Welcome to Smashboards, the world's largest Super Smash Brothers community! Over 250,000 Smash Bros. fans from around the world have come to discuss these great games in over 19 million posts!
You are currently viewing our boards as a visitor. Click here to sign up right now and start on your path in the Smash community!
they make pc parts that are used in pc that uses sjw ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhIntel, as in company which makes chipsets and processors? What does 'SJW' stuff have to do with that?
There's plenty wrong with it and her.
A10theHero
I lost your ultra post on Oops page 2388, could you PM it to me or post it somewhere that doesn't require premium? I may respond to it still yet!
Here you go!Also
Well, Jaedrik, it's been a long time coming, but I finally finished. Now we can continue our lovely discussions! Thank you for your patience.
I am skeptical that every documentation suggests that, though that is beside the point.
We're probably gonna disagree, but you didn't mention the Keynesian policies that the government established early on in the Depression. They weren't aggressive enough to completely turn around the economic downturn, but they did help (though Congress and the SC had started to repeal many of those programs, which could be why there was a recession during the depression).
Having studied economics, I can tell you a few things that I know about contestable markets: First and foremost, they cannot exist in real life. A contestable market assumes there is equivalent technologies available, no entry or exit barriers, and no sunk costs. The latter two are pretty much always there. And the former can also be an issue when patents and such get into the mix. You downplay the effect of barriers to entry in your response as well as the issue with monopolies, but they really do matter.
I do not remember what my Microeconomics textbook used as an example for this, but here is one that I know of: Did you know that in some places in the country, you have no choice for your internet service provider? My high school AP Government teacher had the choice of living without internet or paying for Xfinity's services. There were no other feasible options. You could argue that if everyone didn't use that service or if they moved, then Xfinity would lower the price, but those choices place a heavy cost on consumers and very few would be willing to do so. Other companies could come to that area and compete, but the cost of building their equipment and attempting to compete with Xfinity would result in heavy losses because Xfinity could temporarily cut their prices, let their competition fail, and then raise the price again. This obviously isn't "beneficial to society" and nor did competition save the day--nobody has tried to compete with Xfinity in her area even though nothing related to the government is enforcing this monopoly.
In addition, you talk about the robber barons/captains of industry but you only mention some of the positives. Yes they gave lower prices for a while, but they did raise them later. Also, they exploited their workers, bribed the government, and gambled with money to turn a profit.
Also, simply saying that "humans makes mistakes" does not mean that monopolies are not a problem. That statement, while true, says nothing about the severity of said mistakes, so it does not guarantee the collapse of an entire monopoly from one mistake. Also it does not say when such a mistake will happen. There is a fallacy in claiming that this should alleviate fears of monopolies.
As seen previously in the example of the exchange between my former teacher and Xfinity, free exchange may not actually be mutually beneficial in that both parties are satisfied with the trade. This was a natural phenomenon that resulted from the existence of barriers to entry and the like--something that it does not account for well. So the principle of free exchange cannot replace altruism as a way to benefit society as a whole in all cases.
I see no contradiction. Altruism and morality are not the same. The former exists in all humans (and likely all animals) while the latter is a social construct that can differ depending on the community. Also, yes, altruism can sometimes involve self-sacrifice but even if it doesn't benefit every individual, it can still further the collective good. For example, certain species of birds will sometimes throw themselves at predators so that the rest of the flock can escape. The individual did not benefit, but the entire population did. Distracting the predator ensured the survival of the rest of the flock at the expense of one bird. The others will live to reproduce and result in a net growth for the flock.
Well what if free exchange is still plagued with monopolies because that is what happens in reality? Then both "extremes" still have the same problem. There is a victim when the trade isn't fair. It is possible to define who committed this violation. Sometimes a group of people is held accountable for a crime (ie. a terrorist group, a gang, etc.), so why should a corporation be any more difficult to define?
