Ranking Books - Voting VS Donating

[Washington Resistance Army]

You should do something normal like argue about politics, guns or religion or something instead of continually bringing out an idea that you know nobody likes.

Religion and guns have been beaten to death as topics of discussion on this forum though....

And yet those debates are still more interesting than this nonsense.

[Kvatchdom]

I just generally like reading, helps me train to focus with my ADD now that I'm not on medication anymore. But I don't really enjoy drivel like 50 shades of grey or books written by faux ideologues like 12 Rules For Life.

[Xerographica]

Religion and guns have been beaten to death as topics of discussion on this forum though....

And yet those debates are still more interesting than this nonsense.

How, exactly, is this nonsense? Is it nonsense that you use donations to help rank non-profits such as Gun Owners of America (GOA)? Is it nonsense that increasing the GOA's ranking helps it to compete resources away from other uses?

For me personally, guns just aren't that interesting. In the Army infantry I sure spent a lot of time shooting them, which was fun, but generally not worth the hassle of having to clean them all the time. In terms of books, I really liked the Point of Impact by Stephen Hunter. Did you ever read it? The movie wasn't nearly as good, but I suppose it wasn't terrible.

[Washington Resistance Army]

And yet those debates are still more interesting than this nonsense.

How, exactly, is this nonsense? Is it nonsense that you use donations to help rank non-profits such as Gun Owners of America (GOA)? Is it nonsense that increasing the GOA's ranking helps it to compete resources away from other uses?

For me personally, guns just aren't that interesting. In the Army infantry I sure spent a lot of time shooting them, which was fun, but generally not worth the hassle of having to clean them all the time. In terms of books, I really liked the Point of Impact by Stephen Hunter. Did you ever read it? The movie wasn't nearly as good, but I suppose it wasn't terrible.

I don't use donations to rank groups like GOA, I use their organizations history and their continued statements and ideological leanings to reach the conclusion that I align with them more than the NRA. I don't use donations or money to rank anything because that's just dumb.

[Galloism]

Is it nonsense that you use donations to help rank non-profits such as Gun Owners of America (GOA)?

Yes, this statement is utter nonsense.

[Anywhere Else But Here]

Oh, Christ. Did you not listen to any of the criticism about the uselessness of such an experiment?

[Xerographica]

How, exactly, is this nonsense? Is it nonsense that you use donations to help rank non-profits such as Gun Owners of America (GOA)? Is it nonsense that increasing the GOA's ranking helps it to compete resources away from other uses?

For me personally, guns just aren't that interesting. In the Army infantry I sure spent a lot of time shooting them, which was fun, but generally not worth the hassle of having to clean them all the time. In terms of books, I really liked the Point of Impact by Stephen Hunter. Did you ever read it? The movie wasn't nearly as good, but I suppose it wasn't terrible.

I don't use donations to rank groups like GOA, I use their organizations history and their continued statements and ideological leanings to reach the conclusion that I align with them more than the NRA. I don't use donations or money to rank anything because that's just dumb.

Please, in your own words, describe exactly what you think I mean by "rank something".

[Xerographica]

I just donated $2 dollars...

The Wealth of Nations: $2 dollars

[Xerographica]

Oh, Christ. Did you not listen to any of the criticism about the uselessness of such an experiment?

This thread gives everyone the opportunity to help reveal some of their demand for knowledge. How could that ever be useless?

[Xerographica]

Is it nonsense that you use donations to help rank non-profits such as Gun Owners of America (GOA)?

Yes, this statement is utter nonsense.

Here's the basic economic problem...

society's desires: unlimited
society's resources: limited

Is this nonsense?

[The Blaatschapen]

Yes, this statement is utter nonsense.

Here's the basic economic problem...

society's desires: unlimited
society's resources: limited

Is this nonsense?

Yes.

I am considering working less, so I get less money (trade off against time). Explain this? After all, I'd be less capable of producing and consuming economic resources this way.

[Kubra]

Here's the basic economic problem...

society's desires: unlimited
society's resources: limited

Is this nonsense?

Yes.

I am considering working less, so I get less money (trade off against time). Explain this? After all, I'd be less capable of producing and consuming economic resources this way.

And this was quite common in the early days of british industrialisation: wages had to drop because once factory workers had made a certain wage for the day they just fucked off for a pint.

[The Blaatschapen]

Yes.

I am considering working less, so I get less money (trade off against time). Explain this? After all, I'd be less capable of producing and consuming economic resources this way.

And this was quite common in the early days of british industrialisation: wages had to drop because once factory workers had made a certain wage for the day they just fucked off for a pint.

British workers used to have good ideas.

[Xerographica]

Here's the basic economic problem...

society's desires: unlimited
society's resources: limited

Is this nonsense?

Yes.

I am considering working less, so I get less money (trade off against time). Explain this? After all, I'd be less capable of producing and consuming economic resources this way.

If you work less, all else being equal, it means that you'll have less money to spend, which means that you'll have less influence over how society's limited resources are divided among its unlimited desires. How does this make the basic economic problem nonsense?

In this thread we're trying to determine how to divide our community's attention among these 10 books. We can use two ways to communicate our preferred division... voting and donating. These are very different things...so naturally they will differently divide our community's attention among the 10 books. In other words, they will rank the 10 books differently. If they don't, then we could entirely abolish money and use voting to rank everything.

