Earlier quoted context omitted.
What? Sex is a basic need in Maslow’s hierarchy.
Yes, but nobody ever died because of not having sex.
Except they did. Loneliness shortens life.
Are we the baddies?
541–550 of 554 posts
Re: Are we the baddies?
#542Re: Are we the baddies?
#543Earlier quoted context omitted.
I guess I should have specified financial benefit. You wouldn't pay someone else to insure a common vegetable, because it is so low cost that if it turned out to be bad, you would just buy another one (or have bought extra as your insurance). When you buy from Walmart/Target/Amazon/Best Buy, they will try to sell you insurance for a $30 toaster or other cheap appliance. Again, most people will not buy this because th…
That is really not how the insurance seller's business model works. Think about it this way: on a given year, they are collecting "Sales" amount of money from their pool of customers. For the insurer to make a profit, the amount reimbursed to legit claims simply has to be less than Sales-Expenses that year, which basically translates to having Z customers claims on any given year where Z So it's a bit like a Ponzi sc…
The customers can earn investment returns just like the insurance seller, so you have to reduce foregone returns from the insurance buyer’s benefit so it ends up canceling out.
>For the insurer to make a profit, the amount reimbursed to legit claims simply has to be less than Sales-Expenses that year, which basically translates to having Z customers claims on any given year where Z That inequality does not “basically translate”. Insurance sellers have to exist for multiple years, not just 1 year.
If every single year, “customer claims” are less than the net benefit of customers, which is what I think you wrote although it is hard to interpret, then your “net benefit of customers” includes a non cash component (such as feeling secure)”.
There is never a free lunch, and the insurance business is not at all like a Ponzi scheme (that’s the whole point of actuaries performing calculations…to ensure sustainability without an ever growing income stream).
Re: Are we the baddies?
#544Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why do you associate tipping with “work harder => more pay,” exactly? I don’t see a clear logical route from “socially-forced customer tipping” to that, at all. If anything; tipping leads us to “leverage information to ensure you get a large amount of high-tipping customers => more pay.” Continuing that logical process, we might realize that “make your coworkers have to deal with the bad tippers => more pay.” Which m…
> But yeah… tipping has very little to do with “work harder => more pay.” You need to examine your logic more. Or just, like… have a few beers with a single person who’s ever worked in a restaurant as an adult. I have had more than a few conversations with tipped service workers. Some are even friends of mine. While a lot of what you say is true (the manipulation of shifts and spotting/monopolizing desirable customer…
> They like tips.
They like money. Service workers tend to like tips (which provide variable income) over stable higher wages mostly I think because the latter is one they just haven't experienced. Instead they get a choice between low wages and tips or low wages without tips. Hardly a choice.
Also, tips do not always go to the harder working employees. With tip request spreading far and wide, I often see them in places where there is little work even involved. If I buy a bottle of water from a take-out fast food place I'm expected to tip, but the same bottle of water from a convenience store I'm not expected to tip? Who was working harder here exactly?
Re: Are we the baddies?
#545Earlier quoted context omitted.
> keep the establishment in check The ultimate subversion of the estabilishment is raw honesty. Honesty produces an environment that disables unjust distribution of power. > never move against them That's inaction, not honesty. > It's hard not to see your strategy as a path to that outcome. That's ok, my strategy does not require you to understand it. I don't need to create informative material or convince people.
> Honesty produces an environment that disables unjust distribution of power How does this work?
In theory, I shouldn't need to explain this.
Re: Are we the baddies?
#546Earlier quoted context omitted.
Okay? Men don’t outnumber women millions to one.
A woman's reproductive value biologically is several orders of magnitude higher than a man's. Because she is the limiting factor.
You’re defining that in the simplest possible way, ie if the stars aligned a man could, in theory, impregnate thousands of women. In reality, the factors that limit a man’s potential mates are equally real. The population’s sex ratio is no less a biological reality than the structure of a reproductive system. So a woman’s reproductive value fluctuates depending on circumstances, but remains similar to a man’s under most circumstances in a modern country.
Re: Are we the baddies?
#547Earlier quoted context omitted.
A woman's reproductive value biologically is several orders of magnitude higher than a man's. Because she is the limiting factor.
You’re defining that in the simplest possible way, ie if the stars aligned a man could, in theory, impregnate thousands of women. In reality, the factors that limit a man’s potential mates are equally real. The population’s sex ratio is no less a biological reality than the structure of a reproductive system. So a woman’s reproductive value fluctuates depending on circumstances, but remains similar to a man’s under m…
Genetical evidence shows that twice as many women as men successfully reproduced during the history of our species. And if it wasn't for a period of massive population increase combined with monogamy, that ratio would probably be maybe five to one or more.
The sex ratio of children is hard coded genetically at 50/50 for pretty much all mammals, since any deviance would be corrected back to 50/50 within a couple of generations.
In modern society, an average woman can have as many sexual partners as she chooses to, and very distinguished men can have that. Birth control means that there isn't any actual children resulting from these encounters, but our biological imperatives are still the same. A woman's reproductive value is infinitely higher than a man's in modern society, where the man's reproductive value is approaching zero.
Re: Are we the baddies?
#548Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because 95% of us don't live on a computer, and recognize the potential to meet and court suitors at bars or social events.
The data shows the majority of people now meet on dating apps. So yes, dating apps are in control.
Ah, ye-olde Poindexter's Revenge. If only an intelligentsia-class had the gall, the sheer epistemic knowledge required, to disrupt this courtship business once and for-all.
Re: Are we the baddies?
#549Earlier quoted context omitted.
> make you comfortable while you exist I don't think there are many proponents of that type of ubi. The way, at least I, see ubi is absolute subsistence - with a right to earn above that without affecting your subsistence. IMHO something along UBI is needed for a democratized market economy - and I think the Scandinavian countries are the support for this claim.
If everyone gets an equal raise (whatever the UBI is), wouldn’t the entire market simply adjust to price that in, leaving everyone in the same relative position?
People that admit "yes" to this (or similar ones: subsidization causing increasing rent to match, etc) are acknowledging that prices aren't really set by supply and demand, nor were they ever, nor will they ever be.
Prices are as high as companies can get away with charging, and they can collude to get these prices higher if need be, or lie about a product, or spend decades as an industry convincing you that you need something you don't.
If the market worked as economists always scold us that it does when they want less socialism, it wouldn't matter a lick what someone's salary is. That doesn't affect supply and demand, after all.
Re: Are we the baddies?
#550Earlier quoted context omitted.
That is not the presumption - I trust that you are enough of a non-LLM to properly understand the message behind the words.
This is what you wrote: >When training is 7 year degree to achieve some specialization >properly understand the message behind the words You should probably say what you mean if you want people to hear what you mean. I dont have the patience to listen to metaphors.
I also wrote
> I find it difficult to believe that the price of training has not gone up.