|
Effort isn't a virtue if it's used to make something awful.
|
#
?
May 9, 2014 02:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 23:16 |
|
|
Who What Now posted:Effort isn't a virtue if it's used to make something awful. Jeffrey Archer puts in at least a modicum of effort, for example. I insulted him on the radio once.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2014 02:27
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:1) I have no knowledge whatsoever of science or history or human behavior Now if you replaced "no" with little/inadequate, then these points would be true. Your setting up a strawman which is semantically false, yet is very close to the truth. quote:1) I have limited knowledge of science or history or human behaviour (really, we all do) RealityApologist posted:See you all next thread everyone. Later.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2014 03:11
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:No really, look at it. He still doesn't know how to talk like people, but when he voices a character you can tell he's trying at least.  CYBORG DISCRIMINATION beep boop
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2014 03:30
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:I'd disagree that the electroweak unification is "very rare"; Maxwell's equations for electromagnetism are another case of unification of pretty much the exact same sort. But more importantly I don't think rarity is an important factor here; you might as well object that fundamental paradigm shifts of any sort are rare in the sciences. I'm not sure that matters to the argument I've made. Jesus Christ. No one "unified" electricity or magnetism, or (theoretically) EM and weak force; people merely are postulating things which exist in nature or are a consequence of current mathematical formulations. You have to demonstrate or formulate how something is "unified". You know, the stuff that is beyond your means; the stuff that actually matters. ~~~ Guys I think Vanilla and Chocolate ice cream ought to be unified. Its pretty obvious from the way people conceive of ice cream flavours, they are fundamental and complementary flavours similar in manner to the colours black and white, yes and no, true and false.... Since vanilla ice cream is white you can describe it mathematically as 1 or true, and chocolate as false or 0. At that point you don't need to talk about ice cream at all, only 1's and 0's. Maybe there are interesting problems in ice cream making that could be solved by using theories from computer science or mathematics. No I will not explain how, or why ice cream relates to numbers or why vanilla and chocolate, in particular are the fundamental flavours. I hope someone with more knowledge about cocoa and vanilla beans will be able to tell me what they have in common and reasons for why their colours look very similar to black and white. Just imagine all of the things we can do in our cyber-ice-cream futures. Maybe we can program and make decisions by eating out of two buckets ice cream and a spoon hooked up to our computer. The ice cream economy is the future.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2014 03:38
|
|
|
I'm sure Darwin ate ice cream at some point in his life, so he probably had to face the choice of chocolate or vanilla and undoubtedly used that experience to motivate his theories of evolution. Why aren't you guys taking me seriously  jre posted:Philosophy of Science is not science, its philosophy. Not entirely true, its multi-discinplinary. Philopsophy of science is one of my Science majors and lives at the universities' science department. You need to have some science/maths knowledge (as well as philosophy, psychology and social sciences) in the areas that you are philosophising in. Otherwise how would you know what the hell you are talking about and how it relates to the way humans conduct science in the scientific community, between scientific communities, and its place in society (and how people's perceptions of 'science' affect and shape the scientific endeavour). I can understand your confusion if your only experience with the subject is from Eripsa's posting.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2014 03:54
|
|
|
Tokamak posted:Jesus Christ. No one "unified" electricity or magnetism, or (theoretically) EM and weak force; people merely are postulating things which exist in nature or are a consequence of current mathematical formulations. You have to demonstrate or formulate how something is "unified". You know, the stuff that is beyond your means; the stuff that actually matters. Networks are systems, networks are unified. Ant colonies are systems, societies are systems, the internet is a system. Human society is an ant colony. Just like Chelsea Manning unified the science of digital revolution the cyborg that invented the chocolate vanilla swirl unified ice cream science. This is derived from the discipline of metaphysical naturalism which mechanistically approaches Deluze and Gautauri's aproach to Dolche & Gabbana's sunglass collection itself a scathing criticism on semi-autonomous digital cryptographic currencies. Phenomanalistic approach to phenomena such as self regulating child pornography networks as presented in narratives do not undermine the narrative of unified binary digital dairy mechanisms.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2014 05:15
|
|
|
I found Eripsa's dissertation https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yJLhnts9-oQ
|
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2014 05:20
|
|
|
wheez the roux posted:I found Eripsa's dissertation Oh God is there any context to this beyond it being a horrifying word salad?
