Yup, that's usually what people who don't suffer from clinical depression usually say...."GET OVER IT".
I'm in the 9% of people who can use SAM-e to move from a depressive state to a hypomanic state. I spent 25 years not realizing I was depressed because I never hit baseline; alcohol actually shuts off the depression hard, putting me in a normalized state. Very small quantities of alcohol.
I eventually learned, through introspection, that the trigger was simple: any small problem causing an emotional slip had a limited finite range. Once below the shallow floor, I would fall continuously: a minor negative emotion would make me feel slightly down, while a slightly-less-minor negative emotion became an infinitely major negative emotion. It ran down, down, down the rabbit hole, propelled by its own means, outside my own action and violently opposed to my own grip of enforcement. A small shot of alcohol arrested this process for days: one ounce of rum and such negative feelings produced only a finite-bound feeling of negativity, at least for the next few days.
When I realized what was happening, when I framed it as such, I put a stop to it. For a while, I would recognize when the negative emotions started rolling away on their own, when they had hit the tipping point and gone into the descent to madness; I refused to allow them to do so, swallowing a knot of vomit-inducing depression and demanding my mind function on a rational basis, being quite capable of understanding where the emotions should have stopped even when I had no control over them. The very act stalled the collapse, failing to stop it but not letting it fall so fast toward infinity, and perhaps not so far.
These days I don't have such anxieties. Constant vigilance has reprogrammed my own internal understanding of emotional events. The mechanisms moderating my emotions now eschew the amplification behavior entirely; likewise, I have trained myself to have quite advanced deep-set anxiety management, and so am resistant to general anxiety on a subconscious level. In that respect, at least, I stand head-and-shoulders above most individuals, among an elite group of persons throughout history who have trained themselves to respond well when faced with anxiety; a mere side-effect of correcting the mechanism causing my clinical neurosis.
I am now trying to re-train my executive functions, because I never functioned well at baseline. Extreme depression somehow provided a better mental working environment; hypomania was also good. Without anxiety, I feel lethargic--no drive. There was a price to pay, but I will install new habits. My pattern of procrastination is both my own fault and a matter of physical brain chemistry, and the cure to my clinical laziness is simply to get over it and force myself to build new, corrected habits; whining that I have some internal issue with my brain won't get anything done, although I recognize the root cause of non-anxiety pathological procrastination--laziness--as a similar pathology to depression.
Humans enjoy making themselves helpless. It is an ancient trick: become an invalid to make yourself feel important, so that others will sympathize with you, and so that you can criticize those who do not sympathize with you. I have always hated the attentions of others; I respond poorly to praise and sympathy, and have tended to show others how simple all things are, and to hide my own pains and upsets to draw less attention. Perhaps this made it easier for me; my peers, however, have escaped their long troubles of anxiety in much the same way, and those who have not prefer to simply ignore all their previously-depressed friends in the same way alcoholics ignore their former drinking buddies, consistently doing no more than complain that they have problems none of us can understand--claiming that, obviously, we don't have the same problems, because we got better, and they have not. They simply desire their pathos.
Depression is so misunderstood because people with depression insist that they have an invisible disease they can't magically get over, and drug companies pander to this by hooking people on Xanax and Zoloft. In developed countries--outside of third-world United States--we routinely treat anxiety and depression with great success: drugs might handle the most serious symptoms up-front, but cognitive therapies provide the long-term changes. Essentially, a licensed psychiatrist talks to you a bunch, and trains you to GET OVER IT.
More specifically, a great deal of mood-driven and mind-driven mental disorders are caused or controllable by mental behaviors. You can improve on ADHD by training your executive functioning system to employ better self-monitoring, initiation, and inhibition, which gives you firm control over your attention system (this also makes normal people smarter); on the other hand, developing a habit of procrastination and distraction by immersing yourself in TV, video games, and Facebook will create ADHD-like behavior, which you can train out in the same way. Anxiety and depression, similarly, require training your self-monitoring and initiation systems to recognize negative thought behaviors (neurosis) and adjust them by limiting mood decay; we have also observed individuals falling into depression from high-stress, leading to anxiety, leading to depression. These major mental disorders can stem from internal issues or external pressures; in either case, the patient can only manage them by self-driven mental behavior management.
