Yes, the most powerful will always have the most power. It still makes sense to set up some rules.
Pigovian taxes can still be beneficial for society, even if the super rich evade the system. They create incentives for everyone else to move in the desired direction. This includes consumers, producers, investors, researchers. For all those people in their different positions, it will be financial advantageous to consider other options.
But my main point was that you can raise prices without hurting the poor. By returning the tax revenue to the poor.
First and foremost, you need no "justification" for being a decent person. And there are other reasons to be that way, as arbitrary as "I like it this way".
Game theory is strongly related to evolution. It is safe to assume that everything we can observe in nature is a successful strategy.
So this confirms the statement: Cooperation is a successful strategy. But the other side of the picture also exists: Betrayal is as well.
What the excerpt omits about the Prisoner's Dilemma (not sure wether it's mentioned in the video, which I did not watch now): The Nash Equilibrium can be the overall worst outcome. What does that mean?
A Nash Equilibrium is a situation in which no player can improve their own position. It is therefore a stable state. Things will change until they have settled in a stable state. It can be shown for Prisoner's Dilemma that the Nash Equilibrium can be the worst case, where each betrays the other. Yes, they would both score better if they cooperated, but the system will still tend towards the state where both play nasty.
When multiple iterations are played, this changes a bit. It seems, if you not just meet once in a lifetime, but can remember your past, and have a common future, it makes more sense to cooperate. But there is still a place for uncooperative exploitation.
So yes, it's true what you say about "best performing strategies", but it should be noted that "evil" strategies don't go extinct either.
It should be questioned how much these theories can be applied to our lifes. I mean questioned, not implying an answer. Either way I find it interesting how behaviour which we associate with morals emerges in very simple and abstract games.
Oh, that's not what I meant to describe. There are differences in ecological impact of various foods and production methods, obviously. Choosing the smaller options helps to do less harm, to "save the planet".
I meant to point out that we moved from pre-industrial methods to modern methods because they make more sense in economic terms, in capitalism. And that just going back might lead to unwanted consequences like lots of people with much less access to meat.
this is always used as an argument for new technologies instead of returning to lower tech, pre-industrial solutions that are already well established and known to be safer
Maybe because it's about economical efficiency. The old ways were abandoned in favor of new methods, because the new approach was cheaper / yielded higher profits.
Yes, we could produce meat like we did in pre-industrial times, but that would mean higher prices or lower volume. Either way, it would mean less people could afford to eat meat. Like in pre-industrial times.
One reason might be: Each instance only has a partial knowledge of content in Lemmy. It can be unaware of certain communities on other instances, if your instance has not discovered them yet. Hence the need for all these meta-search tools.
Treat your volunteers well, or why should they continue volunteering?
Kernel maintainers have plenty of other opportunities.
I don't know if they are volunteering or being paid. The other person said they are being paid.
Either way, no one deserves being talked down to like that, even if they made a mistake. It's a matter of respect and self-respect. And as a skilled person like a kernel developer, it should be trivially easy to find other work in a more appropriate environment.
That being said, maybe I'm missing something. Torvalds has been known to be like that for a long time (although that seems to be over now). And still, Linux has been developed over decades. So apparently, skilled people flocked around Torvalds, or maybe rather his project. Not entirely sure why, but I'm taking it as a hint I might be missing something.
I feel the most consequent stance is to demand all the things. Not to reject all the things except for the one pure solution.
As long as ICE vehicles are still sold, even make up the most of the sales, supporting EVs is moving in the right direction. At the same time, even better solutions can be demanded and supported.
They eliminate a part of the emissions, since one big engine (like a power plant) can be run more efficiently than many small engines (in individual vehicles).
Similarly, transporting electricity through wires creates less emissions than transporting fuel with trucks. Both serve the purpose of refueling other vehicles.
Even coal powered EVs are better than gasoline cars.
Oh, alright. Seems you would have been fine if I had written "Some people" instead of just "People". As a non-native speaker, I'm not sure wether "People" actually means some or all people.
Like when I say "People like the new iPhone", are you sure that means all people like it? Or can that sentence be said when a large number likes it, although some don't, and the overall majority didn't even consider to buy it?
Either way, I could have clarified with a short emphasis, yes.
There were lots of posts and comments how Israel killed 500 civilians. A lot of people seemed to care who did it.
With that background, it's worthwhile to post additional information if the previous was misleading. Doesn't matter if it's the same people (not exactly sure to who you're referring), neither did I create an enemy.
Apparently there was demand for the information who did it, so it's good to post updates, even if other people think it doesn't matter.
Yes, the most powerful will always have the most power. It still makes sense to set up some rules.
Pigovian taxes can still be beneficial for society, even if the super rich evade the system. They create incentives for everyone else to move in the desired direction. This includes consumers, producers, investors, researchers. For all those people in their different positions, it will be financial advantageous to consider other options.
But my main point was that you can raise prices without hurting the poor. By returning the tax revenue to the poor.