She's seriously taking two jumps to close. And still better than any socialist since she at least tries trying.

Given the ratios, one could almost argue that informed people are extraordinarily lucky. If it weren't for the fact that people who are informed often never stop seeking out new information that is.

Same story with politics (ill-informed support of big government when theory and data have been crystal clear for decades) or the irrational climate hysteria.


As long as people who prefer following their favourite news sources think they're informed enough for their opinion to matter more than dirt things won't change much.

You should be buying real gold and precious metals instead of fairy dust.

Where did Roach go?

Do we live in parallel universes or something?

If you truly believe that corona is anything but a non-issue then the least that you could do is point your fingers where they belong. Namely the WHO and MSM, which kept discounting corona while Trump was acting and Tucker talking about the issue in a serious manner.

By the way, since you didn't seem to quite get it the first time around. You can take serious and appropriate counter-measures to an issue you believe to be irrelevant. It's called being preemptive or cautious. Hedging against the worst case scenario.
Did you sell your house and all your belongings to go long on Bitcoin? No? Then clearly you don't believe in Bitcoin! Who cares about taking appropriate and measured steps!


Either way, now that Trump outplayed Democrats by asking for a quarter of what he ended up getting in funding to combat corona and now that the WHO and MSM are suddenly taking the issue more seriously you somehow start pointing at Trump and Fox?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KBsPh1Rq0Fw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lydWQoqDNp8

We have Trump acting way ahead of everyone else, and Tucker ringing the alarm bells while the rest of the world was still busy playing the SJW game.


As much as I understand that you desperately want Trump out of office, I'm somewhat surprised that you would be so far departed from reality.

80x short.

I see you still love twisting words beyond their meaning. So what you're saying is.

At 2% mortality and 70% infection you get less than 100 Million deaths worldwide.

At your 4% (which is nowhere close to the <1% that I've seen for people that aren't already half-dead anyways) and 100% infection rate we'd still get 300 million at worst.

And that's assuming that neither vaccines nor cures will be developed and distributed. In reality we'll see deaths far below 100 million spread over several years, which is pretty much normal business.


Regardless, as far as politics goes. It is a matter of fact that Trump banned travel long before is usual and while the WHO was still opposed to restricting travel and trade. At the same time, MSM kept going on and on with its usual nonsense about mUh RaCisM aGaInSt cHiNeSe CorOnA PaTienTs.

If anyone reacted appropriately in the global political landscape it was Trump. Restrict spread as early as possible and try to keep things calm. You don't get to blame him for downplaying numbers when that was the status quo and he actually acted accordingly as well, unlike the WHO.

Not to mention that he's perfectly right with downplaying corona, both politically as well as realistically. People must be really bored to care about this nonsense.

So the WH downplays corona after banning travel early on while the WHO clearly stated not to restrict travel or trade?

And Trump is going to be hurt by corona by candidates that are for open borders and free health care for illegals instead of Americans?

I mean, I get that the overwhelming majority of people on this planet is mentally impaired, but come on.

I might've agreed with the angle if I hadn't asked about the pictures that you've mentioned.

The post was divided into two parts. One about confirming what he's saying, so you could perhaps get another perspective that you might not have had previously. Which last I checked communication was about spreading ideas.
The other part was about trying to figure out your perspective by asking for the pictures.

He's right. Circular and pendulum motion have the same equations of motion too.

Also, what pictures are you talking about?

So Bloomberg is out of the race and announced he'll put his weight behind Biden. Biden leading massively in delegates against Bernie now.

The same moment this happened the stock market saw its largest one day surge since 2009.

Didn't expect things to move this quickly, but seems like corona didn't matter much after all considering the number of cases has been blowing up.

It's a distribution of inputs vs outputs, it doesn't say anything about how the number of people with positive/negative contributions develops over time.

It merely says when you have a collection of humans that you can divide into "qualities", e.g. positive and negative, then 20% of those in the positive category will create 80% of the positive things, and 20% of those in the negative category will create 80% of the negative things.

It says nothing about how many people are in each category or how that will change.


If you want to go with "humans" as input, and "value" (positive, negative, neutral) as output, then all you can get from pareto is:
20% of the humans ("input") will produce 80% of the output. This means that 80% could be neutral and 0% negative.

It also doesn't say anything about the ability of the positive to outweigh/solve the negative. Basically there is nothing in it that would let you conclude that things will get worse by any measure.

The generational thing was more apt for slow moving civilizations. This paradigm is due to end very soon if it hasn't already, simply because everything changes so damn quickly and communication as well as networking is completely different from what it used to be.
You no longer grow up and die with the people and in the environment that you'll spend your life with and in. So you have little chance to be fully oblivious if you want to do something more productive than being a sheep.

