4th Grade Nation State

[Soldati Senza Confini]

We take it as an elementary economic fact that resources (ie time/attention/brainpower) are limited... and then we have to figure out how to allocate/distribute/use them. Do we want to evenly distribute them... or do we want to efficiently distribute them? The only way to efficiently distribute them is to figure out people's WTP. That's the point of pragmatarianism and coasianism.

Okay, disregarding everything else as plain fantastical bullshit.

Why do we want to efficiently distribute them? What makes efficiency so important rather than an even distribution? Also, my argument is not about their willingness to pay. My question to you is why would coasianism better than just following the old standards of networking, in which you try to allocate burst packets in an even manner.

And, like I mentioned before, you're using Buchanan's rule as basically theological gospel, which is utterly ridiculous.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

I particularly like how you just ignored this post Xero. I wonder if you're going to reply to it, although I am not holding my breath.

Earlier in this thread I mentioned that Michelle came up with the word "megareal" to refer to "better than real". "Megareal" is a word, but it's also an idea.

Imagine that there was a website where people could submit new words/meanings. Members of this website would have to pay $1/month... but they could choose which words/meanings they spend their pennies on. This is the pragmatarian model.

The amount of pennies that were spent on new words/meaning would reveal/show/uncover their value. Knowing the value of new words/meaning would allow us to sort them by their value. Sorting new words/meaning by their value would make it easy to find/learn the most valuable new words/meanings. As a result, language would evolve more efficiently.

Could we use voting rather than spending? Sure. But willingness to vote (WTV) really isn't the same thing as willingness to pay (WTP).

Could we use "dialectics" to determine the value of "megareal"? Eh?

When you're in a grocery store... and your shopping cart is full of different products... and each and every different product is a different idea... how do you definitively prove that you truly value the different ideas that you've placed in your shopping cart? Do you vote for the ideas? Do you use "dialectics"? Of course not! You spend your money. And how you, and everybody else, spends money determines how society's limited resources (ie attention/time/brainpower) are allocated.

Society's attention is limited.
Society's time is limited.
Society's brainpower is limited.

These are fundamentally basic economic facts. All the attention/time/brainpower that you spend in this thread discussing this topic is attention/time/brainpower that you can't spend in another thread discussing another topic.

Buchanan's Rule is a fundamentally basic economic fact. If you don't chisel this fundamentally basic economic fact into your brain... then you're not going to understand the importance of using spending to help determine how society's limited resources are allocated/distributed/used. You're not going to understand the point/meaning/significance/necessity/importance of the Invisible Hand...

While I understand your position, taking Buchanan's rule to faith is incredibly ignorant of you.

Humans are not 100% efficient. We are, to a degree, efficient and effective, but you cannot be both.

Language, for example, has evolved naturally since the beginning of time. Our modern English actually is an evolution of Shakespearean English with a dash of Latin syntax and grammar rules.

Your example of the grocery store actually fails to put into consideration several factors which are qualitative and subjective.

When you're in a grocery store... and your shopping cart is full of different products... and each and every different product is a different idea... how do you definitively prove that you truly value the different ideas that you've placed in your shopping cart? Do you vote for the ideas? Do you use "dialectics"? Of course not! You spend your money.

When you are in a grocery store, for starters, you go for groceries. Now, I will not dabble on this Platonic argument that groceries are ideas. I am more of an Aristotelian materialist. However, let us assume that grocery cart A has all the things I need. All the things I need for what? That's something I, and only I, can tell based on what I consider important. I could just want food to last me for the month. I could want to make a dinner for my girlfriend that night to celebrate our anniversary. That is a specific purpose I know that I cannot place monetary value on it because I feel strongly about surviving for the month, or I love my girlfriend so much that I would want to cook something special for her.

Knowing the value of how much I love my girlfriend, or how important is it for me to survive is going to tell you what, exactly? That I am a self-centered asshole and not a humanitarian dove? Congratulations, you could have asked me that and I could have told you that that's exactly the kind of person I am anyways.