Small-business owners of course face a lot of stress. It's no surprise they become depressed and suicidal.
You still assert that inputting an encryption key into a process is massively complex. It's not like they're performing mathematical key scheduling by hand; they have to enter a fucking password, or provide a key file from a USB drive kept with the back-ups.
This is the bar you set: someone is going to be too stupid to insert USB dongle with key. Restoring back-ups with Amanda is no trivial task; it's not rocket surgery, but it's not "turn the computer on and smile". There will be instructions, tape ordering, direction of which data to restore where, etc. Bacula is a better package at least, but same deal: there's not a one-button DR. The only people who have one-button DR have pre-built warm sites ready to go at all times.
Ah, okay. It has actual weaknesses. I had for a long time only heard of protocol weaknesses: RC4 implemented without HMAC, with the key and IV scheduled a certain way, appending a nonce instead of hashing it, has many weaknesses; such statements are ridiculous, because everything implemented poorly has weaknesses (this is why we have key exchange protocols, and VPNs which generate a random RSA key per session and are thus completely insecure). It looks like RSA has some key recovery weaknesses you can't mitigate by a proper protocol.
No, I live in a country that's based around whiners and morons being whiners and morons. This kind of shit is where that comes from; unlike in the UK, where someone puts "Ramadan" next to a stack of bacon, and a Muslim goes, "Oh, that's funny," and nobody gets their panties in a twist. Here someone says fucking "eenie meenie minie moe" and gets sued for $3.5M.
How is this not their fault? They clearly didn't test their software properly.
They may have tested it with hundreds or thousands of photos available on Picasa and not had it tag anyone "Canus Lupus Homus Sapius Chimpanzeeus", and then released it and in a week had someone take a picture at their wedding and get tagged "Chimpanzees". If your face is hard, deeply-wrinkled, and sporting a bolt-on pair of enormous, leathery ears, it might tag you as a monkey; I think I've encountered exactly one person in my life who looked like that, so it's not surprising it'd miss him in testing. Maybe they're not Aerosmith or
Hm, so, you're saying if you wrote some software that has undesired, incorrect behavior that could easily be considered deeply insulting and someone told you about it or even-gasp-complained,
I would assume they're ridiculous. There's a difference between, "Oh, that's not quite right" and "OMG LOOK AT THIS HORRID! YOU MUST APOLERGIZE!" This is an unremarkable bug, not a sleight against anyone; an apology has no context, aside from patting someone on the head and placating them for being retards.
I'm sure that when a bad outcome comes about, despite your behavior and decision-making clearly having been perfect, your response will be polite and professional.
It might be, but it won't be an apology. When people start rallying and screaming on my Facebook page because 85% of people who watched Planet of the Apes also watched a Martin Luther King documentary and my auto-recommender paired "Martin Luther King: I Have a Dream" with "Planet of the Apes", I'm of course going to tell them they're all idiots.
Let's see, we'll do this completely-innocent thing, which is hard, but helps society. Suddenly, hard thing does some harmless,amusing, not-entirely-predicted thing, and people whine about it. OMG, LET'S LEGITIMIZE THEIR STUPIDITY AS A VALID OPINION!
No, you're admitting fault here for something that is NOT YOUR FAULT. You're admitting bad behavior and bad decisions for something that was good behavior and good decision-making, but produced a bad outcome.
THIS IS WHY WE HAVE SHIT SCHOOL SYSTEMS!!! If we have 60% success rate and improve the school system by broad, visible measures to give a better education and improve to an 85% success rate, 15% OF PEOPLE WILL CRY THAT OUR NEW EDUCATION SYSTEM FUCKED OVER THEIR KIDS! Someone will point to all the failures, create a collage, and claim we're totally incompetent!
The appropriate response to bitchwhining about this non-issue is to tell people to stop fucking whining.
Crimes of passion: by definition these cannot be deterred, a crime of passion is an emotional act done in the moment, it doesn't include any rational thought
False.
When you have a hard-on, why don't you sleep with a gay dude? What pushes you away when you have that emotional feeling of "I need to bone"? Something is embedded deep in your brain to reject that thought right out.
