Mason  🏃‍♂️ ✂️

The expectation is that some important things will get broken. The question is whether you’re going to generate enviable value on net. California is an almost obscene economic powerhouse because it managed to aggregate extreme ambition outliers in just two major metro areas

The crux here seems to be: On the margin, how much would it increase/decrease innovation if we changed the degree to which society disincentivizes fraud, privacy violations, etc.?

(FWIW my intuition is that this is not one of the main bottlenecks on innovation, and that there are lots of ways to boost innovation while also disincentivizing fraud)

I’m not sure if this is the crux, since the proposed intervention is too vague for me to parse (“reasonable cautions to hyper-driven people”) & depending on what that points to I’m not sure it’s something that has *any* effect on the perceived problem (sociopaths & cons)

Sure; I was inferring what @jbrydle meant from the examples he gave throughout the thread, of the kind of "breaking things" he wanted society to caution people against more.

I don’t know exactly what having “society caution against breaking things” means, but it sounds like the sort of thing that has zero effect on sociopaths & neutral-to-negative effects on non-sociopaths, no?