• they/them

ancient multidimensional shrimp


idk video games or something
sometimes level designer
i rechost a lot


( \ / )

>(@~@)<

~🦐~



[O_o]
d____b

vogon
@vogon

I think you can also see aspects of this + the way it interacts with the human tendency toward altruism in the success of One Red Paperclip and later imitators, who repeatedly made progressively larger positive-value trades until the combined effect is that they'd traded something of effectively no worth (a single paperclip) for something of substantial worth (a house, car, etc.): people will intentionally and knowingly make negative-value trades for someone with charisma or to be part of a good story!


You must log in to comment.

in reply to @vogon's post:

A super loose observation as I'm meddling with the little coin flip game: I managed to even myself out with the rich person before it all tanks, and I'm still the one making the 20% wagers while the rich person can only collect: https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/989937705515356210/1055213943372656690/image.png

Commonfolk cannot afford to lose in this economy, down to not letting major incidents burn holes in our pocket, else we will reach that $0 flatline and life will come knockin' at our doors.

Oh, yeah. It's def possible to risk your way to the top via coinflip, though it's even more fun to imagine how real-world variables could even allow for somebody to legit go from rags to riches. 🤭

The second minigame is absolutely worth analyzing, too. The takeaway could be protecting the people from making such huge risks (ex: affordable/free healthcare let's goooo) and then pooling or redistributing excess wealth to further support the community. You can damn HEAR the conservative-adjacents crying communism/socialism lol

I do wonder about the validity of the second game, though. I think that 0.5% redistribution is of the individual's total wealth? I don't know for sure.

I do know that redistributing 0.5% of someone's total wealth on a regular basis, rather than of their income, would be very hard to achieve legally.

This is great and maybe intentionally approached from this perspective to not "scare people off" but I do think it's a bit of a disservice to not mention capitalism anywhere in the article. I think knowing this is an inherent structural problem of capitalism benefits everyone, but again, maybe the editorial decision was that would be read as "too radical" or something.