Matrix now has user badges

x0x7

No problem. It was mostly done with DALL-E.

x0x7

Call me crazy but I always look at the downside. This is the excuse for the (((left))) to start siding with Israel.

x0x7

Cool. You learned how exponential distributions work. What matters is power, not money. And to apply the will to make these people not wealthy and prevent someone from filling their place also on an exponential distribution, you would need an exponential distribution of power to make it happen that would be sharper than the one we currently have.

x0x7

All. It's not even insane. It's standard political science beyond the naive crap they feed the commoner. "Concentrated Interests" is a concept in PolySci for a reason. So no, the "constituency" is not who politicians put the most effort into convincing.

If you think you need to convince a large number of reasonable people that you are a good fit to be president then you have an elementary school understanding of politics.

Question: Does your theory of politics match what you have observed? Theory and practice should always match, if you have good theory.

x0x7

How did you get the number 0000000000?

x0x7

What about the US? You didn't specify US elections. Though the US interferes with those too now.

x0x7

No. You need to convince the people with real power that you will work for them.

x0x7

Nikki Haley is a war machine whore. She sold out humanity for a paycheck.

x0x7

That’s just as reasonable as Israel being a state.

x0x7

Yes. Did you know that pornography in general is illegal in Russia. Yet somehow there is an entire industry of porn there. You can't ban media. If you try to ban racist media online you are going to get the same effect.

D = VC * min(1,RF/VF)-RC. Demand for commercial media exchange equals (each variable taken as a distribution), the perceived value of the commercial media times the perceived risk of free consumption divided by the perceived value of free consumption capped at one minus the perceived risk of commercial consumption.

Something to note is that a distribution minus a distribution is never zero. So no amount of applying risk to commercial consumers will ever dismantle the commercial market. This is why we've failed at the war on drugs and why prohibitions never work absolutely.

But if the risk of free is zero then you effectively multiply the demand curve by zero. This is why when you analyze it you separate the prohibition into two separate policies. The first one multiplies the demand curve (with a limit) and the second one subtracts the demand curve. Of course multiplication and subtraction work different for distributions, but you'll have to take a math course and I can't cover that here.

That formula is how you calculate the demand curve of media exchange. Remember the units of demand are dollars and its what actually motivates producers.

That min(1,RF/VF) is called the window of coordination. It's a distribution but the more like 1 it is the more the market behaves like a typical commodities market. If for everyone RF>VF then you have a plain commodities market. The curve that division usually causes is a lot like (1/x-1)*p. Where p is |RF|/|VF|. So the window, once capped, is a lot like a box around 0,0,1,1 and the curve goes through that box. The more full that box is the more media behaves like physical exchanges. When the box is zero there is no market.

x0x7

It should. But you probably won't see much impact because it is only Germany. I have the misfortune of being an econ-nerd. You know, the dismal science that constantly tells you the opposite of what you want to hear. One problem is that any ban on a media is the same as two separate policies, one applies risk to paying parties, and another applies risk to non-paying parties. The issue is that applying risk to non-paying parties is identical to copyright policy from an economic point of view. The intent of policy is always irrelevant to economics. Same policy with different intent gives the same results. Demand doesn't actually coordinate with supply in media exchanges until you apply that risk. That's why copyright exists.

But the deminishment of demand from Germany is not going to relinquish the demand from everywhere else so commercial production is going to continue.

x0x7

One more boat picture while I’m still on the water. https://img.gvid.tv/i/3VTQVn5s.jpg

x0x7

I've honestly thought about this recently. It's probably been a little over a year I considered working for USD might be immoral because you are providing labor to back the value of money someone else can just print, that keeps immoral people in power, and enables bombing of children in Gaza, probably more so than taxes do directly. I also think it is immoral to pay taxes not only because the taxes fund the government but also because USD (immoral monetary system) also derives its value as a tax payment token (don't go to jail for existing token). So the more labor for money and the more taxes you obligate yourself to pay the more you are adding a backing to an illegitimate system that enslaves us and contributes to violence around the world.

But I don't like the idea of taking from resources I didn't contribute to. I've come to the realization that purely honest actions are not afforded to you when your standard for honesty is sufficiently high.

I think it is wrong to earn a living in a way that causes or contributes to unjust externalities. Unfortunately the structure of the way our money works today means pretty much any kind of income does that.

And this isn't just a passing thought. I've reduced hours at work over this. I've spent all of my increased disposable time pondering how someone can manage to be responsible while fucking out of this system entirely or at least maximize their disinvolvement. Or at least organize their life so their direct value production can compete with their work. And even with all that time and mediation, and even willingness to bend my perspectives on what value means, I don't have a ton of great answers for how to really do that that I'm 100% happy with.

x0x7

Very cool.

x0x7

Stupid ad blocking blocker. Also 2! is just 2. I'm not sure what 2!' is because I don't know what transform ' indicates in this context.

x0x7

We'll be voting on movies as we go but you can help me whittle down the selection in the meantime if you want:

Upvote: https://strawpoll.com/61gDmW16LZw
Downvote: https://strawpoll.com/GPgV6O4Dkga

Feel free to come early to share clips and hang out.

x0x7

Cool. I ran into a used condom on the sidewalk.

x0x7

I'm very against he genocide which is 100% occurring. But it is a little ironic calling him genocide Joe because he has pushed back a little (though not enough), but his current contender wouldn't push back at all. This is the one issue where Joe Biden is better than Trump.

If there is an area where "Genocide Joe" is more genocide than Trump it is Ukraine, because the longer we pretend that should be a thing going on the more Ukraine is going to get emptied out. But on Gaza Joe Biden has been a relative positive from what I can tell. I do wish he would do more to divorce us from Israel.

x0x7

Just like the war wasn't started by Russia. Ukraine was the first to shell civilians. Which side is "right" always depends on when you consider a war to have started and it will always be manufactured by one side or another to be timed so one side is in the right.

Personally I measure genocide by outcomes. If you are killing 100:1 non-combatants to combatants and the result is a people are being wiped out of existence, then you have turned a war into genocide whether the war is justified or not. At this point I don't think it's justified at all considering Israel has killed multiple more civilians and Israel was responsible for human rights violations to begin with. But if the war were justified there are ways to fight wars without committing genocide. But that's not what Israel is going to do because the "side affect" is the whole reason.

x0x7