esdraelon

- friends
1 link karma
2,001 comment karma
send messageredditor for
what's this?

TROPHY CASE


  • Four-Year Club

I've been watching too much cartoons. by tenpoundpenin pics

[–]esdraelon 0 points1 point ago

You need to watch a grammar lesson.

Experiment: Canada Guaranteed income to everyone in a town,only two segments worked less new mothers(more child time) and teenagers(school graduation rose), hospitalization dropped 8.5%, cost was negated by savings and growth. by georeddin Economics

[–]esdraelon -1 points0 points ago

I think you sent me the wrong link.

I was referencing "Pareto optimality" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_optimality), which is backed up with formal proofs.

The article you linked appears to be an opinion piece backed up by 4 comments and some anecdotal evidence.

Experiment: Canada Guaranteed income to everyone in a town,only two segments worked less new mothers(more child time) and teenagers(school graduation rose), hospitalization dropped 8.5%, cost was negated by savings and growth. by georeddin Economics

[–]esdraelon 0 points1 point ago

Pareto optimality addresses all economic factors, not just money. My argument uses cash as a proxy, but holds for any redistribution.

Finally, how minimal will your income distribution be? How will you enforce it? For instance, there are many, many recreational drug users in the USA. Recreational drug use has many negative consequences (and many positives, I might!), but we decided that in order to mitigate the downsides, we should outlaw it.

Certainly, this has proven to be a monstrously bad idea.

Most laws which attempt to circumvent the natural inclinations of the majority of people will fail monstrously.

Experiment: Canada Guaranteed income to everyone in a town,only two segments worked less new mothers(more child time) and teenagers(school graduation rose), hospitalization dropped 8.5%, cost was negated by savings and growth. by georeddin Economics

[–]esdraelon 0 points1 point ago

If we are concerned with non-wealth distribution of "quality of life", then I propose that we use non-fiduciary instruments to redistribute "quality of life".

Unfortunately, your argument is basically a version of "money isn't everything", followed by "let's redistribute money." Well, either money is the important factor, or it isn't. If it isn't, then please restrict your proposals to redistribution of "quality of life" factors that do not include money.

Experiment: Canada Guaranteed income to everyone in a town,only two segments worked less new mothers(more child time) and teenagers(school graduation rose), hospitalization dropped 8.5%, cost was negated by savings and growth. by georeddin Economics

[–]esdraelon 1 point2 points ago

This article did not claim any of those benefits.

The only claim by the research that can be backed up by evidence is that there was less net loss to the economy than than expected.

I think it's important to note that the researches' definition of "success" is that the amount of damage done to the economy was less than expected. The research did not show that there was a net economic benefit, because the experiment had no control, and the system was not closed.

Experiment: Canada Guaranteed income to everyone in a town,only two segments worked less new mothers(more child time) and teenagers(school graduation rose), hospitalization dropped 8.5%, cost was negated by savings and growth. by georeddin Economics

[–]esdraelon 1 point2 points ago

Your second paragraph outlines two phenomena:

  1. People would spend money in a manner contrary to it's intent.

  2. In order to get them to spend in a "proper" way, we have to create some rubric by which money is allocated.

These two items are a result of a "failure to calculate", which is a direct result of any scheme of central planning. This problem was explored in some detailed by an economist by the name of von Mises about a century ago:

http://mises.org/pdf/econcalc.pdf

The crux of the problem is that the only known method of efficiently allocating funds is via the price mechanism of the free market. All other methods will either fail, or will cost an exorbitant amount of time and money in order to implement; these alternate methods will also prove to be less than Pareto optimal (ie they will not be ideal).

In fact, all methods of wealth distribution by any means will fail to a greater or lesser degree. It is not possible to increase net wealth in an economy by forced redistribution, because there is no known mechanism to redistribute wealth in an optimal manner.

Experiment: Canada Guaranteed income to everyone in a town,only two segments worked less new mothers(more child time) and teenagers(school graduation rose), hospitalization dropped 8.5%, cost was negated by savings and growth. by georeddin Economics

[–]esdraelon 7 points8 points ago

From below, I think it's pretty clear that this study shows only two things:

  1. The project was almost certainly a net loss in total income (it cost more than it produced); we could have guessed this from Pareto optimality (which of course is not quite the same thing as income, but it is closely related).

  2. The study showed that in a poorly-controlled experiment, a society that has net transfers of wealth is less productive.

Neither of these points is fairly obvious.

I think the last line of the article is by far the most important point:

A guaranteed minimum income program is a superior way of delivering social assistance.

If we're going to have government transfers of wealth, I think I agree with this argument. Why have 15 different programs for 15 different ailments, when cash is fungible? The overheads would reduce immensely, so the net loss to society for making people feel better about themselves would be greatly ameliorated.

