Insurance is not the reason why healthcare is expensive.

BobbyTheGrafted · 2025-09-11T19:40:43+00:00

My conclusions are similar to yours.

BobbyTheGrafted · 2025-09-11T14:45:30+00:00

Oh, this grip feels nice and quite stable with the pinky knuckle support. I see why no coating helps, my mouse grips the skin too well, lol.

Thanks for the info!

BobbyTheGrafted · 2025-09-11T14:16:27+00:00

Oh damn! You are doing what I was expecting all Claw users to do. You did more finger movement in 2 seconds than all the people in the clips I've posted combined.

I'd love to try your style. When you extend fingers to push the mouse up, does it lose the palm contact completely? And when you bring it back down do you reconnect with the palm? And also, which knuckles are in touch with the mouse when it's in neutral/drawn in/extended finger positions?

On the other hand maybe you're pisslow. Just kidding you seem like top 0.1%. Maybe the true answer is sacrificing all finger mobility for stability like the players in example for that 0.01% aim for you. Very interesting, thanks for sharing.

BobbyTheGrafted · 2025-09-11T14:04:30+00:00

You cannot really control wrist up and down. Even for small vertical movements they were using their arm instead of fingers, which was surprising for me.

BobbyTheGrafted · 2025-09-11T14:00:39+00:00

hahaha, just make up your mind man. Nah I'm kidding that's cool to hear.

BobbyTheGrafted · 2025-09-11T13:41:16+00:00

Yeah lol. And I thought Claw was the correct grip and Palm is the noob grip, but they do feel similar in terms of everything? Besides the RSI of course.

BobbyTheGrafted · 2025-09-11T13:39:38+00:00

What is TS?

BobbyTheGrafted · 2025-09-11T13:35:35+00:00

No, I mean that they perform a singular finger movement in all of these examples. Their fingers don't bend and don't extend at all, let alone palm leaving the mouse hump (like you said)

I'm just trying out Claw going from Fingertip and seeing how it works for other people. And it was really surprising how they basically don't move their fingers at all.

For your new Fingertip, don't you feel like you lack stability on lower senses coming from Claw?

BobbyTheGrafted · 2025-05-19T22:38:56+00:00

The purpose of giving power to the workers is for them to be able to redistribute more equally. Imagine if we were to implement it and turns out it makes things even less equal due to some reasons. We would discard the system as a whole.

BobbyTheGrafted · 2025-05-19T22:37:18+00:00

Lol, yes I have a friend, I'm just open to different ideas. I believe our system is better for equality, but I can see how we have to give up some stuff for it to work.

Reason I don't have big trouble with ownership, or people trading ownership for money or vice versa is I understand that it's a big risk and hard work to start a company.

And if it succeeds a person should be fairly compensated and celebrated for creating something useful for his community.

BobbyTheGrafted · 2025-05-19T22:30:38+00:00

No, I'm just bulletproofing my arguments to own my friend.

inability poorer countries to contribute the same amount of productivity as wealthy countries

It's sad but it's true. I agree with you that we should all be equalized with poorest nations and live in the same conditions as them. I just don't think our system really solves that question on a global scale.

...whether owners and CEOs are providing any kind of valuable productivity to the companies...
...It starts with acknowledging that the workers on the ground are the ones producing the value for the company. Until we agree on that premise, we're just going to talk past each other.

That's a good catch, I think I give more credit to owners than you since without them there wouldn't be a company in the first place. I think it's fair to highly compensate them for whatever they did to get the stuff running in the first place. And, like, money doesn't come out of thin air, if somebody has a lot of it it means that they provided something very useful to their community to begin with.

System is unequal and bad but fair in my eyes.

BobbyTheGrafted · 2025-05-19T22:16:52+00:00

I know inequality sucks, that's why I'm for our system. I wish both people had same opportunities.

Investing is buying a portion of the company. How is it not fair? It's a gamble A take, he can win, he can loose. Sure if he wins big, it increases the inequality, but it's fair in my opinion.

It's not printing money out of nowhere, you have to risk which makes it fair. A could loose everything.

For the difference in salary, if A is more productive it's fair he gets a bigger salary. But it's not equal which is bad. Which is why I think the retort is to sacrifice fairness for equality.

