Thanks for proving all my points.
...by pointing out that you fundamentally misunderstood my question? Sure, okay. I asked for any examples of human society/culture/behaviour/life where "zero fairness" is the
only possible option. It's entirely possible for a fair tax policy to exist - you're even arguing for one yourself! Even if your version of a fair tax policy is "zero taxation", that is still a tax policy, and from your POV, that would be fair. So: fairness in tax policy is possible, even with extremist views like yours.
Social sciences, the whole SJW preachings, do actually constitute full chapters in the book, but since I need to bring that to you, let me remind you that cultural confines do not limit scientific progress and all your ramblings don't matter much in face of facts - that you fail to register because of a biased cognitively gapped viewpoint.
The whole lottery of spending time for science is to reach statements that are true and readily correlatable between fields since they are 'constant' between measurements. Introduced bias that skews further evaluation doesn't work as a counterargument as there is validation before its proven, however people might attribute folk sciences like yours to be an equal contribution in its right, so I would like to hear your side of the falsifiability window of validation.
Also, since you have little regard of the organisation structure costs of a power struggle that ousting the founder of any organisation brings, I'll hold my reservations on Linus being ousted by an expendable excuse just like the Intel CEO. Notice how the harrassment theme in both organisations that signed the same CoC social bondage.
So, to sum up:
-All social sciences are "SJW preachings". In other words, wholesale dismissal of several entire fields of science, based on your personal politics. I'm pretty sure this disqualifies you from
ever discussing anything related to social behaviour again, as you're clearly ideologically opposed to the examination and study of social behaviour in the first place.
-The "fact" you're referring to seems to be the "fact" that human social behaviour is determined by the biological energy cost of cognitive processes, and thus thermodynamics - which isn't a fact at all, so as such I can't have failed to register it. I don't know what other "facts" you might be referring to, but feel free to enlighten me.
-Have I said that cultural confines limit scientific progress? While this could be argued (laws prohibiting research on human embryos, for example), I can't remember this really being applicable here at all.
-Scientific "statements" aren't "true and readily correlatable between fields" when the fields ask different questions of different things. And, again, there are
far too many relevant and significant factors in human social interactions to explain them through natural sciences. This is a classic example of a non-falsifiable hypothesis, as there is (and will likely never be) any way to measure and register the energy expenditure from cognitive processes in situ (and, say, "simulating" a social situation inside of an MRI machine would be unrealistic and thus produce unreliable results), and there certainly is no way to neutrally recreate social situations so that the experiment is repeatable. Heck, to see differences in energy expenditure between different solutions you'd have to ask your subjects to "decide" on them each in turn, which would itself dramatically impact the cognitive processes involved. In short: you're trying to apply a specific form of science to a field where it's fundamentally unsuited.
-As for the last sentence of your first paragraph, again I can't make heads nor tails of that word salad. Punctuation might help, perhaps? Still, you seem to be classifying pretty much any science that isn't based on math as "folk science". Again: see my first point. If you're unable to accept that there are questions where the natural sciences are entirely unsuited to providing explanations, you're disqualifying yourself from this discussion, as that is such a fundamental dismissal of the foundations of the discussion that you're making it impossible to communicate.
It's also rather odd for you to compare the Intel CEO being ousted to Linus semi-voluntarily pulling back from his leadership role. Sure, both have been accused of "bad behaviour", but of quite different sorts. The Intel CEO had an affair with a subordinate, which is both an abuse of power, potential sexual harassment (can one be expected to refuse sexual advances from a person who has the power to take away your livelihood?), and quite fundamentally incompatible with serious business leadership. The other is abrasive and foul-mouthed and has challenges communicating with other people. While I've argued above that it seems to be high time for Torvalds to either step down to allow for a restructuring, or delegate his role to a far greater degree, the situations really aren't comparable. I'm not saying that either of these processes come without a cost, I'm just saying that it's far more sensible to take on this cost as early as possible rather than postpone action and make the situation worse. In the Intel case, I don't think it had much of an effect (recent Intel CEOs haven't had much of an externally visible impact on the company, and their current challenges are technical, not managerial in nature), while in the Linux case it's quite reasonable to expect things to have exploded quite badly in time if something wasn't done. Replacing a leader unsuited to the job is of course "expensive" in some way (whether in terms of money, work, time, or all three), but not doing so is usually
more expensive in the long run. And, with leadership and management being a complex and many-faceted job, the possible reasons for unsuitability are just as complex and many-faceted.
