Endgame assumes intentionality. Maybe the economy is just people responding to much shorter term incentives and the whole thing is a misaligned runaway process.
Licenses like GPL are built on top of an enforcement mechanism like copyright. Without an enforced legal framework preventing usage unless a license is agreed to, a license is just a polite request.
If you disregard reality, you will never understand the world around you to make change.
If you disregard idealism, you will only ever be able to react. You will end up dragged around by the nose, and pulled towards someone elses ideal that might not be so good for you.
Thinking that power is inviolable is an idealism that benefits existing power. They don’t want you to think of the countless times power has been overthrown, and a more just society has been built on the ruins of one with benefits for only those with power.
39% of US adults think they live in the end times, and 10% think Jesus will definitely show up in their lifetime. Given those priors, planning ahead probably seems like the less rational choice for them.
You can pick any set of axis you feel like and get similar results. “Do you like X? Wow you are an X person!”. So yeah, technically better than horoscopes, more like a “warm” reading where you tell a person what they told you earlier. But it’s entirely unclear why these axis are the right ones over a million other possible ones, if these are particularly stable categories in time and context, or if the harm of encouraging people to box themselves or others into specific stereotypes has any possible benefit to outweigh the obvious harms of simplifying stereotypes.
But it has the suburban cars and suburban zoning, without the parking lots or even a full simulation of the generated traffic (because that would render it nearly unplayable). It sells new generations of potential urbanists on the idea that a car centric city can work as anything other than a failing pothole filled parking wasteland.
In the USA, any non-private government investment is considered to be foolish and doomed at best, and an existential threat to business at worst. The best we can do is “public-private partnership” where all the profits get absorbed by middle men, preventing virtuous cycles and still leaving a cap on risk and future planning.
Imagine you are a 19 year old in charge of some Hamas survivors. Let’s say you want to surrender.
1. Would it even mean anything? It’s not like you or anyone else has the control to stop everyone else. And Israel will use any attack as a sign of bad faith and ignore the surrender.
2. Would it improve anything for your people? If Israelis are intentionally starving babies, there is no reason to think they will stop the genocide just because the militarized part has given up. Have you even heard any news of Hamas even fighting back recently or has it all just been killing civilians?
All a surrender would do is get you tortured for information and executed for no gain.
Most games that use an existing engine get like 60% on metacritic and ship like less than 1000 copies and are a generic flop. “Shipping no matter what” is a lot less valuable in games.
The whole idea that the way to reduce crime is by surveillance and enforcement is a con. Like in this case, all the places that managed to significantly reduce traffic accidents do so by carefully redesigning their street network to make safety easier and more intuitive.
> Most of us are not esoteric authoritarian freaks pining for a CEO of America who'll track us all using mandatory Fitbits and assign us jobs based on an AI's estimation of our cranial geometry.
Yeah, cause while blood type is like horoscopes which absolutely no meaningful information, silly personality quizzes at least tell you back what you told them, so some kind of correlation exists, even if the categorization and implications are basically spurious.
The idea is that if they are making a rational choice to embezzle or not (and have other viable options for living), then knowing jail time is a possible outcome changes the expected payout equation. In that way it can be preventative, but only in those specific sorts of cases.
No. Prisons should cost society money. If you are taking away someone’s freedoms, there should be a high cost so you don’t do it flippantly when another solution will work.
When an insurance company executive decided to start screwing consumers a bit less, a board member initiated a lawsuit against him and the company. The system corrects for errors, and individual choices to do better are exactly such an error.
Theoretically, fines replace tax revenue, so you get compensated by lower taxes. (Practically, spending and income are decoupled and taxes are mostly just an inflation management strategy.)
I found that with other study options, I learn faster and get tired less quickly (since they are less “puzzle-y” and more just language learning plain).
Ver few competitive games can survive, because you need a huge player base to maintain a skill based matchmaking ladder 24/7, and the moment you dip below that critical number the game is doomed since new players are locked out. Its winner takes all. Everyone stills tries to make em for the big potential upside, but they are always very high risk.
Single player, and non centralized coop, are a different matter of course, and you can’t really compare them. But the big “AAA” shoot for the big wins of live service and thus often fail.