As for your word example, people value words not by their monetary value. People value words by their ease of access. "Wherefore" is hardly a word used in common language because it's less accessible than "why". Language doesn't evolve by rules of logic. It evolves by rules of communication. So why is the accessibility of a word not an accurate measurement of a word in general and instead you want to place monetary value into it? I mean, "Google" has become a word in common language now because Google is the most common search engine people use. You don't hear people saying "I'm gonna Yahoo! something" they say "I'm gonna Google something". That's an example of language evolving. "Megareal" is another word, which may become popular, may not become popular. What makes a word valuable is its popularity among the general public, or if it is a word only she and her friends know, how comfortable they feel using that sort of communication.

As a further example I can put the case of code-switch: code-switch is the ability to be able to carry conversations in two or more languages. Is it valuable? Only for the people involved in the code-switching and know the standard of code-switching communication the other person uses. If I try to use English-French-Spanish code-switch with people who are only bilingual I am going to confuse the hell out of them. Communications are a point-to-point. You cannot put value on point-to-point communication standards other than the subjective value that people who have devised the standard have placed in it.

[Neutraligon]

I'm sorry, this makes no sense in the context of other things you've said, namely that things which don't receive sufficient demand breadth are removed from the menu.

If an item is 'removed from the menu', and can't be allocated to because there wasn't sufficient demand breadth at some point in history, and can't be readded without coasianism, and you can't put it up for coasianism unless it receives sufficient allocations under the hilariously misnamed pragmatarian system, then you run smack dab into the "neither train may go until the other has passed" problem. Once something is gone, it can never be brought back, and nothing can ever be instituted.

What are you talking about?

The government asks, "should slavery be legal?"

A. Yes
B. No

If a lot more money gets spent on the "No" option... then clearly there's no need for coasianism. The smaller the value disparity between "Yes" and "No"... the greater the necessity of using coasianism.

The government asks, "should the Redskins change their name?"

A. Yes
B. No

If a lot more money gets spent on the "Yes" option... then clearly there's no need for coasianism. The Redskins would change their name. The smaller the value disparity between "Yes" and "No"... the greater the necessity of using coasianism.

So this is another change in your system? You are basically saying that unpopular ideas do not get compensated? Then what in the world is the purpose of your system? How is it that this will measure actual "demand" with this? The whole idea of your system was to use money to measure what people want and then compensate the losers, and now you are saying that if enough people disagree you will not compensate the losers? Then why the hell would those with highly unpopular ideas place any money down?

Also if this is your system, the how in the world is it actually being represented in that classroom of yours? I mean what was described for that classroom, and what you just described here are not evenly remotely alike.

[Lost heros]

I still wonder if there's a majority who tell Gallup that slavery is preferable, how that translates into public policy.

Does this force it into an actual bidding referenda (IE, 'coasianism')?

What's so hard to understand? You use coasianism to make decisions, except when you use pragmatarianism to make decisions, duhhhh!

I think we've muddied down both so much that the only difference is where the money goes.

[Neutraligon]

What's so hard to understand? You use coasianism to make decisions, except when you use pragmatarianism to make decisions, duhhhh!

I think we've muddied down both so much that the only difference is where the money goes.

At this point I am not sure I understand Xero's system at all. At first it was just that you paid the losers, but things keep getting added or removed or changed. Can anyone explain what is and is not included now?

How are decisions, made? Where does the money go to? How do we determine who gets what as compensation? How do we determine if there is compensation? How are questions even placed on the "ballot"?

[Soldati Senza Confini]

What are you talking about?

The government asks, "should slavery be legal?"

A. Yes
B. No

If a lot more money gets spent on the "No" option... then clearly there's no need for coasianism. The smaller the value disparity between "Yes" and "No"... the greater the necessity of using coasianism.

The government asks, "should the Redskins change their name?"

