In practice, the economic "long run" can happen exceedingly quickly. Keynes was probably closer to right with "Markets can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent," but if you plan on the basis of "in the long run we are all dead," you might find out just how short that long run can be.

The less you care about "the respect" others show towards you, the less power idiots can exert over you. The trick is differentiating whose opinion actually matters (say, in a professional context) and whose does not (say, your neighbors').

Due to being social animals, we're prone to rationalize caring about what anyone thinks of us (say, strangers in a supermarket when your kid is having a tantrum -- "they must think I'm a terrible mom!" -- or in the neighbors case "who knows, I might one day need to rely on them, better put some effort into fitting in"). Only very few people's opinions actually impact you in a tangible / not-just-social-posturing way. (The standard answer on /r/relationships should be "why do you care about what those idiots think, even in the unlikely case they actually want to help your situation, as opposed to reinforcing their make-believe fool's paradise travesty of a world view".)

Interestingly, internalizing such a IDGAF attitude usually does a good job at signalling high status, in most settings. Sigh, damned if you do and damned if you don't.

Adulthood isn't an award they'll give you for being a good child. You can waste... years, trying to get someone to give that respect to you, as though it were a sort of promotion or raise in pay. If only you do enough, if only you are good enough. No. You have to just... take it. Give it to yourself, I suppose. Say, I'm sorry you feel like that and walk away. But that's hard.

Lois McMaster Bujold

This problem is underspecified unless you tell us something about what the days will be like. Suppose the crystal ball tells you exactly what the day's closing price will be (ie, a probability distribution function concentrated on one value).

In world A, you have $1k, and on 99% of days, the market will go up by $3, and on 1% of days it will go down by $3. You should always stay in stock, even if this will cause you to lose more than the transaction fee, because you'll end up paying a second transaction fee on the next day, which the crystal ball didn't tell you about.

In world B, you have $1k, on 99% of days the market will go down by $3, and on 1% of days it will go up by $3. You should always stay in cash, even if this will cause you to pass up more than the transaction fee, because you'll end up paying a second transaction fee on the next day, which the crystal ball didn't tell you about.

Stalin was almost universally loved and worshiped among the not-yet-jailed population. [EDIT: "almost universally" is stronger than necessary to make might point. The real numbers are not known and hard to come by. "A majority" would probably be a safe estimate.] But you do have a point that after his death it could have unraveled, though not necessarily so. Mao is still venerated in China, and Kim Il Sung in NK. Besides, narcissists are skilled in convincing themselves that everyone loves them, except for bad people. So I don't think your argument that

Stalin had hoped to someday use cryonics, he would have had to be a less ruthless ruler.

has no basis in fact.

Now I understand what this post is about. In Germany it is standard that individual use is monitored.

Maybe the abuse could be limited, if the exploitable commons is connected with something you have to pay for. For example, imagine that you provide free water. Then there is a risk that some asshole will just let the water flow freely, just because they can, or because they are excited by the idea of abusing the system, or just because their water faucet broke and they don't bother fixing it. Such an asshole could create potentially unlimited damage.

On the other hand, imagine a system where you pay for water, but you get the cold water converted to hot water for free. Even if there is a similar asshole in this system, who on principle uses hot water even when they really need cold water, their damage is limited, because although they don't pay for the heat, they still have to pay for the water, so their budget for water limits the damage. -- At the end, even if you know you have one such asshole and you cannot stop them, using this system could still be cheaper for everyone. So, estimate the ratio of sociopaths in your society, and see if the project still economically makes sense.

It is a bad idea. Have a delicious meal instead (it really is not hard), preferably in the company of interesting people. Unless of course you do not derive pleasure from delicious meals, or you do not consider pleasure to be of intrinsic value.

How would you feel about talking to a realistic AI-engineered chatbot?