History Main / UnstableEquilibrium

29th Apr '16 3:11:10 AM Adept
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* ''HeavyWeapon'' had this with your {{Smart Bomb}}s. In most shooters, you are restocked with a certain number of bombs after death. In ''Heavy Weapon'', you ''lose'' all your Nukes on death! This makes the waves even harder as you now don't have the ability to clear the screen of enemies and bullets.

to:

* ''HeavyWeapon'' ''VideoGame/HeavyWeapon'' had this with your {{Smart Bomb}}s. In most shooters, you are restocked with a certain number of bombs after death. In ''Heavy Weapon'', you ''lose'' all your Nukes on death! This makes the waves even harder as you now don't have the ability to clear the screen of enemies and bullets.
4th Apr '16 6:40:41 AM WikiGuardianAngel
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* In sociology, this phenomenon is referred to as the [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_effect Matthew effect]], named after the [[TheFourGospels Gospel of Matthews]] where the verse that alludes to this appears in: ''"For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken even that which he hath."'' (Matthew 25:29, King James Version)

to:

* In sociology, this phenomenon is referred to as the [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_effect Matthew effect]], named after the [[TheFourGospels Gospel of Matthews]] where the Matthew]] in which a verse that alludes to this appears in: appears: ''"For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken even that which he hath."'' (Matthew 25:29, King James Version)
4th Apr '16 6:35:57 AM WikiGuardianAngel
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* In sociology, this phenomenon is also referred to as the [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_effect Matthew effect]], named after a verse in the [[TheBible Bible]] that alludes to this: ''"For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken even that which he hath."'' (Matthew 25:29, King James Version)

to:

* In sociology, this phenomenon is also referred to as the [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_effect Matthew effect]], named after a the [[TheFourGospels Gospel of Matthews]] where the verse in the [[TheBible Bible]] that alludes to this: this appears in: ''"For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken even that which he hath."'' (Matthew 25:29, King James Version)
4th Apr '16 6:26:02 AM WikiGuardianAngel
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* In sociology, this phenomenon is also referred to as the [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_effect Matthew effect]], named after a verse in the [[Bible]] that alludes to this: ''"For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken even that which he hath."'' (Matthew 25:29, King James Version)

to:

* In sociology, this phenomenon is also referred to as the [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_effect Matthew effect]], named after a verse in the [[Bible]] [[TheBible Bible]] that alludes to this: ''"For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken even that which he hath."'' (Matthew 25:29, King James Version)
4th Apr '16 6:24:06 AM WikiGuardianAngel
Is there an issue? Send a Message


[[/folder]]



* In sociology, this phenomenon is also referred to as the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_effect|Matthew effect], named after a verse in the [[Bible]] that alludes to this: ''"For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken even that which he hath."'' (Matthew 25:29, King James Version)

to:

* In sociology, this phenomenon is also referred to as the [https://en.[[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_effect|Matthew effect], org/wiki/Matthew_effect Matthew effect]], named after a verse in the [[Bible]] that alludes to this: ''"For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken even that which he hath."'' (Matthew 25:29, King James Version)
4th Apr '16 6:20:48 AM WikiGuardianAngel
Is there an issue? Send a Message


[[/folder]]


Added DiffLines:

* In sociology, this phenomenon is also referred to as the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_effect|Matthew effect], named after a verse in the [[Bible]] that alludes to this: ''"For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken even that which he hath."'' (Matthew 25:29, King James Version)
25th Mar '16 11:18:31 AM Vir
Is there an issue? Send a Message


** The last point is the reason why ''LeagueOfLegends'' allows you to call a vote for surrender 20 minutes after the match started. This gave rise to the expression "surrender at 20", when a team got stomped so incredibly hard they call surrender the very minute it becomes available.

to:

** The last point is the reason why ''LeagueOfLegends'' ''VideoGame/LeagueOfLegends'' allows you to call a vote for surrender 20 minutes after the match started. This gave rise to the expression "surrender at 20", when a team got stomped so incredibly hard they call surrender the very minute it becomes available.
22nd Mar '16 2:03:59 AM TitaniumDragon
Is there an issue? Send a Message

Added DiffLines:

