10 ms·

Perfect example of the tragedy of the commons. If individuals don't create these balloon files then they won't be able to use the file server when they need it

Perfect example of the tragedy of the commons. If individuals don't create these balloon files then they won't be able to use the file server when they need it, yet by creating these balloon files the collective action depletes the shared resource of its main function.

njovin 6y ago
This is similar to how some government agencies retain their budgets. At the end of the budget period they've only spent 80% of their allocated budget, so they throw out a bunch of perfectly good equipment/furniture/etc. and order new stuff so that their budget doesn't get cut the following year, rather than accepting that maybe they were over-budgeted to begin with. Rinse, repeat, thus continuing the cycle of wasting X% of the budget every year.
- eurasiantiger 6y ago
  Bunks only go up.
- duxup 6y ago
  Government? I see that as the SOP for large companies too...
  - flamble 6y ago
    It's possible that once a company reaches a certain size, it's inevitable. Corporations internally have the same top-down centralized organizational structure as a typical government. Market forces can't eliminate that kind of inefficiency if it invariably affects all large enterprises, and the economies of scale enjoyed by such companies outweigh the perverse incentives of sub-organizations. What strikes me as unique to government is the tendency for sufficiently powerful appendages to secure enough resources to start wagging the dog (e.g. the military industry in the US), although now that I think about it seems possible that it would happen within companies.
    - duxup 6y ago
      I think the common feature is just humans. I think we imagine a lot of market forces that no doubt exist, but people aren't logical in the face of them.
    - acdha 6y ago
      Also don’t forget how unevenly applied market forces are: if McDonald’s started charging 10% more for a hamburger they’d lose sales to Burger King a LOT faster than, say, Comcast or Oracle because the products are basically the same and most customers can switch almost effortlessly whereas you have to be especially mad to trench fiber out to your house or migrate every database in a large enterprise. Any business with a natural monopoly, high migration costs, etc. can support a surprising amount of inefficiency even if most of their customers find the experience unsatisfying.
  - throwaway0a5e 6y ago
    True, But large companies tend to have MBA types scurrying around rooting this stuff out as it pops up or shortly thereafter. Government has no such sort of immune system to fix these problems on the go. It just gets sicker and sicker until the tax payers vote for something drastic or revolt. You see this in nonprofit entities too. They get big, abstract away from their mission and waste a lot of money until someone gets tasked with cleaning house or a more mission-driven comes along and replaces them.
- madpata 6y ago
  I talked about that topic with my principal when I was in school. He told me that the school had to prevent those automatic budget cuts. His reasoning was that it's nearly impossible to get a higher budget if some big expenses had to be made. And suddenly needing a higher budge, after for example 3 years of low expenses, doesn't make a good impression on higher-level administrators.
- skissane 6y ago
  Years ago I worked as a research assistant for a university. One day, my boss (a professor) pulled me aside for an impromptu meeting. "I have $5000 left in a research grant I need to spend this week or else it's gone forever – do you have any ideas of what I should spend it on?" Unfortunately I couldn't think of much. I suggested maybe we buy some more computers with it but I'm sure he'd already thought of that himself. I don't know what he ended up doing, but I'm sure he'd have decided to buy something with it rather than just losing it entirely.
  - chuckleMuscle 6y ago
    This as a fairly recent occurrence in my research group. It’s often quite tedious because you don’t want to waste the money and it’s never clear if there’s going to be a period where we’re short on cash at some point in the future. most of it’s spent on boring but expensive things to be used down the line. Would be far better if funding wasn’t quite so cyclical!
  - lostlogin 6y ago
    This is usually handled much more elegantly by senior academic staff. You contact a department who’s services you use a lot, then you arrange to pre-pay for services. Ideally you negotiate a discount. Then you use the service and state which grant to draw from. This way you have grants paying for things that are completely unrelated to their intent, you have one nightmare of a billing system which no one understands and you get to use everybody cent.
  - noisy_boy 6y ago
    Buy annual licenses. Then renew if you want to block the same amount next year OR don't renew and use it for what you actually need.
  - EveYoung 6y ago
    Could you order conference tickets or something similar that allows free cancelations in the future? In my previous job, we did this to carry over training budgets.
- Aeolun 6y ago
  I think the problem is that you do not need 100% of your budget every year, but getting it back when you do need it is much harder than keeping it in the first place. Definite case of misaligned incentives.
