Posts made by Ganymede

@WildBaboons said in What Types of Games Would People Like To See?:

wrist flexibility as a stat

It is for WoD games.

@Groth said in Real World Peeves, Disgruntlement, and Irks.:

Socializing losses is a direct transfer of wealth from the tax payers to those who own assets. In essence you're telling asset owners that they should feel free to pursue maximum risk strategies with no concerns whatsoever because if anything ever goes wrong, that will be paid by the tax payers.

I'm not telling anyone anything. You are adding words to contort the plain meaning of what I wrote to suit your polemic; to-wit, I did not write the word "asset" or "asset owner" in the paragraph you quoted. Regardless, the vast majority of tax payers in the United States own assets or an interest in an asset, be it a house, a retirement account, or a vehicle.

What I did write, however, was that the fundamental principle of socialism is to enact policy to benefit the most people rather than favor a smaller group. If you read what you wrote, which I will quote below, you will see we agree:

However I happen to think that a good government should be trying to make the people as a whole prosperous rather then a wealthy minority pursuing high risk strategies.

Even so, we already have laws that benefit a wealthy minority pursuing high risk strategies; for example, Donald Trump has taken advantage of bankruptcy proceedings to shield his personal assets from his business failures. These laws, however, may also be used by others, even those who own no assets.

Let's look at some of the other non-adversarial things you wrote:

If we're looking at the US specifically. A lot of companies used the low interest rate as an opportunity to take very large loans which they then used to buyback stocks to the benefit of senior executives who get paid in stocks. Now that there is a crisis, those companies have a huge debt and no revenue. Without intervention those companies are looking at a stock value of 0 dollars and a complete asset liquidation.

I am aware of this, and agree neither with the strategy nor the proposal to bail out these companies, notably those in the airline industry. The next thing to be considered is the economic effect of letting them fail. While it is completely just to let the creditors and executives fall as a result of their recklessness, there would undoubtedly be further economic fallout as large players in the airline industry fall. Their assets may thereafter be acquired by one or two larger firms, who will then be able to lock-up market power and engage in anti-competitive behavior, as is often the case when there is a large-scale market failure (like the Great Recession).

I will not overstate the fallout, though, because the Pandemic is forcing people to consider virtual and online meetings, which will make up for the inability to meet in person. It may push the nation to innovate further, which is not necessarily a bad thing. But while we're on the topic, let's also implement universal healthcare, state-run insurance, and other "socialist" policies. There may be economic damage, yes, but economies actually recover fastest from disaster.

We closed our bars.

We are a military city.

The escort and strip club industries are in shambles.

@Seamus said in Real World Peeves, Disgruntlement, and Irks.:

While the virus still has a LOT of unknowns, what we know right now, it is marginally worse than the flu, but not nearly as lethal. I will stand by my previous statement.

Your own numbers do not comport with your conclusion:

• Around 207k cases world wide, with 7.3k in the US
• Around 8k deaths world wide, 115 in the US.

Based on these numbers, COVID has a 3.86% mortality rate per case globally.

• Estimated over 1 billion infected world wide,* * * per year.
• Between 291k to 646k deaths world wide.

Based on these numbers, the flu has a 0.03% to 0.06% mortality rate globally.

So COVID is between 50 to 100 times more deadly than the flu. It's been going around for a few months, whereas the flu is around the world all the time. And there are flu vaccines. If you extrapolate numbers, if 1 billion people end up being infected by COVID, you're looking at 38.6 million deaths.

I'm not sure how or why your opinion differs from the arithmetic of your numbers and the facts stated.

@Jeshin said in Real World Peeves, Disgruntlement, and Irks.:

Privatizing profits - When the economy is good only those invested benefit.

Private ownership of the means of production is the hallmark of any capitalist nation. This is true even in socialist nations, where people are allowed to own real and personal property. I do not understand why it is morally wrong to retain the profits one earns through one's labor and/or property.

Socializing losses - When the economy is bad suddenly the Government (via taxpayers) should come help a company that was all about profit for their shareholders and nothing else before. Suddenly it's in the national interest.

The fundamental principle of socialism is to enact policy to benefit the most people rather than favor a smaller group. Said another way, government should act in a way that benefits the greater good. Where there is catastrophe, a socialist nation should move to allocate government resources to where the most can benefit, and this is morally good, in my opinion. But this is also, as you put it, "socializing losses." Another way to put it is "insuring against common risk." I therefore do not see how "socializing losses" is morally wrong.

What I believe you are talking about is a government selectively benefiting a small group of people. I concur that this is improper, and would be improper in either a capitalist or socialist nation. I disagree that this means "privatizing profit" and "socializing losses" is morally wrong.

It is generally deemed a moral hazard to advise one group to do something while doing the opposite. Brokers and retirement funds encouraging retail investors to stay engaged in the market instead of pulling out and re-investing once a bottom has established are themselves getting out of the markets or shifting to new markets but not advising the same to their buy and hold customers.

