Expression. Civics. Game design. http://aboutmako.makopool.com
Good comment, but… Have you read Three Worlds Collide? If you were in a situation similar to what it describes, would you still be calling your position moral realism?
I am not out to attack the position that humans fundamentally, generally align with humans. I don’t yet agree with it, its claim, “every moral question has a single true answer” might turn out to be a confused paraphrasing of “every war has a victor”, but I’m open to the possibility that it’s meaningfully true as well.
It might generally be Moral Realism (anti-moral-relativism). The notion that morality is some universal objective truth that we gradually uncover more of as we grow wiser. That’s how those people usually conceive it.
I sometimes call it anti-orthogonalism.
The next level is presumably, resuming offloading only the emotions for which sharing the processing work is beneficial (shockingly few qualify though)
I’d repeat my reply from steemit mentioning the startup Kasita, who were attempting to make relatively small quite delightful movable apartments around that time, but they have since gone defunct, so I’ll just say, that was a thing, too bad, hopefully the next contender can reach out to them and learn some things.
Not at all? It is metaphysics.
I’ve been looking for a word for the community of people who are good at identifying precise, robust, extremely clarifying conceptual frameworks. It seems like a very tight cluster that will grow increasingly defined and self-actualised. “Bayesian” seemed like the best fit for a name. Would you object to that?
Though I don’t especially disbelieve it, it would be helpful if you could tell some stories about how and why various platforms would been likely to be killed by (a decent implementation of!) pricing precommitment?
Mm I guess they fail as examples (I am generally bad at coming up with examples of things though)
I think in that case the price commitment would apply to Amazon’s (average?) markup, not individual product listing prices.
Reasons within the genre of “capitalism is failing to adhere to capitalist virtues and that is good, because we are living in a very specific political reality where peoples’ interests are best served by, channelling power towards illegible, fairly unaccountable people who make things”
The problem is not the price decrease, the price decrease usually doesn’t play out. Relatedly, self-determined price commitments aren’t intended to prevent the price decrease that render competition non-viable, they would force it to happen.
The problem is the optionality of the price decrease. Situations where the incumbent can afford to reduce prices in order to disincent the creation of cheaper alternatives, the threat works, and so no cheaper alternatives arise, and so they don’t.
So the proposal is to take away just the optionality of it. They can do whatever they want, but they must commit to it now, and being the market leaders, I think they often will have enough foresight that they can totally afford to do that. If they don’t, maybe we’d all be better off if they weren’t the market leaders!
I don’t really see the story of Blender as a positive one. Afaik they only started receiving really adequate funding and industry adoption very recently, for the longest time being a fan of blender was kind of depressing, the industry mostly failed (and is probably still failing) to adequately reward its hero. self-determined price commitments would have resulted either in the emergence of a cheaper commercial competitor to maya or faster price decreases from them.
In the former case, Maya might have failed to anticipate competition and been driven bankrupt when it emerged. Whether that’s terrible or not might depend mainly on how gracefully we can manage bankruptcy.. for physical assets they simply move into the hands of new owners, for digital assets I guess it must be more destructive, I imagine the fallout would hurt a lot of their customers?
They wont have to go below break-even to crush the competition due to the additional benefits of scale; there are things the incumbent will be able to afford to do that an upstart couldn’t.
By what mechanism do you decide who runs the government-owned monopoly-prone productions, and why shouldn’t it be a (bidding?) market with price commitments.
Whenever you propose a state-run alternative, you need to think about how they reliably hire competent people to run them. Can they ever really beat a mechanism that allows unknowns to step up and depose the incumbent the moment they can demonstrate that they can provide a more desirable product at a competitive price, because that seems like a pretty cool feature to me.
An argument should probably made that reducing the profitability of tech even in the direction of fairness is bad, for anticapitalist realpolitik technocrat reasons. I’m not making that argument, but someone probably should.
Finally as at the EU level, a number of national competition authorities in Europe have been able to end investigations one excessive prices by receiving price commitments from the dominant firms investigated… [London Stock Exchange in 2004, Enel, Italian electricity incumbent in 2010, E.On regional gas suppliers in 2008
Is this the same kind of price commitment, I wonder? They sound like the kind of industries where there can’t be competition even given all fairness, so probably not, probably the prices committed to were not self-determined. Not so exciting.
I’m wondering if we can put more degrees of freedom in the conditions under which price commitment applies, meaning. I imagine this process being initiated by the market instead of being enforced on whatever arbitrarily defined category of product matches what we currently think it should apply to.
I feel like there is some dialogue between two honour-bound champions of industry that would lead to the incumbent being obligated to commit to a future price, simply as a result of answering questions and being held to their word. Probably involves some kind of wager somewhere.
Serious in that I mean he might, I’d say, 0.1 that he’d be interested, but if that’s not negligible, I think if he took it up he’d be very good at it. I’ll ask him.
Wearing a surgical mask, I get the sense it tends to form more of a seal when inhaling, less when exhaling. (like a valve). If this is common, it would be a point in favour of having the healthy person wear them.
I have a friend who might be into programming speedrunning https://merveilles.town/@cancel/104005117320841920
How do you know there’s only one lab in china studying these viruses?
I think I agree that there’s no objectively true universal value aggregation process, but if you can’t find (a method for finding) very broad value aggregation system, then you can’t have peace. You have peace insofar as factions accept the rulings of the system. Simply giving up on the utilitarian project is not really an option.