  - pishpash 6y ago
    If only there was a way to get things only when you need, like trading.
  - crdrost 6y ago
    Yep! The problem happens when you divide the safety buffer up in the first place. Safety buffers demand to be shared, when one part does not use all of its safety margin you want to transfer that to another system. Another surprising place where this happens is project scheduling. We budget time for each individual step of a project based on our guess of a 90% or 95% success rate, then our "old-timers' experience" kicks in and we double or triple our time for all the steps together, then our boss adds 50% before giving the estimate to their boss, which sounds gratuitous but it is to protect you because their boss looks at how grotesquely long the estimate is and barks out a cut of 20%, so the overall effect of those two is (3/2) × (4/5), so your boss still netted you a 20% buffer while making the skip-level feel very productive and important. Say the 50%-confidence-to-95%-confidence gives you 30% more time as safety buffer, and you only double the estimate, and the work that you missed in your initial assessment, while it's not gonna be say half the project, maybe generously it's a third of the project or so. So the project actually takes time 1.5 measured properly, you have together budgeted 1.3 × 2 × 1.2 = 3.12 time. The total project deadline is more than half composed of safety buffer. And we still consistently overrun~! But if Alice needs to work on some step after Bob, and Bob finishes early, when does Alice start on it? Usually not when Bob finishes. Alice has been told that Bob has until X deadline to complete, and has scheduled herself with other tasks until X. Bob says "I got done early!" and Alice says "that's great, I'm still working on other things but I will pick my tasks up right on time." Bob's safety buffer gets wasted. This does not always cause any impact to the deadline, but it does for the important steps. Of course, if you are a web developer you already know this intuitively because you work on servers, and you don't run your servers (Alice, for example) at 100% load, because if you do then you can't respond to new requests (Bob's completion event) with low latency. It's worth thinking about, in an efficient workplace, how much are you not working so that you have excess capacity to operate efficiently?
- osrec 6y ago
  Reminds me of this episode of The office: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Surplus https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Surplus
  - Sn0wCoder 6y ago
    Thanks for the recommendation. Going to watch it tonight.
  - Gravityloss 6y ago
    Office always had such a weird version of what happens in an"office". Having a secretary who people ask to take photocopies? Sounds like the eighties!
    - osrec 6y ago
      I think that's sort of the point. The branch was run by a guy (Michael Scott) that is actually pretty old school and utterly unaware of it.
- LaserToy 6y ago
  You will be surprised, but I saw the same behavior in the large tech company. Department either uses or loses the budget, so, there was a push to make sure nothing is left.
- lostlogin 6y ago
  > This is similar to how some government agencies retain their budgets. The non-government sector isn’t immune to this.
  - sgregnt 6y ago
    If whatever actions turn a non government entity into something inefficient, then the entity wont survive for long and will go out of business (or at least that's the hope of a competitive free market economy)
    - com2kid 6y ago
      > then the entity wont survive for long and will go out of business (or at least that's the hope of a competitive free market economy) Only if the inefficiency is large enough to overcome other forces. Or to put it another way, picture if every single individual teams at Google did this to the tune of 100k a year, per team, and assume among 135,000 employees there are 13500 teams. That's 1.35 billion dollars. Well under 1% of their revenue. No way is a competitor going to appear that is identical to Google in every way except they have better budget management. Google has too many moats around their business, they can be really inefficient in many many ways and still dominate in multiple markets.
    - ultimape 6y ago
      you can survive a lot of inefficiency if you are a natural monopoly.
    - eyelidlessness 6y ago
      Hope is a really interesting way to frame something that has consistently failed to prove true after centuries of theory and decades of targeted policy changes.
    - ridethebike 6y ago
      It's not always the case. I work at one of those US bank. The amount of inefficiencies in form of red tape, confusing processes, custom half-baked tools that crash half the time is just mind-boggling. I've spent more than a week now for opening firewall on one ip/port on one host just to test my prototype in dev environment(local machine or docker are not an option due to lack of admin rights ), and it's still in change approval stage. If we weren't this giant too-big-to-fail bank we'd be out of business by now.
- efficax 6y ago
  The departments of every large org do this, private sector and public
- kmonsen 6y ago
  I was in the army, they had a certain budget for bullets. Last day of the year we shoot the rest because if not they would get less next year. We shot so much we destroyed some of the rifles, apparently that was better than getting a smaller allocation next year.