Inside the brain, all rational thought goes through the prefrontal cortex. This is where you reason. Actions flow through areas such as the basal ganglia, which associates memory together--smells, sounds, visual images, facts. Encountering facts conflicting with other facts shuts the PFC down and causes the Amygdala to power up, because the basal ganglia finds a conflict and attempts to avoid reconciliation (energy-demanding).
It's a lot more complex than just that; the short of it is that the brain employs many automatic reasoning centers. One such center is the reasoning of trained consequence: if you do X, some consequence Y will occur. Without thinking about it, you have a fear for your life if you commit a certain crime, because you will have this secret that threatens to tear away freedom or even life. This subconscious impulse overrides your other subconscious impulses until they become demanding enough to, in turn, override it.
This is why people are sharply against killing other people, yet will murder the fuck out of you if you try to kill their child, and then have a psychotic episode as they come to terms (poorly) with having killed someone. The immediate need overrides the other, more established feelings. A trained fear of state execution--created merely by its presence with a sharp lack of other ways you might die today--will intrude on emotional impulses to kill at all levels, right up until the impulse to kill carries such a powerful driver as to smash those other impulses flat.
That's because the price isn't "Costs plus a markup", it's "Whatever the market will bear"
"The Market" is the magical part. Price is absolutely not less than cost--you can't stay in business spending $1000 to build computers that you sell for $10, although strategic undercutting happens (10 million volume manufacturer sells at a loss to put 10 thousand volume manufacturer out of business), as well as loss-leader strategies (sell the coffee maker cheap; overcharge on the coffee).
Competition forces the price down to the former by giving the market a choice
Which means if you have the means to produce at a lower cost than any competitor, competition will not lower prices; indeed, you can undercut competition below their costs, driving them out of business.
That means competitive markets are strange beasts, especially with rising costs: if the producers charge $1000 for a product that costs $300, $500, and $700 to produce, rising costs can push you up to $350, $580, $820, and yet the price can stay around $1000 because Mr. $350 doesn't see a need to raise prices yet, and Mr. $820 is trying to cut his costs back by any means necessary. Soon Mr. $820 will have costs over $1000, and will sell his business to a competitor--Mr. $350 will have the most spare capital, and be able to make the best bid.
Let the $820 guy find out how to make shit for $500, and he might undercut the market in a bid to get more market share and attempt a hostile take-over of the $580 business. Maybe not. In any case, a fourth player can make the product for $1100, but market price is $1000, so he can't enter the market.
I was more framing to debate your "good" reasons. I have a car, but the new Mazda has a 10hp more powerful engine. Should I sell my Mazda 3 for $5000 and buy a new Mazda 3 for $21,000?
Well yes. People are insane, and have all kinds of ludicrous arguments, especially those which see the world as a single absolute. I often compare ghettos to suburbs in death penalty arguments: in the ghetto, so many murders and so much gang crime make it hard to investigate and identify murderers, and, besides, the murderers are like 99% likely to die by gang rival murder, and 1% likely to even get arrested by police for murder; whereas in suburbs, people aren't as exposed to crime, and reflect on themselves as criminals in terms of "the police will find me, and they will give me the chair", and so encode deep into the core of their subconscious that committing murder means death by state execution. People want to argue that human psychology doesn't contain any such thing that would identify, interpret, and react to the threat of execution for a crime, or that it's absolutely a deterrent.
I tend to ignore GDP as an indicator because it's utterly useless. My favorite indicator is AGI, and the best indicators are things like per-capita income and proportion of money spent on things. Even those distort: in the 70s, you made $13k and spent $7k on a car; in 2014, you made $65k and spent $32k on a brand new Camaro--that's less, 49% instead of 53%--yet the damn Camaro has a much-better-engineered engine, suspension, drive train, electronic stability control, satellite navigation system, five-DVD MP3 changer, built-in Spotify, etc. Not to mention people tend to measure cost of the car by amortization of aggregate car payment, maintenance, fuel, insurance, and so forth.
I've given the 15-paragraph explanation of wealth growth over time too many times. People respond mostly by freaking out or mis-interpreting it as supply-and-demand economics (it's not even vaguely supply-and-demand), because it's a god damn brand new theory, because historians have briefly commented on things like the Industrial Revolution without actually writing the damn pattern down. The above is the short of it, so you can work out the unifying theory of economics yourself and figure out why it's hard to measure economic growth and productivity. Bonus points if you suddenly understand why supply doesn't just increase, instead of price; why some markets overcharge huge mark-ups, and how competition does and doesn't control this; and what technical condition will occur if communism is suddenly the correct economic practice.
