Evolutionarily speaking: If cooperation did not give advantages, why the fuck did we become a social species? Going for anti-cooperative strategies only ever makes sense in zero-sum games and practically nothing in life is.

In game theory cooperation does give advantages.

Both co-op: +1/+1 Both defect: 0/0 Defect/co-op: +3/0

That's just one interaction. When you expand the experiment, predictability becomes a positive trait and risk is avoided. So by more often choosing cooperation, you become more predictable, avoid the risk of not gaining any points through mutual defection, and more people are likely to interact with you. More interactions=higher potential for points. When you adjust the rules of the game to not define a set number of interactions with each player and you can choose the frequency of interactions with bad reputation players, cooperating is naturally selected for. Conversely, as the pool gets collectively nicer, defection will net more benefits and the pendulum will start to slowly swing the other way.

I'll ignore the first half of this reply because we won't agree. Not every choice is a conscious decision in my eyes, but the vast majority are.

As for the second half, believing that bad actors would be weeded out based on the principle of free will is naive. Consider game theory. Two people have something to gain from cooperation, but more to gain from defecting. Meanwhile, the other gains nothing or very little. That simple thought experiment incentivizes bad actions from time to time. You have more to gain by acting selfishly.

Now blow up the experiment. You vs the world and reputation is introduced. Someone with a perfect cooperation rate is flawed. They offer nothing but blind trust and can be taken advantage of. The opposite also displayed. Someone who makes selfish decisions all the time offers nothing but blind distrust. You're left to choose which people to interact with that are somewhere along the middle of the reputation gradient. Those that are 70% or lower seem unpredictable or untrustworthy so many choose to interact with people on the higher end of the reputation spectrum when available and reflect that in their own decision making. You can't always choose who to interact with, so eventually you'll have to interact with a bad actor. You'll get burned by making a cooperative choice and they will benefit from it. In turn, ensuring that they will survive natural selection.

I can only speak for my own beliefs. I don't believe in an omnipotent god. I believe that god holds dominion over the heavenly afterlife and that is all. The universe was created by pushing over the first domino, two atoms collided, and now life exists. It's up to us to use the gift of life as fully and morally as possible. To leave the world a better place than when you first arrived. I don't think that we are some pet project for a God that can change everything on a whim.

Catholicism teaches that God is all forgiving and loves unconditionally. For as many flaws as the Catholic Church has or has had, they've generally been the Christian denomination that's preached forgiveness the most to my knowledge. Maybe I'm wrong.

And I was talking about my beliefs growing up in the Catholic Church not Catholicism as a whole.

I don't believe in a spiteful god, but sure man, go off I guess.

Excuse my faux pas. In the context of the argument, the ethnicity of the citizens living in those countries would be classified as minority ethnicities in America. Not that they are minorities in their own country. I would hope that anyone who's first language is English could make that assumption. But you're right.

I was only focused on the countries listed in the graphic, but Yugoslavia being left out shows that this graphic is serving a bias.

Can't speak for everyone. But for myself, the world and humanity was created with free will and it's up to us to choose good vs evil. God only has dominion over the heavenly afterlife and the hellish afterlife is forced to exist on the principle of yin and yang. There can be no good without evil.

For context I consider myself agnostic but was born roman Catholic and base my morals on the teachings that everyone was created equal and forgiveness should be shown to those that can be helped. Forgiveness isn't a requirement in the cases that someone willingly chooses evil in the face of morality over and over. (Putin, Hitler, Trump, Netanyahu, serial violent criminals, etc.)

1. Bosnia is mostly white.

2. The only countries most people would consider to be "white" are western European countries that are geopolitically stable. We have treaties with those countries and most (read all) are aligned with NATO.

Sure, you can argue that the United States is bombing the countries in this graphic to try to kill ethnic minorities, but that's an argument in bad faith and you know it. Is the US trying to take advantage of arms sales and profiteer from resources in those countries? Yes. Are they also trying to come to the aid of foreign governments battling terror organizations and leaders with dictatorial ambitions? Also yes. Geopolitics and foreign policy don't fall neatly into good/bad actions. Switzerland is famously neutral when it comes to warring nations, but they also allowed their banks to profit and enable the Nazis during WW2. Inaction can be just as damaging as action if not more so.

Lawnmowers only take about 16oz of oil and you can buy 5qts(160oz) for $23 here in the states. So that $23 would last 10 years of oil changes if you replace it once per season like I did.

Not sure what that would cost you in Europe. So maybe that's where the disconnect is.

How often were you changing the oil in your mower? I own an electric lawnmower now, but before that I just changed the oil once at the beginning of each mowing season.

Fot more information

🤦

Ortberg had on Wednesday urged workers to vote against a strike, warning it would, "put our shared recovery in jeopardy, further eroding trust with our customers and hurting our ability to determine our future together."

This is the exact same thing that brought them to where they are. I trust the direction of the company more now that they're striking than I would if they had agreed to a temporary deal so they can kick the proverbial can down the road till some arbitrary future date.

Because Tyreek Hill isn't going to shoot a police officer during a traffic stop on the day of a game?

Because an 8 part youtube series with 7 parts detailing their monthly budget and giving the update, "yeah, they still own the house" doesn't get views or make money?

Maybe if it's just me, but if you're unable to do the research to become financially literate after being gifted a $200k investment for free... I'm not really going to turn your problems into ill will for the person that gave it to you. Library's are free.

But also very ironic since the man doesn't know the word 'hallowed' is different than 'hollowed'

Wake up and SLAM

And welcome to the jam

How is that misspeak? Even if you're not in active combat you still train to be able to use weapons of war. Its not like COs never touch a weapon again in their service.

You're not wrong but it doesn't even matter what the shareholders want. Company executives are legally obligated to secure profits if they're publicly traded.