If those theories of free trade (and on the flipside, communism) represented the real world perfectly, I would wholeheartedly agree. On paper, it sounds so nice and perfect and I'd love for that to be true, but it is not realistic. The idea of a free market where everyone is always satisfied with their exchanges and monopolies are not a problem because the law of contestable markets actually applies perfectly would be so lovely! Alas, this cannot be.
Also, you said it's hard to define things like "society" when that is not the case. Just because something is complex does not mean it cannot be understood. For society, we could define it as a community of people that uphold certain norms. Society exists at multiple levels (ie. city, state, region, nation) and depending on the norm your reference, you are referring to a different level of society. For example, in my local community, a shared idea is that "yoga pants make you look young and sexy." This exists at the local level of society but not exactly at higher levels. A shared idea that could exist at the regional level is "Southern etiquette". And then the "American dream" could be seen as an idea that exists at the national level of society. See? Was that so hard?
Hee hee.
I learned my AP Psychology class that the notion of "tabula rasa" has long since been disproved. One example that I find to be completely adorable is this experiment: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/babies-help-unlock-the-origins-of-morality/ . Babies are also predisposed to bias in their early stages. They already have a sense of right and wrong. As they age though, they become more altruistic. So we are capable of evil. Ergo humans do have this inner savagery.
Eeyup. However, this was then upheld by the rich as a means to justify inequality and suffering for the masses.
On a side note, the early humans are so fascinating, right? Anyways, this paragraph mentions altruism, sacrifice for the greater good at the cost of the individual. An individual did not benefit, yet the group did. It seems you contradicted yourself.
Now you'll probably tell me that I contradicted myself too because I said that humans have the inherent capacity for evil but can also be altruistic. However, when people identify with a certain group, they will support that group and exhibit altruism towards them. When facing others of an opposing group, they will react negatively. So was it guaranteed that the child's inherent sense of right and wrong matched that of the group? Not exactly. If they do not identify with their group, they will lash out. In the past, this would lead to infanticide or them being left to die to the elements. In the modern setting, this is nigh impossible, but negative reactions are still possible. Biases, such as Social Darwinism, are still feasible options for those who dislike a group.
Let us add some perspective to this, shall we? Organization is key to humans, as seen by the existence of tribes. Larger groups required better organization, leading to the creation of formal government. Where there are people with goods and services to exchange, there is a market. These large societies have businesses and governments. Well, assuming rationality, would it not be a beneficial decision for a business if they could somehow manipulate the government to hamper their competition? These societies will always have both, so utilizing the power of government can help create monopolies and unfair practices such as what you discussed earlier. In fact, as mentioned previously, the robber barons would bribe government officials, exactly as expected. The point I'm trying to make though is that some form of government and some type of market will always exist in every society. You can argue as much as you want about the benefits of a laissez faire free market but it does not exist in a vacuum. In real life, the overlap is impossible to avoid. Either the market manipulates the government, or the government regulates the market. This will happen. And regulation is not necessarily a bad thing. If the government had done its job and restricted the sale of derivatives, 2008's recession wouldn't have happened. A lot of businesses can be very short-sighted sometimes--they do risky ventures in the interest of short-term profit. This can have very large consequences, and proper regulation could prevent seriously problems. And if we allow corporations to have a disproportionate influence on government (ie lobbying and excessive campaign donations), then such unfair practices can be done and the "free market" will do nothing to stop them.
This is really cool! Though it did not necessarily help everyone. If you were not a member then you could not get assistance, right? So saying that the "weakest and poorest" got support is doubtful. And with health problems that require very expensive procedures (ie modern day ailments such as AIDS and obesity), I doubt that such a system would work. Smaller pools of money are less effective than one larger pool of money. Though to be fair, our current "universal healthcare" isn't exactly perfect either. But it has its pros and cons as did those "friendly societies."
That last paragraph implies that you are a utopian. The free market and communism are very idealistic. Hopefully what I said makes sense to you and you can see why I can say that.