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2014 05:24
|
|
Jagchosis posted:Oh God is there any context to this beyond it being a horrifying word salad? http://www.bentoandstarchky.com/dec/rants.htm He was just too ahead of his time, if only stangecoin had existed his genius would have gotten the attention necessary to save him from himself.
|
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2014 05:28
|
|
|
wheez the roux posted:I found Eripsa's dissertation <infinitely-expanding-stare-smilie.gif> <chansey-psyboom-hydra.gif>
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2014 05:45
|
|
|
Actual dissertation: https://vimeo.com/24819724
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2014 05:49
|
|
|
We have enough of your material to run the Eripsa Markov Chain Generator, you're now surplus to requirements, sorry.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2014 05:50
|
|
RealityApologist posted:Actual dissertation: https://vimeo.com/24819724 We're laughing at you, not with you. hth
|
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2014 05:52
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:Actual dissertation: https://vimeo.com/24819724 hmmm I can actually understand what this guy is saying... Thanks for the schizophrenic word salad racist lawyer guy link btw, that's probably me in a few years if I can find a good acid hook and keep reading the Freep thread
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2014 06:28
|
|
|
hey it's been a few days let's check out the str...holy gently caress okay let's see the latest non-child porn nah just kidding there's some child porn abortion of a story the following post has lots of words but there's a funny part I promise (scroll to the bold) quote:"In our Strange economy, the key to long-term success is stability. For the last six years the story in the paper industry has been of consistent quarterly neutrality, the longest such period since the Great Transition 20 years ago. We're now half way through the current fiscal year and I'm pleased to report that the story shows no signs of changing. Economists suggest that the stability we've experienced in paper is consistent with similar reports from other sectors of the economy, and is indicative of the unparalleled success of the last two decades of economic restructuring. An economy that is neutral for 20 years is not a good thing. If you had any knowledge of economics, you would know this, but alas. quote:"On to brass tacks. You should all have copies of the report with specific figures, but the bottom line is this: we are reporting quarterly revenue of around 2.6 billion Strangecoin, with a net profit of just under 5000 coin, indicating a balance of income to expenses to within 0.00019%. A total coupling network reaching over 32,000 nodes and an extended support network covering 15 million nodes in the greater Northwestern region puts our balance figure well below the three-decimal-point accuracy mandated by the revised Strangecoin protocol for a class-2 organization of our size. With a balance cap of 50 billion coin, these figures indicate that we could continue operating in the present conditions without disruption for the next five million years. That is, assuming the rest of the network continues to play nice. He's sounding really upbeat for someone whose company has 2.6b in revenue and has never been profitable in 20 years no matter how much you dress up a balance cap to make it fit the rest of your dystopian hellhole, it still won't be a positive, because you don't understand economics quote:"Our fixed assets remain unchanged from last quarter, with machinery operational at all 10 major pulp processing facilities and 35 distribution centers covering an area extending from Anchorage to El Paso and Seattle to Winnipeg. Our fixed assets together with our extended coupling and support network puts us in potential command of approximately 15 trillion Strangecoin per hour using the industry standard Hofstadter-Whipping benchmark. These resources put us just inside the top 35% of the most influential corporate entities in the Northwest region. The world is at our disposal, my friends, should we need it. Oh man top 35% I can totally get myself a sandwich also, if the world is at his disposal, it's also at the disposal of the 35% of corporations above his in his region, so this must either be a communist planned economy where no one competes with anyone ever or this man's completely neutral existence is soon to be shattered by somebody slightly better at "economics" and/or "not being a complete moron" quote:"In particular, our analysts indicate that Northwest Consolidated Paper Org controls 84% of the paper production and distribution in the greater Northwest region, with our next four competitors satisfying another 15.8% of paper production in this region. As I've indicated, these figures have held steady for the last six years with almost no change. That's despite an expected average growth of 1.25% per year, a figure that's been constant across the paper industry for the last decade. Given the new facility we opened in Eureka four years ago, and the major renovations across three other facilities in the time since, this all gives us good reason to believe that these figures will perform robustly under changes in both demand and labor conditions. Our models indicate that any attempts to establish a greater market share would result in significantly less stability in our network and across the paper industry, ultimately having an adverse effect for our close coupled relationships to other industrial and labor organizations. yes, if strangecoins = magic and trying to earn more of them would be bad, trying to earn more of them would indeed be bad, with you so far you don't understand economics also, if the last 20 years have seen an average of 1.25%^20 growth in industry X, a)chances are the economy hasn't been "exactly neutral", you loving idiot b)they are presumably producing around 28% more paper but have somehow managed to break exactly even on this (of course they have). the followup question is why did they even bother to produce it in the first place? who knows, who cares, strangecoins are magic c)his competitors are smarter than him, as they're also breaking exactly even and doing much less actual work d)you are really, really, really bad at all of this. economics, human relationships, describing corporate meetings, human speech, and so forth quote:"Turning to those coupled relationships, many of whom are represented at this meeting, we find that the economic stability describing our current situation is largely mirrored across large sectors