A. Yes
B. No

If a lot more money gets spent on the "Yes" option... then clearly there's no need for coasianism. The Redskins would change their name. The smaller the value disparity between "Yes" and "No"... the greater the necessity of using coasianism.

So this is another change in your system? You are basically saying that unpopular ideas do not get compensated? Then what in the world is the purpose of your system? How is it that this will measure actual "demand" with this? The whole idea of your system was to use money to measure what people want and then compensate the losers, and now you are saying that if enough people disagree you will not compensate the losers? Then why the hell would those with highly unpopular ideas place any money down?

Also if this is your system, the how in the world is it actually being represented in that classroom of yours? I mean what was described for that classroom, and what you just described here are not evenly remotely alike.

To be honest, I think we broke him.

[Neutraligon]

So this is another change in your system? You are basically saying that unpopular ideas do not get compensated? Then what in the world is the purpose of your system? How is it that this will measure actual "demand" with this? The whole idea of your system was to use money to measure what people want and then compensate the losers, and now you are saying that if enough people disagree you will not compensate the losers? Then why the hell would those with highly unpopular ideas place any money down?

Also if this is your system, the how in the world is it actually being represented in that classroom of yours? I mean what was described for that classroom, and what you just described here are not evenly remotely alike.

To be honest, I think we broke him.

Does anyone here actually know what Xero's system entails at this point? There have been so many changes, subtractions and additions that I am no sure what is and is not a part of the system.

Okay, disregarding everything else as plain fantastical bullshit.

Why do we want to efficiently distribute them? What makes efficiency so important rather than an even distribution? Also, my argument is not about their willingness to pay. My question to you is why would coasianism better than just following the old standards of networking, in which you try to allocate burst packets in an even manner.

And, like I mentioned before, you're using Buchanan's rule as basically theological gospel, which is utterly ridiculous.

Also, what does it mean to efficiently distribute them?

[Soldati Senza Confini]

To be honest, I think we broke him.

Does anyone here actually know what Xero's system entails at this point? There have been so many changes, subtractions and additions that I am no sure what is and is not a part of the system.

What I do understand is that he wants a way to efficiently allocate resources via coasianism/pragmatarianism.

I am not entirely sure what is this obsession with efficient allocation of resources, when we're fine even if we are wasteful.

[Neutraligon]

Does anyone here actually know what Xero's system entails at this point? There have been so many changes, subtractions and additions that I am no sure what is and is not a part of the system.

What I do understand is that he wants a way to efficiently allocate resources via coasianism/pragmatarianism.

I am not entirely sure what is this obsession with efficient allocation of resources, when we're fine even if we are wasteful.

What does it mean to efficiently allocate resources. Does efficiency mean to get it to the people with the most need? Does it mean to do so in a fast manner? Does it mean to do so with little cost? Does it mean to distribute it to those with the most means, or to those with the least? Efficiency is a meaningless word unless you are describing what it is you want to be efficient.

[Galloism]

Btw, Xero, copying my spreadsheet of my individual design onto your blog for an experiment you neither own nor control constitutes copyright infringement with no fair use exception. If you wish to share my designs with others, you can link them to this forum where they can be had with full context in a mode of expression approved by the copyright holder.

Consider this your takedown notice.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

What I do understand is that he wants a way to efficiently allocate resources via coasianism/pragmatarianism.

I am not entirely sure what is this obsession with efficient allocation of resources, when we're fine even if we are wasteful.

What does it mean to efficiently allocate resources. Does efficiency mean to get it to the people with the most need? Does it mean to do so in a fast manner? Does it mean to do so with little cost? Does it mean to distribute it to those with the most means, or to those with the least? Efficiency is a meaningless word unless you are describing what it is you want to be efficient.

For me the more important question is: why is efficiency so damn important?

