Can you say more about the system? A lifetime ago I was really excited about gambit (and bigloo) but I never had the chance to work with them beyond messing around here and there after work.

Deadly Rooms of Death is criminally underrated and generally unknown. Journey to Rooted Hold is personally my DRoD of choice.

It works both ways: "Yeah, let me eat 100kg of beef per day instead of 500g of broccoli to get my Vitamin C."

But anyway, legumes are much more efficient source of protein than beef. I don't understand why you decided to compare against broccoli.

Maybe we should eat both then.

Sorry, let me eat 1.8kg of lentils instead. The point I was making is that there is a need for both.

I don't know, but I have noticed that the GPS in my watch (Garmin) seems to be better than the one in my phone.

Because Garmin tools are good

Garmin is a GPS company first, a watch company second. It shows.

Your point is that it's ok he's untrustworthy because lots of people in power are?

> Your point is that it's ok he's untrustworthy because lots of people in power are?

It's...weirdly a valid question. If Sam fibs as much as the next guy, we don't have a Sam problem. Focussing on him alon is, best case, a waste of resources. Worst case, it's distracting from real evil. If, on the other hand, as this reporting suggests, Sam is an outlier, then focussing on him does make sense.

No, it's that the entire ecosystem is rotten to the core, and it actively selects, rewards, and protects flawed personality types.

And when you're dealing with a potential existential threat, this is an existential problem.

I don't disagree, but at some point, I think people need to understand we're dealing with laws of nature here. I mean just look at human history, this has been a problem since the dawn of civilization...

I think if you truly understand social contract theory, how hierarchies are formed, and political theory, you'll realize that oligarchies tend to be nature's equilibrium point for setting social disputes, and all forms of governments regardless of whatever they claim to be, naturally devolve towards them as they tend to represent the highest social entropy (ie equilibrium) state. That's not to say you can't have or move further away from that point and towards another (supposed ideal) form of government, you absolutely can, but it takes work. Perpetual work - of which no set of "rules" can remedy people of having to do in order to sustain it.

The problem however, is most people get complacent. They eventually tire of that work, or are ignorant, and by doing so create a power vacuum which allows things slide back towards that state.

As so, people must decide for themselves one of several possible avenues to pursue:

#1 - Try to convince others (the masses) to join and work together to take power from the few, back to them

#2 - Find a way to join the ranks of the elite few (which thanks to the prisoner's dilemma, unscrupulous means tends to perform better in the short term, even if at the cost of the long term. And if the elite is already corrupt, well, cooperating with it works well)

#3 - Settle for their lot in life

Unfortunately #1 is such a difficult proposition given it requires winning agreement among many whilst many often decide to remain in camp #3 (for complacency/ignorance reasons). And #2 is often easier done without moral integrity, especially at the behest of those in camp #3 whose behavior only helps enable these realities. Thus, is why I think the "ecosystem" as you say, will always tend towards this way - where society tends towards being controlled by an elite few who are rotten.

Robert Michel's realized this and dubbed it the Iron Law of Oligarchy and embraced his own version of #2 for himself. Although, he came to this conclusion through his own observations and reasoning, rather than through historical political theory.

Not sure where I said it's OK? Please point it out.

We have to deal with it. Or are you suggesting we should purchase a controlling interest and vote him off the board?

> A bit of a feeling of "so what" here.

That part right there implied you're ok with it

> Or look at the dogged adherence to Windows even to this day after decades of Microsoft abuse

Or the people who absolutely refuse to give up Chrome, despite the whole adblock situation. "But I don't like the way Firefox tabs look!"

Of course, I just have a hard time wrapping my head around the fact that these people are complaining about ads everywhere and value the aesthetics of the tab bar over that.

I don't know, I think it's pretty embarrassing that Teams is an electron (or whatever) app. The plot on native has been lost so badly that even the fucking company that makes the OS doesn't want to deal with it.

> Firefox is painful.

What exactly is painful about Firefox? It's so painful that you'd rather go without an adblocker?

I'm not used to its dev tools. It takes me a lot longer to find my way around.

Every time someone complains about firefox it's something trivial like this... "I don't like the default download location." / "I don't like how the dev tools opens on the bottom." / "I don't like the way the tab bar looks." Absolutely wild to me that using a browser without an adblocker, forever, is better than spending a week or whatever getting used to the different dev tools.

Ok

Pretty much matches my experience. Trying to sell something on Craig's list or whatever is pretty hit-or-miss, whether it's $5 or $500. But make it free, and people will bang down your door to try to get it. It could be a shoebox full of used soy sauce packets and you'll get people for days asking if it's still available.