of our immediate economic network, a situation that can only indicate a resilient economic situation. There are exceptions, of course, the most notable of which is the publishing industry, which remains a fractured shadow of its former self. Nevertheless our coupling portfolio remains strong. It's resilience was put to the test three years ago during fires across much of the hemp growing regions of the Northwest, which put some severe constraints on our production capacity and threatened to significantly delay our production schedule. But coordinated efforts with our immediate coupling partners was sufficient to prepare us for the hemp shortage, and over the last three years our imbalances never grew above 0.0008%, still well below the three-decimal mandate. Put simply, over the last decade our organization has withstood critical tests in the stability on both the supply and demand end, and we've proven more than capable of adaptively responding to those challenges and maintaining our market position. so there was 28% growth in the production of paper (but publishing is dead) (and also hemp fires) (but none of that changed anything) you are describing a post scarcity command economy with absolutely no basis for its existence while having no real idea what any of these words mean, quite fascinating really blah blah chow meow some more words who cares the really loving hilarious thing is coming up quote:"I'm just here only partially as a rep node for GRI; I asked to be put on the agenda mostly out of a sense of personal obligation. It's true that the provisions necessary for this paper election campaign can be planned for and carried out with minimal disruption-- that's what this post-scarcity thing is supposed to be all about, right?-- but I feel that I must urge again before the assembled parties that we don't have to do this. We have something of a motto: 'New use is a noose! Reuse!' Printed election materials are a paradigm case of one-use waste, of precisely the sort that the GRI has been fighting against since before the Transition began. I'm all in favor of the democratic spirit, but there's no reason to suspect that the post-Transition voting procedures are inadequate and that a return to paper voting is necessary. Using compression algorithms in consensus tanks on the MeshNet has been shown again and again to approximate the voter landscape to within three-decimal-point accuracy. The last two refederalization campaigns in the California territory have been unsuccessful by a 40 point spread each time, and the Refederalization Initiative has done nothing to demonstrate a failure in the consensus tank models. From our perspective at GRI, the proposed paper election is an example of desperation tactics to obscure a failing strategy, and not a legitimate expansion of the use profile of paper in the region. in this post, a paper making company has been handed an order for 20% of their capacity and has decided to reject it and attempt to completely block the popular referendum the order is based upon you literally have a corporation going "nah, gently caress that, we're gonna go ahead and block a popular vote". like, forget that they don't want to make money because magic, a corporation just decided to block a vote and you in all seriousness wrote this series of words as a positive ITT, seven people go "nah, gently caress this referendum, ain't having it" and so for want of a ballot printer the plebes don't get to have one you are a huge, giant, enormous idiot who does not understand slightly more things than just economics (all of the things) quote:"Thanks B.A., I'll keep this quick, I know this is already running long. The NCPO has many valued partners across the publishing industry, some of whom are in attendance today. As Mr. Peck noted in his opening remarks, the publishing industry remains fragmented across a number of independent outfits, still shattered by trade disputes during the Transition, and unable to organize for a variety of complicated political and economic reasons that don't concern us much here. However, these disputes often put the NCPO in an awkward middle position between publishers, and that's what we're facing today. As you may have heard, a coalition of 35 independent publishers, many of whom are within the NCPO distribution area and some of whom are coupled partners attending this meeting through the MeshNet today, and which represents the largest such organization of publishers to coalesce since the Transition, has recently united in protest of a small outfit named Eromenos that they allege is publishing illustrated child pornography. A number of root nodes across the publishing industry have written and signed a formal letter announcing their allegations; we've drawn up a consensus tank on the issue that has samples from the Eromenos catalog, along with the signed statement from the emerging-- and as yet unnamed-- publishing coalition, and Monte Carlo simulations of the next four quarters with or without excision are available to assist your decision process. a small outfit is producing child porn and so the paper manufacturers of the brave new world have gathered to possibly do something about it at some point in the future presuming they feel like coming to a consensus at a future board meeting a while from now okay, sure, why not, this is certainly enough of an idiocracy slash libertopia that exclusion instead of calling the police sounds feasible also, as Cefte points out, this is taken almost exactly from Murray Rothbard, but of course you haven't read any of that so calling you out on it is pointless suffice to say this is merely the second dumbest thing you said in this story, so Imma just go ahead and close with this: you've just written a story about a corporation blocking a vote while failing to do anything about a child porn publisher and you think you're showing a positive you loving idiot
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2014 07:43
|
|
|
