Jiao Bu

Karma: 271

Jiao Bu 4 Mar 2025 15:05 UTC
1 point
0
in reply to: ymeskhout’s comment on: How to Corner Liars: A Miasma-Clearing Protocol
There’s still a principle I feel needs addressed. An authority figure (or at least someone who is supposed to be my ally) seems to be turning up the heat, adding pressure, escalating, questioning my veracity, fishing around for lies. And in that situation, evasive, defensive (possibly offense as a defense) and justifying tactics could be a natural response for the innocent.
Simply put, how do you make useful distinctions within that?

Jiao Bu 28 Feb 2025 14:14 UTC
12 points
1
on: How to Corner Liars: A Miasma-Clearing Protocol
I am having some difficulty that Jake may not have eaten the pastries and may not know what happened. But the adversarial situation asks him to somehow solve a puzzle he had no hand in creating. How do you deal with the fact that ‘turning up heat’ like this pretty much begs for speculation anyway?
As soon as I imagine an actually innocent Jake in this situation, his next line is, “Chocolate does not make all dogs sick, nor necessarily consistently do so. For that matter, a friend of Gillian’s could have stopped by or something. I don’t know, I was in my room playing video games.”

Jiao Bu 10 Feb 2025 18:42 UTC
3 points
0
in reply to: Kaj_Sotala’s comment on: How identical twin sisters feel about nieces vs their own daughters
Relevant information might include whether mothers sometimes have differing degrees of care for each of their own daughters. I am guessing without looking that there are studies indicating favorites can exist among equally-genetically-related-to-oneself children, also breaking the strong link to “caring in proportion to their genetic similarity to you.”

Jiao Bu 1 Feb 2025 1:53 UTC
4 points
0
on: Defense Against the Dark Prompts: Mitigating Best-of-N Jailbreaking with Prompt Evaluation
Any information on false positive rates?

Jiao Bu 2 Nov 2024 19:09 UTC
19 points
11
on: Dentistry, Oral Surgeons, and the Inefficiency of Small Markets
Quality in dentistry has been going down. The custom work of crowns, quality of fillings, and etc, have been going by the wayside for cheaper options that the consumer doesn’t grok the downstream expenses of. Generally the chain dentists don’t even present options. I found this out recently after getting some miracle filling that just seems so easy and cheap as “technology has improved” but I would have happily paid for gold or amalgam and a more professional job. Hadn’t had one in about 28 years, so I took their sales pitch as fact. I also understand that Crowns are similar, and vary in expected lifetime, quality, etc. I made a contact in the industry who actually runs a shop making them, but she informs me the industry is running the other way, towards cheap and will need replacements down the road.
But on the business side, the “Blue Oceans” Strategy (see the book) of removing options, cutting cost, removing details, and making off with a ton of cash like Yellowtail Winery is an easy sell. It’s just that with eyes, teeth, my body, etc, I would prefer a different model. It’s hard to be educated enough for all to be caveat emptor and up to recently I at least trusted a dentist when I walk in. Now I don’t even know how to buy quality or who to trust.

Jiao Bu 2 Nov 2024 19:04 UTC
1 point
0
in reply to: RamblinDash’s comment on: Dentistry, Oral Surgeons, and the Inefficiency of Small Markets
Interesting case. Are there other cases where VC-run businesses have similar issues, perhaps in other industries? I would like to see and understand a pattern if possible.

Jiao Bu 4 Aug 2024 18:19 UTC
1 point
0
in reply to: Gordon Seidoh Worley’s comment on: Can UBI overcome inflation and rent seeking?
>UBI may reasonably give people at the bottom of the market sufficient money to become participants.

