If your proposal is intended to be foolproof even 50 years hence, then yes you would need to defend it for many many variations, even if each scenario has a tiny chance because cumulatively they add up to a substantial chance. Especially since you would need to convince many folks in Washington to actually implement it in reality.
And even then all it would take is a single digit number of judges and the top decision makers in the debt market to disagree in 50 years time and the effort will be negated.
If you do discover some method to prove this proposal with the rigor of a bonafide mathematical proof then that may be promising but otherwise…
To be clear to other readers, I didn’t recommend making gay marriage illegal....You’re essentially trying to get me to defend the class of “all possible policy proposals”, which is just silly.
To be clear to other readers, I didn’t recommend making gay marriage illegal.
You’re essentially trying to get me to defend the class of “all possible policy proposals”, which is just silly.
Since society can change a lot in 50 years, this issue could very well be, in 2073, the equivalent of trying to make gay marriage illegal today.
So it's possible that it will simply get laughed out of court and anyone serious, whose opinions matters in the government debt market, will also brush it off.
You pretty much do need to defend the class of 'nearly all possible policy proposals' to credibly account for unknown value and culture drift over 50 years.
What's the logical and theoretical basis for the supposed existence of such a construct?
If there isn't, then the default assumption is that there's no such thing. Much like how we by default assume that there are no porcelain teapots orbiting the sun.
The karma mechanic, and the concept of scoring tied to an identity in general, is supposed to circumvent that from what I understand.
e.g. if someone with a lot of credibility such as gwern 'grabbed the mic' the average reader might give them 10 minutes of attention, whereas someone that just signed up under a pseudonym may be given 10 seconds. If it's deemed to be valuable, then their credibility increases, or vice versa if it's clearly malicious. Someone with only 10 seconds obviously gets kicked out fairly quickly, after a few malicious iterations.
Thus even in the worst case not that much time is wasted, whether or not 'grab the mic' tactics became the norm.
Though perhaps you believe this method of discriminating and filtering by length of allotted attention is ineffective?
If they refuse to write it down even in an encrypted email, or some form of secure communication, then I would say even if they have good reasons to avoid making things public, it would count against the ‘genuineness’. Since it would be very unlikely for their to be any bonafide fears of man in the middle attacks and so on.
The only legitimate reasons would be mistrust between the parties, e.g. fear of accidental or intentional redistribution to third parties, insecure records management, etc,..
I’m not sure if you considered the relative security vs exposure tradeoff but, other than mistrust of the counterparty, there would have to be some stupendously, world shatteringly, important reason, for me to not get suspicious if they flat out refuse every secure means.
It doesn't bother me since there are several advantages to having posts hover around the zero score mark. In fact it may even be desirable, and a stronger signal then the typical pattern, in certain scenarios.
(Hypothetically, the winning combination would be to surround yourself with smarter people you can learn from, and simultaneously have such a giant ego that you do not feel low-status, and simultaneously also somehow the giant ego should not get in your way of actually learning from them.)
A much more probable combination is for those with minimal ego, yet who are tough as nails.
There are examples of 'giant egos' able to effectively learn from a roomful of smarter folks, but that's literally 1 in a million.
All we do is issue “enforcement perpetuities” instead of issue regular debt, whenever today’s government needs liquidity.
Who will be issuing these for the example of the US, assuming that's where you have experience?
What's stopping Congress in the 49th year from passing an exemption into law that lets the government then ignore it with minimal consequences?