I'll try to be slightly less caustic than I usually am, and try to offer some productive criticism. The problem with all of the ideas that you posted is that you tend to fall in love with a "Big Idea", conceptualize it at a high level, then try to fill in all the bits that are required to make it work more or less haphazardly. You work in a very 'top down' fashion, letting your fascination for high level concepts guide your fancy, and thinking that once the high level idea is in place, filling in the details is more or less grunt work for engineers. This is the danger of letting philosophical fancy guide complex engineering and scientific projects. As a philosopher, it's normal to consider big ideas, or focus on concepts. As a scientist, you actually have to build and prove to show that what you are talking about works. Here is what I suggest. Next time you have an idea, instead of immediately jumping to a hyper connected complicated system, build (as in, literally build, not write specs, not describe in pseudo code, literally write a piece of software that does what you desire) a toy model, explore it's behaviour, then once you are satisfied that you completely understand the simplified system that you've built, gradually add complexity. This kind of approaches forces you into a certain epistemic humility, where you are forced to deal with problems as they arise, and you cannot let your vision run ahead indiscriminately. Honestly, it seems like you want to take on the task of 'thinking the big ideas' but without putting in any of the hard work which is actually necessary. Yes, writing and debugging C code, learning linear algebra, actually studying graph algorithms is harder than describing them at a high level, but if you want people to take seriously what you do, it's sort of necessary.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2014 11:15
|
|
|
That's good advice, yes, but he's just going to repeat that he doesn't know how to do that. You're asking him to learn something, and he's too busy roleplaying someone who already knows things to do that.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2014 17:27
|
|
|
Forums Barber posted:That's good advice, yes, but he's just going to repeat that he doesn't know how to do that. You're asking him to learn something, and he's too busy roleplaying someone who already knows things to do that. Your request for me to do work puts me in the position of someone who hasn't done any work, or a ridiculous dilettante who doesn't even understand the discipline he claims to be a part of. Anybody who would try to call me a ridiculous dilettante isn't really engaging with what I have said.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2014 17:52
|
|
|
Adar posted:in this post, a paper making company has been handed an order for 20% of their capacity and has decided to reject it and attempt to completely block the popular referendum the order is based upon You've missed some things in the story. The person speaking is representing a recycling organization and is speaking out in protest of a measure that is already under way. My impression is that this was a last-ditch plea to prevent it from happening by someone who has an ethical interest in the consequences from a sustainability perspective. The person in the story admits that refusing to help the voting initiative would have no business impact, and makes a purely ethical plea to block the vote. So basically you are laughing at me because I've described a situation where members of the general public are able to comment on ethical issues at the board meeting of a major industrial conglomerates. The publishers are boycotting businesses so that others will stop working with the pornographers, and since the publishers have more network weight than the pornographers there's a clear incentive for others to participate in the boycott. But I also describe other SJWs defending the pornographers, and the impact this dispute has on the business's bottom line, and there's no indication one way or the other how the rest of the corporate body will decide the issue. None of the proposals in the meeting were blocked and no one in the corporation was voluntarily giving up business; the consensus tanks remain open on both initiatives by the end of the story. It would also be helpful if the old thread were around so I can point to places where I argue: - The incentives in Strangecoin world are to have a balanced account. So income profit is bad unless you can meet it with comparable expenses. Stable, unchanging balances are good. In the story above, the 20% increase in income from the voting has to be matched by a 20% rise in production. The question is not "do we want more profit?" but "do we want more work?" - wealth is measured by network connections and not the coin one has accumulated, because - network connections are the cooperative partners with whom you can harness materials to accomplish a project, and it doesn't matter how much money you have if no one will work with you - so doing more work is valuable only if it secures you better connections for more advantageous trades in the future, and - you only want to work with people whose activity is shown to be stable or where you want to see their project accomplished for other reasons (eg, they produce food and you like to eat). So refusing the voting referendum is probably bad for the paper company in the long run because it compromises their network and might dissuade people from joining their network in the future. The recyclist is pleading to the paper company compromise their market share for ethical reasons, but whether his plea is successful is left as an exercise for the reader. Similarly, the newly arisen publishing conglomerate is using it's collective influence to boycott and excise the pornographers, which puts other companies (like our paper company) into the position of choosing which networks they want to belong to. Whether the boycott is successful is again left open; the point is merely to give examples of the kinds of conflicts that might arise in Strangecoinland despite the post-scarcity economics, and to give insight into the incentives people have in that world to make decisions one way or the other.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2014 18:29
|
|
|
And once again, you're imagining that there would be finite, limited, scarce transactions in an economic system with effectively infinite currency available. Why is anyone making these transactions in the first place, considering they're denominated in an amount so valueless and infinite that there truly is no proper analogy to be made? Because! I SAID BECAUSE, WHAT ELSE DO YOU WANT FROM ME!!! *storms away behind the green curtain, keeps trying to make an impressive light show to distract from own overwhelming incompetence* --- Guys, what if we lived in a world where instead of money, people traded entire sectors of the heavens, vast volumes of unreachable void, to one another, because they WANTED to? How would that be different? I bet people would really value vast spheres of pure abyss if they valued vast spheres of pure abyss, and if you think that reasoning is dumb, well, maybe you'd better keep in mind that I'm  in academia before you call me a pathetic excuse for an idea guy. Also stop bullying me or my dad is gonna beat up your dad!!
