to build new nations.
In the northwest, the coastal areas were not so damaged by the wars, and some settlements of good people remain.
The rest of Faerûn, the north, the east and the south, are very wild lands. There are of course settlements of good people, but nature dominates and evil is more common.
The truly far away lands (east of the deserts, south of Shaar) can be an enirely different story.
I shall be able to use most maps, and all lore is valid, just history. I shall also be able to cherry pick stuff (places, NPCs, adventures) from 2e-5e and just import it into my setting (without my group of players having any reason to complain).
The year is 1772 DR, and I think it will be great fun!
Einstein said: “everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler”. I guess that could apply to my campaign world as well. Why would I not want a simple story and feeling that captures my campaign?
On the other hand I understand that for WotC, Forgotten Realms is complicated because they have very many different requirements on it (not the least to fit all current and past adventures and novels).
So maybe Forgotten Realms is good for WotC, but I can actually do better for myself.
You may be well read about Forgotten Realms and think: “But that is how forgotten realms already is: mostly wilderness, mostly citystates, no dominant nations. You just got rid of interesting places and lore because you didn’t understand it, and you may regret that down the road when Tethyr och Calimshan would have been ideal for your ideas.”
And you may actually be right about that!