  - HelloNurse 6y ago
    Did you have a budget for replacement rifles too? Unlike bullets, there might be some incentive to get new and different ones.
    - kmonsen 6y ago
      That I don’t know, they were all replaced with the same (old) version.
- CaptainZapp 6y ago
  Why single out government agencies? That's the way in every major corporation I ever worked for too.
- erdos4d 6y ago
  This is similar to how some university departments retain their budgets.
- downrightmike 6y ago
  That's why the US Navy dump perfectly fine fuel overboard.
- ryoshu 6y ago
  This happens in private industry too. I can set my watch by the fiscal calendar of certain groups in public companies having to spend their budgets by the end of their year so it doesn't get cut the next year.
- atleta 6y ago
  Not only government agencies. I've seen it at big corps and universities too.
Rule35 6y ago
It's a decentralized implementation of a quota system. By slowly releasing supply you prevent anyone having to self-regulate (which requires unreasonable deprivation, OR global knowledge) and everyone bases their decisions off of the only global signal, free space.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
louloulou 6y ago
If only there was some way to allocate resources based on their value to the user, like with prices or something.
- variable11 6y ago
  That's systemic racism! /s
- eevilspock 6y ago
  That would be great if everyone were truly on a level playing field. You could make that so in this shared computing scenario, but our broader world is systemically rigged in favor of some people and against others. Capitalism depends on the un-levelness of the playing field for cheap labor. i.e. while it can be useful if prices are attached to commodities (with caveats around externalities etc), it is not a good thing that prices are attached to humans, making some people's being and work less valued than others.
eevilspock 6y ago
Tragedy of the Commons is the libertarian "private property is essential" interpretation. It's a cynical take, assuming that human selfishness is the deepest of truths and that there is no use fighting it, that the best solution is to organize society around it. The conventional Game Theory take is that this is a prisoners dilemma, and everyone creating balloon.txt files are defecting. They are making the most rational choice under the rules of the game (no communication thus no reliable cooperation). It's no globally optimal, but it is locally for each of them. This take also suffers from the same assumption: that rationality is centered on self-interest only. If we are to evolve as a species, then we need to get beyond such limited thinking. We need to transcend our base natures. That is the whole point of culture: to transcend as a group what our genes otherwise program us as individuals to do.
- c3534l 6y ago
  Tragedy of the Commons effects are well-established to exist both in economics and outside it (in ecology, for instance). You seem to be attempting to shoehorn some misguided political take into the situation, even though Tragedy of the Commons is a decent characterization of this particular social pathology.
  - ksm1717 6y ago
    Their point was that tragedy of the commons need not be a given anywhere we see tragedies or commons. Last paragraph is lofty but I think the whole idea is we have the cognitive ability to deliberately prove its not a natural law. Understanding sociology as ecology at human scale is core to libertarianism.
    - eevilspock 6y ago
      Yes. Thank you. Though did you mean, "Understanding sociology as Darwinian ecology at human scale is core to libertarianism."? Because the notion that ecology is characterized only by "the law of the jungle" is also strongly debated. Even "the selfish gene" is debatable simplistic reductionism. Individuals aren't the only actors; there are higher order emergent entities, e.g. species and ecosystems, that also evolve to perpetuate themselves and flourish, much like our own bodies are cooperative and interdependent systems of cells (with native and foreign DNA, the latter existing primarily in our GI tract) that originally evolved as single-celled "selfish" organisms. And as you point out, "we have the cognitive ability" that nature lacks. We can do at least as well. As to "lofty", I agree. But let's consider other things that were once considered lofty if not insanity: - in ancient Greece, that democracy should be extended beyond the aristocracy - in Medieval Europe, that democracy should exist at all, that the divine right of kings should be seen as a scam - in the 19th century United States, that democracy should include women and blacks - in the 1970's United States, that lesbians, gays, bisexuals, transexuals and queers should be treated with the same dignity as straights, should be able to marry, adopt children and serve in the military. And that we stop using "he/him" by default as you just did because that is an artifact of patriarchy as well as outmoded thinking about even binary gender. - in India today, that when a woman is raped, she should be protected by law and the male rapist should be punished, not the other way around. The same proposition if proposed in America or Europe not all that long ago. - I can make a really long list but you get it :)
myth_buster 6y ago
> Perfect example of the tragedy of the commons. More like perverse incentives.

