If the person you’re replying to is older than 30, this wasn’t the case for a good portion of their life. The family computer might have had some games on it, but mostly you fired up the console with its special built controller to play games
My mom and I are currently in the midst of one of these back-and-forth battles lol, but it’s been a few weeks and I think I managed to get her to keep the $20!
Some mod websites like Nexus Mods pay creators based on downloads. Silly meme mod makes people download out of curiosity, copycat gets one tenth of a penny. Rinse and repeat until rich
I have the opposite. My parking lot is so small that if one set of your wheels aren’t on the sidewalk, your car is sticking halfway out to the other side.
I can’t fucking wait to move into the city so I can walk and use public transport and not be so reliant on this fucking thing
What you’re referring to is called the P vs NP problem, and you’ve got it backwards. The problem is basically “does having an easily verified answer mean that there is also an easy to FIND the answer” and all the evidence we have so far points to no, but we aren’t sure.
This is the entire concept behind cryptology - it’s easy to verify you have the correct key, because if you have the correct key you can decode the message and it isn’t gibberish. It is not, however, easy to figure out what the key is from the encrypted text.
The problem isn’t the color scheme by itself. The problem is that there are 350,000 houses identical to this one all over the country. It’s soulless because they turned them all into cookie cutter copies of each other
We only know about that because he brought the kid to public events, probably safe to assume that he relied on armed guards instead of the kid in private
Bot swarms use VPNs to hide the individual behind it. Created a bad name for VPNs, so now individuals who care about their privacy get the short end of the stick
Okay, I’ll accept that I interpreted your initial question differently than you intended it. I should have clarified what you were referring to.
I’ve already stated that capitalism is not solely causing human driven climate change, other things obviously influence it as well. However, I will argue that capitalism encourages human driven climate change more readily than other socioeconomic models. This is because climate destroying methods of profiteering tend to make profits faster, and as discussed in many Economics 101 classes, “money now is more valuable than money later” because it can be invested. Ecologically friendly methods of profiteering tend to make profits slower and less often.
You asked how capitalism encouraged greed. I explained why greed is the optimal solution under a capitalist system. A capitalist system is a zero sum game, and in zero sum games greed is the optimal solution as dictated by game theory. Therefore, greed is encouraged by capitalist systems.
As to the new question you’re posing in this comment, capitalism isn’t necessarily solely responsible for climate change. Environmental theory and economic theory share a large overlap, but are not the same circle.
It is trivial to say that in a system which encourages social benefit over individual benefit, improving environmental conditions would be an obvious benefit that would be capitalized upon. However, without real history of such a system we can’t be certain of the nature of people under that system.
To be clear, “cheat” or more commonly “take” doesn’t necessarily refer to actually cheating the system, it refers to reducing the amount of resources the other player has.
Let’s imagine that in each transaction you gain ‘points’ depending on how the transaction went.
If 1 player cheats and the other shares, the cheating player receives 1 point (this is your standard transaction of giving money for goods or services or working for money). If both players share, they both receive 0.5 points (this is a transaction where both parties gain money, like a brokerage account). If both players cheat, both players get 0 points (this is when you say “fuck it I don’t want it it’s too expensive” or they say “sorry you can’t afford that”). This is the standard point assignment for a capitalist system or a zero sum game. (Assuming the paying party pays an equivalent sum to that gained by the receiving parties. Failing to do so is usually called Fraud lol)
In this scenario, the optimal solution is to always cheat because it offers the highest average point return. Assuming the other player plays randomly (ie, you are a company selling your stocks to an irrational population like in reality), the average is (1+0)/2 or 0.5. Someone who is kind and always shares has an average point return of (0+0.5)/2 or 0.25. Thus cheating is encouraged.
Contrast this with an economic system that is not a zero sum game - one where creating value for other players also increases your value. The exact mechanism of rewarding “share” over “take” is specific to the economic model in question. As an example, let’s pretend you get an extra 0.6 points from Big Brother when you pick the share option. Now, your average point return is (0+1.1)/2 In this scenario, cheating is discouraged because the total points created on average are lower than sharing and in the case of repeated interactions, cheating reduces the likelihood that the other player will choose share in the future.