The incentive is still going to drive a businessperson to come up with a way to take that money from those people (as it is now). So the rent seeking could expand to include something like slum-lording trailer parks in areas which are even further from possible employment, potentially locking those residents into a radius where no one around does anything but pot and video games.
Meanwhile, since there is more money available to the middle classes, can’t I just sell/rent them a house with more bells and whistles? Maybe they’re discerning customers with an extra thousand dollars, so we build the house on 16“ centers again instead of 20” and sell them their new, wonderful, higher-quality lifestyle. Or maybe we just put a thousand dollar countertop on the same crummy house.
Or is something more fundamentally changed by UBI in the basic system underlying rent-seeking and inflation (in essence, the dynamics of capitalism)? To me, rent-seeking is only a specific incarnation of that greater dynamic of exploiting whatever source of income you can by whatever advantage you have within the system to take money from whoever can and will give it to you, and not as distinct as people make it out to be. The only thing UBI fundamentally changes in this equation is who can render funds, and how much they can render.

Jiao Bu 4 Aug 2024 16:35 UTC
6 points
1
in reply to: Adele Lopez’s comment on: Dragon Agnosticism
This is probably true in an internal sense, where one needs to be self-honest. It might be very difficult to understand when any conscious person other than you was doing this, and it might be dicey to judge even in yourself. Especially given the finiteness of human attention.
In my personal life, I have spent recent months studying. Did I emotionally turn away from some things in the middle of this, so that to an outside observer I might have looked like I was burying my head or averting my eyes? Sure. Was I doing that or was I setting boundaries? I guess even if you lived in my head at that time, it could be hard to know. Maybe my obsessive studying itself is an avoidance. In the end, I know what I intended, but that’s about it. That’s often all we get, even from the inside.
So while I agree with you, I’m not sure exactly when we should cease to be agnostic about parsing that difference. Maybe it’s something we can only hold it as an ideal, complimentary to striving for Truth, basically?

Jiao Bu 4 Aug 2024 16:16 UTC
2 points
0
in reply to: kromem’s comment on: Dragon Agnosticism
It’s also possible that an opposing effect happens where your shouting into the void about dragons connects in some vague way with my belief in the Ilithids, which I then end up coopting your dragon evidence into my own agenda. Especially if you find anything close to material evidence. Heck, your material evidence for dragons now gives all kinds of creedance to Ilithids, beholders, gnomes, and all sorts. So the gnome people and everyone else is now coming out of the woodwork to amplify your work on dragons. And I think this would be regardless of the specific nuances your attribute to dragons. I would expect those nuances to get smooshed in the fray to cite your once-and-for-all-proving-dragons strategy.
I mean, if Pons and Fleischmann was true, for example, I bet it would get trotted out with all kinds of half-baked theories on free energy, along with Tesla’s name. And the reason I’m making this bet is because these already do get trotted out into such discussions.
(Not that I would ever read those reports or have done any such research into repressed Pons and Fleischmann evidence or Ilithid conspiracies)

Jiao Bu 1 Aug 2024 6:35 UTC
1 point
−3
on: Can UBI overcome inflation and rent seeking?
If I am a lending shark, I will lend more predatorily to people under a UBI regime, even if that income is protected. It changes the risk management calculations towards “they now have more ways to figure out a way to pay before going bankrupt” and “after bankruptcy pool of money I can extract is higher.” Again, maybe you’ve technically protected UBI, but I can surely garnish wages in either case, pressuring them to give me as much as they can. People can miraculously make money appear when you squeeze them, and now I know there’s more there to squeeze them for in every case.
People with protected savings often raid that. I will count on the “raid the IRA” effect, but with people for whom that money wasn’t earned, and they don’t culturally have the tendency to want to protect it. And anyway, you can only file bankruptcy once in seven years, and I can get more blood in the interim. In essence, I’ll redo all my risk management calculations on how far I press this because now you have two choices, you’re either going to be dirt poor—nothing but UBI and quit your job and live in the gutter, or else you’re going to “magically make some money happen” to get me off your back.
My guess is this dynamic screws over people just above the poorest, and deep into the middle.
Look, I personally find all that distasteful. I won’t even buy Altria stock. But I expect a flourishing of those businesses in a UBI regime, and they will prey upon many who UBI is trying to help. That and the increased inflation, I think the middle poor and the lower middle classes will get really screwed by the whole thing in the end. Basically the people who work and struggle, whom UBI most wishes to help.

