NationStates

Galloism wrote:

Trumptonium wrote:
And what happens if you don't get a social security number for your child.

You can't claim them on your taxes.

Sounds utterly unimaginable. How can parents cope with this punishment? No wonder children are named before they're conceived.

Salandriagado wrote:

Camicon wrote:Well, then the "game" wouldn't be bidding to name someone else's child, it would be fleecing idiots who are willing to spend money to name someone else's child.

I think you're missing the point. The strategy here is:

1) Open your books for bets on the name of the child.
2) Spend the minimum amount needed to force the name of the child to be something that nobody bet on.
3) Get more money from all of those bets that people lost than you spent in step 2.

I think you've misread me.

Xero's original scenario, letting people bid on what to name a child, is not a game theory scenario. Include the side bets and such and yes, you could have a game theory scenario, but then the "game" would be different; it wouldn't be bidding on the right to name a child, it would be managing a betting ring.

Xero's pseudo-auction charity is not a game theory scenario. It's incorrect to call it such, as the thread title does.

Ethel mermania wrote:

Camicon wrote:Well, then the "game" wouldn't be bidding to name someone else's child, it would be fleecing idiots who are willing to spend money to name someone else's child.

50 bucks if you name all your male children ethel.


...... Oh wait.

50 bucks per kid so named? Or 50 bucks now for future considerations?

Camicon wrote:

Salandriagado wrote:
I think you're missing the point. The strategy here is:

1) Open your books for bets on the name of the child.
2) Spend the minimum amount needed to force the name of the child to be something that nobody bet on.
3) Get more money from all of those bets that people lost than you spent in step 2.

I think you've misread me.

Xero's original scenario, letting people bid on what to name a child, is not a game theory scenario. Include the side bets and such and yes, you could have a game theory scenario, but then the "game" would be different; it wouldn't be bidding on the right to name a child, it would be managing a betting ring.

Xero's pseudo-auction charity is not a game theory scenario. It's incorrect to call it such, as the thread title does.

No, I think your'e misunderstanding the nature of Gallo's scam to fleece idiots using Xero's silly idea: it's not to fleece idiots willing to spend money to name a child, it's fleecing idiots willing to bet on such a thing. Different group of idiots.

Salandriagado wrote:

Camicon wrote:I think you've misread me.

Xero's original scenario, letting people bid on what to name a child, is not a game theory scenario. Include the side bets and such and yes, you could have a game theory scenario, but then the "game" would be different; it wouldn't be bidding on the right to name a child, it would be managing a betting ring.

Xero's pseudo-auction charity is not a game theory scenario. It's incorrect to call it such, as the thread title does.

No, I think your'e misunderstanding the nature of Gallo's scam to fleece idiots using Xero's silly idea: it's not to fleece idiots willing to spend money to name a child, it's fleecing idiots willing to bet on such a thing. Different group of idiots.

I call that a distinction without substance. A moneyed fool is a moneyed fool.

Salandriagado wrote:

Camicon wrote:I think you've misread me.

Xero's original scenario, letting people bid on what to name a child, is not a game theory scenario. Include the side bets and such and yes, you could have a game theory scenario, but then the "game" would be different; it wouldn't be bidding on the right to name a child, it would be managing a betting ring.

Xero's pseudo-auction charity is not a game theory scenario. It's incorrect to call it such, as the thread title does.

No, I think your'e misunderstanding the nature of Gallo's scam to fleece idiots using Xero's silly idea: it's not to fleece idiots willing to spend money to name a child, it's fleecing idiots willing to bet on such a thing. Different group of idiots.

I'm pretty sure you just described a huge fraction of the financial sector.....

Xero, any amount of money that I spend to name your kids "Beelzebub Niggerbeater" and "Clitoris Sieg-Heil" is totally worth it.

The Two Jerseys wrote:Xero, any amount of money that I spend to name your kids "Beelzebub Niggerbeater" and "Clitoris Sieg-Heil" is totally worth it.