Dissuading investors from pulling all of their investments out of the stock market is exactly what brokers should be saying. The fact that so much of the American economy is dependent upon the steadiness of the stock market is something you cannot reasonably argue against. Consider, though, that such brokers and fund managers also must do as they are told, which is why they are selling off fast -- because, despite their advice, investors are in fact pulling out and this is caving the market. Compare this with attorneys who often advise sensible resolutions only to be directed by clients in completely insane directions.

@Alamias said in RL things I love:

Shit. I've been Laywersplained.

Those who fail to appreciate the genius of Verrucosus end up like Paullus and Varro.

@Jeshin

Your statement to me is so fundamentally unreasonable that I'm not sure how I can unpack it.

@Tinuviel said in Real World Peeves, Disgruntlement, and Irks.:

I don't think you get to pull that line when you're peeving about losing a bunch of money.

There is an unmistakably high amount of irony when preaching but not showing compassion for people’s fears and concerns.

@Seamus

Good news!

Oh, wait.

Could it be because the package has not yet passed, is being held up by Kentucky, and likely will not solve the underlying issues of the pandemic?

Yeah.

@Alamias said in RL things I love:

Be disappointed. It is a fancy way of saying procrastinator

Actually, the term refers to a stratagem, thank you.

The word "cunctator" alone does refer to a procrastinator, but it has a specific historical meaning.

Using the term "cunctator tactics" in a legal brief.

How sweet it is.

Struggle bus.

I'd love to play, I think. I would. I haven't played an alt in weeks.

But I can't. Associate is leaving the firm for better places. Work is piling up. Everyone's worried around me.

I owe taxes for the first time ever this year. I'm behind in some payments on my partnership purchase.

Just not a good time.

Considering permanent retirement.

Oh! Castlevania Season 3 is out too.

@kk said in Resources for Self-Isolating People:

I wonder if anyone has suggestions on shows to stream that are not dark shows - as dark shows increases my anxiety. I am self isolating looking for movies, funny shows, distracting shows to stream on netflix, hulu, disney + or prime. I am open to suggestions if anyone has thoughts!

It depends on how crude you want to get.

I like watching cooking and restaurant shows, so I like Ugly Delicious on Netflix and Kitchen Nightmares on Hulu.

I have kids, so I adore kids' shows -- the more absurd, the better. Hulu has a variety of them, notably Teen Titans Go!, Regular Show, and The Amazing World of Gumball. Disney has its in-the-vault collection of older works, like Robin Hood and Peter Pan, although I prefer darker movies (sorry) like The Hunchback of Notre Dame and WALL-E.

Finally, if you don't mind crude humor, check out Letterkenny or Family Guy on Hulu. NSFK.

@Tinuviel said in The Work Thread:

See, I always thought it was so that you could cover every possible loophole with dense and exceptionally jargonistic language.

The opposite, actually: the language is used in order to make it seem as if you are covering loopholes when you are actually creating more of them to wiggle through.

@Warma-Sheen

Kids actually have a low chance for developing symptoms too.

But they are susceptible to infection regardless and spread infection like nothing else known to man.

We all know that this will be a strain on families, but so is a dead member.

It's a reasonable choice in unreasonable times.

@Warma-Sheen said in The basketball thread:

It is a conspiracy. They only cancelled this season to keep the Warriors from retaking the championship this year.

I'm a bit saucy because my local team is amazing and had a legit shot of winning the entire NCAA tournament this year.

@Ominous said in Interest in Cyberpunk MU*?:

It's the age old Romanticism vs. Enlightenment viewpoints. Star Wars' longing for a past "more civilized age" vs Star Trek's "boldly go where no one has gone before."

Or conservatism v. progressivism.

I prefer to consider third options, like the craziness in Final Fantasy or post-apocalyptic fantasy settings.

@Wizz said in Interest in Cyberpunk MU*?:

The authors behind the concept of cyberpsychosis don't understand why the use of extensive prosthetics leading to mental illness is a gross concept. It's a perspective we've outgrown culturally. Prosthetics are not dehumanizing, they're empowering.

I concur with you for the reasons and with the limitations stated by Faraday.

I don’t think cyberpsychosis is a direct result of merely having prosthetics; I think it is more like the Hubris mechanic of oWoD mage or the Taint system of Aberrant. That is: as you become more and more super-human you lose the ability to empathize with and be sensitive to humanity, thereby becoming “psychotic” relative to humanity’s sensibilities.

@hamstersonPcP

Honestly, I think you would get a lot of traction with a game based on a fictional mercenary company that is going across the galaxy "getting into adventures." The Hare-Brained Studios Battletech game is pretty popular, and could serve as a template on which to base the game's activity.

I'm okay with no Clan activity or backstory, as there is more than enough Inner Sphere politics to play with. I'm not sure how tasty or appealing a game would be with too many factions, which is why I think a PvE game might be a good place to start.