Kind of adjacent: Add in investment scams targeting the undereducated, and lots of toys to decorate trailers. I would expect Sony, Nintendo, etc stock to go up (GME, LOL), and Altria as well due to the additional pot sales. The “Video games and drugs” class will expand fast, because UBI will not likely be enough to do anything actually interesting.
I think it’s a step that has to happen and will happen. The writing is probably on the wall that we’re going to enter a very redistributive regime in the USA. But I am not optimistic about it until we’re at near Star Trek levels of Universal Wealth.

Jiao Bu 1 Aug 2024 6:20 UTC
1 point
0
in reply to: Radford Neal’s comment on: Can UBI overcome inflation and rent seeking?
I don’t think higher income people are spending as much %% of their money on goods and services, so everyday goods and services may not be protected as much from the “printing money” effect. Much of the shift in those prices comes from the increased spending power on the bottom margin, as the rich already have all the food and such they want anyway.
If you’re already using that money to invest in stocks, then UBI probably inflates basic good prices (as it gives the lower income brackets more money and additionally reduces the labor supply to make them, as we saw in 2020 it might not take much to shake that out of balance). So it’s inflationary on labor. It seems inflationary on markets as the mid-end will buy stocks (again, see 2020), so we get higher interest rates, which again prices the lower end consumers out of the market for houses, cars, and such. My guess is this further destroys anyone in the middle.

Jiao Bu 19 Jul 2024 15:49 UTC
3 points
2
in reply to: Richard_Kennaway’s comment on: Friendship is transactional, unconditional friendship is insurance
In addition to what you have said here, you cannot save up your time. It’s questionable if you can save up your pats on the back (which you might just as well give away very liberally, and your reward could be as simple as the meaning or help it created for someone else). Perhaps you can save your attention, but usually that is going to be between you and your work and internet/media habits more than human interaction habits.
There could be some extreme cases where someone is hogging an undue level of time and attention (and at that point, you need to set boundaries as the issue likely lies within you as much as your friend). Which segues into, I think the whole point OP is missing, “It takes two to tango.” There’s something complex in the interaction between two people. If it was “worthwhile” or “you got something out of it” it is often due to the influence of your own actions, words, reality field as much as anything they willfully “did” or “did not do.” And if it seemed like a waste of time, well, at least 50% of that interaction was you!
Your statement “The things that are given in a friendship are things that when you give them, you still have them. This is unlike buying a loaf of bread, where I am little concerned to support the baker, nor he me.” is correct. To reach a little further into it, likely looking at things transactionally will skew human interactions in a specific direction, self-selecting for other people and interactions of a certain type. Strangely, for the person who believes in transactional human interactions, I suspect due to that skewing, looking back it will appear that their perspective was “correct.” Transactionalism being a kind of self-reinforcing or even self-feeding pattern.
I think this might be akin to the conversational results that would be achieved in social interactions between a habit of steelmanning vs strawmanning. In steelmanning, you would understand things better, but also in my experience you can draw out the best of the other person’s thinking, intentions, etc. The entire interaction typically changes. Especially if you are talking to someone from an otherwise embattled group. Often they drop the whole thing after awhile and you’re talking to another human with about the same needs, wants, and motives as any other decent person, and there’s something to connect to.
As you said, paying of attention and pats on the back in a transactional way seems dysfunctional. But it’s also selective for partners who themselves are either very transactive or very giving. It’s likely someone could leave ten years of doing it that way thinking they were “right.” And if all you care about is one level of tangible results, it might be “an effective strategy.” It’s only a partial analogy, but just like the ideologue who goes around looking for every hole and inconsistency in dissenting views (the highbrow version of strawmanning) will have been “right” about all those idiots out there.

Jiao Bu 16 Jul 2024 2:54 UTC
1 point
0
in reply to: bhauth’s comment on: Ice: The Penultimate Frontier
Does this vary on market at large scale as it does for medium scale? USA vs Asia, for example was 2-3x difference in price in concrete 10 years ago.

