Anti-Tesla sentiment and the death of optimism
1–10 of 212 posts
Re: Anti-Tesla sentiment and the death of optimism
#2No post body was provided.
Re: Anti-Tesla sentiment and the death of optimism
#3> A "Pareto optimal" solution is one which, given all the possibilities of action, produces the best outcome for both parties (with some negotiable surplus).
This isn't quite right. In a Pareto optimal solution, there's no way to improve things for one party without making them worse for another party, but there's no guarantee that the outcome is good for everyone. "I get everything, you get nothing" is a Pareto-optimal way of diving things up.
Re: Anti-Tesla sentiment and the death of optimism
#4[deleted]
Re: Anti-Tesla sentiment and the death of optimism
#5The only hope is cultural change.
The only hope is cultural trust, and the only way to achieve that is to allow like-minded individuals to separate themselves into autonomous political units.
This is dangerous thinking Chris, if you start following these thoughts through to the end, rather than spinning off into happy-clappy "change the world's heart" wishing...
Re: Anti-Tesla sentiment and the death of optimism
#6David: What is the primary goal?
Joshua/WOPR: You should know, Professor. You programmed me.
David: Oh, c'mon. What is the primary goal?
Joshua/WOPR: To win the game.
Re: Anti-Tesla sentiment and the death of optimism
#7[deleted]
If you want to just serve this one page quickly, you can take the result and save it as static page. Add a specific routing rule just for the url you submitted. (the page looks completely static anyway)
You can play with varnish once you don't have thousands of people who will actually want to read the contents you posted :) (a.k.a don't upgrade anything the day of the release)
Re: Anti-Tesla sentiment and the death of optimism
#8Playing devils advocate, I'd say sure, it sucks that some (or most) people are selfish dickheads leading to mutually degrading situations. But it would suck almost as much to always be at mercy of your competitors good will (that he won't arbitrarily screw you, leave unpunished and with a better outcome), even if it happens sparsely. The obvious solution to this fabricated game theory dilemma is regulation, which is nothing more than eliminating those scenarios which are undesirable for society altogether. Not only it avoids the risk of being screwed, or the costs associated with being screwed, or the loss of optimality of outcomes -- but most importantly it simplifies greatly the game. Markets are quite complex already and the added constraint of having to think hard about your oponents and consider all the scenarios to make sure you're not screwing them is enormous. I think this behavior is distinct from bad faith, it's just a matter of responsibility and scope.
This, to me, is ideal capitalistic behavior: oblivious, but with good faith (not trying to 'unfairly' or 'destructively' bring down your opponent) -- and it should come with swift regulations and laws flexible enough to punish edge cases.
We have a truly unrecognized gift as a species: morality. Not because it's cute or honorable (that would be a circular assessment), but because it allows us to reach those Pareto optimal spots. We just have to use it in proper settings, with proper rules.
Re: Anti-Tesla sentiment and the death of optimism
#9> A "Pareto optimal" solution is one which, given all the possibilities of action, produces the best outcome for both parties (with some negotiable surplus). This isn't quite right. In a Pareto optimal solution, there's no way to improve things for one party without making them worse for another party, but there's no guarantee that the outcome is good for everyone. "I get everything, you get nothing" is a Pareto-opti…
That still isn't quite right. Pareto optimal better describes transitions than states. A state can be described as Pareto optimal only in the sense that there are no Pareto optimal transitions out of it. So for example, in prisoner's dilemma, all of the states are Pareto optimal because none of the moves are. No matter what anyone does, somebody will be worse off than the alternative.
As another example, "I get everything, you get nothing" isn't necessarily Pareto optimal because there could be something non-rivalrous that the person getting nothing could have without depriving the person getting everything of it.
Re: Anti-Tesla sentiment and the death of optimism
#10This article expresses perfectly why:
a) I'm very cautious about working with American companies b) Why my contractors nearly all bitch about working with American companies (I use a lot of contractors on oDesk and they tell me the same thing).
America's great but the lack of trust in business is the one thing that really grates on me.