Yes and/but you might be interested to know these things about the “Tragedy of the Commons”:

Elinor Ostrom, awarded the Nobel Prize in Economics in 2009, fundamentally challenged the “tragedy of the commons” theory, which Garrett Hardin popularized in 1968. Hardin’s theory argued that shared resources—like grazing land or fisheries—inevitably suffer from overuse because each user, acting in self-interest, seeks to maximize personal gain. Without external regulation or privatization, Hardin claimed, such resources would degrade irreparably.

Ostrom’s work provided a different perspective based on extensive field research across diverse communities managing shared resources, such as forests in Nepal and fisheries in Turkey. Through these studies, she found that local groups often developed effective, self-governing systems to sustain and share resources equitably. Ostrom identified eight core principles, such as clear resource boundaries, community-devised rules, local monitoring, and graduated sanctions for rule violations, which contribute to sustainable communal resource management. By documenting these successful cases, she demonstrated that, under certain conditions, communities could avoid the “tragedy” without privatization or top-down control.

Ostrom’s insights reshaped economic thinking by showing that cooperation, rather than competition alone, could lead to sustainable resource use. Her findings emphasize that real-world communities often solve commons problems through trust, local knowledge, and shared governance, challenging the idea that only private ownership or government intervention can manage common resources effectively. Ostrom’s approach has since inspired policies and frameworks for resource management across environmental, urban, and even space governance contexts, as her principles underscore the potential of collective, decentralized solutions to common-pool problems.

Her work offers an empowering view of human capacity for self-organization, contradicting the inevitability of Hardin’s “tragedy” and suggesting new possibilities for addressing global commons issues like climate change and biodiversity loss. This impact has encouraged rethinking in fields ranging from political science to ecology and economics.

Sources:

• Inside Story, “The not-so-tragic commons”

• Resilience, “The Victory of the Commons”

• Space Foundation, “The Commons Solution”

There is no outrage left

This really hit me. As in maybe it explains some things since the internet was created. It’s indeed so hard to keep up.

Cousin works for Reuters. Fuck them. “Centrist” or “”unbiased”” means fucking dogshit, at least to me, these days.

Lemmy’s final boss…

Then again, Lemmy and ActivityPub are (by design) wide open to anyone, including TenCent

God fucking dammit we really have to start predicting whatever almost-plausible-with-AI bullshit the far right is going to try to take advantage of while possible

They once did a good thing that one time - and were American, at that moment at least. -Ish.

Rings a bell and mostly answers my question, kinda sorry to say

I wonder if world class mathematicians have a much better grasp of it — and yet fail to use their expertise to point out the absurdity of the current wealth inequality

Or do even they, world class mathematicians, not really ‘grasp’ it in this wildly important and urgent sense.

And do not miss https://github.com/MKorostoff/1-pixel-wealth/blob/master/THE_PAPER_BILLIONAIRE.md

Love this guy’s work

Holy fucking shit, Accuweather?! TIL

Just learned this is Usha Vance, I think? Would explain some things… (JD Vance said his wife is a “corporate litigator” or something like that, in the recent US Vice Presidential debate)

If Zucman is a fan, this is great news indeed. A 25% minimum tax on billionaire wealth sounds great, and with broad support, as the article notes (even 51% of Republicans).

Much better news, too, for those of us who only saw this part reported on til now:

The campaign spokesperson called the move—which would still leave the corporate tax rate lower than it was when Trump first took office in 2017—a “fiscally responsible way to put money back in the pockets of working people and ensure billionaires and big corporations pay their fair share.” (emphasis mine)

IIRC, the corporate tax rate was slashed by Trump from 30-something percent, maybe 35%, to something like 18%, so to see that Harris was not interested in reversing this Trump tax cut fully (only to 25%) felt til now like yet another depressing instance of the ratchet effect, where the right does what they do, and neoliberals only undo part of it when they are in power.

Is it me or is there something very facile and dull about Gartner charts? Thinking especially about the “””magic””” quadrants one (wow, you ranked competitors in some area along TWO axes!), but even this chart feels like such a mundane observation that it seems like frankly undeserved advertising for Gartner, again, given how little it actually says.

Because it’s Zach Beauchamp and he essentially hates the left.

I know everyone is giving you tidy, case-solving “it’s-always-like-this” responses, but indeed you are on to something.

Let the anti-anti corporate work begin (Walz and Harris being the [somewhat] anti-corporate).

Lmao, Silver is equating a Walz pick to a TIM KAINE pick.

I’m sorry, I can’t read any further with sooo much cope.

Is it? I am ready to believe it is, but i guess i was hoping headlines about passing the court

Agreed with “fuck Oracle,” but isn’t the JVM the same regardless of where you compile it, Linux or something else?

Something seems off with the idea of a conflict between Linux and Java (and I am no fan of Java!)

GIMP is fucking awesome what are you on about

I want her to listen to climate experts

Yep!

public health experts

Yep!

economic experts

You lost me.

Economics is just political economy somehow supposedly divorced from politics.

The economics Nobel prize is not even a “real” Nobel prize. No kidding, look it up.