Greedy Goblin

Monday, September 26, 2016

Vegans, the conspirators for the worst animal genocide

Vegans are refusing to eat or use animal products since they believe animals have moral values and must not be used as commodity, just like humans are not used. They want a society where animal ownership is abolished like slavery was. They wish for a society where "animal companions" can live in peace and safety.

The question is what will happen to the whole specieses of farm animals. If no one would eat pork, voluntarily or because it's forbidden, there would be no pig farms. In muslim countries where eating pork is forbidden there are only a handful of pigs living in zoos. Assuming zoos wouldn't be banned by vegans as form of animal slavery, there would be a couple dozen or hundred pigs, chicken, sheep, goats, cattle, gooses in a country. What would happen to the rest of them?

If you just "liberate" the farm animals from their "captivity" and let them roam free, they'll die in weeks or at best in the next winter. Nature can't support bred farm animals, domestic pigs don't stand a chance against wild boars, not to mention that the natural habitat of the boars decreased badly in the past centuries. Would they force people to care for them, effectively turning the animals into welfare leeches? That would help the currently "enslaved" animals, but what about their offspring? Animals breed very fast (hen lay a fertile egg a day), meaning it would be impossible to support their exponentially growing population. Castrating them would be "obviously immoral", just like it is for human welfare leeches.

My point is that farm animals exist only because we created a niche for them. Sure, it serves our interest, but it also serve theirs. If humans were always vegans, the large land animal population would be much smaller, practically limited to the fauna of the few forests and plains. Remember, humans must have agriculture to exist (even vegans eat plant products) and farmlands were all taken from forests and plains. Getting rid of "exploitative farming" would mean a genocide against animals, several, currently huge species would go near-extinct.

In a broader sense: "exploitation" is a socialist codeword for cooperation where one party is less fortunate than other. They just forget that the "exploited" is still better off this way than without cooperation. The child workers making shoes aren't making shoes because someone captured and enslaved them, but because their families are starving and have to send them to work. If you close the dangerous and unhealthy shoe factories to save them, they will starve and die like cattle "liberated" from a farm.

Friday, September 23, 2016

I wish I could /remake M&S

Playing EVE distanced me from the ordinary player. I mean I never actually played with someone in the client. Playing BDO was playing alone. Playing League of Legends in the beginner tier (silver 5, I still struggle clicking the right target in a messy teamfight) forced me to once again get first hand experience with the morons and slackers. While the results may be boring for longtime readers, new ones will probably learn more from these than from philosophy posts.

The LoL devs created the /remake command. It is available if a player is AFK/DC from the start to prevent a 20 mins long hopeless games. Activating it needs 2 out of 4 remaining players pressing yes. No winner reward or loser penalty is applied to the active players, while the AFK-er gets a leaver penalty. It's a no-brainer that you should use the feature.

I got a game where one of the members was AFK from the very start. We got the option to use this feature. I was the only one trying to use it. All 3 other teammates choose to try to win 4v5 in a ranked game. We lost of course.

This has two explanation: the simpler is that they were unaware of this feature and when they saw the popup, they assumed that it's a normal surrender giving a defeat. Slackers typically don't read any materials, not even if they see it popping up on their screen. Maybe I should have typed "Accepting a remake will NOT give you a loss!" before initiating.

The more interesting is if they knew it and didn't care. Why would they pick a very likely defeat? Since I didn't see an "i play 4 fun" in chat like ever, I assumed that ranked LoL players want to win. Maybe I was wrong. After all most useless morons in World of Warcraft battlegrounds were not AFK-ers or obvious bots, but bridge fighters. Fighting on the bridge or another road crossing is a waste of time in battlegrounds, but lot of players do it, because of the instant PvP. Their purpose isn't to win a battle but to defeat another player in PvP. Maybe the morons of LoL don't play to win the battle, but to get good Kill:Death ratio. To "pwn". It's usually invisible, since killing enemy champions have a positive correlation with winning in LoL. However with the case of /remake it was directly opposite. By accepting it, they'd return to the queue and match preparation phase, which is 5-10 minutes waiting. If they play, they can "pwn" in the laning phase, since the missing player wouldn't be around anyway. Only in the later game, where teams are formed will mean a 4v5 fight and obvious loss.

On the one hand, after analyzing killboards of EVE and revealing the true characteristics of whole alliances, fighting simple M&S is a huge setback. On the other hand the reason I started blogging is to show people how they can better their play and their life by handling the M&S around them. So my blog will serve better purpose by posts like this. But I admit, I was annoyed that I had to deal with the lowly crap again.

Thursday, September 22, 2016

The core problem with refugees

You probably heard how the US president candidate Trump campaign see refugees:

You probably know that Sweden - not long ago the feminist utopia - gained the highest rape rate in Europe, with majority of rapist being from the Middle East. You probably know that several violent terrorist attacks happened in Europe in the last year and a some in the US. You might even know that Angela Merkel, the self-proclaimed savior of refugees is losing elections after elections. You most likely don't know that there will be a public vote in Hungary about settling refugees here and polls predict 90% "no".

