[-] doylio@lemmy.ca -4 points 3 days ago

You're still not answering my question.

But it's now clear that communism for you is a religion. Upper stage communism is the paradise that is promised to those who follow the tenets of the faith fully, and I am a heretic non-believer

I will not be continuing this discussion any further

[-] doylio@lemmy.ca -3 points 3 days ago

How about instead of just saying that I am wrong, describe to me how an individual in a higher stage communist state would be prevented from slacking in his duties (and still gaining "according to his need") without state induced violence

[-] doylio@lemmy.ca -1 points 4 days ago

There are different kinds of work which needs to be done for our society to function. These tasks have costs for those who perform them (lost time, spent energy, danger, boredom, etc).

In pure communism, everyone works hard and everyone is given the spoils of the work we collectively provide. But it is rational for any individual to not work as hard, because he will bear less of the cost of that work, but still realize the same gain

Therefore most people tend to shirk their duties, and the output of the entire collective drops. In order to maintain the system, the threat of violence is introduced, and we quickly get to Stalinist purges

[-] doylio@lemmy.ca -1 points 4 days ago

It is not game theoretically aligned. It's not his fault, Game Theory didn't really get going until after his death

[-] doylio@lemmy.ca 8 points 4 days ago

Marx's critique of capitalism is spot on. It's his proposed solution that is problematic

[-] doylio@lemmy.ca 71 points 4 months ago

The only developed country that doesn't seem to have a housing crisis right now is Japan. After their real estate market collapsed in the 90s, they instituted a number of reforms to make housing less attractive as an investment vehicle. Now housing there tends to depreciate over time, not appreciate. Consequently, it's viewed not as an investment but as a consumer product, much like buying a car, and there is competition that brings costs down.

I think this is the sensible approach we need to follow in the rest of the developed world, but I don't think it's not going to be politically feasible until a lot of homeowners feel a lot of pain and give up on the idea of housing as an investment

[-] doylio@lemmy.ca 29 points 4 months ago

I think the best solution would be to properly tax carbon. That way Bitcoin miners would either become unprofitable or move to greener energy.

I don't think it's a good idea to establish the precedent that gov't can decide what you can and cannot do with your energy. You may think it's a waste of energy, but if the externality is properly taxed, I don't see the problem with letting it continue

[-] doylio@lemmy.ca 94 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

Why not just ban smartphones in school? There's ample research now that they're harmful to teen mental health

[-] doylio@lemmy.ca 36 points 5 months ago

I'm convinced that dating apps are no longer a good way to find a relationship. They've realized that if their users get into LTRs it will hurt their revenue.

I used to be an avid user of most dating apps, but I've had a much more fulfilling love life since quitting them to focus on meeting people IRL

[-] doylio@lemmy.ca 28 points 5 months ago

Sounds like we need to push Signal in Afghanistan!

[-] doylio@lemmy.ca 38 points 6 months ago

It's worth noting that this is not being done for environmental reasons (more half of all coal pollution comes from China), but for strategic reasons as China has limited access to oil near it's borders.

3
submitted 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) by doylio@lemmy.ca to c/fediverse@lemmy.ml

EDIT: I know many people have a knee-jerk aversion to anything crypto, but this is not a scheme to make money. I would be happy to see this done with fiat as well, but IMO this is much easier to do with smart contracts.

I am very excited about the possibility of the Fediverse, and the potential for many experiments in instance governance. A problem that all instances must content with is trolling and spam. It seems very difficult to impose a cost on these bad actors without harming honest users as well. Either instances have minimal signup friction and are vulnerable to being overwhelmed with bad actors & defederated (see the recent defederation decision from Beehaw), or they present frustrating barriers such as manual approval or waitlists for folks who just want to have fun

A possible solution comes from the blockchain space, which has been dealing with anonymous bad actors since its inception. Many blockchains and blockchain apps require users to stake some asset in order to gain certain privileges (basically a deposit). If the user is determined to be a bad actor, they lose some or all of their stake.

An instance could be integrated with a smart contract to manage membership could be very effective at dissuading trolls and spammers. A user could stake a small amount of money (say $10) in order to create an account on the instance. This could be done very quickly and would require no manual approval from admins. If the admins determine they are acting poorly, they could ban the user and slash their funds. If an honest user decides they don't want to stay on the instance, they could delete their account and recover their deposit.

(EDIT: An important part of this is that the funds are destroyed when slashed, not given to the admins or mods. This prevents a profit incentive to ban)

I've got a prototype smart contract for this. Would be interested in working with someone on this if there's anyone with experience with the instance management

view more: next ›

doylio

joined 1 year ago