The Mathematical Systems that Govern Thread Derails

Status
Not open for further replies.
Lithose

Lithose

Buzzfeed Editor
25,946
113,035
Picasso3 said:
This whole god damn mess started because I tried to make the point that Kiroy should not have the stance that there is not a single thing humanity can do to mitigate/address global warming and to dismiss any discussion on the topic without listening to the proposal. Which sadly, he is too entrenched to entertain.

Your response to that is of course go to your body of knowledge, so you can talk a lot, to make tedious points on your own topics and god forbid someone actually read the mental gymnastics to do so, because this is what happens.

It is a fair point that humans act selfishly or can be predicted with game theory (and yada yada socialism doesn't work), however, we are outside the discussion of that as we are trying to discern what topic would be the variable in the game theory of what is going to happen with GW. Therefore, you can't predict jack shit with you game theory analysis, because you don't have the theoretical input.

Please do not respond to this with an indepth bunch of shit about how my generalization using game theory is incorrect and it's actually the goldstein equation as i'm only trying to convey the broader point.
Click to expand...

No, the whole mess began because you made this post.

Picasso3 said:
I don't know if you're being sarcastic or not but that's the crux of the problem, kiroy seems to think that it's either a worldwide total unification to shut down all mechanization or we do nothing. Those are the only two options and only one is feasible.
Click to expand...

To which, I began with this (Explaining Kiroy was pushing hyperbole to indicate the end game of hobbling your economy with the expectation of cooperation.)


Lithose said:
That's hyperbole to illustrate the problem. It's called the tragedy of the commons, its a real problem in game theory, and models are run on it ALL the time. Part of the reason America lost its competitive edge was due to the very nature of this problem. If one country agrees to reduce, and another does not, over time the country that agreed to it will be locked out of the global market and its citizens will suffer a great deal from their inability to compete. This creates enormous short term pressure to prevent that.......
Click to expand...

I went on to explain how because these agreements do not 'bind' people through any kind of losses for not adhering to cooperative agreements, eventually you'll end up with one side succumbing to the short term pressure to enrich themselves due to most competitors being hamstrung (Literally what China is doing now.) You went on to post this.

Picasso3 said:
Global warming is the topic but i am making a larger side point about stupidity crippling debates before they get to a level of what is blatantly, factually apparent.

Kiroy is unwilling to entertain any offer of gw addressing because total world unification is impossible, that level of debate incompetence really has no place in an adult political discussion. I have been highlighting that time and time again and somehow it gets misconstrued as surrendering the US to Chinese dolphins.
Click to expand...

To which I replied with the mathematics argument indicating that hoping for some cooperative agreement if we 'just try this', is ridiculous due to human behavior in the face of altruism. The post were careful to indicate that there were variables and certain restricts can provide benefits because they force innovation (Zyy, and you agreed on this).

At which point you began saying somehow my argument was the exact same as Kiroy's--when the first fucking line, the FIRST GOD DAMN LINE, expressed his argument as hyperbole that was meant to illustrate the nuance of a more subtle, longer term problem with cooperation. My ENTIRE argument was about not relying on altruistic cooperation and basing policy off the assumption of self interest (Even if we attempt cooperation in order to at least get the innovative effects from it.)

That's it. You guys have attempted to reframe my argument to fit what you BELIEVED I was saying. Because you did not fucking read the argument. And now you're here, and in 2 other threads, tagging me, hoping to rewrite what actually happened. No, Piccaso. I wasn't making the point you thought I was. Both of you didn't read what I wrote and you've thrown a tantrum that has shit up multiple threads now because of it.
 
Last edited:
  • 1Like
Reactions: 1 user
Lithose

Lithose

Buzzfeed Editor
25,946
113,035
ZyyzYzzy said:
Lithose Lithose can model human behavior except in cases in which the model doesn't work, of which there are millions of real examples
Click to expand...

