Victoria Antoinette

you can vote based on policies. the real takeaway from that video should be that strategic voting consolidates parties while values voting gives you a chance for your values to be reflected in the politicians you vote for.

copying isn’t stealing

that’s not funding.

I seem to recall that the anonymity of car is based on obscuring transactions through bundling, but that method was deanonymized by poisoning wallrts somehow. this was like 10 years ago so my memory is fuzzy.

I didn’t say he’s off base. I said it’s useless. he’s not actually making a claim that I can use to predict anything.

what is the rate at which consolidation if parties occurs? if a fptp system exists with more than two parties, what reason do we have to believe it will consolidate, and when?

it’s a critical rationalist examination that would label it tautological: it’s true and it’s always true because of how weasley the wording is. “people tend to do the right thing” is a tautological claim because every example of people not doing the right thing is already covered in theassive loophole opened with the term “tend”. there is no way to set up a test to disprove it.

i thought monero’s mixer was show to be susceptible to poisoning.

duverger’s law is not actually a law at all, but a tautology. it has no actual predictive power, and hand-waves away evidence of instances where it has not turned out to be true.

no joke, you know the brie and gummy worms work.

enough people going vegan would probably have a noticeable effect on the animal agriculture industry.

certainly, but perhaps not the effect you are expecting. your assertion that you know what their reaction would be, and that it would be to accept making less money, is just not likely true.

i think most people have degrees to all of their feelings.

has anyone else ever been able to repeat your results?

so your want is binary either you do want it, or you don’t, and there are no degrees?

it is never the less there.

this sounds like a statement of faith, rather than fact.

Yeah, I stopped, and it has had an impact.

great! can you show me on this chart?

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/meat-production-tonnes?tab=chart&country=~OWID_WRL

can you see how your want is not quantifiable? how much did you want a hamburder? could you have wanted it less? would that have decreased the supply? this is pure storytelling.

I’d like to see evidence of the opposite happening to be honest.

gladly. despite the high value of faberge eggs, no more are produced. despite the high value of epipens, enough have not been produced to make them affordable to all who might want one. of course, this doesn’t actually quantify demand, and i’m still not sure how that can be done.

edit:

despite no demand for iphones in 2004, they were subsequently produced.

The goal of the business was to make money so when their product stopped making money they stopped producing it.

but they could have changed their values. they could have decided that the goal was not to make money, but to cover the earth, nay, the solar system with vcrs. but they didnt. they chose other values, and tried to act in a way that would uphold those values. they choose the values. they choose the action. i have no resposibility for others choices in this regard.

a moment of introspection here will show you that, in fact, this is about as close to the truth as you’re ever going to get. all economic theory is storytelling. you happen to like some particular stories better than others, and so you choose to believe them (and even repeat them as though tehy are true). but they are not True in an objective sense. there is no scientific experiment that can be constructed to test these claims which would satisfy the skepticism of a critical rationalist inquiry.

that’s fine. i believe (or act like i believe) lots of stories that i can’t prove the truth of, which are actually unprovable. we all do. just don’t try to pretend it’s science.