So I looked up the story. Your original post left out some very important details.
>Architect proposes a design
>Calls for insulation windows that are expensive
>Instead, cheap windows that don't insulate are chosen
>Engineers install a heating/cooling system to compensate for the lack of temperature regulation
>Temperature is still an issue--it could sometimes get as high as 90 degrees Fahrenheit there
>The building is a failure, but not because of incentive structures
You only mentioned the "prohibitively expensive" glass and called the building a failure, blaming the incentive structures of government. However, this completed story makes the topic of incentive structures somewhat irrelevant because the government made the mistake as many businesses do: They used price as the only determining factor. Externalities were not taken into account. If they used the insulating windows, they would've saved money from not having to install the heating/cooling system. They would also save money on electricity from not using that system. In addition, any of the workers' health problems that were influenced by the working conditions had some costs that you and I cannot accurately quantify. The discomfort experienced cannot be quantified either. Honestly, they probably would've saved money in the long run if they had gone with the original expensive insulating glass.
Here is a related story: One of my professors gave a presentation about Life-Cycle Analysis. Initial price cannot and should not be the only factor when deciding on the design. For example, my professor used to live on the east coast and she had a project of building a bridge for the government. The traditional material used for bridges is steel-reinforced concrete. However, my professor suggested using engineering fiber-reinforced concrete instead. Using data she collected about both materials, my professor was able to show that in the long run, the steel-reinforced concrete would cause the need for repairs much more often than the fiber-reinforced concrete. Not only would that cost the government more money, it would cause unquantifiable economic losses since many people would have to take detours or get stuck in traffic during maintenance. She did not tell us exactly what she did (because we're an introductory class), but it involved the ever-constant laws of physics and computer modelling. Technology has been improving rapidly and our ability to predict the performance of structures has as well (apparently, Boeing made a plane--I don't remember the name of the model--with all of the work based entirely on computer modelling. Once built, everything performed within the range of error).
It is not. For example, altruism from the last discussion had a distinction between individual sacrifice and group benefit. In a recent study I read in my political science class about what leads to civil war, there is a distinction as well: invidual opportunity costs, among other individual-level factors, and group-level grievances (ie misjustices against a certain group of people, usually distinguished along ethnic lines) play a role.
Your example has been shown to not support your claim--if anything, it hurts it since the government behaved similarly to a business in focusing on the immediate cost of the project.
Talked about it in the previous spoiler.
The example you kindly shared with me will be discussed later.
I disagree because once the Fed announces its decision, the market will change in a certain way. And the Fed bases its decision on whether the market is overextending or performing relatively poorly. Entrepreneurs can adapt to that, but they have to be vigilant and attentive--that separates the good from the bad, I assume. Otherwise everyone would crash and burn with each decision made.
Done.
I have already talked about the things in this section already, other than the incentive structures, for aforementioned reasons. Also, I've gone to public schools, and driven on public roads many times in the past. They're as good as they get (though they are in urgent need of updating). Even the college I go to now is a public institution. With this example, specifically, they put so much emphasis on economic and environmentally-friendly designs in their projects, that your argument that government would be more wasteful with its projects is kinda baseless. Just because it in theory has all the money it wants, nobody would be dumb enough to print a lot of money (inflation be damned).
I cannot call the theories associated with the free market "economic truth" simply because it does not work in many cases. A good theory is flexible and it makes an accurate statement about reality. If it were truth, it could never be contradicted. This will be discussed further later, but setting up experiments is not hard and there are similar approaches when experiments are not possible such as observational studies that can lead to accurate conclusions being made. It's complex, but it's not impossible.
Also, I call bull**** on so-called "analytical frameworks". If you think people can deduce "economic truth", then why can't they analyze data of experiments that they themselves designed?
Thank you for sharing this with me!