At the end of the day we'll end up with sets of people that exclusively consume and "just live their lives", classes of people that live to work and solve problems, as well as people who do a bit of both.

And that's good enough. People who "just live their lives" provide data and cheap labour, while also increasing the total acquirable wealth of the doers. No need for any more than that precisely because of exponential progress.
Who cares if they need more space and more resources when we become much more efficient at creation and allocation.


We have enough countries to not have to care about such issue. Even if Sanders became president and had the ability to pass anything through congress, neither of which will happen, the productive class will simply leave and set up shop elsewhere.
The consumer class will eventually follow, because it can't get anything done by itself and won't be able to resist the desire of living where the magic happens. Needless to say, some of the people who foolishly voted to break things, without even understanding what they are doing, would suffer greatly from this in the short-term.
But in the long-term all you have to do is let this nonsense play out a few more times and watch even the dumbest of idiots on Tiktok spread anti-communism awareness memes.

Yeah, it looks bad if you're zoomed in on the now. But in reality it's just a learning process.
Think of humans more as a collective organism, you know you could do better but you're too lazy, arrogant, naive and stupid to actually do it until you fall flat on your ass a few times.

For the individual all that matters is being ahead of the game and not staying in any country that is about to go down the shitter. Wealthy people have been doing this forever, and more and more normal folks learn this over time.

We're not almost there, some countries look like they're getting there but there's a lot of lash back and it's not the entire world.
Provided you care enough to sacrifice your lifetime there are two ways. Change from within, change from without.
If you have a lot of leverage, e.g. because you're an Elon Musk, you can go into politics and media and start changing things because everybody respects you and knows that you know what the fuck you're talking about and doing.

If you're not, go to whichever country is most conducive to amassing wealth and solving significant problems. Go do it.
When that country is about to fail (e.g. if you're in the US and Sanders gets elected) you leave for the next best thing and keep going there.

Once you attain above leverage you may consider influencing culture and politics.

It is indeed not a minor thing. But I'm not very concerned because people can migrate.
Take that away and you've got a real problem. As long as countries can attract the top of the crop by changing policy there will always be a gradient of preferable vs undesirable policies, and that ultimately and over time is what will take us to proper capitalism.


I'd guess that the real issue is creating and maintaining a culture in which:
1.) Everybody understands that anybody can come to wealth with minimal tweaks to their lifestyle
2.) Everybody who doesn't choose to become wealthy understands its their choice and hence takes full responsibility and appreciation for their 'simpler' lifestyles
3.) People understand that the wealthy almost always merely solved problems that directly or indirectly impacted everyone and that they'll be happy to take your money to solve any resulting or new problems

There's a good number of people that should be lined up and seen off.

I am saying that according to pareto "20% of all people that do negative things do 80% of the negative things". That doesn't mean that 20% of the population is bad/evil/negative, but that out of the total amount of 'negative' people within a population 20% of them do 80% of the negative things that define their "negativity".

And most people are too busy living their lives and being irrelevant to the overall course of humanity to do evil, hence fueling progress indirectly by being employed or by consuming.

It kind of does. It swings one way until it can't anymore, gradually slows down to zero, reverses its direction and repeats the same action but mirrored, then it resets and begins a new cycle.

Well, things have objectively been getting better. The idiots just have a louder voice these days.

There isn't a single significant problem around today that I'm aware of which couldn't be solved relatively quickly.

I also see no evidence of things getting worse as a whole, although idiots have swarmed academia thanks to government. At the end of the day that just means cheaper labour for real scientists though.

They don't have "negative" value under the pareto distribution. They just produce much less. All it says is that 20% of any collection of inputs is responsible for 80% of all the outputs of the system.

Basically, 20% of the people bother picking up a skill or hobby and then create 80% of the resulting products of that endeavour in the world.


Nothing about pareto states that there's any damage or 'negative value' by itself.
However, you could argue that out of that group of people that is dead set on destroying things, 20% would be responsible for 80% of the total destruction. That's about as far as it goes though.

Impact is easy, just make everything up like we have been on the WO. Probabilities of all the impacts are hard. Very hard.

Wouldn't be so sure about that. It doesn't need to reach escape velocity anytime soon either, as long as it becomes good enough to prolong a little bit every so often.

See e.g. here under "Expected Loss". Shows the general definition of risk and shows some particular examples such as quadratic loss, or MSE.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loss_function

This is pretty much canon in Mathematical Statistics, Finance and where ever else you work with statistics and noise. And since it's an integral it is always a number.

There was a corona lockdown very close to where I live. Wonder what stores look like around here, been too lazy to go and check so far.