** American professional sports avert this with salary caps and revenue sharing, with an eye towards making teams more competitive. This is most obvious in the NFL and NBA, where aggressive salary caps and drafting programs help to make sure no one team ends up on top of the league forever just because they can afford to hire all the best players.
22nd Mar '16 2:01:07 AM TitaniumDragon
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* Predatory pricing runs on this. Big, rich companies deliberately lower their prices to what their smaller competitors cannot match, taking a temporary loss of revenue that they can afford. The smaller companies [[MortonsFork can lose business now by refusing to lower their prices or lower their prices now and make losses that kill them later.]] The big company then swoops in on the market share they leave behind. Of course, it can backfire if the small company finds a way to keep up with the lower prices, or maintains a large enough customer base to ride it out, since the big company is losing money all the time they do it. This was particularly ridiculous back when antitrust legislation didn't exist; nowadays, certain business laws forbid these practices. For instance, France fined Google because their maps service is free of charge, making it hard for anyone else who wants to do a map service to rely on that service alone for revenue.
** In theory, predatory pricing is unlawful under US antitrust laws, but hardly anybody has actually been held liable for the practice. This is because the majority of courts require someone to prove that the company doing the predatory pricing actually has a substantial likelihood of recouping their losses caused by the reduced prices (otherwise, it just results in lowered prices for consumers). This is hard because 1) the predatory pricing scheme can occur over decades, making predictions uncertain, 2) other companies can swoop in and take the market share instead of the original company doing the reduced pricing, or 3) some other external force changes the market and upsets the balance.

to:

* Predatory pricing runs Economy of scale and mass production. A larger company can afford to scale up their production lines to produce more goods at a lower cost per unit of good. Lower prices allow them to acquire more market share, which means they make even more money. This can lead to them producing even more goods at low prices, as well as having more money to spend on this. Big, rich R&D, making better products. Thus, large companies deliberately lower their prices to what their often produce better products for less money than smaller competitors cannot match, taking a temporary loss of revenue that they can afford. The smaller companies [[MortonsFork can lose business now by refusing to lower their prices or lower their prices now and make losses that kill them later.]] The big company then swoops in on the market share they leave behind. Of course, it can backfire if the small company finds a way to keep up ones.
** This is most readily apparent
with the lower prices, or maintains a large enough customer base to ride it out, since the big company is losing money all the time they do it. This was particularly ridiculous back when antitrust legislation didn't exist; nowadays, certain business laws forbid these practices. For some online companies. Google, for instance, France fined Google has the goal of giving everyone all the information they need instantly. They not only serve the masses, but because they're so good at it, they can move into new sectors of information presentation and dominate them because why bother to go to some other website when the one you already use does it just as well, if not better? And indeed, their maps service is free of charge, making it hard for anyone else who wants vast resources allow them to do a map service to rely on many things better than their competitors, including improving their core search function.
*** Note
that service alone for revenue.
** In theory, predatory pricing is unlawful under US antitrust laws, but hardly anybody has
monopolies like this are actually been held liable good for the practice. This is consumers, because the majority of courts require someone to prove that the company doing the predatory pricing actually has a substantial likelihood of recouping their losses caused by the reduced produces everything for very low prices (otherwise, (in Google's case, free), and does it just results in lowered prices for consumers). This is hard because 1) the predatory pricing scheme can occur over decades, making predictions uncertain, 2) so well that people don't want to use other companies can swoop in - and take the market share instead of the original company doing the reduced pricing, or 3) some other external force changes the market keeps producing better/cheaper products because they want to keep it that way. Abusive monopolies are when someone dominates a market, drives out all competition, and upsets the balance.then jacks up prices because high capital costs prevent competition.



