A good reason to outlaw bribes is that politicians tend to be incredibly cheap and offer an extremely high ROI.
Albeit at the cost of a nice democracy.
You're forgetting that this is the same guy who managed to bankrupt a casino. He's not actually that good with money and until the latest bribe channels opened, eg Trump Coin and the Board of Peace, opened their finances may have been in a bit of a mess. Also I'd bet the ballroom donation was much larger, it's a massive blackhole of graft waiting to happen.
It's also not solely about money, you can get far just knowing how to chum it up with Trump when you get in the room with him. Look at the odd quasi-bromance between him and Mamdani who you'd expect to be enemy #1 but Mamdani knows how to schmooze the exact type of New York Guy Trump is.
For fascism, it's not always about getting something you think is a lot. It's about a power relationship. Trump has demonstrated that Nvidia will bow to his will.
It's also potentially an implementation of the foot-in-the-door technique (https://www.simplypsychology.org/compliance.html). It's a common manipulative strategy where you get someone to do a small favor for you which makes them much more likely to do a large favor for you later.
The terms of these markets do not account for a scenario, quite likely if authoritarian takeover does happen, where the House of Representatives is a rump organization which does not exercise effective power. There was a years-long period in Venezuela where the country's traditional legislature met and conducted business under the leadership of the opposition party, but actual legislative power was held jointly by the Supreme Court and a secondary legislature that Nicolas Maduro set up.
The branch of government tasked to execute the law has been ignoring laws. So we'll get a (from Trump's point of view) adversarial congress, so what, let's ignore them, what are they going to do about it?
Looking forward to a military platoon defying orders and seizing the president, hey, all countries suffer through coups, about time this young democracy go through one!
I feel this is a facile interpretation of the phrase, kind of like complaining that "Measure Twice Cut Once" would lead to selling illegally adulterated flour. A more steel-man interpretation of POSIWID--the way I think it's intended to be understood--would be:
"The practical outcomes of a system over the long-term reveal something important of the the true-preferences of the various interests which control that system, and these interests may be very different from the system's stated goals."
> The purpose of a cancer hospital is to cure two-thirds of cancer patients... These are obviously false. The purpose of a cancer hospital is to cure as many patients as possible, but curing cancer is hard, so they only manage about two-thirds.
I don't see the contradiction here. The purpose of a cancer hospital is to cure as many patients as possible. "What it does" is cure as many patients as possible. The fact that as many patients as possible is currently (presumably) two-thirds is irrelevant. If major advancements in medicine or new types of cancer emerged which changed the percentage of people cured it wouldn't matter at all. "What it does" and "the purpose of the system" is still unchanged.
“If a system is maintained over an extended period and has observed behavioral traits that are consistent within that period, that is, in itself, strong evidence that those behavioral traits are consistent with the purpose for which the system is permitted to exist” is kind of a mouthful, though, and there is value in succinctness.
(Although there is another message, there, too: “the purpose of a system, insofar as it can be said to exist separate from what it actually does, has no weight in justifying the system’s existence or design”.)
Great read. I've always noticed that the type of argument invoked is often less telling than when and in which context you invoke that argument.
You can make a lot of claims and they can match to reality a lot - normally people think of evaluating things in terms of a strict "does this fit or does this not", but it's often the meta-style (why do you keep bringing up that argument in that context?) that's important, even if it's not "logically bulletproof".
Wow that post is bad. The author clearly never actually attempted to understand what POSWID actually means and where it is coming from. Perhaps, instead of looking at Twitter, they should have opened Wikipedia. Or, better yet, Stafford Beers books (though admittedly, he was a pretty atrocious writer).
The follow-up is slightly better. But still not very convincing, IMO. They get far too stuck on a literal interpretation. Of something that self-describes as a heuristic.