I'll chip in a couple bucks to a worthy cause.

Camicon wrote:

Salandriagado wrote:
I think you're missing the point. The strategy here is:

1) Open your books for bets on the name of the child.
2) Spend the minimum amount needed to force the name of the child to be something that nobody bet on.
3) Get more money from all of those bets that people lost than you spent in step 2.

I think you've misread me.

Xero's original scenario, letting people bid on what to name a child, is not a game theory scenario. Include the side bets and such and yes, you could have a game theory scenario, but then the "game" would be different; it wouldn't be bidding on the right to name a child, it would be managing a betting ring.

Xero's pseudo-auction charity is not a game theory scenario. It's incorrect to call it such, as the thread title does.

Ethel mermania wrote:
50 bucks if you name all your male children ethel.


...... Oh wait.

50 bucks per kid so named? Or 50 bucks now for future considerations?

All future considerations contract payable in full on first delivey, 5 day net.

I don't really understand this thread but I just loved the titled and wanted to be a part of it. Have a great day!

South Bagus Nakalca wrote:I don't really understand this thread but I just loved the titled and wanted to be a part of it. Have a great day!

Dont sweqat, None of us understand it either,

What about just having the kid with someone else and naming it a name you like?

Insaeldor wrote:What about just having the kid with someone else and naming it a name you like?

As insane as most of the threads made by this poster are, this one has at least a grain of sense in it. There are plenty of first world countries that have lists of names that must be picked from, you can't always just chose the name you like.

Allanea wrote:

Let's take "dumb" to mean "useless". Do we need to measure the usefulness of a name? If so, what's the best way to do so? Personally, I don't think that voting is a useful measure of usefulness. If you vote for a name it just means that you think it's useful. But your vote really doesn't reveal just how useful the name is to you. It seems problematic for the rest of us to be in the dark about how useful a name is to you.

But why do names need to be useful, at all?

Well... how would you pronounce "Hr}~*4^:_X6Eh2tR"? Don't try and pronounce it, you might pull a muscle in your mouth. One band I really like is named "Air". So it doesn't really work to tell somebody, "I really like Air." They won't be able to see that I capitalized "Air". So I'd have to say, "I really like the band Air."

How many people participated in the process of deciding to name the band "Air"? Did one person decide it? Or maybe a dozen? For me the inherent problem with too few people deciding a name is that it increases the chances they will overlook obvious problems with a name. More heads are better than less heads.

Democracy can involve countless heads. The problem is that there's no mechanism to filter out the frivolous input. It's a very different story with markets. The mechanism that markets use to filter out frivolous input is called "willingness to pay". The more money that you're willing to pay for something, the more useful it must be to you. Unless you're crazy. Fortunately, most people aren't crazy.

If we used spending for names then far more useful names would be given to everything. There would be far fewer redundant names (air vs Air) and all names would be easier to pronounce and remember.

Xerographica wrote:

Allanea wrote:
But why do names need to be useful, at all?

Well... how would you pronounce "Hr}~*4^:_X6Eh2tR"? Don't try and pronounce it, you might pull a muscle in your mouth. One band I really like is named "Air". So it doesn't really work to tell somebody, "I really like Air." They won't be able to see that I capitalized "Air". So I'd have to say, "I really like the band Air."

How many people participated in the process of deciding to name the band "Air"? Did one person decide it? Or maybe a dozen? For me the inherent problem with too few people deciding a name is that it increases the chances they will overlook obvious problems with a name. More heads are better than less heads.

Democracy can involve countless heads. The problem is that there's no mechanism to filter out the frivolous input. It's a very different story with markets. The mechanism that markets use to filter out frivolous input is called "willingness to pay". The more money that you're willing to pay for something, the more useful it must be to you. Unless you're crazy. Fortunately, most people aren't crazy.