Efficacy does not reach 100%, and thus there is no value.

As I said, the argument Zyyz goes back to (Amazing how I predicted that isn't it? Seems like I have your behavior nailed down pretty well). Some day socialism will work guys, you never know, you could get thousands of totally altruistic people in to run it!
 
  • 1Like
Reactions: 1 user
ZyyzYzzy

ZyyzYzzy

RIP USA
<Banned>
25,295
48,789
Lithose said:
Efficacy does not reach 100%, and thus there is no value.

As I said, the argument Zyyz goes back to (Amazing how I predicted that isn't it? Seems like I have your behavior nailed down pretty well). Some day socialism will work guys, you never know, you could get thousands of totally altruistic people in to run it!
Click to expand...
Or your precious generalization is not applicable in every scenario.

So you beleive that when the US signed the Chemical Weapons Convention, we didn't disband programs and destory stockpiles because it just takes way too many altruistic individuals to confer a military disadvantage
 
Burnem Wizfyre

Burnem Wizfyre

Log Wizard
11,799
19,564
ZyyzYzzy said:
Or your precious generalization is not applicable in every scenario.

So you beleive that when the US signed the Chemical Weapons Convention, we didn't disband programs and destory stockpiles because it just takes way too many altruistic individuals to confer a military disadvantage
Click to expand...

Eat shit and shut the fuck up faggot.
 
  • 1Salty
  • 1Like
Reactions: 1 users
Lithose

Lithose

Buzzfeed Editor
25,946
113,035
ZyyzYzzy said:
Or your precious generalization is not applicable in every scenario.

So you beleive that when the US signed the Chemical Weapons Convention, we didn't disband programs and destory stockpiles because it just takes way too many altruistic individuals to confer a military disadvantage
Click to expand...

Oh shit, I had no idea the attempts at global warming cooperation had an Article 12 for sanctions and potential military response from all adherents for not complying, as well as an investigatory branch which could activate it. (Also, it's not a disadvantage if the other side also reduces..That's actually a text book case of achieving an equilibrium. Because there IS a punishment, and severe consequences for use, the benefit of having them is severely curtailed, and there is no negative for NOT having them because of rigid assurances that are enforceable with various punishments that allow for transparency. Global warming cooperation is *nothing* like this.)

Well shit, that changes everything. Please, just show me that part of the global warming cooperative, and I'll change my argument. Because then clearly these things are the same.
 
ZyyzYzzy

ZyyzYzzy

RIP USA
<Banned>
25,295
48,789
Lithose said:
Oh shit, I had no idea the Paris Accords had an Article 12 for sanctions and potential military response from all adherents for not complying, as well as an investigatory branch which could activate it.

Well shit, that changes everything. Please, just show me that part of the global warming cooperative, and I'll change my argument. Because then clearly these things are the same.
Click to expand...
Hmm but its almost like one of the nations that will most likey initiate a military conflict isn't a signatory
 
P

Picasso3

Silver Baronet of the Realm
11,333
5,322
Lithose said:
No, the whole mess began because you made this post.



To which, I began with this (Explaining Kiroy was pushing hyperbole to indicate the end game of hobbling your economy with the expectation of cooperation.)




I went on to explain how because these agreements do not 'bind' people through any kind of losses for not adhering to cooperative agreements, eventually you'll end up with one side succumbing to the short term pressure to enrich themselves due to most competitors being hamstrung (Literally what China is doing now.) You went on to post this.



To which I replied with the mathematics argument indicating that hoping for some cooperative agreement if we 'just try this', is ridiculous due to human behavior in the face of altruism. The post were careful to indicate that there were variables and certain restricts can provide benefits because they force innovation (Zyy, and you agreed on this).

At which point you began saying somehow my argument was the exact same as Kiroy's--when the first fucking line, the FIRST GOD DAMN LINE, expressed his argument as hyperbole that was meant to illustrate the nuance of a more subtle, longer term problem with cooperation. My ENTIRE argument was about not relying on altruistic cooperation and basing policy off the assumption of self interest (Even if we attempt cooperation in order to at least get the innovative effects from it.)

