Xerographica wrote:Galloism wrote:Indeed, which is why the amount of sacrifice involved is a number so small it would round down to zero on most calculators, and is therefore functionally equivalent to zero.
But TIME sacrificed does not, and time = money.
Consider three ways of allocating votes.
You get more votes the longer you are willing to sit in a chair in a room for hours on end with nothing but nothing to do.
You get more votes the longer you are willing to do the downward-facing dog.
You get more votes the more you pay.
These are all potential methods of measuring intensity of preference. In some ways they are all better than the system we have got, because they all attempt to measure intensity at all, whereas one person-one vote does not. That said, they are all obviously flawed. The first will skew voting to people who don’t have jobs or things they really need to do that keep them from sitting in a boring room doing nothing. The second will skew voting to yoga practitioners. The third will skew voting to rich people. - John Holbo,
Selling Votes
Yes, all systems, including using money, are flawed. We know this.
Sure, buying 5 oranges for $5 dollars would be somewhat different than spending N5 dollars on Agents of Shield.
No shit. Maybe that's what I have been saying.
Oranges are a private good but Agents of Shield, in this context, is a public good.
Actually, no. It's a
club good. You really need to learn your economics terms and what they mean if you're going to pontificate on economics.
But in both cases you're signaling the value of two things that match your preferences. In both cases you're informing producers about the intensity of your specific preferences.
Probably not, really. Without sacrifice, which your system for netflix completely lacks, there's little motivation for people to make choices, as they don't actually HAVE to make choices, and so what you get will likely be junk data.
IE, $10 to whatever I'm watching this week.
Right now you believe that it's necessary to inform producers about the intensity of your preferences...
Actually, I don't, I'm merely using your arguments and precepts to prove how your idea violates even your own principles.
but that this info is accurately and effectively transmitted by your viewing/consumption habits.
More accurate than allocating cash, sure, given the allocation of cash requires no sacrifice. Some guy told me that was important. Do you know him? A guy named Xerographica?
Again, just because you spend so much time consuming this thread really doesn't accurately inform me about the intensity of your preference for it.
Oh, I love your threads. Watching you get smacked down over and over again and trying to twist yourself into a pretzel trying to defend your internally inconsistent ideas is great entertainment. It's in the running to be one the funniest gags on NSG, although you'll have a hard time catching up to the wheelchair incident.
I know exactly how many words you allocate to this thread but in no way, shape or form does that inform me about how much you value this thread.
I value your threads lots, but not for the reason you probably want. Sort of like watching Snakes on a Plane. That was a movie I valued highly, because it was so
bad it was unintentionally hilarious.
If we don't know the value of threads, then how can we expect more valuable ones to be consistently and regularly created? In the absence of the knowledge of thread values, there really won't be a virtuous cycle of value creation.
Seems to be working fine. You keep coming back to say ridiculous things and I keep laughing and laughing and laughing.
If you watch something 4 times, but don't allocate any fees to it, then I'm going to guess that maybe it's something that does a really good job of putting you to sleep.
A fair point, although that's a certain kind of value. People buy ambien all the time.
If you reply to this thread 100 times, but don't allocate any fees to it, then I'm going to guess that you value other threads more highly.
Eh, that's not a fair assumption. I'm not likely to allocate any fees of any kind to any thread, and if you put a $1 month fee on me, I'm likely to leave entirely or allocate money only to my wife's threads, and her to mine. This is because we're rational actors.
Spending your fees has an opportunity cost.
ONLY the time you spend allocating. Which, of course, is also spent watching movies. You aren't $10 richer because you didn't allocate, or $10 poorer because you did. You've incurred no monetary sacrifice.
You have to throw other things under the bus. So you better endeavor to throw the least valuable things under the bus.
No, you don't, because you
still have access to those things. If you threw them under the bus, you couldn't watch them. As it is, you can continue to watch them even if you don't fund them, so there's no sacrifice to not funding them.
Some guy told me that was important.
It's certainly the case that replying to you also requires that I throw other things under the bus. And I better hope that I'm throwing the least valuable things under the bus. But spending 5 hours on this thread isn't the same thing as spending $5 dollars... or $10 dollars... or $100 dollars on this thread. Time is money but $1 dollar doesn't necessarily equal 1 minute or 10 minutes.
No, it equals a minimum of $7.25 an hour if you live in the US, depending on how much you get paid. So 5 hours is a minimum of $36.25, more if your time is worth more.
I really don't want Netflix interpreting my viewing habits to determine how to allocate my fees. I don't want Netflix to do any interpretation of my behavior. Netflix doesn't know me. Netflix isn't sitting next time me when I'm watching a show. Netflix can't see how bored or interested or excited I am when I'm watching something. Netflix can't hear how loud I'm laughing or sobbing. Netflix can't see when I fall asleep. Netflix isn't my bff or gf. I mean, not yet at least. Maybe in the future Netflix can be some super cool robot that will hang out with me and know me better than I know myself. It will know when I want something clarified. It will know when I want popcorn. It will know when I want my feet rubbed. It will know when I want to cuddle. It will know when I want to dance.
If Netflix does not interpretation of your behavior, than there's no interpretation possible of the $5 either. That, itself, requires an interpretation.
You want Netflix interpreting your behavior? Yeah? Fine. Allocating your fees would be entirely optional.
[/quote]
Also, provide no significant probative information. It would be more probative to see how much
time a person spent allocating their fees than it would be the allocation itself.
And the rest was just more nonsense, other than the inexplicable praise of patreon, which is approximately the most inefficient thing ever. People often fund vaporware on patreon, over and over, and get nothing delivered.