I mean, for instance, efficiency in designing a network's usage and dividing networks is to have as little wasted IPs as possible. If you have 110 users on a network, you'll have to use a network size of 126 users. You're "wasting" 16 IP addresses which you don't need as per the specs of your network, but it's still designed within specs, so it doesn't really matter if it is wasteful or not.

Efficiency in the sense I comprehend it, myself, and in the way I am using it, is the ability to not "waste" things. However, I am not entirely sure what Xero means with it myself since I am not him, and so far he has been taking economic concepts and distorting them to almost a religious degree.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Btw, Xero, copying my spreadsheet of my individual design onto your blog for an experiment you neither own nor control constitutes copyright infringement with no fair use exception. If you wish to share my designs with others, you can link them to this forum where they can be had with full context in a mode of expression approved by the copyright holder.

Consider this your takedown notice.

He did what?

[Galloism]

Btw, Xero, copying my spreadsheet of my individual design onto your blog for an experiment you neither own nor control constitutes copyright infringement with no fair use exception. If you wish to share my designs with others, you can link them to this forum where they can be had with full context in a mode of expression approved by the copyright holder.

Consider this your takedown notice.

He did what?

Arguably, he violated copyright ownership of both the experimental results and my construction of those results, by reproducing them on a medium not approved by either the experimenter who owns those results (the professor) or the designer of the spreadsheet cataloguing those results (me).

As a result, I am giving him exactly one chance to remove the offending material from his website and point his reader here if they wish to review it before I contact google with a DMCA takedown notice regarding his blog.

[Neutraligon]

What does it mean to efficiently allocate resources. Does efficiency mean to get it to the people with the most need? Does it mean to do so in a fast manner? Does it mean to do so with little cost? Does it mean to distribute it to those with the most means, or to those with the least? Efficiency is a meaningless word unless you are describing what it is you want to be efficient.

For me the more important question is: why is efficiency so damn important?

I mean, for instance, efficiency in designing a network's usage and dividing networks is to have as little wasted IPs as possible. If you have 110 users on a network, you'll have to use a network size of 126 users. You're "wasting" 16 IP addresses which you don't need as per the specs of your network, but it's still designed within specs, so it doesn't really matter if it is wasteful or not.

Efficiency in the sense I comprehend it, myself, and in the way I am using it, is the ability to not "waste" things. However, I am not entirely sure what Xero means with it myself since I am not him, and so far he has been taking economic concepts and distorting them to almost a religious degree.

Hmm, I would not say no waste, but rather to have minimal waste while still allowing for leeway to fix problems. So for instance in a hospital efficient use of operating rooms (as in time) is important to ensure that more people can have surgeries they need. Of course the most "efficient" way to schedule time in an operating room is to know down to the second how long prep, surgery, and cleanup will take, so that the second cleanup is finished prep for the next surgery can begin with all operating rooms in use at all times. However, at the same time, there needs to be some leeway to allow for complications, or the surgeon simply being a bit slower.

I guess the most important question is what dos Xero mean by efficiency, and depending on the definition way is it important.

[Galloism]

For me the more important question is: why is efficiency so damn important?

I mean, for instance, efficiency in designing a network's usage and dividing networks is to have as little wasted IPs as possible. If you have 110 users on a network, you'll have to use a network size of 126 users. You're "wasting" 16 IP addresses which you don't need as per the specs of your network, but it's still designed within specs, so it doesn't really matter if it is wasteful or not.

Efficiency in the sense I comprehend it, myself, and in the way I am using it, is the ability to not "waste" things. However, I am not entirely sure what Xero means with it myself since I am not him, and so far he has been taking economic concepts and distorting them to almost a religious degree.

Hmm, I would not say no waste, but rather to have minimal waste while still allowing for leeway to fix problems. So for instance in a hospital efficient use of operating rooms (as in time) is important to ensure that more people can have surgeries they need. Of course the most "efficient" way to schedule time in an operating room is to know down to the second how long prep, surgery, and cleanup will take, so that the second cleanup is finished prep for the next surgery can begin with all operating rooms in use at all times. However, at the same time, there needs to be some leeway to allow for complications, or the surgeon simply being a bit slower.

