Or the implications of implementing the only way to make this actually work by taking the pesky voters out of the decision process altogether and just letting the money decide the outcome...
some people call that data driven decision making and they like it
others call it “skynet” and they fear it
It's like poker with no cards. Ideally the winner puts in just a dollar more than the loser and they nearly double their donation. If the winner can't get enough information to do that and has to spend too much for the pot they end up making a huge unmatched contribution.
The game makes sense to play if you're sure you will win but you don't want to start it if you think you won't.
The reality is humans will find a way to make this corrupt.
I'd rather that money go to people instead of a faceless cryptofund. I think that's the joke.
This is the broken window fallacy. If you have two groups with diametrically opposed goals, giving them each more money to spend "increases GDP" in a local sense, but the result is that a bunch of people spend a lot of effort for a net result of zero, when it could have gone toward something useful.
I'd rather that money go to people instead of a faceless cryptofund. I think that's the joke.
Yeah, the crypto piece is just for additional silliness. For a real version of this you'd need, like, a spreadsheet with two columns.
Way ahead of you—we're licensing Praxis Vector™ technology to Palantir. Thiel didn't buy a board seat for nothing.
Just to be clear, there is a lot of sarcasm here. But I think there is a bit of truth too.
Read as: don't say anything, ever*, anywhere that isn't droll corp-speak, because somebody, somewhere will have an issue with it and try to take you to task. If that somebody has a lot of followers, you could be out of a job/home/country/freedom.
*trawling through post history et al to find narratives they don't agree with, too
it's culture. culture shuns what it rejects and lifts up.
Shame is even ritualistic in some cultures.
it's definitely just a phrase used by the short end of the stick.
I'm sure there's a nuanced view of a culture that doesn't dive deep enough and mistakes some virtue and accidentally avoids something of value.
but ultimately, it's a term that's just respinniing what cultures do. they select memes and their purveyors and reject the to advance.
evolution works both as species and as culture. we, the advanced scientific community have dropped the idea that evolution moves towards some greater good and just acknowledge evolution is adaptation to environment.
lastly, culture is what people both adapt to and mold by their actions. with social media that's now basically an infinite fractal.
A culture doesn't progress just because it changes. It is not uncommon for complex systems to undergo changes that make them self-destructive. You talk about evolution, but the reproductively dominant cell in a complex organism is the cancer cell.
It is entirely plausible that western culture would become non-viable because of "cancel(/r) culture". And that cultures of the future would look in it the same way we look at organisms with poor tumor suppression mechanisms. And that too shall be evolution.
This sounds like most cultures in history. The majority of them have some sort of social shunning for people who act like a jerk (read: acts in ways society and culture have decided are jerkish)
> Read as: don't say anything, ever, anywhere that isn't droll corp-speak, because somebody, somewhere will have an issue with it and try to take you to task. If that somebody has a lot of followers, you could be out of a job/home/country/freedom.
this sounds like an exaggerated victim complex. Try it with "kittens are cute" and not something jerk-ish, and let's see if someone pops out of the woodwork to destroy your job/home/country/freedom.
"kittens are cute" is droll corp-speak.
I don't think that is indeed enough to instigate a "nasty backlash" (read: people in society shunning you for jerk behavior) if the "narrative" is that kittens are cute, but certainly it'd be reasonable for society to shun someone who seems hateful. It certainly seems on its face to be a trollish statement (designed to inflame rather than understand), given that it omits any details.
> "kittens are cute" is droll corp-speak
Is it? According to who? I certainly don't think so. My corporation hasn't said that at any point. Are you sure you aren't using the term to mentally dismiss anything which disagrees with your theory?
#include <original-post>