Experiment: Canada Guaranteed income to everyone in a town,only two segments worked less new mothers(more child time) and teenagers(school graduation rose), hospitalization dropped 8.5%, cost was negated by savings and growth. by georeddin Economics

[–]esdraelon 0 points1 point ago

1) Divide by two: 53 Billion

2) Makes no difference

3) Divide by four: 13 Billion

Still upside-down, which is not surprising.

Tell me you best/worst LARP story ever! by SalamanderDragonin LARP

[–]esdraelon 0 points1 point ago

Yep.

Any advice for helping myself and others learn effective boffer fighting? by Trem054in LARP

[–]esdraelon 0 points1 point ago

Becoming effective requires practice. Good boffer fighters, like those who excel in any sport, have put in hours, perhaps hundreds or thousands of hours, to hone their skill.

The best fighters I know all followed the same pattern:

  1. Fight 2 to 4 hours per day, 3 to 5 days per week, for 2 to 5 years (aim for 10 to 20 hours per week of actual fighting).
  2. Fight a variety of people, AKA travel
  3. Concentrate on personal combat, one-on-one scenarios, or line fighting where you are required to fight one or two people regularly

If you are doing this correctly, you will develop your abdominal muscles, quads, glues, lats, delts, and calves. Your cardiovascular should improve immensely.

If you are fighting hard, especially in warm weather, take regular water breaks (every 10 to 15 minutes or more). Dehydration reduces performance, and can be dangerous.

Some practice games:

Pell work (mentioned elsewhere) King of the mountain (for 3 to 5 people) Ditching, trenching, or otherwise short line fights

a noob looking for help by jedadkinsin LARP

[–]esdraelon 0 points1 point ago

Amtgard used 35 lbs, and they are more than safe.

I have seen 55 lbs bows used safely, as well.

Tell me you best/worst LARP story ever! by SalamanderDragonin LARP

[–]esdraelon 0 points1 point ago

I just pulled into an event on a Friday night, when I see cop cars. I can hear an ambulance in the distance. I get out of my truck, and can hear a certain amount of yelling and screaming. Shortly thereafter, an ambulance pulled up, and I got the story from someone who had been there:

See, now, I don't know what your LARP is like, but East Texas LARP is not exactly "bunch of geeks". Think rougher than that. More like hicks and hillbillies. People you wouldn't really eyeball at a bar.

Anyways, the park we rented also happened to have a couple trailer houses on it (... yeah). In the past, this had never proved to be an issue. The "locals" kept to themselves, and we did our LARP-y thing. Several of our players had gotten up to whatever happens at a LARP event, namely hitting each other with padded weapons.

My memory is a bit fuzzy here. I'm sure you can look it up in the official court documents, but I'll proceed as it was told to me.

A fine gentleman exited on of the trailer homes, and began moving about our event. He was definitely a methhead, and almost certainly high at the time. He asked one player what we were doing, and that player (drunk), tried to explain. El Methhead moved over to where the other players were fooling around, and tries to participate. He gets his feathers ruffled, and runs off.

At this point, he is very, very agitated. He runs up to another player who is getting out of his car, and attempts to stab him with a knife several times. No injuries. He then runs off, and finds himself at the pavilions of one of our weapon- and leather-smiths. This player is holding an honest-to-god oak-and-steel mace. He attempts to hand a beer to the methhead, and gets cut across the belly for his kindness.

A friend of my sees this transpire, and runs over to assist. He spins the methhead around and "gets hit harder than he's ever been". Of course, what has actually happened is the methhead cut him from the edge of his eye through his ear (bisecting his ear, and narrowly missing the destruction of his eyeball).

A few other players finally see what is occurring, and this is where the "East Texas LARPers aren't geeks" thing comes into play. I can't go into too many details, because I don't know the official records, but suffice it to say that within a few seconds, our gentleman methhead has broken fingers, a dislocated knee and elbow, and is uncontrollably pissing blood (I believe the ruptured kidney is part of the official record).

Someone goes over to his home to let anyone home know what has occurred; the occupant (a mother and a child) flee the scene. Apparently held against their will (I cannot verify this statement).

The cops show up and take their time questioning everyone while this guy is trussed up in a pool of his own blood/urine. He gets to take a cop car to the hospital. Ambulance(s) take the wounded LARPers.

No one was killed, and the worst wounds (the head slash and gut cut) were not superficial, but not serious trauma. My friend who was cut across the face has a wicked-cool pirate scar, and still wears his blood-stained tabard from time to time.

I have other stories; LARPers stabbing each other to death over drug deals, some asshole nearly killing a LARPer with a real set of nunchucks, an apocryphal shooting story, etc.

As big companies hoard $2 trillion in cash, 93% of post-recession income is going to the 1% “job-creators” with no appreciable increase in jobs. by LaBamba00in politics

[–]esdraelon 0 points1 point ago*

I am open to education. How is this cash being held?