There's also the issue of Surge Capacity when it comes to hospitals, which, incidentally, is sorely lacking.

[The Two Jerseys]

For me the more important question is: why is efficiency so damn important?

I mean, for instance, efficiency in designing a network's usage and dividing networks is to have as little wasted IPs as possible. If you have 110 users on a network, you'll have to use a network size of 126 users. You're "wasting" 16 IP addresses which you don't need as per the specs of your network, but it's still designed within specs, so it doesn't really matter if it is wasteful or not.

Efficiency in the sense I comprehend it, myself, and in the way I am using it, is the ability to not "waste" things. However, I am not entirely sure what Xero means with it myself since I am not him, and so far he has been taking economic concepts and distorting them to almost a religious degree.

Hmm, I would not say no waste, but rather to have minimal waste while still allowing for leeway to fix problems. So for instance in a hospital efficient use of operating rooms (as in time) is important to ensure that more people can have surgeries they need. Of course the most "efficient" way to schedule time in an operating room is to know down to the second how long prep, surgery, and cleanup will take, so that the second cleanup is finished prep for the next surgery can begin with all operating rooms in use at all times. However, at the same time, there needs to be some leeway to allow for complications, or the surgeon simply being a bit slower.

All I know is that making patients bid on who gets the operating room isn't efficient.

[Neutraligon]

Hmm, I would not say no waste, but rather to have minimal waste while still allowing for leeway to fix problems. So for instance in a hospital efficient use of operating rooms (as in time) is important to ensure that more people can have surgeries they need. Of course the most "efficient" way to schedule time in an operating room is to know down to the second how long prep, surgery, and cleanup will take, so that the second cleanup is finished prep for the next surgery can begin with all operating rooms in use at all times. However, at the same time, there needs to be some leeway to allow for complications, or the surgeon simply being a bit slower.

There's also the issue of Surge Capacity when it comes to hospitals, which, incidentally, is sorely lacking.

True. Like I said, without knowing what is meant by efficiency (hence why I am asking the questions I asked) it is hard to know if it is important.

Hmm, I would not say no waste, but rather to have minimal waste while still allowing for leeway to fix problems. So for instance in a hospital efficient use of operating rooms (as in time) is important to ensure that more people can have surgeries they need. Of course the most "efficient" way to schedule time in an operating room is to know down to the second how long prep, surgery, and cleanup will take, so that the second cleanup is finished prep for the next surgery can begin with all operating rooms in use at all times. However, at the same time, there needs to be some leeway to allow for complications, or the surgeon simply being a bit slower.

All I know is that making patients bid on who gets the operating room isn't efficient.

Also true. I believe this was brought up in another of Xero's threads.

So since so few people have answered i am guessing no one really knows what is and is not included in Xero's system?

[Galloism]

There's also the issue of Surge Capacity when it comes to hospitals, which, incidentally, is sorely lacking.

True. Like I said, without knowing what is meant by efficiency (hence why I am asking the questions I asked) it is hard to know if it is important.

It's just funny you should mention hospital efficiency - I've been thinking about creating a nationstates thread after the election on surge capacity and its importance.

It's actually one of the things the CDC is extremely worried about - if there was a "Black Plague" like epidemic, the medical system is running at nearly full capacity now, so there's very little room for surge.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Hmm, I would not say no waste, but rather to have minimal waste while still allowing for leeway to fix problems. So for instance in a hospital efficient use of operating rooms (as in time) is important to ensure that more people can have surgeries they need. Of course the most "efficient" way to schedule time in an operating room is to know down to the second how long prep, surgery, and cleanup will take, so that the second cleanup is finished prep for the next surgery can begin with all operating rooms in use at all times. However, at the same time, there needs to be some leeway to allow for complications, or the surgeon simply being a bit slower.

