The difference between this sub and the fuckgrandpajoe sub is that grandpa joe won’t ever gain sentience.

I believe it was previously only offered to plex pass members.

Yes, but the line was “you got all C’s in highschool?” Nothing about an active shooter.

It’s a line from the show. He says it after someone else says “they killed Lommy”.

1. it is in fact an economic and sociologic thought problem. There is so much overwhelming evidence to show that this is the case, that the burden of proof is on you to explain it all away.
2. yes, you’re right, humans have always been racist and still are today. That doesn’t mean we should erase any and all knowledge racist people have ever generated. That would amount to literally everything.

It seems like Hardin didn’t even originate the thought problem. The article conveniently leaves out that Hardin simply wrote an article about, and created terminology to refer to William Forster Lloyd’s thought problem from over 100 years earlier. Instead they opt to give the racist credit. Why?

So uh, did you read this article? It most certainly does not claim “It’s not how either commons or people work”. Quite the opposite.

he got the history of the commons wrong. As Susan Cox pointed out, early pastures were well regulated by local institutions.

It’s a thought problem, not a literal pasture anywhere.

Of course, humans can deplete finite resources. This often happens when we lack appropriate institutions to manage them. But let’s not credit Hardin for that common insight.

In other words, “he’s not wrong, he’s just a racist”. I didn’t know about the guy before this article. Ironically, they have accomplished exactly the accreditation they were trying to discourage.

These corporations’ efforts to successfully thwart climate action are the real tragedy.

That is already how I understood the thought problem’s relevance to climate change prior to reading this article.

let’s stop the mindless invocation of Hardin. Let’s stop saying that we are all to blame because we all overuse shared resources.

Double strawman. 1) No one invokes “Hardin”, that’s why they had to tell us who he was. And 2) The tragedy of the commons doesn’t make any claims about who is to blame for hogging the hypothetical “commons”. The tragedy of the commons is just a situation. It could apply to any finite resource; ex. if someone is selfishly hogging the wifi bandwidth, everyone’s netflix experience sucks. It’s not relevant whether 20 people are hogging it, or just one or two people.

The article seems like a non-sequitur, and a waste of time. It means well, but I wish they wouldn’t preserve this racists legacy in this way. Feels like taking it’s taking the discussion 2 steps backward to take 1 step forward.

How so? I think of it as an anti-capitalist thought problem in the first place.

That’s a lot of really interesting info, but I don’t think it addressed my question. My question was, does an “an-cap” society really align with libertarianism, because from what I know of libertarianism, it doesn’t. Libertarians aren’t anarchists, they believe in a minimal govt that prevents people from infringing on each other’s freedoms.

Your points about lack of construction or medical regulation are good, though. I don’t think a libertarian would endorse those types of regulations, but innocent people will die in completely avoidable ways without them.

To what degree is that like my mom saying “look at Venezuela for a good example of socialism”?

I agree that libertarianism is often short sighted, but I’m under the impression that your average libertarian believes that there should be a government with just enough power and responsibility to ensure that the citizens don’t infringe on each other’s “liberties”. I don’t think that’s at all guaranteed in an anarcho-capitalist society, but I could be wrong.

I don’t agree with libertarianism because it doesn’t attempt to solve the tragedy of the commons whatsoever. Which is why I believe the fediverse can only be maintained through a culture of cooperation of its users.

Did someone say beans?

To be fair, they allegedly weren’t profitable.

Which I prefer. I’d prefer a general communal forum to be non-profit, user supported, and moderation decentralized.

Incognito was never meant to make you think you’re hiding anything from the browser that you’re typing everything into. It’s about loading a website without any prior context (i.e. cookies) and not saving the state when you’re done.

Incognito is useful for debugging cookie state issues without having to nuke your existing cache only to find out it wasn’t the issue.

It’s also useful when you have to log in on someone else’ computer. Open incognito, log in, do your business, close the window. No risk of accidentally staying logged in. (But if they’re actively trying to mitm you, incognito won’t matter. Just don’t use any devices that person has access to).