Yes, betting a larger or smaller amount on something, and to what degree you are invested, both in terms of emotion and percentage of your wealth, does not change the fact that its still gambling.

But you now also have the additional disgusting allowed custom of that you can just buy up others work. You can be at a workplace, put all your energy into it, then a rich entity can come it and buy it all up and kick you out and/or burn it to the ground. What this entity is compromised of, a single person, many, or another corporation, is not necessarily smarter and just because it has a lot of wealth will not make better decisions.

I would say its the opposite. The larger an entity is, the more disjoint and the more dumb decisions are made. Working as a software consultant for both small and large corporations. The small dumb ones die out, the large dumb ones survive in spite of their choices, not because of it.

Authority bias is without awareness affecting any human. The more we recognize it, the more we can keep our ideas grounded.

Those banks are also gambling, but also with additional fraud.

None of this has any real value.

All good! 😊

It’s not worded like that at least. It looks like he dares anyone that want to argue for that it is gambling to look at that link. But as you say, the link points to clear gambling practices. 🤷

Yes? What is your point? Does not change that the fact of the stock markets response is just a facet of gambling.

And this is not gambling still how?

Public stocks is just gambling. Some people gambling on a potential win is a given.

Imo the world will be a better place when stocks is looked at the same way as online poker. Because right now it has this high aura of validity around it which I think it really does not deserve.

What people think will result in this potential superconductor has no real effect or predictive value on reality.

It’s literally the reverse. You can avoid phones often to a larger degree than cars in parts of society. So, it is worse, period.

Yeah I think you are right. But it should be equal to the environmental cost per co2 amount. So if consuming x amount of co2 costs y amount of environmental damage, then the tax should be y amount per x co2 produced.

I am guessing the current tax is way below anything like this.

A high carbon tax would fit perfectly. Introduce it at the start of the system such that it directly affects those that pollute the most, and vice versa.