If Kim Jong-Un Opened A KFC, Would You Eat There?

A clever short ethics piece. Philip Morris pivots to smoke-free, KFC and Tyson to meatless 'chicken' -- but should companies that profited from the smoky, meaty past get to profit again from going good? (The vivid framing: if Hitler had quit Nazism in 1943 and opened a matzah bakery, would you buy his matzah?) Scott runs it through a game-theory / line-of-retreat lens, paralleling the argument for offering defeated dictators comfortable exile so they give up power rather than fight to the death. There's a precommitment paradox: beforehand you want to precommit to 'punish evil no matter what'; once evil has started you want to switch to 'let them off if they reform' (give them a line of retreat); once they've reformed you want (for justice) to punish anyway. He leans 'buy the meatless KFC chicken,' because corporations probably can't predict moral progress and have high discount rates (so the deterrent precommitment buys little), many equally-bad companies aren't salient, and boycotting is practically impossible (Tyson owns everything and has invested in the very vegan-meat firms you'd switch to). Sharp and economical, if light.

Quality 66 · Strong. Low-Strong (66): a clever, genuinely useful short treatment of corporate redemption via the line-of-retreat / time-inconsistent-precommitment lens (connecting moral progress to his game-theory/Schelling interests), with a practical resolution. Held low-Strong because it's brief and develops a single contained point.

Claude’s paradigm shift 44 · Moderate. Moderate (44): applying the dictator's-line-of-retreat and precommitment-paradox framing to whether reformed 'evil companies' should profit is a fresh, non-obvious move, though built from standard game-theoretic ideas.

Real-world impact 1 · Negligible. A clever short ethics piece on corporate redemption via the line-of-retreat lens; a contained idea read within the discourse, with no material-world reach → RWI 1.