Isn't it just the predators that care about stock price to enrich themselves? Couldn't a co-op exist which offered non-predatory pricing and didn't try to maximize their stock price constantly? And real estate in destitute rural areas is generally dirt cheap.
Of course this could be offered. But, no one wants to do it because it's a thankless job. And if you're going to do a thankless job, you'd probably rather get paid a lot of money to do it than very little
You're ducking the argument. The loot from predatory practices is quickly absorbed not just by the single player perpetuating them, but by their complements in the economic network -- complements which a competitor would have to deal with on the loot-enriched terms, which turn launders exploitation into a "necessity" and transforms any charity into a weakness that will ensure your replacement. That's what Nash Equilibrium is, and it's an elementary result of game theory that Nash Equilibrium can lie very far from the global optimum. Even the global minimum can be a Nash Equilibrium. We should aspire to do better.
The thing is, punishment cannot strictly be punitive - there must be an opportunity to learn and grow, otherwise nothing changes.
When we "punish bad behavior" in adults by, for example, sending them to jail for crimes, without providing counselling and other services to get their life back on track, where does that lead us?
When we "punish bad behavior" in adults by, for example, kicking them out of the family for shitty views, where does that lead us?
The trick, as I highlighted, is walking the line between these 2 things. Many people don't, and just jump to the punishment.
So, the particular problem here is the internet and social media in general.
Make them go away and most of our political divide starts to disappear, with that said TV news is pretty crazily divided these days.
Simply put your idea does not work when there is huge amount of active propaganda with the entire purpose of causing confusion and division. "This video will make you angry" hits on the psychology of what's occurring. People don't spend most of their time communicating with 'the other side'. They spend most of the time attacking purpose built strawmen to solidify their convictions.
as the other reply, you should still teach your toddler why they should not do certain things. That might be the bridge building.
Not demonizing a person for their needs, but instead making sure that their strategy of getting their needs met is criticized and yes maybe punished. BUt still acknowledging their need in the process.
When Gaben's 11 organize a heist to steal the RAM wafers from the high-security vault in Sam Altman's basement, the price of the steam machine will drop below $1000 USD.
Autopilot kills loads of people but my understanding is that autopilot is the dumb driver assist while FSD is the one that tries to solve general purpose driving.
Has FSD really only killed 2 people? FSD has driven 6 billion miles and the human driver death rate is 10 per billion so it has killed 2 where "as good as human" would mean 60. That seems really good tbh.
Yea, I believe the human miles without crash is something like 496,000, Tesla emergency intervention alone increases it to about 2 million and FSD is sitting at 6 million.
My biggest gripe with FSD is typically that it's too safe in a few situations where I would have gone a little sooner at an intersection.
Yeah Tesla has more smoothing, but IMO that's less interesting than the ability to navigate tricky scenarios and model other actors. Here's my collection of interesting videos, Tesla only because those are the ones I get forwarded to me. I'd love to see a similar collection for Waymo.
A camera CMOS dies at 1–2 µJ pulse, this same pulse energy reaches the cornea. If a sensor has fried, that means the dose to your eye is already in the zone of cataract creation. Human corneal endothelial cells do not regenerate. If the endothelium is damaged, stromal fluid accumulates and opacity can progressively over months/a year from one hit. You might never know what caused it.
You fear it may be? Is the LeBron episode not enough? The leaked system prompt? The "everything is white genocide" episode? Every time he promises to "fix" it when it says something he doesn't like?
Elon has proven again and again that he is making a propaganda bot, it is completely unreasonable to extend the monumental amount of charity required to look past this.
The lies that Trump used to send that mob to the capital are in a different galaxy of falsehood than the BBC editing down some of his less fiery invective. It's one hell of a choice to focus on the latter over the former. Your bar for the the left is on Mt Olympus, your bar for the right is buried underneath the Mariana Trench.
If he really lied so badly they could have just broadcast those lies and held the moral high ground, but they didn't. They had to make things up (not "editing down", they spliced together sentences 50 minutes apart and hid what they did).
That should be a huge reality check for you. How do you even know that any of your opinions about Trump are true? You're getting them from the kind of people who fake videos of him. You should consider the possibility that nothing you know is accurate.
You're clutching this complaint about editorialization like a soccer player faking an injury but facts don't care about your feelings: Trump's speech wasn't just incendiary as fuck (I've listened to it in whole), it did incite a violent mob that broke into the capitol and chanted "Hang Mike Pence! Hang Mike Pence!" as they carried a hastily constructed noose and gallows around capitol hill.
Meanwhile, there is no factual basis for Trump's claims at all:
Your team had 60 chances to make factual arguments of any length using any evidence and witnesses and they failed every one of significance, even in front of Trump's DOJ and judges appointed by Trump!
What's the evidence that he wasn't just wrong but intentionally wrong? Oh, only a hundred things: we have Steve Bannon saying he planned to declare victory regardless of the outcome because there was no reason not to do it, we have the emails where John Eastman set up the fake elector plan and complained when Mike Pence wouldn't help with it, we have the fake certifications signed by the fake electors, we have the emails from Ken Chesborough setting up the signings, hell, Mike Pence went on Fox and said Trump ordered him to overturn the election results. We have Trump standing by as his mob ransacked the capitol for hours while he hoped Pence would change his mind before at long last giving up and calling them off.
The contents of that speech are one of the most documented false arguments in history and it should be a huge reality check for you that you're ignoring this to pearl clutch about something that, at worst, would have been a million times less consequential. But it won't be, because you're a partisan hack and we both know it.
Hobbes arguments can rationalize any Nash Equilibrium.
reply