Muscle Tracer fucked around with this message at 18:37 on May 9, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 9, 2014 18:35
|
|
|
StrangeWorld seems to be a place without laws or governance, but in which there is also no such thing as a black market. Edit: as in, no one attempts to circumvent the system despite only vague penalties for doing so, and large potential playoffs. CheesyDog fucked around with this message at 19:11 on May 9, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 9, 2014 18:39
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:It would also be helpful if the old thread were around so I can point to places where I argue: My earlier queries about mortgages and other long-term cost structures are still unaddressed. There's no potential for investment if I'm literally pennies away from Terrible Consequences Of Imbalance and savings or accumulation are explicitly discouraged. RealityApologist posted:- network connections are the cooperative partners with whom you can harness materials to accomplish a project
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2014 18:55
|
|
|
Muscle Tracer posted:And once again, you're imagining that there would be finite, limited, scarce transactions in an economic system with effectively infinite currency available. Why is anyone making these transactions in the first place, considering they're denominated in an amount so valueless and infinite that there truly is no proper analogy to be made? Because! I SAID BECAUSE, WHAT ELSE DO YOU WANT FROM ME!!! They trade coins because it gives the network shape and determines who is in whose network, and these are facts people use to help make decisions about what economic activities to engage in. People are engaging in transactions because: - they want to amplify the success of a person/project (support) - they want to increase the influence/visibility of a person/project (endorsement) - they want to their own economic success to be tied to the success of a community of peers (coupling) And they end their transactions when they no longer want to do these things. Everyone can pay any amount of coin they are asked, but this network of relations means that they are limited in their ability to move coin around (ie, throughput) based on their network position. So anyone can pay a million coins at once, but only someone well-connected can guarrantee X coin on top of every transaction you make as a regular source of amplifying income. A million coin lump-sum payment would threaten to throw my whole financial situation out of whack, and no one would have incentives to engage in such a transaction, but a guaranteed stable income would be very attractive to someone within this incentive structure. The upshot is that one's throughput of coin acts as a reputation system: someone with a high throughput has a lot of people backing her work, and someone with a low throughput has very few network connections standing behind it. Moreover, someone with a high throughput and a stable balance demonstrates not only the popularity of their work but also the stability of their overall impact on the network. Trading with those people will confer some of that stability to others, so everyone has an incentive to trade with those people. Hence they are network-rich. Anyone can have as many coins as they like, but not everyone can form whatever network connections they like, so network connections replace the coins as the measure of value. But it's not just the connections themselves, its the work they do. So I can make a bunch of bots to trade around whatever coins I want, but that isn't nearly as valuable as coupling with a real printing company that produces an actually valuable product. RealityApologist fucked around with this message at 19:19 on May 9, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 9, 2014 19:09
|
|
|
How valuable is giving the print manager a kilo of coke to hide your print job?
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2014 19:17
|
|
|
JawnV6 posted:I really can't recall any of the arguments for this. There were none. No matter how many times people asked for specific examples of this, it was always ignored. And it will be ignored again, except now he's going to hand-wave it away with "Oh, I did explain this, too bad the mods pulled the thread. " and make no effort to explain it further.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2014 19:18
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:
Glad to see we've done away with the ridiculous balance cap concept. If I'm reading this correctly, there is now zero incentive whatsoever to ever exchange coins, and this has FINALLY been admitted. Moving forward I'm just going to remove the entire concept of coins from my understanding of strangecoin, because they are literally irrelevant. Throughput is also irrelevant because it's 100%, and I do mean 100%, artificial in a world where what you are putting through is limitless. So the only remaining finite resource is... endorsements by people who have lots of other endorsees, like having Twitter followers with large Twitter followings of their own. Except you don't want bad people following you on EconoTwitter, and you SURE as heck don't want to follow bad people, or people who follow or are followed by bad people, either. So StrangeCoin is Klout but with some sort of network impact summary?
