4 ms·

I didn't make any mistake. I considered all four of your very obvious points, which everyone here knows, it is excruciatingly boring to point them out. But pe

by ty6853 1y ago

I didn't make any mistake. I considered all four of your very obvious points, which everyone here knows, it is excruciatingly boring to point them out. But people are loathe to look at unintended consequences, I want to present one of them I find interesting. The mistake you are making so many presumptions about my pointing this out. The point is you cannot stop this by discouraging the behavior, you only make it more profitable for the guy willing to do the dirty work and take the social shame or whatever comes down. Therefore it has to be dealt with some other way.

atoav 1y ago
So you made a point about the most basic principles of a market work (supply and demand) and have the chuzpe to call other peoples points boring? I mean boring is at least a subjective metric and we can agree to disagree on matters of taste, but come on. > The point is you cannot stop this by discouraging the behavior [...] Therefore it has to be dealt with some other way. The problem is that this thought does not get any truer by you just repeating it. I already pointed that out in my post which you probably overlooked out of boredom idk. So lets try to adress this: My analogous example with murder (asassination) was an example where societies don't have to fall back on insane "strategies" like expanding markets to keep asassinations down, instead they make the unwanted behavior illegal, punish it and shape society in a way the unwanted behavior (asassinations) are not needed — e.g. by having a working justice system were people can sue each other when they think someone else did them wrong. That won't stop every asassination, but it will be good enough as the very real numbers show. Societies that came down hard on things like "blood revenge" and showed competing clans the differences can be settled in court with the state as a neutral arbiter of power thst can't be influenced have less of it. Now to your idea again: You seem to think the issue is that Palantir gets a lot of money. That is not" the issue. The issue is that they are even able to offer that specific service to a public entity. Your argument was that if only more companies had the questionable ethics of Palantir and entered the market this would somehow* lead to less of that behavior? This would drive prices down and reduce the hurdle for public entities to contract them even further. If I again made too many presumptions, maybe consider answering in a way that us mere mortals can follow your train of thought. You could start by sketching out what you imagined the "some other way" looked like how you thought this could be dealt with. Because as of now the only way I found of how to read your comment made no sense, but you hold thr keys..
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]

by ty6853 1y ago

atoav 1y ago

So you made a point about the most basic principles of a market work (supply and demand) and have the chuzpe to call other peoples points boring? I mean boring is at least a subjective metric and we can agree to disagree on matters of taste, but come on. > The point is you cannot stop this by discouraging the behavior [...] Therefore it has to be dealt with some other way. The problem is that this thought does not get any truer by you just repeating it. I already pointed that out in my post which you probably overlooked out of boredom idk. So lets try to adress this: My analogous example with murder (asassination) was an example where societies don't have to fall back on insane "strategies" like expanding markets to keep asassinations down, instead they make the unwanted behavior illegal, punish it and shape society in a way the unwanted behavior (asassinations) are not needed — e.g. by having a working justice system were people can sue each other when they think someone else did them wrong. That won't stop every asassination, but it will be good enough as the very real numbers show. Societies that came down hard on things like "blood revenge" and showed competing clans the differences can be settled in court with the state as a neutral arbiter of power thst can't be influenced have less of it. Now to your idea again: You seem to think the issue is that Palantir gets a lot of money. That is not" the issue. The issue is that they are even able to offer that specific service to a public entity. Your argument was that if only more companies had the questionable ethics of Palantir and entered the market this would somehow* lead to less of that behavior? This would drive prices down and reduce the hurdle for public entities to contract them even further. If I again made too many presumptions, maybe consider answering in a way that us mere mortals can follow your train of thought. You could start by sketching out what you imagined the "some other way" looked like how you thought this could be dealt with. Because as of now the only way I found of how to read your comment made no sense, but you hold thr keys..

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]