If we used spending for names then far more useful names would be given to everything. There would be far fewer redundant names (air vs Air) and all names would be easier to pronounce and remember.

Or (far more likely) you'd have a lot more names like "Auschwitz-Makes-Me-Smile redtube.com"...

Thermodolia wrote:Um there is a time limit, it's called birth. Ya need a name before the kid is born. Also I'm extremely confused about how my future boyfriend is pregos

Life, life finds a way Therms.

Insaeldor wrote:What about just having the kid with someone else and naming it a name you like?

You aren't going to be the only person using your kid's name. Your kid will be a member of society. As such, it seems reasonable to give society the opportunity to help name its newest member. Let me be clear. I definitely wouldn't want to mandate this. But my best guess is that, chances are really good that the name that the market gives your kid will be far more useful than any name that you could come up with.

The market is based on the premise that, no matter how useful any producer considers their product to be, its true usefulness should be ultimately determined by consumers.

Consumers > Producers

The more money that consumers are willing to spend on a product, the more useful it is to them.

For all intents and purposes a name is a product. Right now, with traditional naming, every person will judge, for themselves, the usefulness of your kid's name. The less useful your kid's name is to others, the more people will perceive that you made a mistake. The fact of the matter is that nobody would benefit from this mistake. Your kid certainly would be worse off, and so would society. Nobody is an island.

Since the market's premise is that consumers > producers, why not just let consumers name your kid? Consumers would logically spend the most money on the most useful name (product). If not, then the market's premise is really wrong.

The Two Jerseys wrote:

Xerographica wrote:Well... how would you pronounce "Hr}~*4^:_X6Eh2tR"? Don't try and pronounce it, you might pull a muscle in your mouth. One band I really like is named "Air". So it doesn't really work to tell somebody, "I really like Air." They won't be able to see that I capitalized "Air". So I'd have to say, "I really like the band Air."

How many people participated in the process of deciding to name the band "Air"? Did one person decide it? Or maybe a dozen? For me the inherent problem with too few people deciding a name is that it increases the chances they will overlook obvious problems with a name. More heads are better than less heads.

Democracy can involve countless heads. The problem is that there's no mechanism to filter out the frivolous input. It's a very different story with markets. The mechanism that markets use to filter out frivolous input is called "willingness to pay". The more money that you're willing to pay for something, the more useful it must be to you. Unless you're crazy. Fortunately, most people aren't crazy.

If we used spending for names then far more useful names would be given to everything. There would be far fewer redundant names (air vs Air) and all names would be easier to pronounce and remember.

Or (far more likely) you'd have a lot more names like "Auschwitz-Makes-Me-Smile redtube.com"...

The market would be pretty useless if the most money was spent on the least useful products.

Xerographica wrote:

The Two Jerseys wrote:Or (far more likely) you'd have a lot more names like "Auschwitz-Makes-Me-Smile redtube.com"...

The market would be pretty useless if the most money was spent on the least useful products.

You think that companies wouldn't spend money to advertise? I imagine there would be many little redtube out there sucking on their mammas mammaries. And redtube would be trying to capitalise on that.

Fartsniffage wrote:

Xerographica wrote:The market would be pretty useless if the most money was spent on the least useful products.

You think that companies wouldn't spend money to advertise? I imagine there would be many little redtube out there sucking on their mammas mammaries. And redtube would be trying to capitalise on that.

I have absolutely no idea how much money any company would be willing to spend on naming babies. Are baby names really the best way to advertise a company? How does Amazon's head of marketing pitch baby names to Jeff Bezos? "We should spend $10 million dollars on baby names because... " Voila! A bunch of kids named "Kindle" running around.

Imagine that you're Barnes and Noble's head of marketing. You go to the market naming website, search for "Kindle" and see a list of all the babies with this potential name. You click on the first result and see...

