speaking as somebody who I don't think actually got any money directly from FTX Future Fund that I can recall
'All my firearms sank in a boating accident' energy.
It's fine to call it your charity and your contribution that you undercharge for those utilons and don't capture as much value as you create - if you're nice enough to do that, which you don't have to be, you can be Lawful Neutral instead of Lawful Good and I won't think you're as cool but I'll still happily trade with you.
(I apologize for resorting to the D&D alignment chart, at this point, but I really am not sure how to compactly express these ideas without those concepts, or concepts that I could define more elaborately that would mean the same thing.)
how have awful nerd writers like Yud not realized that D&D alignments are barely serviceable as a storytelling mechanism, much less an ethical framework? I keep seeing the alignment chart seriously mentioned as if it were an irrefutable aspect of human nature, but it was written as a gameplay mechanic (for spells/prayers that care if the caster or target is good or evil) and falls apart under the lightest scrutiny, as a lot of DMs and D&D writers have noticed. why is this still a thought-terminating cliche in nerd culture circles?
Spoken like a true Lawful Good weenie.
As a Chaotic Neutral INTJ Gray Tribe Ravenclaw Scorpio the DnD alignment system works great for analyzing behavior in hunter-gatherer societies and therefore ours.
You didn’t even declare your ruleset version….? G’damn casuals 🙄
(/s, of course)
I love to sell utilons on the market.
"Indulgences" was way funnier word for it.
Hurling ordure at the TREACLES, especially those closely related to LessWrong.
AI-Industrial-Complex grift is fine as long as it sufficiently relates to the AI doom from the TREACLES. (Though TechTakes may be more suitable.)
This is sneer club, not debate club. Unless it's amusing debate.
[Especially don't debate the race scientists, if any sneak in - we ban and delete them as unsuitable for the server.]