Jiao Bu 15 Jul 2024 10:53 UTC
1 point
0
on: Ice: The Penultimate Frontier
Wouldn’t it be easier to use a platform anchored in the ocean somewhere? If there’s some law that it technically needs to have “land” you could dredge some sand like the Chinese did in their reclamation projects. Have a carrier-sized piece of land (and turn that into your central park) and build everything else on elevated platforms.
Yes you have to spend a lot to maintain that structure and surface, but I am still not convinced the ice structures require any less work to maintain.
Getting land somewhere else is still probably easier and cheaper. Have you looked into Svalbard? Are there any places that have notoriously sleepy governments and you could just make a compound there and do your experimental society? This ice structure thing seems pretty capital intensive, which makes me think buying land is still a better bang-for-the-buck.

Jiao Bu 1 Jul 2024 0:45 UTC
4 points
2
in reply to: Jiro’s comment on: I would have shit in that alley, too
“You didn’t commit extra crimes, but it requires more resources to protect you from crimes. (And again, since you are a single person, the extra resources get lost in the noise. But if many people did this, there would be more crime.)”

Is me creating an opportunity for someone to commit a crime constitute my doing something bad to the commons or is it on the actual criminals? It seems you are quite literally blaming (potential) victims for their drag on society. Doesn’t 100% of the responsibility for that, and whatever costs are incurred lie with those who would do the crimes?

The rest of it, about shoplifting, seems hard to connect, as no one is advocating doing something illegal. I think what I said above about creating slack is less speculative than you are making it out to be (especially given many of the real conditions, as I pointed out above).

To try and do justice to the rest of your post… are you saying that people would just see someone riding around the island, camping outside as a public nuisance, basically, and dislike it, so therefore it shouldn’t be done?

(A) What would balance the “dislike” concern? I give you credit that you do not believe we should infinitely defer to the possibility that society would find a set of actions distasteful. I guess it is correct that a few frowns if someone found out I was sleeping in a Hammock in the woods might matter, though we don’t also know who would think it was cool. FWIW, old people walking on the mountain trails some mornings who saw me camping out usually smiled and said “Oh, ni li hai!” (“You are very capable” which is normally a compliment). So how much deference do we owe to what amounts to speculations of distaste?

(B) A lot of the objection also seems to revolve around speculation that “if more people did this, a cascade of bad outcomes would happen.” I think this is resolvable to (1) apparently there is systemic equilibrium in that most other people empirically do not choose to do this (and those who have no choice are a separate problem where everything we are saying is basically moot, the discussion would be a completely different one) and (2) your speculations that outcomes should be bad still seems to have at most equal footing to my speculations that it should be good or neutral.

So what level of deference do we owe to speculations of bad outcomes in the contra-factual case if my behavior somehow caught on with more people and they did what I am doing?

(C) Normal cases of destroying the commons usually require that the equilibrium of people choosing to do something tends towards overwhelming the common resource. In the USA, you see signs and ordinances trying to stop people from sleeping outside, so that equilibrium is currently out of balance (and most of those people do not have a choice). Without evidence, is there even any reason for me not to assume the system in Taiwan is currently in a functional and fine equilibrium at whatever number of people do what I was doing?

(TL;DR: D) I still think there may be something inside what you are saying that “Systems are designed on a set of assumptions, and this constitutes the social contract. Violating those assumptions always produces an unexpected systemic draw.” As a systems engineer, I find this line of thinking intriguing. What I would guess is actually happening is there are many different forms of such draws. Most look different to mine, and look different to each other, but indeed, each stepping out of bounds of systemic assumptions and legibility does create a draw on the system. I am not quite sure how to address this, as it is extremely difficult to know if and what damage is being done, as it all amounts to noise.

