Right but the way I took the meme was that you would roll until you get a 1, then deciding the next roll is the “real” one.

Ok. I know that this isn’t correct… But isn’t it?

If you’re having an unlimited number of rolls prior to your “real” roll, then you would be, in essence, creating a situation that has a statistically lower chance of happening.

I think my sticking point is that it’s not 30 of your coins, necessarily. This is probably where I’m going wrong, but I might only have 100 coins, but there’s a multitude of people that have 1,000 coins, and some still that have 10,000 coins.

I feel like I’m muddling up production/living standards and just plain wealth, but not every individual would need to give 30%. There would be a total amount equaling 30% that is re-allocated.

That is not my interpretation on the paper. It’s not taking 30% and spreading it. It’s we only ever needed to be making 30% of our total being reasonably distributed for everyone to reach those standards.

“Provisioning decent living standards (DLS) for 8.5 billion people would require only 30% of current global resource and energy use, leaving a substantial surplus for additional consumption, public luxury, scientific advancement, and other social investments.”

That is definitely not what is presented in what you quoted.

Out of our current productive capabilities (how much money is “created” if you want), we would only need 30% of it to get 8.5 billion people to a “decent living standard”.

That isnt a 30% reduction, it’s only needing to make 30% of what we already are doing.

How would you go about using a different subdomain without something like a reverse proxy? Heck, in my head that’s almost the only reason I use a reverse proxy

Just because I’m curious, is the fact that this is a “risky gamble” concerning to you? Or that a lawsuit such as this is expected to be drawn out, likely putting a large deterrent on less affluent victims from seeking justice?