Technically that is profit maximizing, where as profit is just surplus value created. Nothing wrong with profit, profit maximizing at the expense of all else is a recipe for civilization collapse.
In our tree mushroom example, if both organisms grow faster by sharing nutrients than by hoarding, they have both made a profit.
Some states have anti-gerrimandering written into their constitutions, so that would not be easy.
Oh yeah, location sharing will have almost no effect those risks. Totally agree.
Just disagreeing that low probability of occurrence automatically means the risk assessment should be low.
Risk assessment is probability and severity. The probability can be vanishingly low, but if the severity is astoundingly high then acting like a high risk situation could be appropriate.
Take asteroids. The last planet killer to hit us was 94million years ago. A rudimentary estimate could put the probably as 1:94mil. The severity of an asteroid impact of that magnitude is off the charts, so it is reasonable to consider it a risk and act accordingly to spend resources to search for and track asteroid trajectories.
The severity of abduction, murder, and rape is probably pretty high for most people, so considering it a risk even with a very small probability is not unreasonable.
They probably hit that number in Gaza today before breakfast.
Luckily Lemmy isn’t that popular yet. (Plus we’re all poor.)
I agree it feels very slow, but identifying the correct action and then building consensus around that action takes time. Once consensus is built it is very stable though. That is supposed to be the biggest benefit of democracy; stability built through coalition.
Thank you for the write up. That distinction makes a lot of sense.
Ahh fantastic point. There isn’t really an incentive for the individuals to maintain/perpetuate the institution.
I understand the sentiment. I’m wondering about the efficacy of the strategies to achieve those end goals.
I don’t agree with this. Shareholders extracting value from a company is arguably more of an ‘inefficency’ than treating employees fairly. Well treated employees provide a benefit to the company while shareholders purely remove resources.
I have no data to back up my claim, just logic, so I could very well be wrong.
Uncanny resemblance to Eddy from the Lion King.
That you very much for writing this up. It is super interesting, and I feel bad for dismissing her. Unfortunately, I will probably continue people whom are the vague they.
Surprisingly, Star Wars is a great example of this. A rinky dink political group (rebels) blowing up a military installation (death star) is terrorism. That does not mean the action was unjustified.
It surprises me that bringing the server in house especially for emergency services isn’t a priority.
If their claims are true, yeah. That’s how I read the implications.
What is the other meaning of undead?
Building a broad coalition without policy concessions was a waste of time? You’re going to have a tough time convincing me of that point.
I understand your frustration, but unless the voting system is modified to approval or ranked choice you are probably not acting in your best interest voting for a third party. I hate that fact as much as you and I want to see it changed, but that’s the reality of the system we’re in.
This is why lectures should be obsolete at this point. Lectures should be a video done really well once. Class should be practice time where you can ask experts for help when you get stuck.