Aside from that, a one-time cash infusion does very little, kind of like if you drop off 500 pounds of rice to an Ethiopian and never feed him again.
Even the latest American jets had a hard time dog-fighting against the obsolete MIG-17.
This is why I said, up-thread, that we should consider perhaps that the F16 is superior, and that maybe we don't need to build new planes unless we're having trouble winning wars, since we used to have trouble fighting obviously-inferior MIG fighters 30 years out of date with our state-of-the-art hardware.
It sounds to me like our current crop of F16 fighters are superior. Why do we have a $1 trillion plane? I'm not saying it's a lot of money--it's only about $100bn every year, maybe less, for 10 years of development; and even $1 trillion right now one time wouldn't be a world-changing amount of money--but this is a lot of waste that could have gone elsewhere, for no obvious purpose. Somebody said, "We need better planes!", and I question why, when we have such fantastic planes, and when historical wars included clearly-inferior planes like MIG fighters wiping the floor with models three decades more up-to-date.
Drone pilots are actually burning out due to extreme crisis of conscious issues. They work 9-5 killing people, then go home to their families; they're not living in a constructed fantasy of good versus evil fueled by the fact that other people are living in the same fantasy and mutually trying to kill you under the impression that you're the invader. They see themselves as terrible assassins, not righteous heroes fighting a murderous enemy.
Slashdot Mirror
Yup, that's usually what people who don't suffer from clinical depression usually say...."GET OVER IT".
I'm in the 9% of people who can use SAM-e to move from a depressive state to a hypomanic state. I spent 25 years not realizing I was depressed because I never hit baseline; alcohol actually shuts off the depression hard, putting me in a normalized state. Very small quantities of alcohol.
I eventually learned, through introspection, that the trigger was simple: any small problem causing an emotional slip had a limited finite range. Once below the shallow floor, I would fall continuously: a minor negative emotion would make me feel slightly down, while a slightly-less-minor negative emotion became an infinitely major negative emotion. It ran down, down, down the rabbit hole, propelled by its own means, outside my own action and violently opposed to my own grip of enforcement. A small shot of alcohol arrested this process for days: one ounce of rum and such negative feelings produced only a finite-bound feeling of negativity, at least for the next few days.
When I realized what was happening, when I framed it as such, I put a stop to it. For a while, I would recognize when the negative emotions started rolling away on their own, when they had hit the tipping point and gone into the descent to madness; I refused to allow them to do so, swallowing a knot of vomit-inducing depression and demanding my mind function on a rational basis, being quite capable of understanding where the emotions should have stopped even when I had no control over them. The very act stalled the collapse, failing to stop it but not letting it fall so fast toward infinity, and perhaps not so far.
These days I don't have such anxieties. Constant vigilance has reprogrammed my own internal understanding of emotional events. The mechanisms moderating my emotions now eschew the amplification behavior entirely; likewise, I have trained myself to have quite advanced deep-set anxiety management, and so am resistant to general anxiety on a subconscious level. In that respect, at least, I stand head-and-shoulders above most individuals, among an elite group of persons throughout history who have trained themselves to respond well when faced with anxiety; a mere side-effect of correcting the mechanism causing my clinical neurosis.
I am now trying to re-train my executive functions, because I never functioned well at baseline. Extreme depression somehow provided a better mental working environment; hypomania was also good. Without anxiety, I feel lethargic--no drive. There was a price to pay, but I will install new habits. My pattern of procrastination is both my own fault and a matter of physical brain chemistry, and the cure to my clinical laziness is simply to get over it and force myself to build new, corrected habits; whining that I have some internal issue with my brain won't get anything done, although I recognize the root cause of non-anxiety pathological procrastination--laziness--as a similar pathology to depression.