njovin 6y ago

This is similar to how some government agencies retain their budgets. At the end of the budget period they've only spent 80% of their allocated budget, so they throw out a bunch of perfectly good equipment/furniture/etc. and order new stuff so that their budget doesn't get cut the following year, rather than accepting that maybe they were over-budgeted to begin with. Rinse, repeat, thus continuing the cycle of wasting X% of the budget every year.

eurasiantiger 6y ago
Bunks only go up.
duxup 6y ago
Government? I see that as the SOP for large companies too...
- flamble 6y ago
  It's possible that once a company reaches a certain size, it's inevitable. Corporations internally have the same top-down centralized organizational structure as a typical government. Market forces can't eliminate that kind of inefficiency if it invariably affects all large enterprises, and the economies of scale enjoyed by such companies outweigh the perverse incentives of sub-organizations. What strikes me as unique to government is the tendency for sufficiently powerful appendages to secure enough resources to start wagging the dog (e.g. the military industry in the US), although now that I think about it seems possible that it would happen within companies.
  - duxup 6y ago
    I think the common feature is just humans. I think we imagine a lot of market forces that no doubt exist, but people aren't logical in the face of them.
  - acdha 6y ago
    Also don’t forget how unevenly applied market forces are: if McDonald’s started charging 10% more for a hamburger they’d lose sales to Burger King a LOT faster than, say, Comcast or Oracle because the products are basically the same and most customers can switch almost effortlessly whereas you have to be especially mad to trench fiber out to your house or migrate every database in a large enterprise. Any business with a natural monopoly, high migration costs, etc. can support a surprising amount of inefficiency even if most of their customers find the experience unsatisfying.
- throwaway0a5e 6y ago
  True, But large companies tend to have MBA types scurrying around rooting this stuff out as it pops up or shortly thereafter. Government has no such sort of immune system to fix these problems on the go. It just gets sicker and sicker until the tax payers vote for something drastic or revolt. You see this in nonprofit entities too. They get big, abstract away from their mission and waste a lot of money until someone gets tasked with cleaning house or a more mission-driven comes along and replaces them.
madpata 6y ago
I talked about that topic with my principal when I was in school. He told me that the school had to prevent those automatic budget cuts. His reasoning was that it's nearly impossible to get a higher budget if some big expenses had to be made. And suddenly needing a higher budge, after for example 3 years of low expenses, doesn't make a good impression on higher-level administrators.
skissane 6y ago
Years ago I worked as a research assistant for a university. One day, my boss (a professor) pulled me aside for an impromptu meeting. "I have $5000 left in a research grant I need to spend this week or else it's gone forever – do you have any ideas of what I should spend it on?" Unfortunately I couldn't think of much. I suggested maybe we buy some more computers with it but I'm sure he'd already thought of that himself. I don't know what he ended up doing, but I'm sure he'd have decided to buy something with it rather than just losing it entirely.
- chuckleMuscle 6y ago
  This as a fairly recent occurrence in my research group. It’s often quite tedious because you don’t want to waste the money and it’s never clear if there’s going to be a period where we’re short on cash at some point in the future. most of it’s spent on boring but expensive things to be used down the line. Would be far better if funding wasn’t quite so cyclical!
- lostlogin 6y ago
  This is usually handled much more elegantly by senior academic staff. You contact a department who’s services you use a lot, then you arrange to pre-pay for services. Ideally you negotiate a discount. Then you use the service and state which grant to draw from. This way you have grants paying for things that are completely unrelated to their intent, you have one nightmare of a billing system which no one understands and you get to use everybody cent.
- noisy_boy 6y ago
  Buy annual licenses. Then renew if you want to block the same amount next year OR don't renew and use it for what you actually need.
- EveYoung 6y ago
  Could you order conference tickets or something similar that allows free cancelations in the future? In my previous job, we did this to carry over training budgets.
Aeolun 6y ago
I think the problem is that you do not need 100% of your budget every year, but getting it back when you do need it is much harder than keeping it in the first place. Definite case of misaligned incentives.
- pishpash 6y ago
  If only there was a way to get things only when you need, like trading.
- crdrost 6y ago
