Stroggoz New Zealand. Sep 18 2022 02:12. Posts 5330
On September 17 2022 04:53 Santafairy wrote:
i think you're the utterly stupid one, the only way to create a capitalist economy where some people can't get rewarded "randomly" would be to have foresight of the future of all companies or in other words a time machine
the fact that barry greenstein almost got very lucky, and then didn't, is not an indictment of an entire system as "completely irrational"
how can you be on a poker site and post something so fucking retarded
if a guy calls a raise with QT and beats you is poker completely irrational? just because he got lucky?
a rational investor could look at the multiple bull markets in tech and go "i bet e-commerce will be a thing of the future, look at this pets.com and other companies got pretty big, bookstores seem to have a lot of overhead" and invest in a bunch of amazon looking companies, including amazon, and then have a great success with the stock
The first point about why it's so obviously dumb is that people shouldn't be rewarded for investing in evil monopolies, (not that amazon was one back then). Investing in e-commerce is fine. If I want to make money from investment's, it's going to be by investing in the top 500. I.e, the companies that are mostly harming the world, not improving it.
The 2nd point is that it's far too big of a reward for far too little contribution. Thirdly, yes, it's very circumstantial and there's a bit of coin flipping. By comparison poker is essentially devoid of any luck. So the analogy makes no sense.
One of 3 non decent human beings on a site of 5 people with between 2-3 decent human beings
Last edit: 18/09/2022 03:18
1
Stroggoz New Zealand. Sep 18 2022 02:24. Posts 5330
On September 14 2022 21:06 blackjacki2 wrote:
The queen was very graceful in her role but the role is stupid in the first place. It should be universally agreed that nepotism is bad and people shouldn't receive fame and fortune just for the happenstance of the family they were born into. Yeah there's a lot of rich people and lots of rich kids, but we're also not expected to revere Elon Musk's children and act like they are special for being the lucky sperm cell he jizzed out that made it to the egg. It's the exact opposite of meritocracy which is what we should strive for.
Probably over 90% of the real wealth society has is inherited from innovations that previous generations did, before we were born. The way wealth is distributed in our society is completely irrational. Take stocks for example. Barry Greenstein would be a billionaire today, (richer than the queen) if he didn't sell his stock in amazon. He probably knew very little about amazon and how it was run back then and probably didn't put a professional level of thought into his investments, like most people. It would be pretty dumb to randomly reward someone so much (if he didn't sell it).
Someone risks their money by investing it into a company and the company uses that money to grow and increase in value and then the person that risked their money shares in the wealth. Not sure what you find irrational about this. Then again you probably believe that the rational way to distribute wealth is to just collect it by force from the people that have it and distribute it to the people that don't.
lmfao your response is so utterly stupid it's not worth responding to. You completely miss the point as do the posters above you. And you follow it up with some ridiculous statement. Then again it's not surprising given how easily you are manipulated into thinking robbing supermarkets for a few hundred dollars is the worlds most pressing issue. Your exactly the kind've person who would think street crime in Moscow is more important than famines in Ukraine if the commissars told you. Hahaha.
"World's most pressing issue"
No, not quite. I think it's a pressing issue for seniors that can't get their prescriptions filled when Walgreen's and CVS close down their locations because people like you think shoplifting from large corporations are victimless crimes that should be ignored.
Ignored by the population, not the local police or the victims. There's no reason for me to care about it since I can't do anything about it. Every single moral issue deserves to be placed in some heirachical ordering with the most pressing issues at the top and the marginal things at the bottom.
There are people that spend huge amounts of time going out into the sea trying to save dolphins, when there are far more efficient ways to prevent harm to animals. Then again maybe dolphin rights trump all others.
One of 3 non decent human beings on a site of 5 people with between 2-3 decent human beings
Last edit: 18/09/2022 02:54
1
Stroggoz New Zealand. Sep 18 2022 02:49. Posts 5330
On September 17 2022 00:56 RiKD wrote:
So, tech in EVs, solar, rockets, etc. is obviously massively important. Elon got a Physics degree from an Ivy League school and his first start-up funded by his dad among other things surely. What are the chances of someone poor from the Global South hitting $100 billion?