1. Kindle: $4,500
2. Samantha: $2,000
3. Gertrude: $100

What do you do? Do you submit "Nook" as a potential name? If so, you'd have to outspend "Kindle". Alternatively, you could spend money on "Samantha". Or you could search for a baby that doesn't have "Kindle" submitted to it and submit "Nook" to it. Of course, you know that Amazon's head of marketing will search the market naming website for "Nook". So maybe your best strategy is to join forces with the people who prefer "Samantha".

Worst case scenario, if baby naming does turn out to be so lucrative, that's a lot of money raised for college.

I guess if Grandma wants the baby named after her shes going to have to dig into that there social security a bit.

Sorry Grandma, if you really cared you would have skimped on the glaucoma medication.

Xerographica wrote:

Fartsniffage wrote:
You think that companies wouldn't spend money to advertise? I imagine there would be many little redtube out there sucking on their mammas mammaries. And redtube would be trying to capitalise on that.

I have absolutely no idea how much money any company would be willing to spend on naming babies. Are baby names really the best way to advertise a company? How does Amazon's head of marketing pitch baby names to Jeff Bezos? "We should spend $10 million dollars on baby names because... " Voila! A bunch of kids named "Kindle" running around.

Imagine that you're Barnes and Noble's head of marketing. You go to the market naming website, search for "Kindle" and see a list of all the babies with this potential name. You click on the first result and see...

1. Kindle: $4,500
2. Samantha: $2,000
3. Gertrude: $100

What do you do? Do you submit "Nook" as a potential name? If so, you'd have to outspend "Kindle". Alternatively, you could spend money on "Samantha". Or you could search for a baby that doesn't have "Kindle" submitted to it and submit "Nook" to it. Of course, you know that Amazon's head of marketing will search the market naming website for "Nook". So maybe your best strategy is to join forces with the people who prefer "Samantha".

Worst case scenario, if baby naming does turn out to be so lucrative, that's a lot of money raised for college.

Let me ask you something Xero. If you walked into a company marketing department - or any company department for that matter - and said "I have an idea. I don't have any idea what it will do, what the results will be, if they'll be good or bad, have done zero research on the subject, and let's implement it immediately and see what happens", what do you think their response would be?

Galloism wrote:

Xerographica wrote:I have absolutely no idea how much money any company would be willing to spend on naming babies. Are baby names really the best way to advertise a company? How does Amazon's head of marketing pitch baby names to Jeff Bezos? "We should spend $10 million dollars on baby names because... " Voila! A bunch of kids named "Kindle" running around.

Imagine that you're Barnes and Noble's head of marketing. You go to the market naming website, search for "Kindle" and see a list of all the babies with this potential name. You click on the first result and see...

1. Kindle: $4,500
2. Samantha: $2,000
3. Gertrude: $100

What do you do? Do you submit "Nook" as a potential name? If so, you'd have to outspend "Kindle". Alternatively, you could spend money on "Samantha". Or you could search for a baby that doesn't have "Kindle" submitted to it and submit "Nook" to it. Of course, you know that Amazon's head of marketing will search the market naming website for "Nook". So maybe your best strategy is to join forces with the people who prefer "Samantha".

Worst case scenario, if baby naming does turn out to be so lucrative, that's a lot of money raised for college.

Let me ask you something Xero. If you walked into a company marketing department - or any company department for that matter - and said "I have an idea. I don't have any idea what it will do, what the results will be, if they'll be good or bad, have done zero research on the subject, and let's implement it immediately and see what happens", what do you think their response would be?

To be fair if it's the marketing department they'll probably go for it..

Neanderthaland wrote:I guess if Grandma wants the baby named after her shes going to have to dig into that there social security a bit.

Sorry Grandma, if you really cared you would have skimped on the glaucoma medication.

Well yeah! Grandma has to decide for herself how big of a sacrifice her granddaughter's name is truly worth. Same with Grandpa... and the other two grandparents... and the parents... and the siblings... and the cousins... and the aunts and uncles... and the family friends... and the neighbors... and countless other people.

