I believe that I would have behaved quite responsibly; probably put all the money in index funds and live on the interest, and probably even keep a fake job (which would allow me as much work from home or vacation as I would need) and generally try to look inconspicuous. But I guess people this conservative usually don’t make 9 figures. (Too late for the experiment, though; I am not young anymore.)
I would like to be able to follow people without worrying about what it looks like.
Perhaps there should be two options: follow publicly (maybe called “share”) and follow privately.
I agree, but in the meanwhile, is there a way to outsource the bureaucratic part on someone? Like, if you want to make a shop in your garage, you could just call one, they would tell you the changes you will most likely be required to do, and you can pay them to do the paperwork. So you would still need to spend money and wait for an uncertain outcome, but you wouldn’t need to deal with the paperwork, so you could do something else while waiting.
Seems related to the paradox of tolerance. If the reason to allow multiple competing opinions is that empirically it makes the society better on average, this does not need to extended to the opinions that empirically make the society worse quite predictably. Tolerance is a means, not an end (the end is something like human flourishing), so there is no need to be absolutist about it.
And yet, even if some things are clearly harmful, it is difficult to draw the exact line, and often profitable to sacrifice to Moloch by getting closer to the line than your opponent.
Megan McArdle reminds us that Levels of Friction are required elements of many of civilization’s core systems, and without sufficient frictions, those systems break.
Yes, some things can be good if only a few people do them, but a disaster if too many start to do. This is difficult to communicate, because many people only think in the categories of “good” and “bad”, and require some consistent principle that if it is okay for 1 person to do something, it is also okay for 1 000 000 people to do the same thing.
It would probably be bad to say that 1 specific person is allowed to do X, but 999 999 other people are not. But it makes perfect sense to say that it is okay when 1 person does X, but the system will collapse when 1 000 000 people decide to so it.
I’m surprised we don’t have a word for the shift when the bids for your time goes above your supply for time vs before, it feels like a pretty fundamental life shift where it changes your default mode of operation.
“Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen pounds nineteen and six, result happiness. Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds ought and six, result misery.”—This, but about your free time.
cutting corners, lying, and cheating will get you ahead in the short run, and sometimes even in the long run, but tying your own fortunes to someone who behaves this way will go very badly for you.
The difference between being the one who cheats, and associating with someone who cheats: If you cheat, there are (to simplify it a lot) two possible outcomes: you win, or you lose. If you associate with the cheater, the outcome “he wins” still has a very large subset of “he wins, but betrays you”; so the “you win” part is very small.
I guess people overestimate their ability to make a win/win deal with an experienced cheater. They either assume some “honor among thieves” (if I help him scam those idiots, surely he will feel some gratitude), or rely on some kind of mutually assured destruction (if he tried to stab me in the back, I would turn against him and expose him, and he knows that, therefore he wouldn’t try).
But that doesn’t work. The former, because from his perspective, you are just another one in the long line of idiots to be scammed. The latter, because he is already planning this a few moves ahead of you, and probably already had some experience in the past, so when he finally turns against you, you will probably find yourself in some kind of trap, or you will find him immune against your attempts at revenge.
Is there some (ethically horrible, but justifiable by long-term consequentialism) solution to this? For example, whenever you vaccinate children, always deny the vaccine to randomly selected 1%, so that some children keep dying, so that everyone knows that the disease is real and the vaccine necessary?
we have systematized VC-backed YC-style founders
Commoditize your complement.
Chinese TikTok claims to spill the tea on a bunch of ‘luxury’ brands producing their products in China, then slapping ‘Made in Italy’ style tags on them. I mean, everyone who is surprised raise your hand, that’s what I thought, but also why would the Chinese want to be talking about it if it was true?
Maybe they think it will make people more okay to buy Chinese stuff that doesn’t even pretend to be Italian, because they will realize they were buying that already?
I believe that I would have behaved quite responsibly; probably put all the money in index funds and live on the interest, and probably even keep a fake job (which would allow me as much work from home or vacation as I would need) and generally try to look inconspicuous. But I guess people this conservative usually don’t make 9 figures. (Too late for the experiment, though; I am not young anymore.)
Perhaps there should be two options: follow publicly (maybe called “share”) and follow privately.
I agree, but in the meanwhile, is there a way to outsource the bureaucratic part on someone? Like, if you want to make a shop in your garage, you could just call one, they would tell you the changes you will most likely be required to do, and you can pay them to do the paperwork. So you would still need to spend money and wait for an uncertain outcome, but you wouldn’t need to deal with the paperwork, so you could do something else while waiting.
Seems related to the paradox of tolerance. If the reason to allow multiple competing opinions is that empirically it makes the society better on average, this does not need to extended to the opinions that empirically make the society worse quite predictably. Tolerance is a means, not an end (the end is something like human flourishing), so there is no need to be absolutist about it.
And yet, even if some things are clearly harmful, it is difficult to draw the exact line, and often profitable to sacrifice to Moloch by getting closer to the line than your opponent.
Yes, some things can be good if only a few people do them, but a disaster if too many start to do. This is difficult to communicate, because many people only think in the categories of “good” and “bad”, and require some consistent principle that if it is okay for 1 person to do something, it is also okay for 1 000 000 people to do the same thing.
It would probably be bad to say that 1 specific person is allowed to do X, but 999 999 other people are not. But it makes perfect sense to say that it is okay when 1 person does X, but the system will collapse when 1 000 000 people decide to so it.
“Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen pounds nineteen and six, result happiness. Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds ought and six, result misery.”—This, but about your free time.
The difference between being the one who cheats, and associating with someone who cheats: If you cheat, there are (to simplify it a lot) two possible outcomes: you win, or you lose. If you associate with the cheater, the outcome “he wins” still has a very large subset of “he wins, but betrays you”; so the “you win” part is very small.
I guess people overestimate their ability to make a win/win deal with an experienced cheater. They either assume some “honor among thieves” (if I help him scam those idiots, surely he will feel some gratitude), or rely on some kind of mutually assured destruction (if he tried to stab me in the back, I would turn against him and expose him, and he knows that, therefore he wouldn’t try).
But that doesn’t work. The former, because from his perspective, you are just another one in the long line of idiots to be scammed. The latter, because he is already planning this a few moves ahead of you, and probably already had some experience in the past, so when he finally turns against you, you will probably find yourself in some kind of trap, or you will find him immune against your attempts at revenge.
Is there some (ethically horrible, but justifiable by long-term consequentialism) solution to this? For example, whenever you vaccinate children, always deny the vaccine to randomly selected 1%, so that some children keep dying, so that everyone knows that the disease is real and the vaccine necessary?
Commoditize your complement.
Maybe they think it will make people more okay to buy Chinese stuff that doesn’t even pretend to be Italian, because they will realize they were buying that already?