But fighting to get more power may have positive utility for oneself, it usually has negative utility for others, so it's in everybody's interest that everybody agrees to not fighting for more power.
If you don't have enough power to win a fight fighting is also negative utility for yourself. If everyone predicts that you would win a fight, you usually don't actually have to fight it to get what you want.
Fighting has a huge signalling component: when viewed in isolation, a fight might be trivially, obviously, a net negative for both participants. However, either or both! participants might in the future win more concessions for their willingness to fight alone than the loss of the fight. As humans are adaption executers, a certain willingness to fight, to seek revenge, etc. is pretty common. At least, this seems to be the dominant theory and sensible to me.
There would be far more selection bias if he asked about it outside an open thread, though.
Really? Why?
since raised animals are vastly outnumbered by wild animals
That doesn't sound true if you weight by intelligence (which I think you should since intelligent animals are more morally significant). Surely the world's livestock outnumber all the other large mammals.
Large mammals only? Is a domesticated cow smarter than a rat? A pigeon? Tough call.
This may be an odd question, but what (if anything) is known on turning NPCs into PCs? (Insert your own term for this division here, it seems to be a standard thing AFAICT.)
I mean, it's usually easier to just recruit existing PCs, but ...
Take the leadership feat, and hope your GM is lazy enough to let you level them. More practically, is it a skills problem or as I would guess an agency problem? Can impress on them the importance of acting vs not? Lend them the Power of Accountability? 7 habits of highly effective people? Can you compliment them every time they show initiative? etc. I think the solution is too specific to individuals for general advice, nor do I know a general advice book beyond those in the same theme as those mentioned.
Around the 10k range you are right that Angel investing probably isn't optimal. On the other hand 10k doesn't pay for any retirement either.
True, so when I finally have money I guess I will take another look.
Oh right, this is a game. I was thinking he was optimizing for learning speed, not enjoyability.
Well, if there's a line between fun enough to play and unpleasant enough not to, learning speed is almost certainly higher for playing the game relative to nothing.
However, the approach to investing I will present in this article is endorsed by many economists, Warren Buffet, and Vanguard
Of course Vanguard endores that investment approach. It makes money with selling those funds. Just because some people besides yourself endorse that approach.
Over the last 5 years the S&P 500 produced a return of 3.5% per year. That's not a lot. Do you believe that it will again produce a higher return? If so, what's your reason for expecting again a higher return?
I don't think that there a good reason to focus all investment capital on the 500 biggest companies the way you do when you buy S&P 500 shares. Angel investments do provide good returns for the average Angel investor: http://techcrunch.com/2012/10/13/angel-investors-make-2-5x-returns-overall/
A lot of the economy consists of small businesses. If you are a smart person you might want to find local investment opportunities that aren't on the radar of the big banks.
Isn't angel investing for the relatively wealthy? What do you do around the 10k range? Especially considering that the less capital you have, the better working relative to spending time investing becomes.
Couldn't it just be an erroneous application of (an intuited version of) Newton's law of cooling, which says that heat transfer is linearly proportional to heat difference? They assume that the thermostat temperature is setting the temperature of the heating element, and then apply their intuited Newton's Law.
Seems pretty rational to me.
For example, this absolutely works with say, an electric stove.
That rather assumes you can live on 25% of your income.
For me 25% of my income would be far below the poverty line and the legal minimum wage. I couldn't live on that even if I moved back in with my parents.
Are most people here really so rich that they can follow this advice and take it in stride?
I am not, but apparently there is at least one person who could.
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d){kind=logo}
= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Because he's asking about people who only read the open thread. Here he could get response from the people who do read LW in general, inclusive of the open thread, and people who read only the open thread (he'll miss the people who don't read the open thread). Outside the open thread, he gets no response at all from people who only read the open thread.
I see what you mean.