Everybody decides for themselves how big of a sacrifice the baby's name is truly worth.

X = the amount of thought that goes into traditional naming
Y = the amount of thought that goes into market naming

X < Y

Y is greater than X. It's much greater! What kinda parent wouldn't want to maximize the amount of thought that goes into their baby's name?

Imagine if God existed. Wouldn't you want him to name your kid? Well, as far as I know, the market is the closest thing we have to God. The market is the greatest amount of brainpower and information that can be used for any given decision. We currently really underestimate the usefulness of this God because we can't see all its brainpower/information. How do we quantify any given family's brainpower/information? How do we quantify this community's brainpower/information? We can't. Not yet at least.

Of course, as somebody who is willing to make big sacrifices to the market God, I'm admittedly super biased. So it's entirely possible that I'm overestimating the usefulness of my God. This is why I really appreciate the necessity of devising experiments to test my God's usefulness.

Xerographica wrote:

Neanderthaland wrote:I guess if Grandma wants the baby named after her shes going to have to dig into that there social security a bit.

Sorry Grandma, if you really cared you would have skimped on the glaucoma medication.

Well yeah! Grandma has to decide for herself how big of a sacrifice her granddaughter's name is truly worth. Same with Grandpa... and the other two grandparents... and the parents... and the siblings... and the cousins... and the aunts and uncles... and the family friends... and the neighbors... and countless other people.

Everybody decides for themselves how big of a sacrifice the baby's name is truly worth.

X = the amount of thought that goes into traditional naming
Y = the amount of thought that goes into market naming

X < Y

Y is greater than X. It's much greater! What kinda parent wouldn't want to maximize the amount of thought that goes into their baby's name?

Imagine if God existed. Wouldn't you want him to name your kid? Well, as far as I know, the market is the closest thing we have to God. The market is the greatest amount of brainpower and information that can be used for any given decision. We currently really underestimate the usefulness of this God because we can't see all its brainpower/information. How do we quantify any given family's brainpower/information? How do we quantify this community's brainpower/information? We can't. Not yet at least.

Of course, as somebody who is willing to make big sacrifices to the market God, I'm admittedly super biased. So it's entirely possible that I'm overestimating the usefulness of my God. This is why I really appreciate the necessity of devising experiments to test my God's usefulness.

Question for you: why are you proposing a solution to a problem that nobody has?

The Two Jerseys wrote:

Xerographica wrote:Well yeah! Grandma has to decide for herself how big of a sacrifice her granddaughter's name is truly worth. Same with Grandpa... and the other two grandparents... and the parents... and the siblings... and the cousins... and the aunts and uncles... and the family friends... and the neighbors... and countless other people.

Everybody decides for themselves how big of a sacrifice the baby's name is truly worth.

X = the amount of thought that goes into traditional naming
Y = the amount of thought that goes into market naming

X < Y

Y is greater than X. It's much greater! What kinda parent wouldn't want to maximize the amount of thought that goes into their baby's name?

Imagine if God existed. Wouldn't you want him to name your kid? Well, as far as I know, the market is the closest thing we have to God. The market is the greatest amount of brainpower and information that can be used for any given decision. We currently really underestimate the usefulness of this God because we can't see all its brainpower/information. How do we quantify any given family's brainpower/information? How do we quantify this community's brainpower/information? We can't. Not yet at least.

Of course, as somebody who is willing to make big sacrifices to the market God, I'm admittedly super biased. So it's entirely possible that I'm overestimating the usefulness of my God. This is why I really appreciate the necessity of devising experiments to test my God's usefulness.

Question for you: why are you proposing a solution to a problem that nobody has?

The answers in the post. It's his Religion.

Nothing to do with what is rational, reasonable, or correct. And it doesn't matter that he gets systematically shut down every time he does this. He has to keep going door to door spreading his gospel.