I'm only about fifteen minutes through it, but I can already tell you that there were some points that I disagree with.
Science is about finding truth, yes. But if one can't have solid evidence (ie empirical evidence*) to back up one's claims, it loses a lot of support. We can "reflect upon our actions", yes, but that doesn't make them any better than any other random reflection. The folly of anecdotal evidence and various biases becomes an important concern if there is no empirical evidence to support an assertion. And there's no guarantee that your perception of how the world works is the same as reality. (* = Many experiments, especially in social science, cannot always use empirical evidence in its strongest forms, but they still create useful observational studies, the next best thing, while also controlling for many variables. They at least stay true to the scientific method. That's not to say that social science is devoid of actual experiments though. That'd be far from the truth. For example, right now in my social science class, we are reading various studies on ethnic conflict and almost all of the widely-accepted studies are almost exactly like an experiment. And then there are experiments too and it's obvious why they're accepted (in case it's not obvious, it's because they've been tested and retested, and the results are aligned with the relevant conclusions).)
Moving on, the difference between understanding subjects in natural sciences and human behavior are not vastly different. Firstly, humans are animals and like other organisms, they have overarching general behaviors that operate in the background. Organisms are complex and yet we can still learn about them through empirical evidence. Usually a series of experiments is done where there are many factors, to isolate and examine the relationship between different variables. So the argument of some situations being too "complex" for accurate conclusions to be made is somewhat erroneous. This was said in an earlier spoiler, but calling something "complex" is not the same as saying it's "incomprehensible".
To add some additional perspective to this, I want to talk about a tangent: climate science. Many deniers of climate change argued a similar notion: The factors that affect climate are too complex for us to understand well. However, underneath all of those complexities are the same laws of physics, and we have been able to identify the main factors that affect climate (such as greenhouse gases) through the scientific method and creative thinking.
At this point, I specifically want to stress the importance of randomization. A tried-and-true method of controlling for various variables comes in the form of randomization. Many successful experiments have utilized randomization and drawn accurate conclusions that have been verified to be true. There are so many examples (because this is empirical science at its best), that I'm not sure what to say here because of that.
I also want to point out something very important: humans can sometimes be illogical. This makes the whole point of "rational economics" somewhat useless when it only applies occasionally. With empirical evidence, we can identify conditions that can lead to irrational behavior (like personality, which in other experiments, could be broken down to upbringing or something else. Actually, the debate of "nature" vs "nurture" used to be huge in Psychology--both were reasonable hypotheses as to why humans develop the way they do, but in the end, empirical evidence showed that it was actually a mixture of the two, not just one or the other. Now the real fun is in figuring out when does nature apply more and when does nurture apply more.)
In addition, many various conclusions that could be generalized for human behavior have been drawn before in the past. In psychology (not Freudian psychology, mind you *shudders*), for example, we were able to learn about obedience and human behavior as well as groupthink and the diffusion of responsibility through experimentation. These are prevalent patterns in human action (with the irrationality accounted for) that we were able to understand through empirical evidence, so it's not that the scientific method is not applicable to humans or anything.
Finally, historians draw conclusions by examining the situation and identifying all factors. They then analyze the relationships and come to conclusions with evidence (mainly primary sources) that is empirical in nature. This is an observational study that accounts for biases and achieves the same purpose as experimentation. A refined statement (the thesis) that accounts for counterexamples and the like makes an accurate statement about the world. Thus, it is very different from Austrian economic theory, which relies on an idealistic vision that ignores contradictory evidence.
Edit: On a side note, I think I should share the studies I've read in my political science class with you. Not only are they really interesting, but also, they showcase many of the strengths of empirical evidence in the social sciences.
inb4 I didn't tag him. His posts are quoted in the spoilers, so it'd be redundant to tag him.
oh yes, thats adorable
Enough to make it to 7.0 perhaps?We're hanging on somehow.