** The book is full of examples of this, explaining why Eurasia is more technologically developed than Africa (the longer east-west axis means a greater area of similar climates across which the same agricultural techniques can be used, as opposed to Africa's north-south axis), why European settlers decimated native populations in Oceania and the Americas (not just technology but also a greater range of immunities to disease), and so on.
22nd Mar '16 1:30:49 AM TitaniumDragon
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* "The rich get richer, the poor get poorer". To grossly oversimplify, the rich can afford to take spare cash and invest it, gaining more cash. This cash can then be invested for even more cash. The poor struggle to meet their daily necessities - or, for the worst off, do not even succeed in doing so - and, barring external aid, remain poor forever. Even when they get external aid, the most common form is through a loan. If they can't capitalize on the loan well enough, they'll have to pay out debt on top of everything else. Laws can be created to stabilize this, but take a wild guess at what you need to get laws passed. Explored further in a Website/{{Cracked}} [[http://www.cracked.com/blog/5-things-nobody-tells-you-about-being-poor/ article]].

to:

* Almost all positive things - intelligence, height, attractiveness, job competence, income - correlate positively with intelligence. Moreover, intelligence is highly heritable, with a heritability of about 0.75 (on a 0 to 1 scale). Because higher intelligence correlates positively with income, and higher income correlates positively with intelligence, well-off smart people are more likely to produce children who gain the benefits of wealth and intelligence, resulting in additional generations of well-off smart people. While this tapers off considerably with higher incomes - there isn't really much of a difference between someone who makes $100k per year and someone who makes $1 million per year in terms of intelligence - the net result is still that people in the upper echelons of society have not only income advantages, but often genetic ones as well.
** The writers of TheBellCurve were worried that in the future, because of the high heredity of intelligence and the fact that most people tend to marry people within their own class, as well as the fact that intelligence is highly hereditary (and strongly correlates with income), there would eventually develop a permanent underclass of poor people with low intelligence, and rich people with high intelligence. The net result would be a society where poor people were not only financially but ''genetically'' disadvantaged. Despite such a society being very meritocratic, there would be very little social mobility. Indeed, they believed that society was ''already'' segregating in this way, and that, because intelligence is so heavily genetic, social programs intended to make dumb people smart instead of catering to their needs (and abilities) were misguided. Ironically, this view of a future DystopianSociety was almost completely overlooked in favor of other controversy during discussion of their work.
* "The rich get richer, the poor get poorer". To grossly oversimplify, the rich can afford to take spare cash and invest it, gaining more cash. This cash can then be invested for even more cash. The poor struggle to meet their daily necessities - or, for the worst off, do not even succeed in doing so - and, barring external aid, and remain poor forever.poor. Even when they get external aid, the most common form is through a loan. If they can't capitalize on the loan well enough, they'll have to pay out debt on top of everything else. Laws can be created to stabilize this, but take a wild guess at what you need to get laws passed. Explored further in a Website/{{Cracked}} [[http://www.cracked.com/blog/5-things-nobody-tells-you-about-being-poor/ article]].



** Impoverished communities get a bad reputation in the news for criminal activity related to poverty. Businesses and people don't invest there, increasing poverty, and kids there get the idea that crime is "the norm" (even if the vast majority of people living there are not criminals), increasing crime.
** It doesn't help that poor people can be trapped in a vicious cycle of malnutrition and disease: they cannot afford enough food and medicine to stay fit for work, which, in turn, makes it harder to climb out of poverty.

to:

** Impoverished communities get a bad reputation in Communities with high crime rates discourage businesses from moving into the news for criminal activity related to poverty. Businesses and people don't invest there, area. This results in a lack of local jobs, increasing poverty, and kids there get the idea that crime is "the norm" (even if the vast majority local unemployment. Many of these unemployed people living there are not criminals), increasing believe society is stacked against them, and look up to local criminals as role models, leading to more crime.
** It doesn't help that *** Once the crime rates drop and the area becomes safe, gentrification often swiftly kicks in. This creates another cycle - because many poor people can rent their property rather than own it, once an area stops being awful, people will quickly move in and purchase the cheap real estate, then raise rents. The poor people in the area are unable to pay the rents and are instead replaced with better off people. The poor people now need to go find new housing, and will likely only be trapped able to afford to live in a vicious cycle of poor, crime-ridden area, putting them back where they started, just in a new location.
** Historically,
malnutrition and disease: they cannot disease were more common amongst poor people, who couldn't afford enough food and medicine to stay fit for feed themselves properly. This resulted in poor people being more likely to be unable to work, which, in turn, makes it harder to climb out of increasing their poverty.
This list shows the last 10 events of 191. Show all.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/article_history.php?article=Main.UnstableEquilibrium