The phrase does not make more sense even if we go all the way back to Beers. I certainly don't feel alone in not understanding how he went from his (fair) observation that "[There's] no point in claiming that the purpose of a system is to do what it constantly fails to do" to his more controversial conclusion: "The purpose of a system is what it does (aka POSIWID)".
Surely, there were many more sensible (but perhaps less quippy) stops between the two.
Being quippy is the point. That's how aphorisms work: creating a short, pithy distillation of a complex argument, that you can then use pars pro toto to make a point.
I certainly agree that POSWID is easily (and perhaps frequently) misused. But that doesn't invalidate it in general.
Well, you see, that's completely different. Nvidia agreed to give them money!
Silly me...its true!
- $1,000,000 donation from NVIDIA CORPORATION to the Trump–Vance Inaugural Committee.
- $1,000,000-per-head Mar-a-Lago dinner where Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang attended.
- Jensen Huang’s contribution toward Trump’s "White House ballroom" project. Confirmed, but undisclosed value...lets says at least another $1,000,000?
>> Well, you see, that's completely different. Nvidia agreed to give them money!
Also I believe NVIDIA's supposed to pay the US government 15% of its revenues from Chinese sales:
https://www.ft.com/content/cd1a0729-a8ab-41e1-a4d2-8907f4c01...
Which is incredibility short term thinking. You're in strategic competition, and you compromise you position for a bit of cash?
No one has ever accused Trump of being in this for the long term strategic vision lol
$1,000,000 doesn't seem like a lot of money for them, why would it matter to them?
A good reason to outlaw bribes is that politicians tend to be incredibly cheap and offer an extremely high ROI. Albeit at the cost of a nice democracy.
Ghengis Khan didn’t need your chest of gold, he owned many gold mines. Regardless, he was going to take it from you the easy way or the hard way.
You're forgetting that this is the same guy who managed to bankrupt a casino. He's not actually that good with money and until the latest bribe channels opened, eg Trump Coin and the Board of Peace, opened their finances may have been in a bit of a mess. Also I'd bet the ballroom donation was much larger, it's a massive blackhole of graft waiting to happen.
It's also not solely about money, you can get far just knowing how to chum it up with Trump when you get in the room with him. Look at the odd quasi-bromance between him and Mamdani who you'd expect to be enemy #1 but Mamdani knows how to schmooze the exact type of New York Guy Trump is.
Ahem, depending on how you count, he bankrupted 4-6 casinos.
To Nvidia, or to the recipients?
Both?
For fascism, it's not always about getting something you think is a lot. It's about a power relationship. Trump has demonstrated that Nvidia will bow to his will.
It's also potentially an implementation of the foot-in-the-door technique (https://www.simplypsychology.org/compliance.html). It's a common manipulative strategy where you get someone to do a small favor for you which makes them much more likely to do a large favor for you later.
Ah yes, again the: "I am so rich I could not possibly be corrupt!"
"Trump’s Profiteering Hits $4 Billion" - https://www.newyorker.com/news/a-reporter-at-large/trumps-pr...
"How much money President Trump and his family have made" - https://www.npr.org/2026/01/14/nx-s1-5677024/trump-profits-m...
Good thing this administration will be a lame duck in 8 months, and they know it.
"trump is definitely gonna lose the election" is a prediction I've heard many times. I know better than to trust it by now
At least twice. Luckily, that's the max number
1/2 isn't bad.
He also lost his only midterm so far.
Not according to him
That's part of why they are trying to take control of elections, which have (I believe) historically been the responsibility of each state.
a very optimistic view
https://kalshi.com/markets/controlh/house-winner/controlh-20...
https://polymarket.com/event/which-party-will-win-the-house-...
The terms of these markets do not account for a scenario, quite likely if authoritarian takeover does happen, where the House of Representatives is a rump organization which does not exercise effective power. There was a years-long period in Venezuela where the country's traditional legislature met and conducted business under the leadership of the opposition party, but actual legislative power was held jointly by the Supreme Court and a secondary legislature that Nicolas Maduro set up.