Humans enjoy making themselves helpless. It is an ancient trick: become an invalid to make yourself feel important, so that others will sympathize with you, and so that you can criticize those who do not sympathize with you. I have always hated the attentions of others; I respond poorly to praise and sympathy, and have tended to show others how simple all things are, and to hide my own pains and upsets to draw less attention. Perhaps this made it easier for me; my peers, however, have escaped their long troubles of anxiety in much the same way, and those who have not prefer to simply ignore all their previously-depressed friends in the same way alcoholics ignore their former drinking buddies, consistently doing no more than complain that they have problems none of us can understand--claiming that, obviously, we don't have the same problems, because we got better, and they have not. They simply desire their pathos.
Depression is so misunderstood because people with depression insist that they have an invisible disease they can't magically get over, and drug companies pander to this by hooking people on Xanax and Zoloft. In developed countries--outside of third-world United States--we routinely treat anxiety and depression with great success: drugs might handle the most serious symptoms up-front, but cognitive therapies provide the long-term changes. Essentially, a licensed psychiatrist talks to you a bunch, and trains you to GET OVER IT.
More specifically, a great deal of mood-driven and mind-driven mental disorders are caused or controllable by mental behaviors. You can improve on ADHD by training your executive functioning system to employ better self-monitoring, initiation, and inhibition, which gives you firm control over your attention system (this also makes normal people smarter); on the other hand, developing a habit of procrastination and distraction by immersing yourself in TV, video games, and Facebook will create ADHD-like behavior, which you can train out in the same way. Anxiety and depression, similarly, require training your self-monitoring and initiation systems to recognize negative thought behaviors (neurosis) and adjust them by limiting mood decay; we have also observed individuals falling into depression from high-stress, leading to anxiety, leading to depression. These major mental disorders can stem from internal issues or external pressures; in either case, the patient can only manage them by self-driven mental behavior management.
Small-business owners of course face a lot of stress. It's no surprise they become depressed and suicidal.
As if sniviling sycophants actually get anywhere in life.
You still assert that inputting an encryption key into a process is massively complex. It's not like they're performing mathematical key scheduling by hand; they have to enter a fucking password, or provide a key file from a USB drive kept with the back-ups.
This is the bar you set: someone is going to be too stupid to insert USB dongle with key. Restoring back-ups with Amanda is no trivial task; it's not rocket surgery, but it's not "turn the computer on and smile". There will be instructions, tape ordering, direction of which data to restore where, etc. Bacula is a better package at least, but same deal: there's not a one-button DR. The only people who have one-button DR have pre-built warm sites ready to go at all times.
Ah, okay. It has actual weaknesses. I had for a long time only heard of protocol weaknesses: RC4 implemented without HMAC, with the key and IV scheduled a certain way, appending a nonce instead of hashing it, has many weaknesses; such statements are ridiculous, because everything implemented poorly has weaknesses (this is why we have key exchange protocols, and VPNs which generate a random RSA key per session and are thus completely insecure). It looks like RSA has some key recovery weaknesses you can't mitigate by a proper protocol.
No, I live in a country that's based around whiners and morons being whiners and morons. This kind of shit is where that comes from; unlike in the UK, where someone puts "Ramadan" next to a stack of bacon, and a Muslim goes, "Oh, that's funny," and nobody gets their panties in a twist. Here someone says fucking "eenie meenie minie moe" and gets sued for $3.5M.
How is this not their fault? They clearly didn't test their software properly.
They may have tested it with hundreds or thousands of photos available on Picasa and not had it tag anyone "Canus Lupus Homus Sapius Chimpanzeeus", and then released it and in a week had someone take a picture at their wedding and get tagged "Chimpanzees". If your face is hard, deeply-wrinkled, and sporting a bolt-on pair of enormous, leathery ears, it might tag you as a monkey; I think I've encountered exactly one person in my life who looked like that, so it's not surprising it'd miss him in testing. Maybe they're not Aerosmith or
Hm, so, you're saying if you wrote some software that has undesired, incorrect behavior that could easily be considered deeply insulting and someone told you about it or even-gasp-complained,
I would assume they're ridiculous. There's a difference between, "Oh, that's not quite right" and "OMG LOOK AT THIS HORRID! YOU MUST APOLERGIZE!" This is an unremarkable bug, not a sleight against anyone; an apology has no context, aside from patting someone on the head and placating them for being retards.
I'm sure that when a bad outcome comes about, despite your behavior and decision-making clearly having been perfect, your response will be polite and professional.
