Obligatory link for this topic: https://youtu.be/KQLfgaUoQCw
- Posts
- 0
- Comments
- 20
- Joined
- 3 yr. ago
- Posts
- 0
- Comments
- 20
- Joined
- 3 yr. ago
The title of the post is a little misleading. The model presented here does not require many parts of a capitalist system. If you can own stuff and have a free market this model predicts extreme wealth inequality. This happens by pure chance.
The model is not a good argument against capitalism. It can be used as an argument for taxing rich folks and against the "trickle down" idea.
I think there is some confusion as to what this model represents. The linked article is not bad at explaining it but some things could be clearer.
First of all, the "money" in the model is not the cash you have at hand. It is the total value of all the things you own. This model does not need money and it also works if you exchange cigarettes for candy (as long as you can assign some worth to the objects).
It is also not about gambling. It assumes that every time you exchange goods with someone else, you can become richer or poorer (I like the example from the article: if you pay $200 for a watch that is worth $150, you lose $50, someone else gains $50).
It makes the extremely optimistic assumption that the chance to gain or lose money in a trade is equal. This is often obviously not the case in the real world. If you buy something from a supermarket, the owner wants to earn money, needs to pay their employees, needs to pay rent, ... so you know you pay more than the value of the goods you get.
Now this simplified and very optimistic model predicts that there is an exponential distribution of wealth and it predicts that repeated exchanges between a rich and a poor person will most likely result in the rich person getting richer and the poor person getting poorer.
What can we learn from that?1.) even under these very optimistic conditions money trickles up. The real world is stacked much more against you, making a trickle down effect unlikely (though not impossible, this model is a simplification). 2.) rich people (in the model but imo it applies to the real world as well) are not smarter or otherwise better than the average person. They were lucky.3.) Even if we remove a lot of the advantages rich people have in the world and construct a system that is seemingly "fair" (as in every one has the same chance) you still end up with super rich people. The only way to combat this is by redistributing money - tax the rich. Note that you still get an exponential distribution in the model but it becomes flatter.
What this model says nothing about is how the real world is stacked in favor of rich people. It tries to eliminate all these factors. So using this model to argue that inequality is built into the system (as the headline suggests) is somewhat strange. The model rather suggests that the inequality always arises from simple chance - One could maybe argue from it that we need to actively combat it (depends on the personal sense of justice if earnings due to luck should be redistributed).
I agree with you on the value creation. This model treats the economy as a zero-sum game. But the real economy is typically growing and this is ignored here.
- JumpDeleted
Permanently Deleted
Looks like Dr who: https://youtu.be/Bb3bXgUEMk4
- JumpDeleted
Permanently Deleted
That is a really interesting question. The exact acceleration depends on the density profile of the earth. But you are correct there is no gravitational pull in the center of the earth, it cancels out.
From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preliminary_reference_Earth_modelThis is actually true for every spherically symmetric shell - gravity cancels out everywhere inside the shell. Something probably every physics undergrad had to prove as homework. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shell_theorem for more information.
So when calculating gravity you only have to take into account the part of the earth below you, everything above you cancels out (yes the earth is not a perfect sphere but this is a pretty good approximation).
The end result for a large hole through the earth is oscillating around the center and slowing down until you are stuck in the middle. Oh and you would also be melting, it's still ~6000° C down there.
Das kann ich schon eher nachvollziehen als die übertriebene Aussage, bin aber durchaus der Meinung, dass der Preis eher eine positive Wirkung und durchaus Bedeutung hat.
Es finden sich auf der Liste eben auch sehr viele Personen (und Organisationen), die überzeugend für eine bessere Welt eintreten. Man kann mit Sicherheit über einige Preisträgys diskutieren und einige weitere sind völlig inakzeptabel (z.T. erst nach Vergabe) - aber der Friedensnobelpreis wird oft vergeben um eine aktuelle Entwicklung zu unterstützen oder mehr Aufmerksamkeit zu verleihen. Damit geht man das Risiko ein, dass die Situation kippt oder sich die geehrten Personen doch anders verhalten als erwartet.
Wenn man den Preis nur an "sichere" Personen oder Organisationen vergibt, dann entfaltet er auch weniger Wirkung. Dann sind die Preisträger nur noch sowas wie das WFP oder Ärzte ohne Grenzen. Auf jeden Fall der Auszeichnung würdig - aber es hat dann keinen direkten Effekt.
Aber ja, Kissinger dafür zu ehren, dass er jetzt mal mit den Kriegsverbrechen aufhört, die er selbst zu verantworten hatte erscheint mir auch ein Tiefpunkt.
Nein?! Ist das irgendeine Art Scherz den ich nicht verstehe?
Falls das ernst gemeint ist, hier ist die Liste: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liste_der_Friedensnobelpreistr%C3%A4ger
Die Aussage "seit einiger zeit auch nur an faschisten und/oder kriegsverbrecher... " ist eine extrem steile These, die auch Belege erfordert. Die Aussage akzeptiere ich, wenn ich Belege sehe, dass mindestens ein Drittel der geehrten Personen/Organisationen aus den letzten 15 Jahren zum Zeitpunkt der Ehrung in eine dieser beiden Kategorien fallen.
That would apply to a lot of entries of this list, which is a really interesting read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_common_misconceptions
About 9/11 or actually any other major event: you typically get a lot of contradictory witness statements with so many people. The real picture only emerges when you have analyzed a lot of statements and looked at evidence. Thus early reporting often relies on a few statements that are found to be wrong later - perfect fuel for a conspiracy theory.
