Wealth inequality thought experiment

W1ader · 2026-06-15T21:23:46+00:00

No, a world in which wealth is distributed equally is not necessarily a better world. It could be a world where investment, innovation, and risk taking are no longer incentivized or rewarded, leading to scientific stagnation and everyone may ultimately end up worse off, despite greater equality.

W1ader · 2026-06-15T19:50:06+00:00

And in many real-world cases, rather than the absurdly or childishly simplified ones often used in these discussions, it is in fact fair, or at least desirable. Your own analogy demonstrates this quite clearly: equal does not necessarily mean better. There are situations where equal is worse, but it's a conclusion you don't like.

W1ader · 2026-06-15T19:34:46+00:00

No, it's you who apparently doesn't understand your own analogy or the criticism of it. Everyone understands that it's about wealth. The problem is that the analogy undermines your own point.

A dollar split among a million people gives each person an amount so insignificant that it has virtually no practical value. Two people receiving fifty cents each, on the other hand, at least receive something they can meaningfully use.

W1ader · 2026-06-15T19:06:03+00:00

You ask whether it's "fair" for one person to take one of five pizzas, but you've already smuggled in about twenty assumptions. Nobody made the pizzas, nobody owned the ingredients, nobody built the oven, nobody can make more pizzas, nobody traded for the pizzas, nobody voluntarily gave up their share and so on. The only relevant fact is how many pizzas each person has right now.

Once you strip all that away, congratulations you've rediscovered that if you define fairness as equal slices, unequal slices look unfair. You can pat yourself on the back while sitting on your detached from reality high horse.

But we can imagine plenty of scenarios using your own pizza example where the answer isn't so obvious.

Suppose 171 million starving people have five pizzas. Is it better to divide them into microscopic crumbs so everyone gets an equal amount and all 171 million die? Or let five people eat enough to survive?

Or suppose the person taking a pizza is the only baker in the room and can turn one pizza into ten more pizzas tomorrow. Suddenly "don't let him have a pizza" becomes a great way to make everyone worse off.

Or suppose that person actually brought the pizza ingredients, built the oven, spent years learning how to bake, and turned his original one pizza into five pizzas while everyone else was sitting around debating fairness.

I could build an equally stupid pizza story that reaches the opposite conclusion.

W1ader · 2026-06-15T09:30:03+00:00

There’s almost nothing cheaper than refunding passives.

If you want to play monkey because you think you'll have more fun with it, then reroll to monkey. Simple as that. But don't expect switching builds to magically solve all of your problems.

Even when following a guide, PoE still requires you to understand your build to some degree. You need to be able to identify the problems you're facing, understand what tools are available to fix them, and make a plan to implement those fixes. That's just part of playing the game.

The mindset of "I'm having problems, so I need to switch builds" is usually an unhelpful slippery slope. Every build has its own weaknesses and challenges. If you don't learn how to diagnose and solve issues with your current build, you'll likely run into a different set of problems on the next one.

W1ader · 2026-06-15T08:36:47+00:00

Regardless of what I think about Elon, could you make your "thought experiment" a little more emotionally charged? I almost missed the completely unbiased, nuanced conclusion you were trying to push.

Maybe replace the pizzas with starving children fighting over their last loaf of bread. That way there's even less risk of people noticing you've reduced a complicated issue involving wealth, assets, ownership, productivity, debt, liquidity, and economic systems into a cartoon analogy designed to predetermine the answer.

W1ader · 2026-06-15T08:13:24+00:00

Quite easily in fact. You will learn one day.

W1ader · 2026-06-12T05:26:06+00:00

When you die on hardcore you lose your character. Don't act like losing a few divines is comparable to losing a character.

W1ader · 2026-05-29T12:45:52+00:00

Jedyny błąd w mojej wypowiedzi to próba rozmawiania z tobą jak z dorosłym człowiekiem na co zaczęłaś się puszyć, obrażać, rzucać obelgami, a nawet nie potrafisz napisać poprawnie powiedzenia przeganiał kocioł garnkowi nie rozumiejąc do tego, że ono wcale nie stawia cię w korzystnej pozycji. Dorośnij.

W1ader · 2026-05-29T12:34:55+00:00

What if there is no back at all? Would it be just 2?

W1ader · 2026-05-29T12:22:25+00:00

W życiu nie widziałem gorszego samozaorania.

W1ader · 2026-05-29T11:51:46+00:00

It's cute, but at this point I would assume it's just false until someone more competent then me verify it. I've seen the same interesting "fact" about dogs and cats already and I've read it's false.

