Couldn’t they just implement id verification without a requirement from the law? That way they wouldn’t need to wait for the governments to one by one pass laws

Omygod

Who are the four Homers?

Found this in my gallery. I assume it’s hilarious once you realize

Cultist Simulator was a disappointment after being hyped about it for a while. From the outside it looked like an addicting roguelike power fantasy type of game but it wasn’t. It’s a purposefully obscure game with no clear goal, which would be alright if there was some kind mystery to unfold or if the journey was enjoyable. There’s no mystery as far as I can tell, it’s all flavor text. The gameplay was interesting in the first few runs when I was still learning mechanics but after that it’s just tedious. It’s also really punishing if you don’t play carefully all the time. Other than the vibes/atmosphere I have no idea what anyone enjoys about it.

Makes me feel bad for those who aren’t doing it by their choice and might get east damage from it

It still has idiosyncrasies that create friction. Looking like it’s from early 2000s is much less of a problem imo than confusing buttons and unintuitive workflows. E: It’s also strangely laggy and multimonitor support on wayland is still not fixed

It is not an opinion that people don’t earn money by randomly trading with others, wtf are talking about??

I’m actually triggered about this

Scientific American isn’t an academic journal and there’s no paper about this published in 2017. There’s a Scientific American article about it written in 2019 though. I think you’re referring to the part in the article that says it matched real world data remarkably after they modified it in 2017.

I don’t think this model is an x-ray that reveals the bones of the system, as its premise about how it works is plainly inaccurate. Maybe scientists can gain actual insight by studying it further but I don’t think drawing conclusions such as the title on social media is healthy.

At best the model teaches why gambling is a bad idea even if the chances are perfectly even. At worst someone looks at this and decides all anti capitalist evidence must be flimsy

Edit: Nvm found the paper you were talking about. Once again, it is based on this but it is not this. Either way it doesn’t conclude that since it is similar it must be the underlying reason.

I don’t think this is as good a model as you or the oop seem to think it is. Nobody is under the impression that you can make even by buying and selling random things. And gambling your money against other people isn’t something people can afford to do unless they already have money to live comfortably. Real people have fixed needs they have to buy and usually a fixed value they can create to make money.

I don’t think a model that doesn’t share any similarities with the system can be used to prove that inequality is baked into the system. I don’t mean that it isn’t, but I couldn’t in good conscience claim so based on this alone. Please keep your standards for evidence high yall.

Also the article completely misses the reason why wealth accumulates in the model. It has nothing to do with compound ratios being confusing or the amount one can afford to wager. This is simply a normal distribution with flipped axes and a bottom cap of 0. Inequality arises even if you change the game so that richer people give more when they lose and receive less when they win.