I think that Capitalism would probably still be an awful system if landless peasants had the same chances of becoming billionaires as trust fund babies. This all really depends on giving a 10,000,000 page document that explains all the details that would allow such a system though. You need to provide those details before it can be discussed rationally. So I don't see why it's an interesting question. You can probably give a rough estimate by looking at the top 100,000 richest people and comparing the circumstances of all of them. I don't really care that much if rich kids have a better chance than the rest of us. Fairness is secondary to minimizing causalties at this point. So I'm more interested in the way that wealth is acquired and it's overall effect on society.
Yes, investing in EV's and solar is important. Guess why capitalists chose to invest in fossil fuels instead last century? Should we reward them for it? Investor capitalism is the reason why innovation has been held back in that area.
One of 3 non decent human beings on a site of 5 people with between 2-3 decent human beings
The generational unemployment, poverty and low education cannot be explained by economic inequality or lack of opportunities. Even in fairest Northern European countries that shit is hereditary and has nothing to do with some unfairness of capitalism. So becoming successful has more to do with how you are raised, motivated and what kind of values you were taught than how much money your family has.
Last edit: 18/09/2022 06:41
1
blackjacki2 United States. Sep 18 2022 11:14. Posts 2582
On September 14 2022 21:06 blackjacki2 wrote:
The queen was very graceful in her role but the role is stupid in the first place. It should be universally agreed that nepotism is bad and people shouldn't receive fame and fortune just for the happenstance of the family they were born into. Yeah there's a lot of rich people and lots of rich kids, but we're also not expected to revere Elon Musk's children and act like they are special for being the lucky sperm cell he jizzed out that made it to the egg. It's the exact opposite of meritocracy which is what we should strive for.
Probably over 90% of the real wealth society has is inherited from innovations that previous generations did, before we were born. The way wealth is distributed in our society is completely irrational. Take stocks for example. Barry Greenstein would be a billionaire today, (richer than the queen) if he didn't sell his stock in amazon. He probably knew very little about amazon and how it was run back then and probably didn't put a professional level of thought into his investments, like most people. It would be pretty dumb to randomly reward someone so much (if he didn't sell it).
Someone risks their money by investing it into a company and the company uses that money to grow and increase in value and then the person that risked their money shares in the wealth. Not sure what you find irrational about this. Then again you probably believe that the rational way to distribute wealth is to just collect it by force from the people that have it and distribute it to the people that don't.
lmfao your response is so utterly stupid it's not worth responding to. You completely miss the point as do the posters above you. And you follow it up with some ridiculous statement. Then again it's not surprising given how easily you are manipulated into thinking robbing supermarkets for a few hundred dollars is the worlds most pressing issue. Your exactly the kind've person who would think street crime in Moscow is more important than famines in Ukraine if the commissars told you. Hahaha.
"World's most pressing issue"
No, not quite. I think it's a pressing issue for seniors that can't get their prescriptions filled when Walgreen's and CVS close down their locations because people like you think shoplifting from large corporations are victimless crimes that should be ignored.
Ignored by the population, not the local police or the victims. There's no reason for me to care about it since I can't do anything about it. Every single moral issue deserves to be placed in some heirachical ordering with the most pressing issues at the top and the marginal things at the bottom.
There are people that spend huge amounts of time going out into the sea trying to save dolphins, when there are far more efficient ways to prevent harm to animals. Then again maybe dolphin rights trump all others.
People can do something about it. The San Francisco DA is out of a job now after being voted out in a recall election for his shit soft on crime policies.
Yet retarded leftists will be like "but bitcoin uses 10 times the energy of Sweden hurrr durrr"
Ex-PokerStars Team Pro Online
1
blackjacki2 United States. Oct 09 2022 00:19. Posts 2582
Gas prices have shot back up in California rather suddenly. Closing in on $7/gallon again where I live. They seem to be a lot better in the rest of the country still. Not sure why there is such a large discrepancy. Some have pointed to the fact that California has the highest gas taxes, they have required their own special blend of fuel, and they have more cumbersome regulations. Not to mention that they intend to ban ICE vehicles by 2035 so there's not exactly much incentive for refineries to invest in greater production. Others have pointed to the record profits of the oil industry and claimed the high prices are a result of corporate greed. The thing I find perplexing about that argument is that corporate greed and maximizing profits are not exactly novel ideas that just surfaced recently and only in California.