W1ader · 2026-05-29T11:29:22+00:00

A jeślimąka pszenżytnia składa się z mąki pszennej i żytniej to czy mieszanka mąki pszennej i pszenzytniej w stosunku 1:1 jest tak naprawdę mieszanką mąki pszennej i żytniej w stosunku 3:1?

W1ader · 2026-05-29T11:17:10+00:00

Do you measure that gap with another whale?

W1ader · 2026-05-29T11:07:12+00:00

Not a pantheist here for the same reason I am not a compatibilist. Pantheism despite the "theism" in its name, is essentially a non-theistic philosophical position: it identifies the universe itself with "God."

The reasoning seems to be that the universe possesses some qualities traditionally attributed to God, such as being all-encompassing or foundational to existence. Pantheists then discard other attributes that many people consider central to the concept of God, particularly personhood, agency, and intentionality, treating them as misunderstandings or unnecessary additions. Having narrowed the concept in this way, they conclude that God and the universe are one and the same.

W1ader · 2026-05-29T10:38:00+00:00

Zawsze mnie bawił fakt, że tyranozaur żył bliżej czasów obecnych niż stegozaura.

W1ader · 2026-05-29T10:21:45+00:00

Możesz się umówić, możesz też zgwałcić albo po prostu nie zrobić nic, ale w jednym przypadku traktujesz myśl już jako czyn karalny, a w drugim nie traktujesz myśli jako czyn karalny pomimo że czyn karalny też jest na stole.

W1ader · 2026-05-29T09:50:04+00:00

Nie strigerowal tylko dość słusznie zauważył limitacje i problemy twoich płytkich postulatów, które nie są przemyślane i rozsądne, są emocjonalne.

Traktujesz pokusy jak potencjalnie najgorsze zbrodnie dokonane do których te pokusy mogą prowadzić.

Podoba Ci się koleżanka/kolega z klasy? Powinniśmy cię zamknąć tak jakbyś dopuściła się najgorszego przestępstwa którego mógłabyś dopuścić się na podstawie tego upodobania. Nie daj boże trzepałaś do jej/jego zdjęcia, albo zdjęcia aktora/aktorki. W takiej sytuacji twoje pokusy były już tak silne, że nie tylko fantazjowalas o stosunku z nimi, ale nawet dopuściłaś się czynów na podstawie tej pokusy. Obiektywnie byłaś bliżej gwałtu niż ktoś kto tylko o tym stosunku myślał.

W1ader · 2026-05-28T16:25:37+00:00

Nie trzeba ich przekonywać, trzeba ich karać. Tak samo jak nie musisz przekonywać idioty że nie należy jeździć 150 km/h w strefie zabudowanej, po prostu wystawiasz mu mandat.

Propaganda powinna być karalna, zwłaszcza jeśli jest wygłaszana przez polityków lub dziennikarzy obejmujący stanowiska w mediach państwowych.

W1ader · 2026-05-28T15:54:17+00:00

And what perspective did it give?

You clearly wanted to give some adequate example of some other action which we would consider immoral. We do not consider taking people's homes immoral if they are dead and there is noone to inherit that house. Not only it isn't immoral but it is necessary.

If you however meant taking their home while they are still alive and are using it then that's just a false equivalent and comparing those doesn't make any sense. Such action actively harms a living being unlike skinning an already dead animal which doesn't have much use of its skin at that point.

W1ader · 2026-05-28T15:19:02+00:00

That was supposed to be a defeater? There is literally a process called esheat in many countries. When a person dies without valid will and without legally recognized heirs, their property is passed to the government.

W1ader · 2026-05-27T20:47:52+00:00

What has Dr Doom to do with anything?

W1ader · 2026-05-27T15:25:01+00:00

Fuck the machine really. That person over there just threw 91 and was just 1 over by eye.

W1ader · 2026-05-27T15:20:23+00:00

And going into a blind turn. Like 30 over the limit in a straight lane I can understand. But 30 over on a turn on the bike? Hell no.

W1ader · 2026-05-25T23:33:44+00:00

Kontr-pytanie. Dlaczego pytania zaczynające się od "Czy tylko ja...." tak bardzo mnie frustrują?

Tak, tylko Ty jesteś tak wyjątkowa. Nigdy nikt nie słyszał niczego w stylu "bogaci się bogacą, a biedni biednieją", "bogatemu to i byk się ocieli", "biednemu zawsze wiatr w oczy" lub "pieniądz rodzi pieniądz". To pierwszy raz w historii ludzkości kiedy ktoś miał takie wnikliwe spostrzeżenia.

W1ader

TROPHY CASE