Cheating to gain an advantage is not exclusive to capitalism
You are correct. Cheating to gain an advantage is exclusive to zero sum games, not capitalism. Capitalism just happens to be a zero sum game, while other economic models happen to not be zero sum games. In which, cheating to gain an advantage is not a winning strategy. The optimal strategy in those cases is to cooperate
Edit: To phrase this differently: under an economic system where sharing is more beneficial than cheating, having more than your fair share becomes a losing condition instead of a winning condition because it decreases the value of future trades and harms the collective valuation of resources. Under capitalism, cheating is encouraged because having more than your share is a win condition.
One can argue that capitalism is not a zero-sum game because prioritization and valuation of resources is not the same for every individual.
However, from the point of view of financial gain, it is a zero-sum game. In a transaction, only one party gains money (generally). In a zero-sum game where you have the options of share, steal, and give, the optimal strategy is to steal as dictated by game theory. Therefore, capitalism encourages greed.
In contrast, under an economic model such as socialism or communism, financial gain is measured across the entire system rather than any individual. In this scenario, transactions may be a nonzero-sum game because multiple parties can benefit more from working together than competing. Therefore, non-capitalist economies encourage less greed than capitalist ones.
If you’d like any sources about the game theory, let me know.
I’ve seen it one step further. I can’t remember what the service was, but I signed up for it and copy pasted the password into my password manager, then tried to sign in with it. Couldn’t. Went back and forth with the “forgot my password” page about three times before I realized that not only was there a limit to the text length: you auto-truncated my input upon saving with no indication to me
The cube wouldn’t necessarily heat up much while approaching terminal velocity.
Its close to infinite energy because you never have to reach the ground, so you technically have infinite potential energy but when you convert that potential energy into kinetic or some other type of energy, the vast majority of that potential will disappear instantly
Edit: in other words, you could generate incredibly large bursts of energy but not sustained energy with this kind of portal loop
Typing and playing games use keyboards in vastly different ways
If the person you’re replying to is older than 30, this wasn’t the case for a good portion of their life. The family computer might have had some games on it, but mostly you fired up the console with its special built controller to play games
My mom and I are currently in the midst of one of these back-and-forth battles lol, but it’s been a few weeks and I think I managed to get her to keep the $20!
Some mod websites like Nexus Mods pay creators based on downloads. Silly meme mod makes people download out of curiosity, copycat gets one tenth of a penny. Rinse and repeat until rich
I have the opposite. My parking lot is so small that if one set of your wheels aren’t on the sidewalk, your car is sticking halfway out to the other side.
I can’t fucking wait to move into the city so I can walk and use public transport and not be so reliant on this fucking thing
What you’re referring to is called the P vs NP problem, and you’ve got it backwards. The problem is basically “does having an easily verified answer mean that there is also an easy to FIND the answer” and all the evidence we have so far points to no, but we aren’t sure.
This is the entire concept behind cryptology - it’s easy to verify you have the correct key, because if you have the correct key you can decode the message and it isn’t gibberish. It is not, however, easy to figure out what the key is from the encrypted text.
Yesss, “sorry I just woke up! Did you manage to find someone?”
The problem isn’t the color scheme by itself. The problem is that there are 350,000 houses identical to this one all over the country. It’s soulless because they turned them all into cookie cutter copies of each other
We only know about that because he brought the kid to public events, probably safe to assume that he relied on armed guards instead of the kid in private
It appears they’re discussing electron flow, which causes a magnetic field
Bot swarms use VPNs to hide the individual behind it. Created a bad name for VPNs, so now individuals who care about their privacy get the short end of the stick
Okay, I’ll accept that I interpreted your initial question differently than you intended it. I should have clarified what you were referring to.
I’ve already stated that capitalism is not solely causing human driven climate change, other things obviously influence it as well. However, I will argue that capitalism encourages human driven climate change more readily than other socioeconomic models. This is because climate destroying methods of profiteering tend to make profits faster, and as discussed in many Economics 101 classes, “money now is more valuable than money later” because it can be invested. Ecologically friendly methods of profiteering tend to make profits slower and less often.