also hiems sometimes its nice to take the transit in van cuz its pretty good system. 5$ for the day instead of spending 30$ for parking + gas + maintenance fees etc. 10$ an hour 4 parking downtown. vancouver is expensive but its rank #1 city to live in the world if u have enough money. if u dont have enough then i would rather live in alberta or quebec or ontario. lol the quebec election is a farce, there isnt democracry in that province they need an election reform.
agreed baal
Tian xia tai ping, Paradise on earth as in heaven la belle vie
I suck at searching, I wanted to dig Loco's post that puts a date on the end of the world due to climate change to wich he later described as "the world as we know it will end", halp?
Ex-PokerStars Team Pro Online
1
Liquid`Drone Norway. Dec 06 2022 11:00. Posts 3096
As an admin, can't you filter the thread by poster so you get only loco's posts? Or is that a tl.net only feature? xD
I can't find that post, but I do think you misremember / misunderstood / misrepresent it. It's not about when the world as we know it 'ends', it's about when the window for avoiding future irreversible change (of x magnitude) closes. That window closes a whole lot sooner than the actual change happens, and there seems to be a fairly strong consensus that 2030 is a year of significance.
On January 15 2020 09:42 Baalim wrote:
Oh sure I was presenting those ideas as though experiments because I'm in reality a closet nazi right?
No, it's a lot more likely that you were simply unaware that you were promoting dog whistles. For instance you once promoted the same kind of thinking about "ethnonationalism", (which the term itself is a dog whistle) and you said that "if it turned out to be the answer", I wouldn't support it because I'm "too dogmatic". What it is in reality as of now is that your thinking is confined within a very limited space with these right-wing talking points and you lack imagination in the ways that you promote your perceived superiority over others, so you still use them, albeit with a twist.
You claimed that in 19 years civilization will end and you claimed that the ONLY way to stop it is that the world leaves capitalism, so basically you are saying civilization will end with a 99%+ certainty, you are no different from a hobo with a doomsday prophecy written on a cardboard.
No, I did not. I claimed that it will be out of our hands by then due to the nature of feedback loops. This doesn't mean that the world will end. This is just a lazy misrepresentation and I think you were manipulated by the media due to AOC's exaggeration. Like I said to LemOn, lying and fear-mongering is not necessary, it's only counter-productive. The crisis is obvious and urgent enough and we should speak the truth about it.
false idea that people like to think the world is ending... yep because people have not literally wrongfully predicted the end of the world hundreds of times, in fact 4 times these last 2 decades alone, every religion has a doomsday book and we have thousands of movies, thousnads of bunkers in backyards, yeah where do I get this false idea.
Let's be clear, the topic at hand was whether or not the evidence shows that you are the "lover of truth" that you claim to be. I provided evidence that 12 years ago you were openly denying the reality of anthropocentric global warming by confusing the weather and the climate. You had no interest in the truth then, as you were merely parroting a right-wing talking point ("we just had the coldest winter ever, obviously it shows that climate change is a hoax''), and you have shown that you have no interest in the truth now either. All you have on this topic are talking points and cherry-picked data and a refusal to acknowledge that the logic of capitalism can only ever make the problem worse.
The false idea isn't that "people have always thought the world was gonna end". The false idea is that you imply that all people are the same, i.e. climatologists are no different from religious fanatics. I wouldn't be surprised if you came out one day and argued that George Soros is funding climatologists once you actually pay attention to the models and their implications. I imagine that if you are still so ignorant on this topic after all this time, the denial is only likely to get worse and the conspiratorial thinking will have to become more overt.
"There’s an old saying that “the proof is in the pudding,” meaning that you can only truly gauge the quality of something once it’s been put to a test. Such is the case with climate models: mathematical computer simulations of the various factors that interact to affect Earth’s climate, such as our atmosphere, ocean, ice, land surface and the Sun.
For decades, people have legitimately wondered how well climate models perform in predicting future climate conditions. Based on solid physics and the best understanding of the Earth system available, they skillfully reproduce observed data. Nevertheless, they have a wide response to increasing carbon dioxide levels, and many uncertainties remain in the details. The hallmark of good science, however, is the ability to make testable predictions, and climate models have been making predictions since the 1970s. How reliable have they been?
