News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Efficiency is dangerous and slowing down makes life better by roughly on Friday August 21, 2020 @04:30PM (#24238573)
> Only if you define local interest as purely financially motivated <...> social status is not only dependent on wealth

For an awful lot of people, it basically is - I mean, practically the entire field of finance and professional management would look at the example I gave and say, "that's exactly the right thing to do." Mitt Romney's entire professional career follows that principle, and it's largely seen as a net positive to his political career (as a Republican).

I agree with you, I think it's an enormously damaging philosophy, both to the bearer and to the rest of us, but again, it may be locally optimal.

Re:Efficiency is dangerous and slowing down makes life better by dependsontheq on Monday August 24, 2020 @07:23AM (#24259578)
I don‘t know, I am not a fan of Mitt Romney but his social status seemed to be more dependent on being a successful governor and managing the olympics. Both are net positives for society, his business record actually was his weakness.
Re:Efficiency is dangerous and slowing down makes life better by xncl on Friday August 21, 2020 @08:56PM (#24240630)
Could you help me understand this a little better and define what you mean by local interest?
Re:Efficiency is dangerous and slowing down makes life better by roughly on Saturday August 22, 2020 @05:09PM (#24247270)
I'm not using a rigorous definition, but essentially, consider two outcomes, each affecting 100 people:

  1. Every person accrues $10
  2. One person, "Bob", accrues $100, everyone else accrues $1
Generally speaking, outcome 1 has higher overall benefits, but outcome 2 is better for Bob. If Bob is the decision-maker, it's in Bob's interest to pick outcome 2, even if it's globally worse.

This is what I mean by local vs global interest - roughly, "in the interest of a given individual" vs "the best outcome across all individuals."