Wait, there are volumes for Brawl in the Family?! I honestly didn't know that was a thing... Geez, why is my wallet getting assaulted on this year?THEY FINALLY CAME
I'VE BEEN WAITING SO LONG YOU DON'T EVEN KNOW
![]()
![]()
Oh yes, the Survival overhaul, right? The return of New Vegas's Hardcore with diseases.
Pretty much New vegas hardmode + skyrim but its better than current survival mode at least.
Uh-huh...
Fam, you already tried this back in PMS, what makes you think I'll change my views now? Especially when you include the transphobic, Milo Yiannopoulos.There's plenty wrong with it and her.
Y'all need Milo Yiannopoulos.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hJGqEfauAKc
More memey version if tl;dw https://youtu.be/Kp0pTPy8Txo?t=2m7s
Also
Dr. Thomas E Woods "Feminism: Enemy of Liberty?" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MQMZ5V9E3hU
Also
I haven't followed any Fallout news since I didn't have my PC for a month. Was there anything else new? Did they ever release GECK yet?
Nope no word on the GECK yet sadly.
Aww... I shouldn't be surprised though, mod tools do take time, and making it for consoles probably takes a bit extra time.
I played Fallout 4 a little bit (I don't own it) but I haven't had any experience with it's vanilla Survival but I heard it was basically just a harder difficulty. It's nice to see a mode that adds a whole different danger. That's something Skyrim should of had.
Well they're calling it an overhaul, so it's probably just an update.
They were FEATURES!!!I'm still curious on how/if Nintendo will handle the glitches in the upcoming Pokémon Virtual Console release. I mean, look at the large amount of programming errors on just battle mechanics alone:
Not the mention the sheer amount of glitch Pokémon you can come across without a cheat device as wells as the game breaking bugs elsewhere.
Someone: Generation I was the best generation of any generation.I'm still curious on how/if Nintendo will handle the glitches in the upcoming Pokémon Virtual Console release. I mean, look at the large amount of programming errors on just battle mechanics alone:
Not the mention the sheer amount of glitch Pokémon you can come across without a cheat device as wells as the game breaking bugs elsewhere.
I'd be pissed if they took those out, if I wanted a refined pokemon game I would get the new ones or the Fire Red/Leaf Green remakes. This is a pure nostalgia trip and should be preserved accurately, so let me get my missingno's and Mews in peace. Its already crappy that they disable save states, like what the hell.I'm still curious on how/if Nintendo will handle the glitches in the upcoming Pokémon Virtual Console release. I mean, look at the large amount of programming errors on just battle mechanics alone:
Not the mention the sheer amount of glitch Pokémon you can come across without a cheat device as wells as the game breaking bugs elsewhere.
Well in this day and age it's rather hard for one to legally play games that were released on discontinued systems, (Even the original Xbox and the Gamecube are starting to become scarce now-a-days) and the common family today could only wish that they had the money to buy an Atari or a NES. These reasons make up pretty much one-half of the purpose of Virtual Console (the other half being to counter unofficial game emulators), and these reasons probably fuel similar practices by other companies and consoles as well.Honestly, I find it strange enough that the selling point of a console is coming pre-installed with a 20 year old game.
Will we also get an NX boasting pre-installed Super Mario Bros + Duck Hunt?
I'm perfectly fine with the Virtual Console. The game prices are quite reasonable too, I might add.
Your opinion is objectively false. Sexual dimorphism and evolution don't mystically stop working from the neck up.
Such dogmatic conviction!
I haven't given it a try yet, but it's on my list of games that I want to try.
I've only heard good things about Rivals of Aether.
No
Why would you replace Megaman, with generic soldier dude. There wouldn't be much difference from "CoD Soldier" to "Battlefield Soldier" to "Counter Strike Soldier". If they were to ever add an FPS character, it'd probably be Halo's Master Chief, Or Bioshock's Big Daddy, or some character that has weight behind them.
It was in general.