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2014 19:23
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:People are engaging in transactions because: Is there a reason "they want something the other person has" is not on the list? Because that's the primary motivation of trade under... just about every system I can think of. You talk about how coupling will amplify someone's economic success, but then that success seems to be defined entirely in terms of coupling. Under the current system, I'm economically successful when I have lots of dollars, which I obtain by getting people to give me them in exchange for goods or services. Under your system, I'm economically successful when I am highly supported, which I achieve by getting people to support me in exchange for (I assume) goods or services. Is that right? Because that means the flow of "strangecoin" itself is completely pointless - your actual unit of currency is the transactions themselves. You've somehow managed to take the integral of economics. 
Alien Arcana fucked around with this message at 19:29 on May 9, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 9, 2014 19:24
|
|
|
Muscle Tracer posted:So the only remaining finite resource is... endorsements by people who have lots of other endorsees, like having Twitter followers with large Twitter followings of their own. Except you don't want bad people following you on EconoTwitter, and you SURE as heck don't want to follow bad people, or people who follow or are followed by bad people, either. 
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2014 19:27
|
|
|
"Alright, office, here's the deal. I can either pay you with Strangecoin endorsements again this week or I can give you each a handle of this moonshine that one of our undocumented customers gave us."
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2014 19:32
|
|
|
CheesyDog posted:"Alright, office, here's the deal. I can either pay you with Strangecoin endorsements again this week or I can give you each a handle of this moonshine that one of our undocumented customers gave us." "Does the undocumented worker buy from stores who use sweatshop labor? Or have family living in a country where there might be sweatshop labor? I can't be networked with that no sir"
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2014 19:35
|
|
|
"Hey co-networked workers, we live in a post-scarcity world where out basic needs are met and we have access to an unlimited account, why the hell do we go to work at a paper company?"
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2014 19:41
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:They trade coins because it gives the network shape and determines who is in whose network, and these are facts people use to help make decisions about what economic activities to engage in. There are so many assumptions here I don't know where to begin, but I'm going to start with the most basic - that I want my Expenses - Revenue to be zero. Let me slide into economic terms: that means that the demand for strangecoins is, by design, as close to zero as it is possible to be. Holding strangecoins is not only undesirable, but going from your latest work of fiction it is actively penalized by some sort of governance structure. I will then accept the proposition that a high throughput is desireable for the reasons that you lay out, that it marks whatever I'm doing as worthwhile with many supporters and that I have through whatever means built a large network so that my incoming revenue is immediately dispersed to the others on my network. The incentive structure has now become the following: -Holding Strangecoins, or indeed accumulating them, is seen as pointless at best, or an action worthy of penalty at worst. ( - ) -Having a revenue stream as close to balanced as possible is desirable because it gives information about the networks that have been created around you ( + ) -A high throughput of coin indicates that the networks you deal in are either large or of high quality, both of which are considered good ( + ). -Maintaining a balanced income/revenue stream over a period of time indicates stability ( + ) However, strangecoin is a currency. Like all other currencies it is beholden to the Quantity Theory of Money. By definition, the following equality will hold: M * V = P * Y Where: M is the money supply (in this case, if the spec has not changed, the amount of money in the system is fixed at the start). V is the velocity of money, or 1/Money Demand. That is to say, if velocity is low it means that I tend to hold on to money for a long time, and not spend it. P is the price level, as indicated by measures like the Consumer Price Index. Changes in the price level are called inflation/deflation. Y is output, in this case Gross Domestic Product (C + I + G + (X - M)). Changes in output would be the economy growing or shrinking. By design, the strange economy incentivizes spending strangecoin immediately upon receiving them. It incentivizes having a high throughput. It incentivizes having a balance sheet where Revenues - Expenditures is zero for long periods of time. All of these things send signals to potential partners that connecting to your network is a good investment. However, that system is inherently self destructive. The money supply may be fixed, but every incentive in the system is pushing Money Demand to zero. Velocity is 1/Money Demand. The limit of (1/a) as a approaches zero is infinity. Money velocity becomes an arbitrarily high number. Since it is nonsensical to think of truly infinite output, as your own narrative describes, it must hold that as V -> infinity, so to must P -> Infinity. There is no stability in this system, because all incentives are for people to spend, through whatever means, as fast as is possible. Prices lose all meaning, and coming back to the very original point of this whole goddamned circus that spans two threads: Prices, as denominated in dollars, conceal information about the networks that contribute to those prices. If we could create a currency/economic arrangement where the network of connections that are required to create, package, ship and sell products then we will be able to make more informed decisions about what networks to engage with. I contend to you, that strangecoin performs this function even worse than current monetary systems. Strangeprices, by design of the system, are not allowed to reflect relative scarcity of one good over another, increased costs of production for a type of good, societal preferences/demand for one good compared to another or the quality of one good compared to another. This is without getting into the immense problems that depending on the 'steady income' of coupling/support/endorsement represents. If I see the never ending inflation spiral and attempt to save my money for some reason (although the inflation spiral is itself self reinforcing, which we will ignore for now), pulling money out of the system to try and return to price stability, I will be sabotaging my own position in the system. Not only do I start to accumulate strangecoins, but those who were depending on my spending to empty their coffers of strangecoins will also suffer. This particular one way train to Wiemar can not be stopped once it is set in motion, there is too much momentum behind it. There are: 1. Economic pressures - once inflation starts, holding money becomes relatively more expensive compared to holding it, incentivizing further spending. 