Who thinks that? Usually when I see “X is human nature” it’s implied that “X is part of human nature.” I’ve never heard anyone suggest that anything was the sum total of human nature, never mind greed.

As for capitalism being human nature, that’s quite silly too, given how long humans have lived without capitalism in the past (the majority of our species’ existence). And as for capitalism being interchangeable with greed, that’s a fallacy of composition. Capitalism attempts to leverage individual greed for wider good. It doesn’t always succeed, but who has?

I wasn’t advancing a position that cooperation did not exist in nature (that would be absurd). Multicellular life is essentially defined by cooperation. No, I was arguing against the meme’s implication that greed is unnatural or even unique to humans.

As for a counterpoint to Kropotkin, I would advance game theory, which shows that greed and selfishness are successful strategies in otherwise cooperative environments (Free rider problem). In nature (and in human society) we find free riders everywhere we look.

This one’s silly. Lots of animals display greed. They gather way more food than they need for the winter. They steal each other’s food. They engage in surplus killing. Greed is everywhere. Nature, Red in Tooth and Claw.

Yeah I get that the centre of the distribution is on the bullseye, it just doesn’t fit with the ordinary meaning of the word “accurate.”

It also falls apart with a small sample size. If I fire only a single shot and hit the bullseye, that doesn’t tell you anything. However, in everyday speech most people would describe that as an accurate shot.

The high accuracy, low precision regime seems so strange to me! I think not many would call that situation “high accuracy” with most of the shots missing the bullseye!

Plus it seems like if you just keep increasing accuracy, you necessarily force all the shots to converge on the bullseye, don’t you? Then you get precision “for free” which is strange!

The AAA game industry wants to leverage FOMO to keep you engaged, keep you buying the newest game, forgetting about your backlog.

If they had their way, older games would no longer be playable, just to force people to keep buying new games.

That’s really unstable to me. Grows like a weed, needs constant pruning.

Stable is something like a succulent or a slow-growing epiphyte. Barely needs water or really any attention at all. Grows extremely slowly and can survive long droughts.

I looked it up. 2022 IIHS crash tests showed the Tesla model 3 as being much safer in front impacts.

Modern cars may make the engine fall in a crash, but it’s still better not to have that mass there in the first place. Having said that, the safety advantages of a frunk may be reduced if you have a bunch of heavy cargo in there.

Putting part of the battery in the front, in the crash zone, is going to reduce safety, not improve it.

One of the main things that improved EV safety over ICE cars is the frunk itself. By removing that massive engine from the front and replacing it with a crumple zone, the car becomes much safer in front impacts.

Speak for yourself! Last time I went for a walk to get a snack at the local shop, I got scooped up by a giant shark and carried back to the water!

But how does that work in terms of manufacturing in a global economy? Or are you calling for a return to villages with cottage industries?

The mechanism of markets is that the price of goods follows the law of supply and demand. Prices are a universal signal to producers that they should produce more/less of a good.

Without currency you need a mechanism to replace this. Given your previous posts in favour of anarchism, I’m guessing you don’t favour central planning. So what mechanism for determining how much and of what kinds of goods should be produced, do you prefer?

Seeing what’s happening in Ukraine and in Iran and neighbouring gulf countries feels like early stage Terminator to me. Same goes for all the Sam Altman slop. The goal of AI is to replace us. Right now it might not do a very good job at most things we can do, but I don’t think it’s too far from replacing almost everything we do on the battlefield.

Sure, though you don’t need a state of the art PC to play 90% of the games ever made. These days I play a lot of my games on an old 3DS (hacked to the gills)!

I also have a huge steam library of games, many of which I bought for next to nothing in huge bundles during past sales. Many of them I still haven’t played! They would run fine on a 10 year old PC though.

To dismantle power you must have power: the power to dismantle. Then afterwards do you dismantle your own power?

Love how she’s looking at you like “hey, we’re not done here!” She likes getting the summer coat cleanup!

Gaming is cheaper than ever. Just don’t buy new games. I haven’t bought a new AAA game in decades. There are thousands and thousands of games you can play for free or nearly free.

It’s like music. You can listen to lifetimes worth of music for free or nearly free. The only expensive thing is going to some fancy concert and giving a ton of money to Ticketmaster.

Puberty blockers definitely are an option for the kids. The question is what are the sports teams supposed to do? Sports teams can’t force a kid to take puberty blockers.

What should the rules be for kids sports?

Cognitive dissonance isn’t a skill, it’s a bias. Generally the way it goes is that the worse things get, the tighter people hold on to their existing belief.

Think about it like this: people living in a prehistoric village are suffering from a famine. Under a lot of stress, people start arguing with each other about what the group should be doing. One person is suffering from cognitive dissonance because they believe the group has the wrong idea. Now, should that person abandon the group and go off on their own? Or should they stick it out and just try to survive?

Evolution favours sticking with the group. Hence cognitive dissonance resolves into status quo bias. Now you might say we’re no longer in that sort of situation. That doesn’t matter actually, because our brains are basically the same as they were 10,000 years ago! We have all the same biases, it’s our environment that has changed so much.

So why is it different for you or me? Simple. We’re part of different groups than they are.

The post is about kids though, not men or women. Kids’ sports are already heavily segregated by age because kids entering puberty can gain a massive physical advantage with just 1 year of growth. A kid who goes through 2 years of puberty as a boy and then transitions to a girl could have 6 inches of height and 60 lbs of extra body mass over her peers.

2 years of HRT as a requirement would effectively shut her out of high school sports (puberty 13-15 as a boy, transition to girl, 15-17 HRT, graduate high school)?