The branch of government tasked to execute the law has been ignoring laws. So we'll get a (from Trump's point of view) adversarial congress, so what, let's ignore them, what are they going to do about it?
Looking forward to a military platoon defying orders and seizing the president, hey, all countries suffer through coups, about time this young democracy go through one!
> about time this young democracy go through one!
Did you skip class they day that discussed the Civil War?
Did somebody skip class where that's an attempt of secession, not an overtake of power?
Well, Jan 6 was an attempted coup...
So cool we can bet on whether the Trump admin will attempt another coup - what a time to be alive
Are you sure? They have one skill: playing social media, and it serves them well.
Unless ICE ensures it’s is a ”fair” election with the ”correct” outcome.
Luckily, the oval office is on the ground floor, so it's safe to stand next to the windows
[flagged]
Zombie Duck
The Purpose of a System is WHAT IT DOES!
https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/come-on-obviously-the-purpo...
I feel this is a facile interpretation of the phrase, kind of like complaining that "Measure Twice Cut Once" would lead to selling illegally adulterated flour. A more steel-man interpretation of POSIWID--the way I think it's intended to be understood--would be:
"The practical outcomes of a system over the long-term reveal something important of the the true-preferences of the various interests which control that system, and these interests may be very different from the system's stated goals."
> The purpose of a cancer hospital is to cure two-thirds of cancer patients... These are obviously false. The purpose of a cancer hospital is to cure as many patients as possible, but curing cancer is hard, so they only manage about two-thirds.
I don't see the contradiction here. The purpose of a cancer hospital is to cure as many patients as possible. "What it does" is cure as many patients as possible. The fact that as many patients as possible is currently (presumably) two-thirds is irrelevant. If major advancements in medicine or new types of cancer emerged which changed the percentage of people cured it wouldn't matter at all. "What it does" and "the purpose of the system" is still unchanged.
“If a system is maintained over an extended period and has observed behavioral traits that are consistent within that period, that is, in itself, strong evidence that those behavioral traits are consistent with the purpose for which the system is permitted to exist” is kind of a mouthful, though, and there is value in succinctness.
(Although there is another message, there, too: “the purpose of a system, insofar as it can be said to exist separate from what it actually does, has no weight in justifying the system’s existence or design”.)
Great read. I've always noticed that the type of argument invoked is often less telling than when and in which context you invoke that argument.
You can make a lot of claims and they can match to reality a lot - normally people think of evaluating things in terms of a strict "does this fit or does this not", but it's often the meta-style (why do you keep bringing up that argument in that context?) that's important, even if it's not "logically bulletproof".
https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/highlights-from-the-comment...
Wow that post is bad. The author clearly never actually attempted to understand what POSWID actually means and where it is coming from. Perhaps, instead of looking at Twitter, they should have opened Wikipedia. Or, better yet, Stafford Beers books (though admittedly, he was a pretty atrocious writer).
The follow-up is slightly better. But still not very convincing, IMO. They get far too stuck on a literal interpretation. Of something that self-describes as a heuristic.
> what POSWID actually means
The phrase does not make more sense even if we go all the way back to Beers. I certainly don't feel alone in not understanding how he went from his (fair) observation that "[There's] no point in claiming that the purpose of a system is to do what it constantly fails to do" to his more controversial conclusion: "The purpose of a system is what it does (aka POSIWID)".
Surely, there were many more sensible (but perhaps less quippy) stops between the two.
> perhaps less quippy
Being quippy is the point. That's how aphorisms work: creating a short, pithy distillation of a complex argument, that you can then use pars pro toto to make a point.
I certainly agree that POSWID is easily (and perhaps frequently) misused. But that doesn't invalidate it in general.
Unconstitutionally, no less:
"No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State.".
I would not be surprised if an outcome of this may be a 10% government stake (maybe golden share owned by Trump) in Anthropic.