2. Structural pressures - there are hard limits to your ability to accumulate coin, and designed benefits to spending it as quickly as possible. 3. Societal pressures - If someone endorses/couples with me, they are depending on my spending to take strangecoins out of my account so that they do not hit the cap, just as I depend on people who I am connected with to spend so I do not hit the cap and so on. And of course, the use of strangecoin throughput as a measure of reputation within society loses all meaning as prices spiral out of control. I don't need botnets or clever computer systems to break this system. In fact, I just need people to maximize their personal benefits within the incentive structures you have defined and watch the fireworks. The only way to win at Strangecoin is not to play.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2014 20:23
|
|
|
"I'm Joe. My income is 10 coins/day, my expenses are 9 coins/day, and my balance cap is 100 coins. My balance is currently 0, and my endorsement network amplifies any payment I make by 5. In my world, anybody who is anybody has an endorsement of at least 2; only people that have been excised or are completely reckless have anything less. The swankiest places accept people only with endorsements of 10+. So my endorsement of 5 means I occupy a fairly average place on the network. But my account is also imbalanced: I'm making more coin than I spend. In the old world that means I'm turning a profit, but in this world it means I'm on a timer. In 100 days, I'll have reached my balance cap, and that means any additional transactions will be stripped of modifiers. Which means my payments become worth less, and I may lose access the nice places I've grown accustomed to frequenting. I won't go hungry; some people will exchange with TUA accounts. But the people in my network who depend on my reliable spending will all see their accounts take a hit, and I'll be generally inconvienenced by the reshaping of my network that takes place because I hit the balance cap. In other words, the imbalance in my account gives me some incentive to increase my expenses. I'm a boring person and I like Dave Matthews Band so I'll hand over a coin of support to DMB every day to express how bland my music tastes are. Now my balance is even, so I'll go smoke a bowl." "Hi I'm Rob. I'm a complete rear end in a top hat that systematically ruins my relationships, and I tanked my Strangecoin account a long time ago, so it's sitting at the maximum balance of C. The best way to fix the account is to spend a lot of coin, but no one will take my money because everyone hates me. There's plenty of places to get food and clothes as I need, but they just tend to give it away without question or network analysis, and it's not really a place where I can unload a bunch of coin. So I'm not starving, but I'm not really in a good economic situation either. I can try to slim down my account with inhibition and transactions with TUA, but that's not going to build me a better network. The best chance I have to repair my social status is to find someone who trusts me enough to start taking payments off my account; maybe I'll have to do some kind of labor or work on another project for them to earn that trust. But gently caress it, I'm fine being scum and screwing myself over economically. Strangecoin can go suck a dick." "Hi I'm Ginna. I work at the paper mill as a chemical engineer. The plant is mostly automated; my job consists of biweekly inspections of the plant conditions, and takes about 8 hours of time total every week. For that work I was offered a coupling package with the company, meaning my own account rises and falls with the success of the paper mill's network. It's a good company and I like the people who run it, so I feel the exchange is in my interest; this business is a network I'm happy to attach myself to. The plant also offers me 15 coins/day of income, which gives me some flexibility in the expenses I adopt, and a point and a half of endorsement to give me access to a slightly higher end of consumer goods. As long as the paper mill maintains a stable position in the network, my own relatively privileged position in the network is secure. So even though my needs can be met otherwise, I'm happy to contribute my labor and education to this project in exchange for my improved network position." "Hi I'm Ursula. I'm an entrepreneur interested in starting a small business, with the hopes of future success and fortune. I want to open a coffee shop. My problem is not in acquiring enough coin to make it happen. What I need to do is attract the network of people who command the resources necessary to make it happen. In other words, I need to show them that it is in their interest to invest in me. Investment means setting up long term transactions that will encourage my developing business. Some people from the community have supported my project because they'd like a shop in their area, but I would most like coupling partners who have a vested interest in my future success. If I was coupled to a major, well-known, popular coffee bean supplier, for instance, it would both help me to attract customers and give me access to the resources necessary to attract the. To get this coupling contract, I need to demonstrate to the bean supplier that coupling with me will balance out of time (it's a stable investment) and will expand their network sufficiently to compensate for the extra work. In other words, investing is a matter of planning or anticipating for the networks that we're developing with the people who have a stake in its success."