It seems like there is some argument to be made that we should try to operate within all established social systems. However, I don’t think it’s infinitely true. The question then, like all my other points above, how much? If I guess I am contributing more than I am taking by my level of noise then is this okay? Moreover, am I even being accurate in understanding my own level of systemic draining noise? How much can I actually go around knowing if a particular action is producing a drain at all (I’m still not convinced being voluntarily unhoused did that in Taiwan)? Should I run it like GARP accounting standards where I always rule against myself, and if there is any question I am creating noise which increases systemic burdens, I should not do the action?

Honestly, maybe as a default that is okay. However, at some point, if I did it all the time, then the lack of slack may create enough drains on the user that their reduced mental health or capacity ends up creating a bigger drain. In other words, I am willing to take that position and I think you are correct about it if that’s the crux of your argument—but I think that would need to be held very loosely, otherwise we would do more damage handcuffing ourselves than the system noise of our lives.

Jiao Bu 30 Jun 2024 14:11 UTC
1 point
0
in reply to: eye96458’s comment on: I would have shit in that alley, too
“Violent crimes of desperation increase because of greater wealth disparity” seems sensible. The greater wealth disparity being the cause of the desperation that instigates the crimes. The OP here is about vast wealth disparity causing social deviance, in some sense.

However, “In a situation where wealth is more equitably distributed, there are fewer crimes of desperation” seems like they could both be coming from the same font of “Our society is good and cares about its people and takes good care of them.” The OP of this thread is also about this.
“Violent crime is causing greater wealth disparity” makes sense only in places where warlords, drug kingpins, or oligarchic criminals are building empires.

I think East Asian islands have a combination of 1 and 2. In Taiwan, the 30-40 year boom saw most people getting a piece of the pie. Few are desperate enough to resort to violent crimes. Does this seem reasonable? Perhaps especially compared to places like the USA or increasingly Europe where you have a sizable portion of people who do not get their fair share of the pie in exchange for their life’s time, with resulting despair, desperation, and etc...

Jiao Bu 30 Jun 2024 13:35 UTC
2 points
1
in reply to: Jiro’s comment on: I would have shit in that alley, too
You still aren’t telling me why I should assume I am contributing to bad outcomes instead of good ones or neutral ones without actual any actual crime or damage being done. I’m not building anything resembling a shoplifting ring here.

Let me try to think some of this through that you might be getting at. One of the things you mention is my depending on the lower crime rates. This is the single thing that keeps me from doing the exact same thing in the USA. In fact I/other people do the same thing in the USA sometimes, such as camping on national parklands, or even sleeping at a rest stop, even frequenting the same stop multiple times when it seems clearly safe.

So then the first question is, “Did I personally contribute to an increased crime rate or decreased safety on the island?” I think the answer is obviously no, but I would be interested to hear if I am overlooking something.

The second question would be, “What mass of people, if doing the same thing, would increase the crime rate?” This is harder to get into, and requires some speculation.

First of all, Taiwan does not allow any private handgun ownership, and very little private gun ownership in any form. Secondly, I think East Asian culture is less prone to interpersonal violence. The Chinese cities, even where there is increased poverty, don’t pose the same kind of threat as most urban areas in the USA. In Taiwan, a random mugging or victimization is rare. In Japan it’s close to non-existant. There is still Domestic violence, but nothing that a vagabond who isn’t partnered to a violent person need worry about. I think the lack of crime is largely baked into the culture, and non-destitute, non-criminal unhoused are highly unlikely to really move any needles on this.

But let’s say that a bunch of people decided to do what I did. I think one group might be the sort of miscreants who generally stay up using alcohol and stimulants and playing video games in internet bars. A few have made international news for dying playing video games (and no one noticed).

So, you take that demographic, and create a culture of groups on scooters riding around and camping in the mountains and sometimes in the cities. I could see that you would basically have a lot of kids sitting around drinking, surely trashing up the places where they camped. Probably communities would ask police to crack down on them. That might legitimately trash the commons. But isn’t the problem there that they are drinking, maybe causing trouble, and littering? If you removed those issues, would there be any problem with it?