You asked how capitalism encouraged greed. I explained why greed is the optimal solution under a capitalist system. A capitalist system is a zero sum game, and in zero sum games greed is the optimal solution as dictated by game theory. Therefore, greed is encouraged by capitalist systems.
As to the new question you’re posing in this comment, capitalism isn’t necessarily solely responsible for climate change. Environmental theory and economic theory share a large overlap, but are not the same circle.
It is trivial to say that in a system which encourages social benefit over individual benefit, improving environmental conditions would be an obvious benefit that would be capitalized upon. However, without real history of such a system we can’t be certain of the nature of people under that system.
Okay, let’s try the numbers route:
To be clear, “cheat” or more commonly “take” doesn’t necessarily refer to actually cheating the system, it refers to reducing the amount of resources the other player has.
Let’s imagine that in each transaction you gain ‘points’ depending on how the transaction went.
If 1 player cheats and the other shares, the cheating player receives 1 point (this is your standard transaction of giving money for goods or services or working for money). If both players share, they both receive 0.5 points (this is a transaction where both parties gain money, like a brokerage account). If both players cheat, both players get 0 points (this is when you say “fuck it I don’t want it it’s too expensive” or they say “sorry you can’t afford that”). This is the standard point assignment for a capitalist system or a zero sum game. (Assuming the paying party pays an equivalent sum to that gained by the receiving parties. Failing to do so is usually called Fraud lol)
In this scenario, the optimal solution is to always cheat because it offers the highest average point return. Assuming the other player plays randomly (ie, you are a company selling your stocks to an irrational population like in reality), the average is (1+0)/2 or 0.5. Someone who is kind and always shares has an average point return of (0+0.5)/2 or 0.25. Thus cheating is encouraged.
Contrast this with an economic system that is not a zero sum game - one where creating value for other players also increases your value. The exact mechanism of rewarding “share” over “take” is specific to the economic model in question. As an example, let’s pretend you get an extra 0.6 points from Big Brother when you pick the share option. Now, your average point return is (0+1.1)/2 In this scenario, cheating is discouraged because the total points created on average are lower than sharing and in the case of repeated interactions, cheating reduces the likelihood that the other player will choose share in the future.
You are correct. Cheating to gain an advantage is exclusive to zero sum games, not capitalism. Capitalism just happens to be a zero sum game, while other economic models happen to not be zero sum games. In which, cheating to gain an advantage is not a winning strategy. The optimal strategy in those cases is to cooperate
Edit: To phrase this differently: under an economic system where sharing is more beneficial than cheating, having more than your fair share becomes a losing condition instead of a winning condition because it decreases the value of future trades and harms the collective valuation of resources. Under capitalism, cheating is encouraged because having more than your share is a win condition.
One can argue that capitalism is not a zero-sum game because prioritization and valuation of resources is not the same for every individual.
However, from the point of view of financial gain, it is a zero-sum game. In a transaction, only one party gains money (generally). In a zero-sum game where you have the options of share, steal, and give, the optimal strategy is to steal as dictated by game theory. Therefore, capitalism encourages greed.
In contrast, under an economic model such as socialism or communism, financial gain is measured across the entire system rather than any individual. In this scenario, transactions may be a nonzero-sum game because multiple parties can benefit more from working together than competing. Therefore, non-capitalist economies encourage less greed than capitalist ones.
If you’d like any sources about the game theory, let me know.
I’ve seen it one step further. I can’t remember what the service was, but I signed up for it and copy pasted the password into my password manager, then tried to sign in with it. Couldn’t. Went back and forth with the “forgot my password” page about three times before I realized that not only was there a limit to the text length: you auto-truncated my input upon saving with no indication to me
Actually in the identity matrix only the prime diagonal is 1s, so you’re more zeroes than you might think
The cube wouldn’t necessarily heat up much while approaching terminal velocity.
Its close to infinite energy because you never have to reach the ground, so you technically have infinite potential energy but when you convert that potential energy into kinetic or some other type of energy, the vast majority of that potential will disappear instantly
Edit: in other words, you could generate incredibly large bursts of energy but not sustained energy with this kind of portal loop
Does that actually loop infinitely? Don’t you just reach a terminal velocity and then maintain that momentum?