Sociopath Community

Lenalee said: 

Turncoat said: 

Lenalee said: 

Turncoat said: 

Okay... so what if he used 5%? 

It does have me wonder if there are people who's job it is to keep other rich people in line. 

 Him and bezos were singled out i think, so really with both of them there ought to be something possible but again it would be stepping on a lot of political toes, and any meaningful change would mean you're building on and farming the land. Not to be the woke white Bethany but that would make a lot of people screech on about colonizing.

I see "meaningful change" as impossible, but I question something like... I dunno, drones that deliver small parcels of food from a centralized location that has responsibilities delegated to people most fit to manage it. 

In this case it's less about saving the world and more about feeding people, even if it takes sandwich cannons to not have to walk into their politics. 

Yes drones and cannon sandwiches would definitely not raise any eyebrows or complaints lol 😆 definitely not accusations of spying or anything.

What about sandwich trebuchets? 

Tho it might not matter if he is giving to charity as they typically only donate to things that will benefit them. A starving desperate population is easier to exploit so i don't think they'll be any sort of solution  

See, that's where I question how at least one of them wouldn't try at least far enough to fail (Edit: although the article you screencapped is interesting, it looks like someone is maybe?). 

If people can straight up try to make Crypto-Islands, or create cities that no one lives in to appease some weird ego need, why couldn't some rich dude use land like that for efficient food production? 

"Because they don't want to" being the stronger reason still has me question how there hadn't* been exceptions to it. 

 Supposedly Gates was amassing land for this but i haven't heard anything solid about it. 

I would be pleasantly surprised to see these kinds of plans get off the ground. 

It'd be nice. 

AliceInWonderland said: 

Turncoat said: 

AliceInWonderland said: 

Seriously, just Logistics and Geopolitics. 

I somehow don't see every idealist rich dude having a degree in that, or even a general focus on it. 

These are the same people where enough of them are throwing money into completely unrelated dumpster fires with enough common sense lacked to see the problem and too much pride to listen to others warnings. 

Companies are definitely concerned with Logistics while Nation States deal with the geopolitics, and often their motives and interests align. Often our motives and interests align with theirs as well. Americans do like their standard of living after all. 

Logistics is a huge industry and is really one of the most fundamental building blocks of any major company that deals with industrial manufacturing of any product. When I worked in optimization it was to make supply chains more efficient.

 

Curious about whether you knew anything about supply chain economics before your employ?

Med said: 

AliceInWonderland said: 

Turncoat said: 

AliceInWonderland said: 

Seriously, just Logistics and Geopolitics. 

I somehow don't see every idealist rich dude having a degree in that, or even a general focus on it. 

These are the same people where enough of them are throwing money into completely unrelated dumpster fires with enough common sense lacked to see the problem and too much pride to listen to others warnings. 

Companies are definitely concerned with Logistics while Nation States deal with the geopolitics, and often their motives and interests align. Often our motives and interests align with theirs as well. Americans do like their standard of living after all. 

Logistics is a huge industry and is really one of the most fundamental building blocks of any major company that deals with industrial manufacturing of any product. When I worked in optimization it was to make supply chains more efficient.

 

Curious about whether you knew anything about supply chain economics before your employ?

No. 

I just knew a lot about optimizing linear systems and it so happens that supply chains in general can typically be modeled as linear systems. 

Turncoat said: 

Lenalee said: 

Turncoat said: 

Lenalee said: 

Turncoat said: 

Okay... so what if he used 5%? 

It does have me wonder if there are people who's job it is to keep other rich people in line. 

 Him and bezos were singled out i think, so really with both of them there ought to be something possible but again it would be stepping on a lot of political toes, and any meaningful change would mean you're building on and farming the land. Not to be the woke white Bethany but that would make a lot of people screech on about colonizing.

I see "meaningful change" as impossible, but I question something like... I dunno, drones that deliver small parcels of food from a centralized location that has responsibilities delegated to people most fit to manage it. 

In this case it's less about saving the world and more about feeding people, even if it takes sandwich cannons to not have to walk into their politics. 

Yes drones and cannon sandwiches would definitely not raise any eyebrows or complaints lol 😆 definitely not accusations of spying or anything.

What about sandwich trebuchets? 

