Status quo thinking is for losers.
I don’t give a single fuck about how things are or why they are.
I only care about how they should be.
Discussion
Agreed in most cases but curious what you think about the Lindy effect? For example, I ascribe some value to gold because of the Lindy effect and I like holding the shiny rock but I don’t think it’s a good solution to fix the base layer money of the world.
Lindy effect is an observation about how people generally think and how long certain ideas survive. It's not a judgement on how we should think though.
Think for yourself - just if a bad idea has been around for a long time, should you hold it just because it's likely to stick around longer?
💯💯
i think lindy usually involves actually good ideas, maybe you need to examine them closer
Good is subjective, but good ideas do generally survive longer because people want to propagate them.
The lindy effect just applies to things which are less likely to go away or "die" the longer they are around. Here's a weird example - circumcision. Or suicide bombing.
i think strictly speaking lindy exists because people keep doing a thing, and "reasons" is the weakest reason to do a thing, whereas "it gets you laid" is an example of a reason that has strength
😂🤌🏻 true
or in shorter words, lindy exists because a thing is useful
things persist because they are useful
we still write because it's useful, that's been happening for thousands of years
the utility of governments is a real thing too, it has existed also for thousands of years, even though it sometimes works out bad
perhaps you can talk about the matter of why... for the wrongheadedness of government, for example, it works because for more than 50% of the life of a government it tends to be beneficial for more than 50% of the population
the failure of government tends to relate to an exploit that breaks that utility, such as democracy and propaganda, and the megalomaniacal egos of tyrants who tend to arise in the late stages of government because the custom has set in for generations because it WAS good for that time
so, there's some nuances to elucidate regarding the concept of lindy, i think lindy holds because of utility but is lost when the utility is violated by an exploit
the lindy of government, for example, is a real thing, because there is existing evidence that in some ancient cultures very long timespans that there was no centralised power (jericho, for example, and some 400 years in iceland) so there can be a lindy of no government, when the right format of decentralization arises
good things are rare, in any case, that's why they are valuable, and that's why when people find them, they hold them
Sure. So we agree that it goes beyond good or bad?
if you agree that the population is generally good (over 50% honest and fair in their dealings) which is pretty easy to find evidence to prove
then, no, it's not that it goes beyond good and bad, it is that the lindy things are actually protecting the average man in some way, or they wouldn't keep holding to it
the simple fact is that if it ever comes to a point in a society where bad behaviour is the majority that society usually self destructs, and often, the flaw that broke the lindy custom can be lost, and that's how it comes to be exploited again
I don't agree with the first part. Good and bad are subjective judgements and most people are a self-interested mix of both. Lots of parasites survive in nature. Ideas do not look after the good of the collective.
But we are talking around each other. I think we agree much more than we disagree.
it is a general good to not die
so, a great deal of things that become lindy have to do with survivorship bias
they are held by the ones that don't die
and i'd go further to argue that any society where the net benefit of interactions turns negative is the definition of a decadent, collapsing society
so, your disagreement relates to a situation that occurs in the process of collapse of a society, not in human nature itself alone
i should also add
good is only subjective in a 1:1 situation
in a society, the bigger the sample the more objective the value of goodness becomes, in fact this is the basis of democracy's fraud, isn't it?
💯
This is how I feel about the pernicious notion that all digital content must be free of charge. The algorithm and legacy systems have conditioned people to believe this because the algorithm needs it to survive. Even on nostr, people still think it's true. But now that we have true micropayments with lightning and can disintermediate middlemen, we need to show everyone that content creators don't need to follow antiquated advertising-based monetization models to survive. The old ways are a function of the internet without micropayments. The new internet economy is about to begin, yet even bitcoiners are against it.
How should they be?
But sometimes when you understand the why you understand why they can’t be that way
wait, so you have more than 6.15 BTC, not cool