Man sollte nicht vergessen, dass er sich bei der ganzen Aktion nicht sehr besonnen verhalten hat:
Die Frankfurter Allgemeine Sonntagszeitung berichtete am 1. Januar 2012,[16] dass Wulff am 12. Dezember 2011 – einen Tag vor Bekanntwerden der Kreditaffäre – versucht habe, bei Kai Diekmann, dem Chefredakteur des Boulevardblatts Bild, und bei Mathias Döpfner, dem Vorstandsvorsitzenden des Axel Springer Verlages, telefonisch und unter Androhung von Strafanzeigen die Berichterstattung zu verhindern.[53]
Ich erwarte von einem Bundespräsident auch mehr als von z.B. einem Fraktionsvorsitzenden.
Aber im Grundsatz stimme ich zu. Als Bundestagspräsidentin wünsche ich mir auch eine Person mit mehr Format als eine Nestlé Lobbyisten. Von Merz fange ich besser gar nicht erst an...
Bester Teil des Artikels:
Anmerkung der Redaktion: Die von Söder genannten Mini-Meiler in Kanada gibt es noch nicht. Bislang laufen lediglich Vorbereitungen in der Region Ontario mit dem Ziel, bis etwa 2030 den ersten Reaktor an den Start zu bringen
Ich finde alle Artikel die irgendwelche Aussagen von Politikern wiedergeben sollten so aussehen. Gespickt mit Anmerkungen was daran alles faktisch falsch ist.
- JumpRemoved
A Catholic Joke I Had Heard
While I agree with the first sentence, I am curious how you came to the conclusion that this "joke" is misogynistic.
You could replace Hillary Clinton with a male public figure (i.e. Bill Clinton) and it would work just as well.
The pope represents a misogynistic organization, but he is barely relevant in this joke.
Is it related to Hillary Clinton in general getting more negative comments/jokes/etc. because she is a woman?
Is there something in the text that I am missing completely here?
The typical example is Shor's algorithm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shor%27s_algorithm
It allows to efficiently find the prime factors of an integer - a problem without a known polynomial algorithm on a classical computer.
This would directly break RSA encryption, as it relies on factorisation being difficult.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RSA_cryptosystem
However, there are encryption algorithms that are considered safe even against a quantum computer.
Considering how much heat the servers probably generate, ChatGPT might have a decent chance in that competition 😁
Online Morse Dekoder hat folgendes ausgespuckt:
NUTZE ANDFLMSG / FLDIGI MIT MFSK64 DECODIEREE ESSIIIHIEEIHIEEISTSESIEHESEE HEEEHA 5SSH5FI5EFTEEEEELIES5HESP5SESEIERLIESSEAELSESEIEAE5S5EIEAE5S H5L55I E ETE SES S ET EIESEEEEE EIEEE ESEE ES EHHEE EI 5EEEEI EEE EEN5I IEIESESEI IE4 U U A ELUEHSEWIE55EIESEEE EE SE E EI EE I TEEEI SEEE NEEE I EE EES EE EE I E EE EE ESEEE E IE E EEI SETHD EEII SS E E EEE 5NAEBSIEEEE E E E E E T EEE E E E E E S
Keine Lust jetzt dafür irgendwas runterzuladen...
I am curious: I have read the article and don't believe his decision to be particularly bad and the reasons understandable.
While I agree that no one person should have too much power - Bill Gates at least tries to do some good with the money he accumulated. He is no angel, but there is a stark contrast to other billionaires who only use their money selfishly, try to earn even more, or - in Musk's case - to behave like a cartoon supervillain.
So why is he often viewed so negatively? Am I missing something here?
I would argue humans often have a world model that is too coherent. If you ask a flat earther about their beliefs they will always argue that the earth is flat and evidence to the contrary is manufactured or interpreted wrongly. That is a completely absurd world model, but perfectly coherent.
Es kann sehr wohl ein Großteil besser als der Durchschnitt sein. Extremer Vergleich: 99% aller Menschen haben überdurchschnittlich viele Beine, weil der Durchschnitt eben bei 1.99 liegt.
Das kann gut auf Autofahrer zutreffen: Die meisten fahren einigermaßen ordentlich und es gibt einige wenige total durchgeknallte.
Solche Umfragen sollten vielleicht besser nach dem Median fragen.
Davon abgesehen würde ich zustimmen: Leute, die mit 250 auf der linken Spur rasen und versuchen diese mit Lichthupe freizuhalten, halten sich vermutlich für ganz besonders tolle Autofahrer, die auch bei einem Abstand von 30 cm noch immer rechtzeitig reagieren können...
Aber das ist das zweite Problem mit solchen Umfragen: Jeder hat eine andere Vorstellung davon, was ein "guter" Autofahrer ist.
People often say that but I am not so sure how much religion itself is at fault. Sure, it is often used to propagate hatred but I ask myself: would people really behave differently without religion? Or is it just a convenient reason to attack people with different beliefs? Would people not just find another reason?
I think the real issue is deeper. I would argue the most harmful thought is that "we" are better than "them" - with changing definitions of we/them (racism, antisemitism, social darwinism, ...). Sure, religion is one way to do that. It is not the only way. People can commit atrocities without any religion.