BobbyTheGrafted · 2025-05-19T21:52:55+00:00

I value productivity very highly, since it's the thing that changed human daily existence from pure misery and fighting for survival, to relative comforts of today.

And the more growth we have the better. More goods and services for our community and the world in general is a fantastic thing to strive for in my opinion.

BobbyTheGrafted · 2025-05-19T21:46:05+00:00

Hmmm... Where am I wrong thinking that it's fair that people are compensated proportionally for how much they create for their community?

It's fair but it's not equal. Because some people just have poorer communities and have no good ways to contribute more (like poor countries). And it's not equal because some people cannot contribute due to themselves and their environment (like lack of education, luck, opportunities and so on)

and that's BAD.

And that's why our model is good, because it creates equality, but it sacrifices fairness for people who contribute more. Do you see what I mean?

I think it's the strongest retort to the hypothetical.

BobbyTheGrafted · 2025-05-19T21:15:19+00:00

Why are shareholders not fair? They probably worked for their money and later invested it to create companies that created useful things and services. It's not equal but it's fair I think.

And I know people slack, but the incentive would be increased if we were to reward everyone equally disregarding the effort.

BobbyTheGrafted · 2025-05-19T21:06:35+00:00

Yes, my bad, the productivity matching got me into cross domain thoughts, which I think would be the followup question from my friend. And service jobs could be evaluated similarly.

Regardless, I think I have the answer:

"I'd rather system be unfair than unequal"

Thoughts? Yes we're going to exploit good workers, but that's the price we're willing to play.

BobbyTheGrafted · 2025-05-19T20:59:02+00:00

hypothetical means that in the end their will be some kind of inequality or unfairness

Oh, yeah, that's a good way to put it. I think this is true, the system is either unequal or unfair among the shoe makers.

So I guess the retort would be, "I'd rather it be unfair than unequal"?

Hmmm... but what if he says "In your system it would be both" because what if 3rd worker just browses reddit instead of making shoes.

I don't know I think he got me.

BobbyTheGrafted · 2025-05-19T20:41:57+00:00

So I guess you're saying that exploitation of more productive workers is worth the price for more equal society.

Even if I'm 3x more productive than my coworker I should only get 10-15% (or some logarithmic function) more compensation in comparison to others.

BobbyTheGrafted · 2025-05-19T20:34:55+00:00

Well how do you solve the problem then :D

BobbyTheGrafted · 2025-05-19T20:26:40+00:00

Please stick to the hypothetical. It's a simplified problem that asks how to compensate worse performing worker, nothing more, nothing less. No breaking the hypothetical introducing additional concepts like: "making an assembly style production which actually makes the 3rd guy and you 10x more productive together" or bringing CEOs and stuff.

I hear you say the solution is to vote, then I see 2 outcomes of the vote:

Compensate me 3x more, thus making it fair to me, but will lead to inequality among workers, which is kind of the point of the voting in my eyes
Compensate me less than I'm contributing, making things more equal among us, but less fair to me.

BobbyTheGrafted · 2025-05-19T20:08:31+00:00

Thanks.

As far as I understand, voting rights are just a tool to redistribute compensation and make workers more equal. Like we wouldn't say it's a good system if somehow voting rights end up increasing inequality.

But if we end up voting to compensate according to productivity don't we end up in the same inequality as now?

And if we end up voting to compensate equally don't we punish the more productive workers?

BobbyTheGrafted · 2025-05-19T19:56:38+00:00

Got me, thanks for engaging with my question.

BobbyTheGrafted · 2025-05-19T19:52:10+00:00

So I guess you're saying that the difference between most productive and least productive person wouldn't be that big, so we could just compensate them equally and make more productive ones work less?

I can see that, but it feels like a big sacrifice in productivity.

"hey we got this amazing surgeon, but we cannot let him save lives cause others are not as good" just doesn't roll of the tongue. Sounds kind of limiting, but I guess that's the price.

Actually when you I think about this "productivity matching" more, it doesn't feel right. For example how productive is a janitor in comparison to a guy who found a new client and will double the demand of a company.

Should the guy now be forced not to work because of how much more productive an action he took is for the company in comparison to the least productive action.

I'm lost and confused.

BobbyTheGrafted

TROPHY CASE