It might be, but it won't be an apology. When people start rallying and screaming on my Facebook page because 85% of people who watched Planet of the Apes also watched a Martin Luther King documentary and my auto-recommender paired "Martin Luther King: I Have a Dream" with "Planet of the Apes", I'm of course going to tell them they're all idiots.
This is kind of like being hit in the arm by a baseball as you are walking by your neighbor's yard.
It's kind of like being hit in the arm by a baseball THAT YOU IMAGINED, BUT WHICH DOESN'T ACTUALLY EXIST, as you are walking by your neighbor's yard.
Atonement for someone else being a whiny little bitch with nothing better to complain about *throws pencils*
Let's see, we'll do this completely-innocent thing, which is hard, but helps society. Suddenly, hard thing does some harmless,amusing, not-entirely-predicted thing, and people whine about it. OMG, LET'S LEGITIMIZE THEIR STUPIDITY AS A VALID OPINION!
No, you're admitting fault here for something that is NOT YOUR FAULT. You're admitting bad behavior and bad decisions for something that was good behavior and good decision-making, but produced a bad outcome.
THIS IS WHY WE HAVE SHIT SCHOOL SYSTEMS!!! If we have 60% success rate and improve the school system by broad, visible measures to give a better education and improve to an 85% success rate, 15% OF PEOPLE WILL CRY THAT OUR NEW EDUCATION SYSTEM FUCKED OVER THEIR KIDS! Someone will point to all the failures, create a collage, and claim we're totally incompetent!
The appropriate response to bitchwhining about this non-issue is to tell people to stop fucking whining.
In corner A:
Or you could just swap to elliptic curve DH and avoid the hassle of staying on top of all that mess.
In corner B:
And it prefers ECDHE over DHE per default, despite all TLS Elliptic Curves being unsafe.
Someone explain how RC4 is broken. I thought the issues were highly sensitive to environment, notably weak IVs.
Uh, it shouldn't support SSL at all. SSL is an insecure protocol which, by modern web standards, should not be used ever; TLS is the current protocol.
Crimes of passion: by definition these cannot be deterred, a crime of passion is an emotional act done in the moment, it doesn't include any rational thought
False.
When you have a hard-on, why don't you sleep with a gay dude? What pushes you away when you have that emotional feeling of "I need to bone"? Something is embedded deep in your brain to reject that thought right out.
Inside the brain, all rational thought goes through the prefrontal cortex. This is where you reason. Actions flow through areas such as the basal ganglia, which associates memory together--smells, sounds, visual images, facts. Encountering facts conflicting with other facts shuts the PFC down and causes the Amygdala to power up, because the basal ganglia finds a conflict and attempts to avoid reconciliation (energy-demanding).
It's a lot more complex than just that; the short of it is that the brain employs many automatic reasoning centers. One such center is the reasoning of trained consequence: if you do X, some consequence Y will occur. Without thinking about it, you have a fear for your life if you commit a certain crime, because you will have this secret that threatens to tear away freedom or even life. This subconscious impulse overrides your other subconscious impulses until they become demanding enough to, in turn, override it.
This is why people are sharply against killing other people, yet will murder the fuck out of you if you try to kill their child, and then have a psychotic episode as they come to terms (poorly) with having killed someone. The immediate need overrides the other, more established feelings. A trained fear of state execution--created merely by its presence with a sharp lack of other ways you might die today--will intrude on emotional impulses to kill at all levels, right up until the impulse to kill carries such a powerful driver as to smash those other impulses flat.
Deterrent doesn't mean a 100% cure.
GTA5 people aren't real people on the other end. Doom 2 people respawn.
Wouldn't work. Hyperinflation, economic collapse, and wide-spread poverty.
That's because the price isn't "Costs plus a markup", it's "Whatever the market will bear"
"The Market" is the magical part. Price is absolutely not less than cost--you can't stay in business spending $1000 to build computers that you sell for $10, although strategic undercutting happens (10 million volume manufacturer sells at a loss to put 10 thousand volume manufacturer out of business), as well as loss-leader strategies (sell the coffee maker cheap; overcharge on the coffee).
Competition forces the price down to the former by giving the market a choice
Which means if you have the means to produce at a lower cost than any competitor, competition will not lower prices; indeed, you can undercut competition below their costs, driving them out of business.