All I know is that making patients bid on who gets the operating room isn't efficient.

This is, arguably, where his system crumbles apart.

When it comes down to things like "how do I distribute essential widgets for everyone", his method is worse than useless. It's arguably good at dealing with thing that are severely buffered from your personal life, but as it gets closer to the wire, it tends to lose significance more and more.

[Neutraligon]

True. Like I said, without knowing what is meant by efficiency (hence why I am asking the questions I asked) it is hard to know if it is important.

It's just funny you should mention it - I've been thinking about creating a nationstates thread after the election on surge capacity and its importance.

It's actually one of the things the CDC is extremely worried about - if there was a "Black Plague" like epidemic, the medical system is running at nearly full capacity now, so there's very little room for surge.

Given that we are facing antibiotic resistant bacteria including for diseases like TB, yeah that is a big problem. Now there is an interesting question, how does Xero's system respond to emergencies of this or that nature. For instance, a category 5 hurricane is going to hit Florida and then move up the east coast, how do you determine who to evacuate, and how to you ensure it goes safely using Xero's system.

I think I have mentioned it before, but it seems to me Xero's system fails whenever time is of huge importance.

[Galloism]

It's just funny you should mention it - I've been thinking about creating a nationstates thread after the election on surge capacity and its importance.

It's actually one of the things the CDC is extremely worried about - if there was a "Black Plague" like epidemic, the medical system is running at nearly full capacity now, so there's very little room for surge.

Given that we are facing antibiotic resistant bacteria including for diseases like TB, yeah that is a big problem. Now there is an interesting question, how does Xero's system respond to emergencies of this or that nature. For instance, a category 5 hurricane is going to hit Florida and then move up the east coast, how do you determine who to evacuate, and how to you ensure it goes safely using Xero's system.

I think I have mentioned it before, but it seems to me Xero's system fails whenever time is of huge importance.

Xero's system fails in general for all sorts of practical and mathematical reasons.

[Neutraligon]

Given that we are facing antibiotic resistant bacteria including for diseases like TB, yeah that is a big problem. Now there is an interesting question, how does Xero's system respond to emergencies of this or that nature. For instance, a category 5 hurricane is going to hit Florida and then move up the east coast, how do you determine who to evacuate, and how to you ensure it goes safely using Xero's system.

I think I have mentioned it before, but it seems to me Xero's system fails whenever time is of huge importance.

Xero's system fails in general for all sorts of practical and mathematical reasons.

Well, that is of course assuming I get what that system is. As I said before I think I need a much more coherent explanation given all the changes that have happened to it. I mean, even your experiment, as well set up as it was, seems to no longer reflect what Xero is saying about his system.

[Galloism]

Xero's system fails in general for all sorts of practical and mathematical reasons.

Well, that is of course assuming I get what that system is. As I said before I think I need a much more coherent explanation given all the changes that have happened to it. I mean, even your experiment, as well set up as it was, seems to no longer reflect what Xero is saying about his system.

It's called moving the goalposts. Every time you score a goal, he moves the goalposts.

That being said, my experiment is in motion now, and will persist in its current form until completion.

[Ebliania]

So since so few people have answered i am guessing no one really knows what is and is not included in Xero's system?

Well I'll be chiming in here but honestly I have no idea what the fuck he's on. All I see is a bunch of moved goalposts.

[Neutraligon]

Well, that is of course assuming I get what that system is. As I said before I think I need a much more coherent explanation given all the changes that have happened to it. I mean, even your experiment, as well set up as it was, seems to no longer reflect what Xero is saying about his system.

It's called moving the goalposts. Every time you score a goal, he moves the goalposts.

That being said, my experiment is in motion now, and will persist in its current form until completion.

I have no issue with it continuing, it is an interesting experiment. It's just that neither it nor Xeros more...lax "experiment" no longer represent what they where supposed to, meaning that in the end no one is testing Xero's system, whatever that system is.