Let me be more specific in my request. According to the Fed, monetary base is about 2.7 Trillion:

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/BASE?cid=124

Now, most of this is being held as excess reserves at the Fed, about 1.5 T:

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/EXCRESNS

Leaving 1.2 T in circulation. This article claims that businesses are sitting on 2 T in cash.

Now either, this cash is actually being loaned back out by depository institutions, in which case it's not being hoarded, or the Fed is lying on its little graphs, or the article was written by someone who is ignorant of these matters.

I am, as I said, more than open to education on this subject.

As big companies hoard $2 trillion in cash, 93% of post-recession income is going to the 1% “job-creators” with no appreciable increase in jobs. by LaBamba00in politics

[–]esdraelon -2 points-1 points ago

I'm always interested in cash hoarding.

Do you think they keep it in duffel bags or coffee cans? Do you think they hoard cash in executive office, or do you think they bury it under the topiaries?

I think it's more likely that they put it in banks accounts, which are then loaned out to other businesses for new development.

This is called savings. It is how economies are grown.

I am Joss Whedon - AMA. by IAMAJossWhedonin IAmA

[–]esdraelon 0 points1 point ago

You owe me T-Shirts, buddy!! Thousands of them!!

I don't know if you remember, but on the website for Titan AE, people could sign up to create "space ships" and get others to sign onto their ships.

The ship with the largest crew was to win t-shirts.

My ship was the largest by far, and I never got the t-shirts! What gives?

DAE never hear what someone says when they first start talking to you? Wtf is wrong with me? by DerpingtonHerpsworthin DoesAnybodyElse

[–]esdraelon 0 points1 point ago

I think it's just a matter of momentary auditory agnosia. It's common.

It would be more pronounced if you are doing any task which might engage the language centers of your brain including watching tv, performing a new or complicated task, reading, listening to music, daydreaming, or actively thinking about a task or subject using your inner monologue.

DAE never hear what someone says when they first start talking to you? Wtf is wrong with me? by DerpingtonHerpsworthin DoesAnybodyElse

[–]esdraelon 2 points3 points ago

The answer is basically listed below by @thunderstar2500.

The language centers of your brain are in use or otherwise suppressed due to some task you are performing (however trivial); in particular, your "inner monologue" may be using this capacity (don't quote me, I'm a novice in this area).

Anyways, your ears and auditory neural paraphernalia register the sound, but when the sounds are passed off to the language processing center, it gets the neural equivalent of a busy signal. If you're lucky, the sounds go into short-term memory where you can "listen" to them later, if you're unlucky or particularly taxed, you just won't understand them.

Essentially, you are experiencing the auditory equivalent of short-term blindsight, agnosia, known as auditory agnosia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auditory_agnosia

You almost certainly don't have brain lesions or other damage causing this (otherwise the condition would be persistent), but the effect can be replicated via concentration on a task (however trivial).

DAE never hear what someone says when they first start talking to you? Wtf is wrong with me? by DerpingtonHerpsworthin DoesAnybodyElse

[–]esdraelon 3 points4 points ago

No, @thunderstar2500 is correct.

Your brain is focused on one task (however trivial), and does not switch to the new task until some time after registering the new input.

Don’t Listen to the Right-Wing: America’s Tax Levels are Shockingly Low by anutensilin politics

[–]esdraelon 0 points1 point ago

Yeah, the phrase "average family of four at the median income" sent off alarm bells for me. It was hard to parse. So this data is only for median-income families, and is an average over that.

You cannot typically make much sense by averaging tax basis in the US because there are so many exceptions.

The most realistic method of assessing "tax burden" would necessarily exclude all non-taxpayers. Averaging a family four already includes children.

As @CharlieDontSurff points out, Federal Income Tax is only a small part of US government revenue:

http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/total

The total amount at all levels being about 5.1 Trillion on 12.9 Trillion in GDP, or 39.5%.

Additionally, we can say that the "average" family of four paid $65,384 in taxes.

that makes me sad :( by xbsdin ronpaul

[–]esdraelon 4 points5 points ago

Have them donate to your beer fund. What you do with your excess liquidity due to having your beer needs satiated is up to you.

that makes me sad :( by xbsdin ronpaul

[–]esdraelon 8 points9 points ago

Cash is fungible. Donate to your friend's beer fund. With his beer needs satiated, he will surely have extra funds for political action.

My father is a Vice President at Intel. AHimAA by eskimopie26in IAmA

[–]esdraelon 0 points1 point ago

Gallium arsenide and diamond chips to the rescue!

My father is a Vice President at Intel. AHimAA by eskimopie26in IAmA

[–]esdraelon 2 points3 points ago

Just do both. It's harder, but possible. Or do a few years in industry, and then go back for your graduate degree (even harder).

view more: next