"Ah. You and your boss probably technically participate in politics in that you both are likely citizens of the country you live in which is a democracy, so you have the vote. When there's an election coming up you get mailed advertisements for candidates, probably. But let's say your boss isn't an elected official or otherwise highly involved in politics, so it's a combination of caring about politics without participation and trying to sway the votes of miscellaneous listeners."

"A democracy."

Specifically, a republic; there are elections. 

Representative democracy is not a very good form of government. And, Ileosa will repeat that out loud, to fill the air and keep the dream person entertained.

"Representative democracy is not a very good form of government. Democracy lacks nearly every virtue of a Lawful government, and Lawful government is the better half of why humans live better than harpies. So not only is my hypothetical self destitute, she must put up with witch-hunts, and anarchy, and guillotines, and piracy, and invasions. The one countervailing benefit is that a private citizen has an easier time ascending to public life in a chaotic climate, but I'd rather go to Hell without a contract than be stuck in a final blade. But I suppose I'd have to give it a try nonetheless. On the question itself, I would of course get chummy with my tipsy boss. I would not feel bad about lying, which makes my answer A."

"I don't actually think your alternate self puts up with those. Or, I mean, she might end up with drama that gets called witch hunts, but it's rare for it to end in people dying, it's more likely to lead to people being publicly shamed and losing employment, and it's not government-led. In Tasha's context, democracies are much less prone to famine than other forms of government, and people theorize that democracies are less likely to fight each other though that's more debated. The famine issue has got to be related to crop growth improvements, once you're good enough at growing crops a lot of what leads to famine is political. …but this isn't actually intended to be a political quiz."

Ileosa does not want to be shamed and lose her employment, that sounds horrible. And it's not even government led, at this point? Maybe that's what Andoran Province would look like after a generation of 'citizens' reared to feel entitled to Codwin's humiliation spectacles.

"I don't understand why a more volatile political system would tend to reduce famine... we can move on to the next question if you'd rather that than discuss this one."

"Let's not worry about it for now, we can talk politics later. …oh, this is a silly one."

"Use the emergency door marked "Alarm will sound," or no?
A. No. I'd keep looking for the right way to exit.
B. Push through and run
C. Push through and walk
D. I'd push through if it was for an emergency."

"I would... push through it if it was for an emergency, I suppose. Why is there a door that is only for emergencies? Does it open somewhere unpleasant?"

"It just goes outside. It allows for faster evacuation or enables evacuation if the main doors are blocked, but the alarm means that, when the building is normally operating, people only have to monitor the main doors. And that if someone opens it in the event of an actual emergency, like something catching fire, people who can't see the fire may still be prompted to evacuate by the alarm."

"A clever system. In that case, I would use the emergency exit only in case of an emergency, to avoid raising the alarm."

"That makes sense. I don't really understand this question, if they want it to be a genuine dilemma they should give you some kind of reason to want to leave the building quickly that isn't formally an emergency. Anyway, we have another horseless carriage question. Let's say you're driving at a speed of at least 25 miles per hour, your carriage can probably do 60 no problem but in this context the speed limit is much lower than that."

"Brake for a puppy crossing the street, or drive erratically to avoid it and save time?
A. What puppy?
B. I'd get out of my car and direct traffic to keep the dog safe.
C. I'd wait.
D. I veer. Move out of my way, drivers and dog!"

...That's a pretty fast horseless carriage.

"I don't think it's safe to drive these carriages at ground level, let alone the same streets as pedestrians and puppies."

"Drivers are legally required to pass driving tests before they get permission to drive horseless carriages on public roads. Even so, motor vehicle crashes are the primary cause of death for people your age, where Tasha likely comes from. There's a little more than one fatality per hundred million vehicle miles traveled. People really like being able to travel quickly, though. Uh, the streets get designed so that there's parts for pedestrians which are physically elevated above the parts for drivers by several inches, and there are places where signs and lights tell drivers to stop to make it easier for pedestrians to cross. But lots of people complain the system favors drivers going fast over pedestrians not dying."

There are parts of the street for pedestrians, elevated by several whole inches, wow.

"I'm going to hit the dog. If this is the primary cause of death for people my age, I need practice controlling the carriage when it impacts a living thing."

"Okay then. Let's call that option A."

"This next question assumes you're renting an apartment in a building with many other apartments, and that you continue to have indoor plumbing."

"The super wants to fix a leak from your unit. Do you let them in to stop a flood below you?
A. What superintendent? What leak? What neighbor? What 10 million knocks on my door?
B. I guess so.
C. Yeah, but I want a rent discount for the inconvenience.
D. My lease stipulates that I am to allow the superintendent access to my unit in these cases. "

"Does my lease stipulate that I am to allow the superintendent access to my unit in these cases?"

"Probably. Flooding damages the building so it's the kind of thing any sane landlord would want to include."

"Should I infer from option C being listed, that I think there's any chance it could work?"

"You might think there's any chance. I don't know how viable this kind of gambit would be, really, I never tried this kind of thing with a landlord myself."

"I think the options are A and D, then. I can let the superintendent into my room, or I can pretend to be asleep. Which option I pick somewhat depends on what the super is interrupting, and also somewhat depends on whether I live alone, how safe I feel around the superintendent, and whether I think I could outfight him or her if it came to that."

"I really don't think the superintendent is going to assault you. And it would be reasonable to suppose that you're eating dinner, or cooking food, or watching illusion shows, or such. I don't know if you live alone or not, but if you lived with a roommate or partner they would probably have some kind of opinion, so maybe we should assume alone?"

"In that case, my answer is D. The interruption is inconvenient, but, it's a reasonable request, and it's on the lease."

"All right. Next is another horseless carriage question."

"A traffic officer gives you a speeding ticket. Do you contest it?
A. No. I probably was driving too fast.
B. I'll pay it. The police need to make their daily quotas. They caught me slippin'.
C. I contest the ticket.
D. I'd bribe the officer. I don't need any more points."

"To be clear, the penalty for speeding is generally a monetary fine. Contesting the ticket wouldn't involve arguing on the spot, it would involve arguing in court later. However, your insurance provider will probably charge you more when they hear about it because it suggests you're a reckless driver, and if you commit lots of traffic infractions you accumulate 'points' which can make you lose your driver's license."

Ileosa does not want to lose her driver's license. She wants the mobility, and needs the attack power.

"How likely am I to successfully contest the speeding ticket? Is it my word against the traffic officer's?"

"The officer might have used instruments to measure your speed, which can be somewhat persuasive. In that case you'd need to request records about whether the instruments were calibrated recently and whether the officer was trained with them. On the other hand, if you happened to have trustworthy instruments monitoring your carriage and they showed you weren't speeding, that would be very helpful. And there's some chance the officer just wouldn't show up so you'd win that way."

"I see."

"Until this question, none of the answers I've seen had an associated moral alignment that leapt out at me, but option A is clearly a Lawful mindset, if not an intelligent Lawful mindset. As I am not a golem or an idiot, I will not choose option A.

"Option D must be what the traffic officer is expecting from me, but it might not be cheap, since the implication of option B is that I'm implicitly bidding against other drivers and the lowest bidders fill out the quota.

"Option C might be the best one: why would the traffic officer want to waste time in a courtroom that he could instead spend accosting drivers? The traffic officer needs only to attend the court often enough to instill dread in those from whom he solicits bribes. The bold and courageous course of action is to contest the ticket. 

"But, lacking familiarity with the disposition of the courts and with the range of possible outcomes, I'll do the safe thing and just pay off the officer."