distic
9d ago
There is a paradox if you do not assume any theory about economics. You are entirely correct, but this is not how a paradox works. It's like the Monty Hall paradox. If you think about it, it's perfectly logical, but there is a way to look at it which makes it weird. You need water more than you need diamond, and there are plenty of cases where diamonds would be less expensive than water. For example, you are in the desert and you have a diamond but no water.
distic
9d ago
Fans should have already gotten flight tickets, but would flight operators cancel flights due to raising fuel costs?
Aren't futures made exactly for this purpose? Don't companies buy futures so they can price the tickets and not be bankrupt by the price of oil?
The Venezuela op was a masterclass.
Was it? It was very risky, as proved by the Iran op. Even in a game with a negative expectation, you can sometimes win once or twice. It does not mean it was a good idea in the first place.
distic
11mo ago
direct connections to the Republican president?
The president himself is not really an example on those matters
distic
11mo ago
A law is not just a piece of paper, and I don't think you can call "bordering on traitorous" something mandated by law (and not just allowed).
The government having a political agenda that isn't determined by constitutionally appointed political processes
I don't know what it means, given that the government always has a political agenda that isn't determined by any legally defined process. The people in charge are appointed by those processes, what they do with the power they get is up to them as long as they obey the Constitution
distic
11mo ago
It does not make sense to me: either you want the historical thing, or you want a sports optimised for tournaments (in its rules and techniques), and in the second case you have modern fencing which is a pretty much optimised olympic sport. But as long as people have fun, maybe it does not matter
distic
11mo ago
I think I agree, it's just that it is not at all how those purges do happen. The people they are firing are working for legally funded agencies or programs, and they are targeted under the assumption that people working in those agencies or programs are mostly political adversaries
distic
11mo ago
Unless that includes God or Nature as intent sources
Yes it does if you believe nature or God have intents (it works better with God than nature, as most people who think that nature has intent also think that nature is a kind of god). People who don't think God exists or nature has intents also don't think there are purposes in nature.
Intended purpose means that the way you use the tool now (the purpose it's used for now) is what it was built for (the purpose of its creator). For example if you use your shoes to protect your feet it's their intended purpose, but if you use them to kill a fly it's not (presumably).
distic
11mo ago
Neither does my comment have anything relating to firing people on the basis of their political opinions.
Given that the first comment has been removed, I might have misread yours, but it seems to me you were arguing in favor of incentivizing people to leave the country according to their opinions.
distic
11mo ago
"The purpose of a system is what it does" is a stupid opinion if it is taken as a general mathematical truth. The concept of purpose assumes intentionality (the purpose of something is the intent of the people who built/used/participated in it) and therefore the opinion assumes the effects of a system are always those intended by the actors, which is obviously false.
Most of the time "the purpose of a system is what it does" instead means that what the actors want is less important than what the system actually does (it provides more prediction power, as you said).
There are some cases however where intentionality is very important, for example if you kill someone the police and the court will be interested.
distic
11mo ago
A few years months ago, before Elon Musk bought twitter, there was a very popular opinion here on the motte, and probably also among conservatives, that freedom of speech should not be limited in any way, whether directly by the government, or by powerful actors like social medias. When big tech fired people due to their right wing political opinions, conservatives were defending them while liberals were saying things like "they are bigots, they must be improductive anyway".
I don't know what happened, but it seems that a lot of people who had a very broad definition of free speech switched to a very precise and restricted one.
distic
11mo ago
Obviously not in the government, but in private companies those fired for their right wing opinions had some level of support from conservatives a few years ago.
distic
11mo ago
Getting fired has nothing to do with free speech. The principle of free speech is that the government cannot prevent you from speaking.
That's why conservatives have no problem with private bodies (e.g. social media) censoring right wing opinions I suppose.
distic
11mo ago
Optimistically, the academics leaving the USA are the ones most ideologically captured, such that their contributions to knowledge production is easily replaceable or even a net negative, as is the case for much of what is purportedly being cut by DOGE.
How fast from "there is no such thing as a limited freedom of speech" to "just fire them"...
distic
11mo ago
There is no international competition, those conferences will be restricted to locals for the exact same reason. The american military researcher can't just choose to go to a chinese conference instead
distic
11mo ago
Then just change the rules? For example make any deadly touch eliminatory, so that no one says "I'm going to leave myself wide open and go for an uncovered afterblow" . I suspect the problem is that you want tournaments to be more spectacular than realistic (if the adversaries are more conservative it might get a bit boring)
distic
11mo ago
Likely giving other nations time to choose (with us or against us), and slapping the nations who chose to align with China with huge tariffs in 90 days.
If that was the plan, it's pretty dumb. First you can't really un-declare a (commercial) war. Second, if you want people to side with you, you don't start a fight with them. Third, it puts everyone except China and the US in a better negociating position with those two, because they can play one against the other.
I don't think he is seen as a martyr. The problem with the bombing is more that bombing schoolgirls is not the best way to be liked by the locals. I think the Trump administration expected Iran to go the same way as Venezuela: after a few days of bombing, the regime dies because there is a revolt, a coup or something. It's quite obvious they had no plan beyond bombing them for three days. And I think Venezuela could have gone badly in the exact same way as Iran.
Imagine the kidnapping does not go well, and kidnappers are taken or killed. Then the US military tries to get them back and is out of luck; a lot of americans get killed. It seems to me Venezuela/Iran are the same kind of bad ops, because it's high risk - low reward. The power the US can get over Venezuela through a simple kidnapping will only last until some coup or next elections. Was it worth risking a long and painful war with Venezuela?
Edit: and also, thx for your the information about hedging.
More options
Context Copy link