That's it. You guys have attempted to reframe my argument to fit what you BELIEVED I was saying. Because you did not fucking read the argument. And now you're here, and in 2 other threads, tagging me, hoping to rewrite what actually happened. No, Piccaso. I wasn't making the point you thought I was. Both of you didn't read what I wrote and you've thrown a tantrum that has shit up multiple threads now because of it.
Click to expand...

Oy vey.

My point does not specify or inherently involve international cooperation or competitive disadvantage. You inject this shit, go on about it, and then drown the broader point in minutiae. If you think that any practical solutions are impossible, then that's not the point, because you are not able to disprove that possibility. I propose this so when nasa or elon musk says hey we have this thing that'll help with global warming, don't tell those hippies to go fuck themselves, because there may be job creation, innovation, foreign energy independence aspects. I am confident because i'm trying to make the SMALLEST point about being a reasonable adult, and you've snowballed it into this shitshow, and continue to.
 
Lithose

Lithose

Buzzfeed Editor
25,946
113,035
Picasso3 said:
Oy vey.

My point does not specify or inherently involve international cooperation or competitive disadvantage. You inject this shit, go on about it, and then drown the broader point in minutiae. If you think that any practical solutions are impossible, then that's not the point, because you are not able to disprove that possibility. I propose this so when nasa or elon musk says hey we have this thing that'll help with global warming, don't tell those hippies to go fuck themselves, because there may be job creation, innovation, foreign energy independence aspects. I am confident because i'm trying to make the SMALLEST point about being a reasonable adult, and you've snowballed it into this shitshow, and continue to.
Click to expand...

I was only addressing why global unification is an important part of cooperation. Ironically Zyyz just pointed it out for me--if you can gather a system where there are punishments for non-adherence, then you can actually get cooperation to work. But without that, the goal should be innovation. Which I actually ALSO said in the post.

Lithose said:
The solution to global warming is technological in nature, the elimination of it through emerging technologies which simply allow higher production through their use over a carbon emitter--we can spur some of this on by using measures spoken about above which would break down long term (But in this case, because they'd force a shift into a technology which would develop, the break down may never reach its apex--that's the hope anyway.)...But that 'nudge' can only be maintained for so long due to the same issue, eventually you will be out competed (Again unless the technology you nudged toward explodes thanks to use, like we're hoping with Solar).

If you look at Global Warming through this lens, then restraining the Western world, where 80% of scientific improvements come from? Might actually be WORSE overall, since you are lowering their competitiveness and the wealth needed for new break through, and giving it to countries which don't yet have best practices for most processes/technology and will use the capital they earn with their competitive edge to streamline/improve rather than invent new processes. But its all a balancing act, as I said above a purposeful 'injury' to productivity can be good if you can inspire a technology to defeat it; but that's a big if, and the restraint can only last for so long, in EVERY model it breaks down unless there is a large punishment strategy to make it not worthwhile to pursue an actors own gains.
Click to expand...

I went on to expound on this, multiple times, explaining very carefully I was discussing the idea of cooperation. I explained cooperation might work (Above) if the agreement had force behind it (But its difficult since countries get SO much in the short term from best-practices energy production with fossils, and there are a lot of poor countries). I also explained, exactly as you're saying here, that restrictions which inspire technological innovation were excellent ways to help because technology is really the ONLY answer that is going to be feasible long term.

As I said, we have no argument. You guys have agreed with me OVER AND OVER again. I was illustrating why this belief that we can cooperate this away is a real problem, and that our answers should be more based in self interest. Part of that answer needs to be, at this point, unless there is a big break through in fusion, batteries, or some unforseen technology, preparation for the changes that GW will bring.

This should not have been a controversial post.
 