  Yep! The problem happens when you divide the safety buffer up in the first place. Safety buffers demand to be shared, when one part does not use all of its safety margin you want to transfer that to another system. Another surprising place where this happens is project scheduling. We budget time for each individual step of a project based on our guess of a 90% or 95% success rate, then our "old-timers' experience" kicks in and we double or triple our time for all the steps together, then our boss adds 50% before giving the estimate to their boss, which sounds gratuitous but it is to protect you because their boss looks at how grotesquely long the estimate is and barks out a cut of 20%, so the overall effect of those two is (3/2) × (4/5), so your boss still netted you a 20% buffer while making the skip-level feel very productive and important. Say the 50%-confidence-to-95%-confidence gives you 30% more time as safety buffer, and you only double the estimate, and the work that you missed in your initial assessment, while it's not gonna be say half the project, maybe generously it's a third of the project or so. So the project actually takes time 1.5 measured properly, you have together budgeted 1.3 × 2 × 1.2 = 3.12 time. The total project deadline is more than half composed of safety buffer. And we still consistently overrun~! But if Alice needs to work on some step after Bob, and Bob finishes early, when does Alice start on it? Usually not when Bob finishes. Alice has been told that Bob has until X deadline to complete, and has scheduled herself with other tasks until X. Bob says "I got done early!" and Alice says "that's great, I'm still working on other things but I will pick my tasks up right on time." Bob's safety buffer gets wasted. This does not always cause any impact to the deadline, but it does for the important steps. Of course, if you are a web developer you already know this intuitively because you work on servers, and you don't run your servers (Alice, for example) at 100% load, because if you do then you can't respond to new requests (Bob's completion event) with low latency. It's worth thinking about, in an efficient workplace, how much are you not working so that you have excess capacity to operate efficiently?
osrec 6y ago
Reminds me of this episode of The office: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Surplus https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Surplus
- Sn0wCoder 6y ago
  Thanks for the recommendation. Going to watch it tonight.
- Gravityloss 6y ago
  Office always had such a weird version of what happens in an"office". Having a secretary who people ask to take photocopies? Sounds like the eighties!
  - osrec 6y ago
    I think that's sort of the point. The branch was run by a guy (Michael Scott) that is actually pretty old school and utterly unaware of it.
LaserToy 6y ago
You will be surprised, but I saw the same behavior in the large tech company. Department either uses or loses the budget, so, there was a push to make sure nothing is left.
lostlogin 6y ago
> This is similar to how some government agencies retain their budgets. The non-government sector isn’t immune to this.
- sgregnt 6y ago
  If whatever actions turn a non government entity into something inefficient, then the entity wont survive for long and will go out of business (or at least that's the hope of a competitive free market economy)
  - com2kid 6y ago
    > then the entity wont survive for long and will go out of business (or at least that's the hope of a competitive free market economy) Only if the inefficiency is large enough to overcome other forces. Or to put it another way, picture if every single individual teams at Google did this to the tune of 100k a year, per team, and assume among 135,000 employees there are 13500 teams. That's 1.35 billion dollars. Well under 1% of their revenue. No way is a competitor going to appear that is identical to Google in every way except they have better budget management. Google has too many moats around their business, they can be really inefficient in many many ways and still dominate in multiple markets.
  - ultimape 6y ago
    you can survive a lot of inefficiency if you are a natural monopoly.
  - eyelidlessness 6y ago
    Hope is a really interesting way to frame something that has consistently failed to prove true after centuries of theory and decades of targeted policy changes.
  - ridethebike 6y ago
    It's not always the case. I work at one of those US bank. The amount of inefficiencies in form of red tape, confusing processes, custom half-baked tools that crash half the time is just mind-boggling. I've spent more than a week now for opening firewall on one ip/port on one host just to test my prototype in dev environment(local machine or docker are not an option due to lack of admin rights ), and it's still in change approval stage. If we weren't this giant too-big-to-fail bank we'd be out of business by now.
efficax 6y ago
The departments of every large org do this, private sector and public
kmonsen 6y ago
I was in the army, they had a certain budget for bullets. Last day of the year we shoot the rest because if not they would get less next year. We shot so much we destroyed some of the rifles, apparently that was better than getting a smaller allocation next year.
- HelloNurse 6y ago
  Did you have a budget for replacement rifles too? Unlike bullets, there might be some incentive to get new and different ones.
  - kmonsen 6y ago
    That I don’t know, they were all replaced with the same (old) version.
CaptainZapp 6y ago
Why single out government agencies? That's the way in every major corporation I ever worked for too.
erdos4d 6y ago
This is similar to how some university departments retain their budgets.
downrightmike 6y ago
That's why the US Navy dump perfectly fine fuel overboard.
ryoshu 6y ago
This happens in private industry too. I can set my watch by the fiscal calendar of certain groups in public companies having to spend their budgets by the end of their year so it doesn't get cut the next year.
atleta 6y ago
Not only government agencies. I've seen it at big corps and universities too.