What you are probably puzzled about is how could we get into this bizarre situation. However answer isn't the program of Trump and his European buddies (spearheaded by Hungarian PM Victor Orbán who already built a barrier on the border getting "you are nazi" from other presidents who soon were voted out by their people). Anyone can become a refugee. There is nothing a single person can do about the whole country turning upside down or a war erupting. Even the most individualist person can see that it's impossible for him to fix a whole country. Telling refugees that "it's your problem" will come back to some of us in this life. It's guaranteed that several safe and fine countries will go hell in the following decades.

The answer comes from realizing that immigration and refugee protection got mixed up despite they are completely different issues. Immigration is about letting people in who are needed and will fit in the country. Refugee protection is about ... protecting refugees from the dangers they ran from. Currently refugees are protected by letting them immigrate without vetting. If one can prove that he is in grave danger at home (and it's not hard if he is from Syria), he can enter the country and live among us, even if he is totally unfit for it, for example don't speak the language, don't have any profession to work and consider women to be mere property of men. Which is true for 80% of the swarm entering Europe.

The proper solution is keeping refugee protection completely separated from immigration. Refugees should be placed to closed camps where they are safe from whatever danger they were running from, get shelter, food and health care. From there they can leave only two ways: if their home becomes safe again and they are going/sent home or if they successfully immigrate to a third country. In the camp they should get the the help for the immigration process, but still have to go through all checks that ordinary immigrants have to. If they learn the language, get a profession and adopted to our culture then they can leave the camp and live in our countries. If they don't, they stay in the camp until their country is fixed.

It's our duty to save those who are in danger for not their own fault. It is absolutely not to tolerate them and their antics in our cities.

Wednesday, September 21, 2016

How can climate change denial exist?

If you babble about chemtrail or how the government is hiding UFOs or how the lizard-men control the mankind, everyone will call you crazy. If you claim that there was no Holocaust, you can get into jail in some countries and get you into lot of trouble in the others. Yet there are large amount of people, including opinion leaders and politicians who deny the climate change which is equally stupid. Why?

The solution is the backward thinking of the socials. The socials above all wants to feel nice, moral and lovable people because they want to be loved by peers. So their logic isn't forward (X is good so I do X), but backward: "I do X, so X is good". It's related to cognitive dissonance. Sure, in many cases this is just a theoretical distinction as if X is really good, it doesn't matter. However only people above social level are capable of saying "X is bad, but I still do X because it benefits me".

There is no possible "do X" for UFO and chemtrail conspiracies. The believers believe but don't and can't act upon their beliefs. I mean if I truly believe that there is chemtrail, what can I do? Wear gas mask all the time? It does no good since gas masks only protect from chemicals listed on the box of their filter, and the evil government surely uses something else. All I can do is "raise awareness" aka rant.

On the other hand there is a very simple action about the climate: damage it more for profit. Green technologies are more expensive than coal plants or gas drinking cars. If I don't switch green, I save money, while the damage is hitting everyone. Even worse, the climate studies show that we are already behind the point of no return, the climate will change, whatever I do. So why bother?

The point is that it can be a completely rational selfish behavior to keep damaging the climate. However a social person can't say "I keep damaging the climate because that's my interest". That's "evil". Instead, he refuses to believe in the climate change, so he can claim with a straight face "there is nothing wrong with me driving a V8 engine pick-up truck everywhere".

Believe me, if "phobia from poisonous air" would be a legitimate reason to stay at home and get welfare, there would be equally big amount of chemtrail believers as climate change denials.


PS: How can you get positive opinions? posthumously.

PS2: my defense looks good, farm looks good, 0/3/0 morons and slackers pushing to enemy tower look usual

Tuesday, September 20, 2016

Playing 6 hours without a single "i play 4 fun lol"

After being surprised what kind of games got into the various financial toplists (scrolling adventure and mobile crap, really?), I picked the one that is on top of most games: League of Legends. I wasn't completely against this game, I played it 3 years ago, but I had serious reservations. It's above all a short-match action game. Memorize zillion champions and item abilities and use skill combos.

However it also provides a challenging environment: as I'm clearly disadvantaged at clickfest, I have to work harder to compensate it with strategy. There is clear competition with ratings that are somewhat obfuscated by various leagues. If I manage to figure out something to climb to the top 10% without clicking like crazy, I definitely proved something. I won't be #1 here in 2 months like in BDO. Of course I'm far from it, I'm merely learning basic movement and trying to not accidently fire my ultimate instead of "E".

But I already encountered something very positive, something I hated in WoW, EVE, BDO: "i play 4 fun lol" as excuse for playing badly. I played like 6 hours in Sunday and not a single player said that. Each and every one of them clearly tried to win. Sure, some of them fed horribly, but they din't ignore the game like the "play 4 fun" idiots. If I'll have results, I'll have people who listen because they want to win. In previous games I struggled with those who were not only horrible but outspoken about being horrible is the right way. At least LoL is clear from this plague.