That means competitive markets are strange beasts, especially with rising costs: if the producers charge $1000 for a product that costs $300, $500, and $700 to produce, rising costs can push you up to $350, $580, $820, and yet the price can stay around $1000 because Mr. $350 doesn't see a need to raise prices yet, and Mr. $820 is trying to cut his costs back by any means necessary. Soon Mr. $820 will have costs over $1000, and will sell his business to a competitor--Mr. $350 will have the most spare capital, and be able to make the best bid.
Let the $820 guy find out how to make shit for $500, and he might undercut the market in a bid to get more market share and attempt a hostile take-over of the $580 business. Maybe not. In any case, a fourth player can make the product for $1100, but market price is $1000, so he can't enter the market.
I was more framing to debate your "good" reasons. I have a car, but the new Mazda has a 10hp more powerful engine. Should I sell my Mazda 3 for $5000 and buy a new Mazda 3 for $21,000?
Well yes. People are insane, and have all kinds of ludicrous arguments, especially those which see the world as a single absolute. I often compare ghettos to suburbs in death penalty arguments: in the ghetto, so many murders and so much gang crime make it hard to investigate and identify murderers, and, besides, the murderers are like 99% likely to die by gang rival murder, and 1% likely to even get arrested by police for murder; whereas in suburbs, people aren't as exposed to crime, and reflect on themselves as criminals in terms of "the police will find me, and they will give me the chair", and so encode deep into the core of their subconscious that committing murder means death by state execution. People want to argue that human psychology doesn't contain any such thing that would identify, interpret, and react to the threat of execution for a crime, or that it's absolutely a deterrent.
Ludicrous people are ludicrous.
Until it's invisible, it's not impossible to detect.
I tend to ignore GDP as an indicator because it's utterly useless. My favorite indicator is AGI, and the best indicators are things like per-capita income and proportion of money spent on things. Even those distort: in the 70s, you made $13k and spent $7k on a car; in 2014, you made $65k and spent $32k on a brand new Camaro--that's less, 49% instead of 53%--yet the damn Camaro has a much-better-engineered engine, suspension, drive train, electronic stability control, satellite navigation system, five-DVD MP3 changer, built-in Spotify, etc. Not to mention people tend to measure cost of the car by amortization of aggregate car payment, maintenance, fuel, insurance, and so forth.
I've given the 15-paragraph explanation of wealth growth over time too many times. People respond mostly by freaking out or mis-interpreting it as supply-and-demand economics (it's not even vaguely supply-and-demand), because it's a god damn brand new theory, because historians have briefly commented on things like the Industrial Revolution without actually writing the damn pattern down. The above is the short of it, so you can work out the unifying theory of economics yourself and figure out why it's hard to measure economic growth and productivity. Bonus points if you suddenly understand why supply doesn't just increase, instead of price; why some markets overcharge huge mark-ups, and how competition does and doesn't control this; and what technical condition will occur if communism is suddenly the correct economic practice.
Aside from that, a one-time cash infusion does very little, kind of like if you drop off 500 pounds of rice to an Ethiopian and never feed him again.
Even the latest American jets had a hard time dog-fighting against the obsolete MIG-17.
This is why I said, up-thread, that we should consider perhaps that the F16 is superior, and that maybe we don't need to build new planes unless we're having trouble winning wars, since we used to have trouble fighting obviously-inferior MIG fighters 30 years out of date with our state-of-the-art hardware.
It sounds to me like our current crop of F16 fighters are superior. Why do we have a $1 trillion plane? I'm not saying it's a lot of money--it's only about $100bn every year, maybe less, for 10 years of development; and even $1 trillion right now one time wouldn't be a world-changing amount of money--but this is a lot of waste that could have gone elsewhere, for no obvious purpose. Somebody said, "We need better planes!", and I question why, when we have such fantastic planes, and when historical wars included clearly-inferior planes like MIG fighters wiping the floor with models three decades more up-to-date.
Drone pilots are actually burning out due to extreme crisis of conscious issues. They work 9-5 killing people, then go home to their families; they're not living in a constructed fantasy of good versus evil fueled by the fact that other people are living in the same fantasy and mutually trying to kill you under the impression that you're the invader. They see themselves as terrible assassins, not righteous heroes fighting a murderous enemy.