If it looks and sounds like a weapon I'm sure someone will raise a stink about it lol

Tho it might not matter if he is giving to charity as they typically only donate to things that will benefit them. A starving desperate population is easier to exploit so i don't think they'll be any sort of solution  

See, that's where I question how at least one of them wouldn't try at least far enough to fail (Edit: although the article you screencapped is interesting, it looks like someone is maybe?). 

If people can straight up try to make Crypto-Islands, or create cities that no one lives in to appease some weird ego need, why couldn't some rich dude use land like that for efficient food production? 

"Because they don't want to" being the stronger reason still has me question how there hadn't* been exceptions to it. 

 Supposedly Gates was amassing land for this but i haven't heard anything solid about it. 

I would be pleasantly surprised to see these kinds of plans get off the ground. 

It'd be nice. 

 Idk, it's been awhile but this clearly biased article has more information if you'd like to read it. I wouldn't hold my breath and hope he'd do something for the good of others without getting money in return.

I don't think if suddenly Elon dropped 2% of his money into a fund, there would be the infrastructure there to just feed everyone. But I think we are in a transitional phase to more sustainable food production. Indoor fish farming, vertical farming, the integration of new sensor technologies available such as Arduinos or Raspberry PIs, etc. "Internet of Things" can even automate a lot of the growing process. We're not there yet, but soon.

Elon doesn't have any incentive to do the world hunger meme right now, he's into advancing humans to the next phase technologically. But hasn't Bill Gates been pouring money into sustainable food research? I'm pretty sure he's been on his bug burger grind. A lot of people seem to have an innate revulsion to this and even claim false things such as that we don't have enzymes to break down chitin, but honestly mealworms don't seem that bad.

AliceInWonderland said: 

Sometimes its in your best interests for a population to starve. 

Do you mean in the sense of an ideological opponent?

Tryptamine said: 

I don't think if suddenly Elon dropped 2% of his money into a fund, there would be the infrastructure there to just feed everyone. But I think we are in a transitional phase to more sustainable food production. Indoor fish farming, vertical farming, the integration of new sensor technologies available such as Arduinos or Raspberry PIs, etc. "Internet of Things" can even automate a lot of the growing process. We're not there yet, but soon.

I wonder how energy intensive those are. 

Farming, especially in the United States, is already really efficient. 

AliceInWonderland said: 

Sometimes its in your best interests for a population to starve. 

Do you mean in the sense of an ideological opponent?

 Ideological or material. 

I have no idea, I just watch meme stuff people do like this:

solid evidence that nobody gives a shit about world hunger.

world hunger is essentially a never ending problem of continual demand that is likely only to increase if you begin to solve it. meanwhile, there is no profit being made from it. so it would become a never ending void in which money has to be thrown into. 

putting money into these different areas will also off-set basic economic values from their set controls, and impact certain nations beyond what it may be prepared to handle, and what the world is ready to handle. 

there are many other issues that may arise from attempting to solve it. it's far more complex than meets the eye, and would likely require multiple generations of 'united' effort between all nations to become sustainably feasible, as well as a willingness for a total economic reset and a lot of, agreements between government powers which realistically won't, work. it's, too idealist... and the result of these agreements being broken could be catastrophic, resulting in world war? 

in the world, there's all these moving parts, attempting to upset this balance which we rest on that is so thinly veiled... it's likely like taking a match to a huge box of dynamite. 

not to mention all the moving parts 'we' the general public aren't aware of. such as, agendas of the top 1% and, covert government operations. 

but all that aside, my original point i started with alone is already a difficult enough hump to surmount which is the fact its a consecutively increasing negative value. no one invests their money into something that does this, it's as if there realistically isn't enough money in the world to sustain the end of world hunger. so, it would have to be configured with a lot of thought, and a lot of effort, and many powerful/wealthy people would be required to collaborate at this level of massive changes. 

it would be quite the disruptor.

in the equation of the world we have today, it is a very difficult problem to solve! but, if you change the equation, well. there's a lot of risk in that, but, at some point it may be the only option. surely we have AI that can answer these kind of questions for us... run the math. play out some scenarios. 

perhaps they've already run the math and determined it's actually not a good idea, as contrary as that sounds. just sort of playing devil's advocate here. i would love to say with enough effort, ah yes, let's have AI solve the problem, end world hunger without disrupting what little shred of world peace is available or the world economy or or or all these other things. like, give us the best possible scenario it can. 

but, there are likely things going on we aren't aware of that may be more pressing issues

i wish we all had access to cool problem solving AI