An attribution requirement isn’t enough to enforce a share-alike clause, it has to be there from the beginning.

You can select Wikipedia’s CC BY-SA license that requires to keep derivative projects under CC BY-SA. I don’t think CC SA without BY exists, but you can partially waive attribution requirements yourself as Wikipedia does this.

Also, for “free as in grantis” there is CC BY-NC-SA that explicitly bans commercial use, but I wouldn’t recommend it’s use as it’s not compatible with the orders of magnitude more popular BY-SA. A regular BY-SA license doesn’t prohibit from selling your or derivative works by another party, but it also allows everyone to legally “pirate” these works, so there’s little problem for the NC variant to solve.

BTW, any licenses imposing any restrictions can’t be called “public domain”, there are other words to describe them like “freely licensed”.

Game theory is about extracting personal good from cooperation. Game theory has nothing to say against boiling your cat alive as it has no leverage on you.

In societies where things like slavery existed for centuries or even millennias, owners had great evolutionary benefit from owning slaves. Their descendants hold some privileges to this day. Game theory was on their side.

Did you watch “86”? In this show, San-Magnolia was a country populated exclusively with blonde people, referred as “alba”. People with non-white hair (referred as “colorata”) were sent to internment camps outside the state walls and conscripted to fight in a war in a hope to regain at least some rights.

It was later revealed that over 10 million colorata and zero alba were killed in the later stage of the war, and if original prognosis on enemy forces ceasing to operate in a few years would be correct, alba people would totally win the evolutionary race and no game theory would bring justice. Doesn’t sound great if your hair happens to be brown or red.

If it were for pure game theory, slavery would still exist in some form (legally, because illegal slavery is still wide-spread IRL). Why would we care to liberate a useful caste of human servants if they would lose all means to rebel against a modern army? Granted, they could kill someone in an uprising, but so does cattle occasionally injure and kill farmers. Any great injustice is justified by game theory at the end.

An idea that species can “be meant to do x” by y has roots in teleological philosophy. Aincent Greeks believed that gods designed and meant us to live a certain way, this approach was adapted by other religions. It cannot be applied to evolution as evolution is a sequence of random events, some more likely than other.

We have evolved to, under certain conditions, when it increases our or our relatives’ chances of survival or recreation, kill others of our species or enact violence against them, including the type of violence that increases the expected number of offsprings of the person enacting it, but nobody argues we should build ethics around it.

The Trail has that

Could just write “18 Mm from home”.

How does a method being traditional make it more ethical? Aren’t more ethical methods of hunting about minimising agony of an animal when killed using all available technology? So a firearm shot would be more ethical than slow-to-kill arrow?

https://plus.codes/ click ミ > Grid

The full plus-code is actually 8 characters before the plus and 2–3 after. Usually you only need 4 to get within one city. Just like with phone numbers, where the first geographical part is often omitted.

AC means Alternating Current, electrical current that periodically reverses direction, and DC means Direct Current, a current that continuously flows in one direction. AC/DC on a socket means it can take both types of power.