Now a new evaluation of global climate models used to project Earth’s future global average surface temperatures over the past half-century answers that question: most of the models have been quite accurate.''
[...]
"The team compared 17 increasingly sophisticated model projections of global average temperature developed between 1970 and 2007, including some originally developed by NASA, with actual changes in global temperature observed through the end of 2017. The observational temperature data came from multiple sources, including NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies Surface Temperature Analysis (GISTEMP) time series, an estimate of global surface temperature change.
The results: 10 of the model projections closely matched observations. Moreover, after accounting for differences between modeled and actual changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide and other factors that drive climate, the number increased to 14. The authors found no evidence that the climate models evaluated either systematically overestimated or underestimated warming over the period of their projections.
“The results of this study of past climate models bolster scientists’ confidence that both they as well as today’s more advanced climate models are skillfully projecting global warming"
And what are those proven-to-be-accurate models suggesting it will look like in the future? Let's have a look.
"An animation of a GISS (Goddard Institute for Space Studies) climate model simulation made for the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fourth Assessment Report, showing five-year averaged surface air temperature anomalies in degrees Celsius from 1880 to 2100. The temperature anomaly is a measure of how much warmer or colder it is at a particular place and time than the long-term mean temperature, defined as the average temperature over the 30-year base period from 1951 to 1980. Blue areas represent cool areas and yellow and red areas represent warmer areas. The number in the upper right corner represents the global mean anomaly. "
The uncertainty of the models isn't uncertainty about whether or not the situation is dire, as you attempt to paint it. It is uncertainty about exactly just how fast and how dire it is going to be very soon. This is a terrifying animation to be sure, but it is using data from the 4th assessment (made in 2007) and the models have only improved since then. The pattern with newer studies has been for a long time that they had underestimated XYZ effects/factors and it will only be getting worse than predicted. For instance, here's an article from yesterday saying what we knew has been true for a while: (https://phys.org/news/2020-01-climate-paris-goals.html)
"New climate models suggest Paris goals may be out of reach
"New climate models show carbon dioxide is a more potent greenhouse gas than previously understood, a finding that could push the Paris treaty goals for capping global warming out of reach, scientists have told AFP.
Developed in parallel by separate teams in half-a-dozen countries, the models—which will underpin revised UN temperature projections next year—suggest scientists have for decades consistently underestimated the warming potential of CO2.
Vastly more data and computing power has become available since the current Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) projections were finalised in 2013.
"We have better models now," Olivier Boucher, head of the Institut Pierre Simon Laplace Climate Modelling Centre in Paris, told AFP, adding that they "represent current climate trends more accurately".
The most influential projections from government-backed teams in the US, Britain, France and Canada point to a future in which CO2 concentrations that have long been equated with a 3C world would more likely heat the planet's surface by four or five degrees."
Which part of this is something to be optimistic about? Which part of this suggests "progress"? You realize that a 5C increase is an extinction event? There are models that predict as high as a 7C increase over the next 75 years from that article. Civilization buckles around 3°C, which if those models are accurate, is the absolute best scenario, and it doesn't even account for certain feedback loops/unknown emissions from thawing permafrost, clathrates, etc. or even the Global Dimming Effect.
fuck I should just sell some of my Pokemon cards, if no one stakes that is what I will have to do - lostaccount
1
Stroggoz New Zealand. Dec 07 2022 08:55. Posts 5330
Let me ask you something Loco. Why would you care about billions of people suffering from global warming, when there are people that are raiding stores for hundreds of dollars, and relatives of politicians are smoking crack?
One of 3 non decent human beings on a site of 5 people with between 2-3 decent human beings
Last edit: 07/12/2022 08:55
1
blackjacki2 United States. Dec 07 2022 09:57. Posts 2582
On December 07 2022 07:55 Stroggoz wrote:
Let me ask you something Loco. Why would you care about billions of people suffering from global warming, when there are people that are raiding stores for hundreds of dollars, and relatives of politicians are smoking crack?
Are you suggesting Loco is incapable of caring about more than one thing at a time?
I'm not sure what the qualifications are to prove that you are trans. There's over 100 genders to choose from on the application. I'm guessing you just have to check a box.
Contact Users: 622 Active, 2 Logged in - Time: 23:40