Rule35 6y ago

It's a decentralized implementation of a quota system. By slowly releasing supply you prevent anyone having to self-regulate (which requires unreasonable deprivation, OR global knowledge) and everyone bases their decisions off of the only global signal, free space.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

louloulou 6y ago

If only there was some way to allocate resources based on their value to the user, like with prices or something.

variable11 6y ago
That's systemic racism! /s
eevilspock 6y ago
That would be great if everyone were truly on a level playing field. You could make that so in this shared computing scenario, but our broader world is systemically rigged in favor of some people and against others. Capitalism depends on the un-levelness of the playing field for cheap labor. i.e. while it can be useful if prices are attached to commodities (with caveats around externalities etc), it is not a good thing that prices are attached to humans, making some people's being and work less valued than others.

eevilspock 6y ago

Tragedy of the Commons is the libertarian "private property is essential" interpretation. It's a cynical take, assuming that human selfishness is the deepest of truths and that there is no use fighting it, that the best solution is to organize society around it. The conventional Game Theory take is that this is a prisoners dilemma, and everyone creating balloon.txt files are defecting. They are making the most rational choice under the rules of the game (no communication thus no reliable cooperation). It's no globally optimal, but it is locally for each of them. This take also suffers from the same assumption: that rationality is centered on self-interest only. If we are to evolve as a species, then we need to get beyond such limited thinking. We need to transcend our base natures. That is the whole point of culture: to transcend as a group what our genes otherwise program us as individuals to do.

c3534l 6y ago
Tragedy of the Commons effects are well-established to exist both in economics and outside it (in ecology, for instance). You seem to be attempting to shoehorn some misguided political take into the situation, even though Tragedy of the Commons is a decent characterization of this particular social pathology.
- ksm1717 6y ago
  Their point was that tragedy of the commons need not be a given anywhere we see tragedies or commons. Last paragraph is lofty but I think the whole idea is we have the cognitive ability to deliberately prove its not a natural law. Understanding sociology as ecology at human scale is core to libertarianism.
  - eevilspock 6y ago
    Yes. Thank you. Though did you mean, "Understanding sociology as Darwinian ecology at human scale is core to libertarianism."? Because the notion that ecology is characterized only by "the law of the jungle" is also strongly debated. Even "the selfish gene" is debatable simplistic reductionism. Individuals aren't the only actors; there are higher order emergent entities, e.g. species and ecosystems, that also evolve to perpetuate themselves and flourish, much like our own bodies are cooperative and interdependent systems of cells (with native and foreign DNA, the latter existing primarily in our GI tract) that originally evolved as single-celled "selfish" organisms. And as you point out, "we have the cognitive ability" that nature lacks. We can do at least as well. As to "lofty", I agree. But let's consider other things that were once considered lofty if not insanity: - in ancient Greece, that democracy should be extended beyond the aristocracy - in Medieval Europe, that democracy should exist at all, that the divine right of kings should be seen as a scam - in the 19th century United States, that democracy should include women and blacks - in the 1970's United States, that lesbians, gays, bisexuals, transexuals and queers should be treated with the same dignity as straights, should be able to marry, adopt children and serve in the military. And that we stop using "he/him" by default as you just did because that is an artifact of patriarchy as well as outmoded thinking about even binary gender. - in India today, that when a woman is raped, she should be protected by law and the male rapist should be punished, not the other way around. The same proposition if proposed in America or Europe not all that long ago. - I can make a really long list but you get it :)

myth_buster 6y ago

> Perfect example of the tragedy of the commons. More like perverse incentives.