Lithose

Lithose

Buzzfeed Editor
25,946
113,035
ZyyzYzzy said:
Hmm but its almost like one of the nations that will most likey initiate a military conflict isn't a signatory
Click to expand...

Hmm, it's like all the nations in the agreement ALSO agreed to punish nations who have not signed with sanctions and military strikes if they do. Article 12.
 
ZyyzYzzy

ZyyzYzzy

RIP USA
<Banned>
25,295
48,789
Lithose said:
Hmm, it's like all the nations in the agreement ALSO agreed to punish nations who have not signed with sanctions and military strikes if they do. Article 12.
Click to expand...
Hmm its almost like signatories also still have chemical weapons too, surely this means the US does because game theory
 
  • 1Like
Reactions: 1 user
P

Picasso3

Silver Baronet of the Realm
11,333
5,322
"You inject this shit, go on about it, and then drown the broader point in minutiae. "

Please acknowledge this.
 
Lithose

Lithose

Buzzfeed Editor
25,946
113,035
ZyyzYzzy said:
Hmm its almost like signatories also still have chemical weapons too, surely this means the US does because game theory
Click to expand...

Signatories have controlled stockpiles that are monitored with an organization that can use various punishments for non-compliance, and are slowly 'being eliminated'.

The U.S. does have them. We missed the deadline for their complete removal because Russia missed theirs--which yes, is precisely what game theory would predict, and Waterloo produced several papers that modeled for it when the CWC was signed.

I don't understand your point here, except to make mine.
 
ZyyzYzzy

ZyyzYzzy

RIP USA
<Banned>
25,295
48,789
Lithose said:
I was only addressing why global unification is an important part of cooperation. Ironically Zyyz just pointed it out for me--if you can gather a system where there are punishments for non-adherence, then you can actually get cooperation to work. But without that, the goal should be innovation. Which I actually ALSO said in the post.




I went on to expound on this, multiple times, explaining very carefully I was discussing the idea of cooperation. I explained cooperation might work (Above) if the agreement had force behind it (But its difficult since countries get SO much in the short term from best-practices energy production with fossils, and there are a lot of poor countries). I also explained, exactly as you're saying here, that restrictions which inspire technological innovation were excellent ways to help because technology is really the ONLY answer that is going to be feasible long term.

As I said, we have no argument. You guys have agreed with me OVER AND OVER again. I was illustrating why this belief that we can cooperate this away is a real problem, and that our answers should be more based in self interest. Part of that answer needs to be, at this point, unless there is a big break through in fusion, batteries, or some unforseen technology, preparation for the changes that GW will bring.

This should not have been a controversial post.
Click to expand...
If only there was a recent example of non-adherence resulting in inconsequential enforcement
 
ZyyzYzzy

ZyyzYzzy

RIP USA
<Banned>
25,295
48,789
Lithose said:
Signatories have controlled stockpiles that are monitored with an organization that can use various punishments for non-compliance, and are slowly 'being eliminated'.

The U.S. does have them. We missed the deadline for their complete removal because Russia missed theirs--which yes, is precisely what game theory would predict, and Waterloo produced several papers that modeled for it when the CWC was signed.

I don't understand your point here, except to make mine.
Click to expand...
If only there was an example of chemical weapons being used followed by an inconsequential enforcement by the international community
 
Lithose

Lithose

Buzzfeed Editor
25,946
113,035
ZyyzYzzy said:
If only there was a recent example of non-adherence resulting in inconsequential enforcement
Click to expand...

Thank you. I was waiting for you to make this point (Almost started to think you wouldn't. Maybe you'd caught it.)

Now Zyyz....Does that prove your point...or mine, that a cooperative treaty even WITH punishment was broken in multiple ways? :) Or do you think that adds a lot to my argument that the expectation of global altruism in the face of benefits for non-adherence and no punishments for adherence is silly.

Beautiful. Thanks Zyyz!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.