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2014 20:36
|
|
|
e:^^^ none of these words you spat out make any sense.ProfessorCurly posted:informative and easy to understand words Anybody want to guess which minor problem RA's going to grab onto and complain about so he can avoid addressing the overall point? I bet it's this one, since somebody upthread pointed out that strangecoin apparently doesn't have a balance cap anymore. quote:2. Structural pressures - there are hard limits to your ability to accumulate coin, and designed benefits to spending it as quickly as possible.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2014 20:38
|
|
|
Hi I'm Jack I'm going to get as many Strangecoins as possible and then donate them to that dick at work to balance out my transactions and gently caress him over Hi I'm Bill, I can't accept any more payments because of my balance cap, but there's no balance cap on you buying me a hooker
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2014 20:43
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:"I'm Joe. My income is 10 coins/day, my expenses are 9 coins/day, and my balance cap is 100 coins. My balance is currently 0, and my endorsement network amplifies any payment I make by 5. In my world, anybody who is anybody has an endorsement of at least 2; only people that have been excised or are completely reckless have anything less. The swankiest places accept people only with endorsements of 10+. So my endorsement of 5 means I occupy a fairly average place on the network. But my account is also imbalanced: I'm making more coin than I spend. In the old world that means I'm turning a profit, but in this world it means I'm on a timer. In 100 days, I'll have reached my balance cap, and that means any additional transactions will be stripped of modifiers. Which means my payments become worth less, and I may lose access the nice places I've grown accustomed to frequenting. I won't go hungry; some people will exchange with TUA accounts. But the people in my network who depend on my reliable spending will all see their accounts take a hit, and I'll be generally inconvienenced by the reshaping of my network that takes place because I hit the balance cap. In other words, the imbalance in my account gives me some incentive to increase my expenses. I'm a boring person and I like Dave Matthews Band so I'll hand over a coin of support to DMB every day to express how bland my music tastes are. Now my balance is even, so I'll go smoke a bowl." Did you even read what ProfessorCurly wrote, you thundering loon? Strangecoin is an utterly broken idea that if implemented would make Weimar Germany's economy look like '50s America.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2014 20:50
|
|
|
None of your awful prose explains why any of those people would want more/any coins, and why businesses would care about what Endorsement Level you have. You merely assert that they do without telling us why.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2014 20:53
|
|
|
ProfessorCurly posted:There is no stability in this system, because all incentives are for people to spend, through whatever means, as fast as is possible. Not spend as fast as possible, just until it balances their account. If I have expenses E, then I have a demand for E income to offset the expenses. So money demand goes to E, not 0. Everyone, even the wealthy, want a balanced account. Everyone, even the destitute, is generating economic activity. That economic activity might be from additional expenses or additional income, and to compensate the individual must do work in the other direction to maintain a balanced account. The more income (or expenses) I generate, the more work I have to do in the other direction to maintain balance. If I'm network-rich it's because I'm generating a lot of one, and I'm doing a lot of work in the other direction to balance it out. The wealthy have a high throughput, even though the total change in in coins exchanged is low. If I'm network-poor, it's because I'm not generating much economic activity one way or the other.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2014 20:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 23:16 |
|
|
RealityApologist posted:"I won't go hungry; some people will exchange with TUA accounts." Why would only some people be willing to exchange with a TUA account? If most people don't want to accept money that comes from the TUA, presumably that's because it affects their own accounts in some negative way. So then who are these people who will accept TUA money? Are they not affected by the penalty for some reason? Or are they motivated to swallow the penalty in the name of charity? I don't see any scenario in your schema that supports the former explanation, and if it's the latter then your claim that TUA users won't starve is meaningless because any economic system can make the same claim.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2014 21:00
|
|