Regarding “Silicon Valley,” yes, I think if a group of non-criminal, non-littering youth were to emerge that decided to be localized digital nomads instead of “lying flat” it could be a major force, creating a lot of new outputs. Not “silicon valley” on the scale of USA, (which required a time, place, and etc) but yes, potentially a highly innovative and important culture that could have a major impact. In order to create an innovative culture, at scale or even personally, a primary requirement is systemic slack. Inflation, housing costs, and red queen races of education are eating slack everywhere. Maybe spreading just the idea that people don’t have to work all the time would have a positive impact on the culture. People need to breathe to create. It evidently needs to be easier to breathe than it is in most places.

Remember, we are talking about a country and an area that is headed rapidly to demographic collapse, where the young are already opting out in dysfunctional ways because the existing society is systemically failing them (as in the culture of just hanging out all the time in internet cafes, sometimes literally unto death). The “Lying flat” culture started in Japan and China and has spread to Taiwan as well (and the USA, for that matter). Camping out by hot springs and oceans and working while living in a hammock in the hills above one’s town hardly seems like a dangerous abuse of the commons, given the actual contexts of the world.

But perhaps you believe we should not opt out of what we assume the system assumes. I could see a sort of “Schelling Fence” argument for that, but there should also be some limitation. If I am sure I am doing nothing criminal nor damaging to the environment, nor apparently reducing the commons of the land anymore than I did of the sea, then is there still a good reason I should not cross the fence?

I can also see some point where a critical mass of unhoused might cause social problems. On the other hand, normally a critical mass of unhoused is also destitute, which causes its own set of problems. I would not know how to unwind those two factors. I still think a tent city for the non-destitute would be great, but perhaps this would strain the social system of rents and employment by eliminating legibility and dependence on employers and landlords? Some might think that is a good thing, but on the other hand, let’s just say it contributes to “market volatility,” so even if the change might be net good, managing the interim could be hard.

But I am reaching here, circling back and forth on what I already thought about the matter. I feel like there must be something specific in your mind or intuition that led you to think I was trashing the commons, and I think making it lucid should be very valuable. Even if I indeed go back to Taiwan and camp (urban and non) again, it might help me ameliorate any actual degrading of the commons, which I am motivated to do as I love my second country there.

Jiao Bu 29 Jun 2024 18:35 UTC
11 points
6
in reply to: Jiro’s comment on: I would have shit in that alley, too
Thank you for the ongoing conversation. I do appreciate this.

”If by “drain” you mean “used far more than your fair share” everything you did that wouldn’t be done so often by someone with a home was a drain.”

Why should we assume “cost” by default when not conforming to systemic expectations? And why should we assume others doing it should have a bad result?
I think that would only be a drain if someone else’s use was diminished afterwards. You never mention, for example, my days spent snorkeling in Hualien. Hours and hours and hours for several weeks with my head in the water, looking at starfish and such. This was arguably “more than my fair share” but I did not diminish the resource for anyone else who wants to use it. And this is also something that might not be done by someone who is paying for a home. I think it’s not instinctively mentioned in the conversation because we both know I could do this essentially infinitely and not diminish anyone else’s use of that commons.

Likewise, if I leave everything in the condition I found it, am not breaking laws, and paying for food, gas, taxes, and whatever else I need or want, then what is our definition of “drain?” or even “fair share?” Fair share is a more complicated term because some who have houses got them free, perhaps through inheritance, along with money, or even regular middle class people might be using more of the countryside in a destructive way in their time off than I am (such as the trashed up barbeque sites you see along many rivers in Taiwan).

To delve into this a bit more, you may be effectively saying that we should look at any existing system, and regardless of our views on it, we owe it an attempt to conform to what we assume it assumes. It seems that could fail on multiple vectors, no?
We need something clearer than just “I think this society expects x, and so I assume that doing other than x is destroying the commons.”