Granted, in their stead there are hostile players who always have a reason why someone else is at fault for their feeding. They also have a comment on the champion, spell and item selection of other players. The /mute playername helps a lot. Still, they are clearly interested in winning. There are also "gg i go AFK lol" idiots after the enemy team gets first kill (sometimes on them). Yet, they also don't fool around, merely don't want to help if the battle is not totally one sided for us.

I don't know if I achieve anything I am aiming for here. I'm not sure if there is such thing as "strategy" in LoL or if it won't be nerfed next patch if I find it. But trying is definitely better than kicking the dead horse of EVE.



There is a weird connection error that appears sometimes. If I alt-tab, I can refresh a webpage, so it's clearly not my ISP. Usually it happens in the most inconvenient moments:


And of course the morons are out in full force. The worst quality of LoL is that the team is as strong as the dumbest feeder. But hey, the point is to find a strategy that survives the moron fest:

Monday, September 19, 2016

Our generation doesn't gain wealth like our parents because...

We hear all the time that the wealth of our parents and grandparents were growing when they were young and this "golden age" is gone. There are many-many theories why our wealth don't follow this pattern. Here is a very interesting article from Deloitte that gives a very unconventional answer: because our parents still keep earning more, despite not working, from instruments and assets. They are and will be in the foreseeable future be more rich than us:
Yep, currently about 1/6 of the US wealth (the study is about the US, but - without any research - I can guarantee its validity for Europe) is in the hands of the adults below the age of 50. Which is kind of surprising if you consider that you spend 2/3 of your productive life below this age. As a rude estimate, I checked the last US age distribution and approximately equal parts of the US population were over 45 years old in 2012 and between 15-45 (which is more or less the same groups as we are talking about now). So an average person over 50 has 5x more wealth than a younger adult and this will only change with the oldest of them dying. The "Baby Boomer generation", who are between 50 and 70 now will keep having half of the national wealth in the upcoming decades.

This is something mankind never experienced before. We are still living under the impression that the elderly is a vulnerable group that survives only by the protection of the active ones. Maybe when a 68 and a 70 years old are running for US president and their boogieman is 64 years old, we should reconsider.

How could it happen? By the high and continuously increasing importance of financial assets. In the times before us, the wealth of a person was in housing and items. These things need constant spending to be kept in good condition and even then they tend to lose value. Buy a horse or car and in a decade you'll have a corpse or a wreck after a bunch of expenses. The stocks and investments on the other hand increase in value without maintenance. In the same time work income is heavily taxed, while income from assets is not, so the average rich is just getting richer and the poor will never catch up. This isn't so new, Piketty became famous over it, but I doubt if many considered its effect on generations. It's not just that distant millionaires get rich while you are staying poor, it's that your own parents get rich and you stay poor. It doesn't need them to actively participate in the stock market as pension funds do it for them and housing is also an investment that tend to increase value over long time (even if less than average stocks)

- OK, this looks bad. I'm young and doomed to be poor forever. - you might say, but it's not true. There are two kinds of "being social" problems stand in your way:
  • Keeping up with the Joneses: while it was present in all times, for the generations before us it was focused on more value-keeping things. Our grandfathers kept up with the homes of the Joneses which left them with a home. The millenials keep up with the food, travel and consumer electronics Kardashians and it leaves them with nothing but selfies. Your income must be invested instead of wasted on "having fun". Any investment (stocks, gold, home, your own education) is better than spending.
  • Being politically inactive because "politics suxx". Young people are tend to not vote in elections. This means that the lawmakers will cater to the older population and this leads to tax and welfare decisions that hurt the young and help the old. Think of the term "death tax" that shows how negative the political opinion is about taxing the elderly. In reality inheritance taxes are probably the least harmful taxes of all, since they take no man's money, they merely limit how much one inherits after a deceased one. In most cases, the deceased is over 75 and the recipient is an over 50 offspring of the deceased. A tax code change that severely taxes inheritance would prevent the wealth of the "Silent generation" to flow into the "Baby boomers" while an equally big income tax cut would be a huge help to young earners. Or a much less aggressive law that makes the default recipient of inheritance (in case of no last will) the grandchildren instead of the children. But this is a daydream while young people don't vote. Hint: there are elections coming up this fall in several countries. Be there!

Saturday, September 17, 2016

Weekend minipost: time to find a game

OK, I got enough of beating the dead horse of EVE to keep my blog on life support. Here is what I'll do. I'll collect the top 20 revenue games. Not subscribers (not usable for F2P), not journal rating (reflects nothing but the marketing spending of the publisher), but revenue dollars. If people spend their money on it, they think it's a good game. Every game is eligible regardless of genre, the only restrictions are online play and available on PC.

Out of the 20 games, I select one and will play that, will blog about that.

If I can't find a "good" game out of the top 20, I close my blog.

If you know of a game income toplist, please link it.

PS: this is the post Globby was talking about, stop asking!