Hi, unfortunately that company is not working anymore.
What needs to be explained? Sorry, I would need some kind of more specific question.
Something interesting I learned from The Bell Curve is that in the past, the upper class had more children and married younger than the lower class, whereas now the situation is reversed. The change started around the course of the Renaissance in Europe.
If the upper class is the more creative group and is doing more to populate the lower class than vice versa, then the upper class is going to have a much easier time passing on ideas to one another and to the lower class than vice versa. It would be easier for them to maintain themselves as a political coalition and easier to get the lower class to identify with the upper class. On the other hand, the reverse would be true in modern times. So before we had cultural transmission from upper to lower, now we have it from lower to upper.
This may be understood as a mechanism by which capitalism "sows the seeds of its own destruction", though not the way that Marx envisioned it at all. Today we have big problems with ideas ...
I've been reading this book called Biohistory by Jim Penmann. It has a sweeping theory of civilization that's based on huuman psychology, in particular the relationship between child-reading practices and adulthood temperament. I feel like I finally can understand conservatives now. I also feel like I can understand why there are so few libertarians and why it is so hard to convince people about it. The book suggests that people are not really thinking rationally about politics and their choices have a lot to do with how they were raised. Unfortunately, it seems that libertarian societies are quite rare because they are so open to new ideas that they quickly tend to lose the practices which gave rise to them in the first place.
Yes, self-deception is very bad but few have actually developed habits to oppose it in their own minds. Please look into cognitive dissonance, Neitzsche's theory of self-deception, and narcissism. This is a big part of solving the Byzantine general's problem. People who fight self-deception in themselves need to find one another and focus their attention on one another and away from everyone else.
Not sure it will really work that way but that would sure be nice!
Indeed. How do we make sure that nobody hodls bitcoin who doesn't understand that?
This recent video from a channel I enjoy called Dive Talk provides a lesson in why you need to hold cash (not because you want to get rich doing nothing).
*SPOILERS*
The video starts out as a cave diving mishap that turns into a Kafkaesque journey into the health care system trying to get treatment while Woody is dying of the bends. It turns out that the only thing that saved Woody's life was a credit card that issued him a 30 k USD line of credit. DAN, the insurance company, ultimately paid it all back but only because they are famous youtubers. In the comments you can read more horror stories about them that don't have a happy ending. Most of the story after about the half-way point is arguing with people about Woody's need for immediate medical attention.
The ending is falsely optimistic because DAN adopts new procedures which will prevent this sort of thing from happening in the future. I think we see a denial of economics on the part of the hosts, the same ...
The reason that conservatives are such losers is that everything they want to conserve is doomed from the start.
In biology there is a mostly discredited idea called group selection which was a theory about how biologists attempted to explain altruism in animals back in the early 20th century. What biologists have understood since then is that individual selection is much stronger than group selection, which means that an animal's instincts will be much more attuned to its own survival and reproduction and it will not sacrifice its own reproduction for the survival of the group. Any behavior that appears to be something like self-sacrifice for the survival of the group is actually going to serve the animal's individual reproduction in some way that is not visible unless you look closer.
For example, suppose that there is a group of animals and we observe that they risk their own lives by exposing themselves to act as guards that will warn the rest of the group if ther...
When is this going to get fixed?
I think politics can be understood along the following lines:
exploitation ↔ cooperation
inclusive ↔ exclusive
socialism ↔ capitalism
egalitarian ↔ meretocracy
authoritarian ↔ laissez faire
The first axis is what mostly we all care about but exploitation comes in disguise so it's hard to escape.
Socialism is always expoitation.
Egalitarianism is always exploitation.
Inclusivity is always exploitation UNLESS it uses proof of work.
I think that racists don't like inter-racial marriage out of a preference for long-lasting partnerships. (For other people)
Negging is REQUIRED because it's the only good way to deal with a shit test, which all women use. Women attempt to manipulate and undermine men from time to time, especially one she's just met who is trying to hit on her. That is a shit test. The way to show her that her shit test fails is to say something that devalues her, which is a neg.
Yeah why would you want to continue your race? That's gotta be a short-life strategy because it's based on being more loyal to an ideal than to your own DNA.
I think it's an attack from stupidity itself. People have tried to build things based on the idea that they are going to index the chain, which used to be cheap but is now expensive. People didn't predict that would happen.
Those dog breeds are all suffering from genetic drift due to inbreeding. If people were better off not interbreeding between races that would be pretty bad, that would mean that there isn't any comparative advantage between them, which is kind of a weird idea.
Hi, above I said that IP forces everybody to pretend that a profit opportunity is a capital good. That is not a religious argument. It is an economic argument. If you are mistaken about the economics of something, there will be real-world costs.
Your example of the wright bros. does not take into account the "unseen". In other words, it is a foregone conclusion because you are ignoring the innovation that might have happened from other people, had there been no IP. We don't know what that would be, which is the problem with historical examples.
http://www.dklevine.com/general/intellectual/against.htm Please check out the book "Against Intellectual Monopoly" by Boldrine and Levine. The book attempts to compare similar industries that are different in terms of their intellectual property protection and argues that industries without are more innovative as a result of being more competitive. This is an empirical argument that purports to approximate a contro...
Maybe I should get back into streaming. That might be fun! It would help if I had someone who could work with me on something, like back when I did the Satoshi Nakamoto institute. It's been tough for me to find collaborators.