To think of it another way, if a culture of (lawful and clean) vagabonds were to evolve in Taiwan, for all we know it might create a new culture of innovation, versus the “lie flat” culture that some of Asia is falling pray to. Taiwanese youths with newfound time and freedom, at least some of them, might become a creative force. It could birth a silicon valley, or at the very least create a hopefulness of some systemic slack that many find lacking, which has serious social costs in that country right now. Or, given a feeling of less pressure to take and spend money, might have more children, helping the country’s coming demographic collapse. Or, maybe a lot of biking/camping tourists will go to the Island and bring in money that way through use of the 70% which is mountainous and undeveloped land. Any of these are possible, so why should we assume bad outcomes?

Jiao Bu 26 Jun 2024 13:55 UTC
13 points
9
in reply to: Jiro’s comment on: I would have shit in that alley, too
If society evolved to 10% unhoused but working, healthy, and non criminal, I strongly suspect systems could be adapted. Non-destitute tent cities could likely be supported as easily as a large fairgrounds.

It’s possible then that the balance of outliers such as me are because most people just want to be housed? So the balance of light amenities for the unhoused in Taiwan is at equilibrium (and needs more amenities in the USA, probably). NB that surely I am not the first or only person in TW to do this. The countryside night-market culture seems possibly to involve healthy non criminal transient merchants for example. At any rate, implicitly the system is designed for the number of people doing this. No?

Back to my question above, what actual drain did I pose on society? If I could know what those are, I could mitigate them. I will likely be back in Taiwan to continue my permanent residency visa in 2025. I will be bringing in outside money and again probably living out of a bike or a motorcycle. Other than keeping things clean and obeying laws, what should I do to make sure I haven’t done harm?

Jiao Bu 24 Jun 2024 15:54 UTC
27 points
12
in reply to: Jiro’s comment on: I would have shit in that alley, too
This is an interesting point, and I like the perspective. The main ingredients needed for my adventures were (1) lack of crime and (2) spaces, such as clean restrooms, forests, and some of the gazebos such as along the road in He Huan Mountain. The hot springs at Hell Valley, I paid for, and of course I paid for food and gas and such.

I think (1) is common to most of Asia, and I have had several friends who did similar things in China, which is a bit poorer than Taiwan. China is interesting in that almost every American female who is there for awhile will eventually comment, “This is amazing, I can walk around at 3AM in a big city and know I won’t be assaulted.” Used to be that way in South India, to a lesser extent, where I did a version of this for about six months, actually eating for free in many cases (such as the Ashram’s giveaway food in Thiruvannamalai) and people have been doing for centuries. I would not recommend it now, but that’s due to politics. And some people do have guns in India. There are stray dogs, too. And the wealth distribution wasn’t so good there. Just after I left, the “eve teasing” thing started, then a lot more issues showed up.

India is not nearly as safe as Taiwan (but still was far safer than the USA, where I booked a motel six just last weekend and had to simply vacate due to horribly unsafe conditions, a lock not functioning correctly. It was the kind of hotel with graffitti on the inside walls and young males everywhere outside late drinking and yelling (central Savannah Motel 6, should not be available to rent online, frankly). America is pretty special awful in that regard. But I haven’t been to India since 2015, and my friends on the ground say not to go now.

(2) is less clear and you could be right. One point is that I don’t think I left the public tourism bathrooms worse than I found them. In that case, what is the cost to society?

(3) There is the public healthcare system. However, I did work there on and off and paid taxes, ran a business. Additionally, even if unemployed, I had to pay a premium to use the public healthcare system ($70 a month at that time). Prior to ever having public health insurance, I once fell off a bike and had to go to the ER. Had cat scan, stitches, medicine, etc. About $200. So, I could just pay out of pocket there and I think pay less than in the USA with insurance in many cases. And I am guessing healthcare costs are probably higher for non-homeless drinkers and drug users than unhoused abstainers spending long days snorkeling in Hualien? Maybe this is a gray area.
A question is, am I damaging the commons in ways beyond these kinds of points? Can you be specific? I am trying to think through this and figure out what I would need to do to mitigate damage to the commons as I will be returning to Taiwan to extend my permanent residency, likely for most of next year.