[Jelmatt]

Xero, please, just... please. Write about something else. For God's sake, anything else.

You're pleading me to write about something else... and I'm pleading you to show me the demand for topics.

Let's say that I write thread after thread about my second favorite topic... epiphytes. About how awesome they are. About which epiphytic orchid is going to be the first to reach Canada. About which Tillandsia is going to be the first to naturalize in California. About all the different epiphytes which grow on cactus.

Then what? You'll love and benefit from the change in my behavior? Really? You're interested in epiphytes? I doubt it. You have this idea that you can simply complain about behavior, or applaud it, and this will somehow maximize its benefit. Your idea is incredibly wrong. There's a drastic and detrimental disparity between your idea and reality.

To the left of this text box I see a link for AN occupies you. How do you think your citizens are treated? I click on the thread and lo and behold the topic doesn't interest me at all. Not even a little bit. So I reply, "This topic really doesn't interest me. Please write about anything else." Except I don't do that. Why don't I? Because I understand that's not how benefit is maximized. In order for benefit to be maximized, we all need the opportunity to use our money to communicate which threads/topics provide us with the most benefit.

If I was a genius then I could perfectly articulate exactly how awesome this forum would be if we used our donations to reveal our demand for threads/topics. Sadly for both of us I'm not a genius. I'm just a guy who is earnestly and meagerly attempting to use this thread to show everyone the economics that I can't effectively explain.

So in a very important sense we're in the same boat. Neither of us want other people to write about boring or stupid or uninteresting topics. You and I both want to be as happy as kids in a candy store. We have exactly the same ends, but our means are completely different. You think it's effective to simply complain about people's threads. I think your strategy is terrible. My preferred strategy is for you, me and everyone to use our donations to reveal our demand for threads/topics. Then, and only then, can the supply be anywhere close to optimal. Then, and only then, will we truly be as happy as kids in a candy store.

Basically, you think it's effective for people to use their words to complain about the worst threads. I personally think it's far more effective for people to use their money to highlight the best threads.

Mate, I'm not complaining just because the topic doesn't interest me. I'm complaining because you spam a bunch of threads about the same topic over and over again, only ever slightly changing your wording, and you never post about anything else. I can deal with a thread that doesn't interest me. What I can't deal with is a new thread about the same topic from the same author with no new perspectives or ideas brought in being published any time his last thread stagnates for a bit.

Go ahead and write about epiphytes. I might not think it's interesting, but at least it won't be the same shit again.

[Ifreann]

The utility of this donating twaddle is shown once again as exactly one person participates, the person who is obsessed with the concept.

[Kubra]

Yes.

I am considering working less, so I get less money (trade off against time). Explain this? After all, I'd be less capable of producing and consuming economic resources this way.

If you work less, all else being equal, it means that you'll have less money to spend, which means that you'll have less influence over how society's limited resources are divided among its unlimited desires. How does this make the basic economic problem nonsense?

In this thread we're trying to determine how to divide our community's attention among these 10 books. We can use two ways to communicate our preferred division... voting and donating. These are very different things...so naturally they will differently divide our community's attention among the 10 books. In other words, they will rank the 10 books differently. If they don't, then we could entirely abolish money and use voting to rank everything.

I mean, given that we've gotten far more data by the voting method than we have so far with the vote-by-donating method, maybe we ought to abolish money. It's given us no data here.

[Xerographica]

Mate, I'm not complaining just because the topic doesn't interest me. I'm complaining because you spam a bunch of threads about the same topic over and over again, only ever slightly changing your wording, and you never post about anything else. I can deal with a thread that doesn't interest me. What I can't deal with is a new thread about the same topic from the same author with no new perspectives or ideas brought in being published any time his last thread stagnates for a bit.

You believe that there are too many threads about ranking things. Obviously this means that you believe that there are too few threads about other topics. What's the best way for our community to communicate when a topic is in short supply? To make a donation to NS for that topic. This is what I believe.

My OP has more perspectives in it than any other OP. If you don't know this then evidently you didn't click the last spoiler. Please do so and educate yourself about the subject that clearly concerns you.

[Iahselene]

Sorry about the outcome of your experiment. It seems to have mainly gathered no attention because your audience doesn't respond well to it. Perhaps you could try family and friends?

[Galloism]

I just donated $2 dollars...

Proof?

The Wealth of Nations: $2 dollars

So you value all the other books at absolute zero, no value at all?

[Xerographica]

If you work less, all else being equal, it means that you'll have less money to spend, which means that you'll have less influence over how society's limited resources are divided among its unlimited desires. How does this make the basic economic problem nonsense?

In this thread we're trying to determine how to divide our community's attention among these 10 books. We can use two ways to communicate our preferred division... voting and donating. These are very different things...so naturally they will differently divide our community's attention among the 10 books. In other words, they will rank the 10 books differently. If they don't, then we could entirely abolish money and use voting to rank everything.

I mean, given that we've gotten far more data by the voting method than we have so far with the vote-by-donating method, maybe we ought to abolish money. It's given us no data here.

Go ahead and start a thread arguing that money should be abolished and replaced with voting. I look forward to reading the responses.

[The Blaatschapen]

So, I was a Moderator for four years, right?

Let's say I spent 5 hours per week on mod actions. And had 12 weeks of holidays. So 40 weeks per year. 40 times 5 times 4 years is 800 hours total.

It was volunteering work, so all time was effectively donated. Now, my professional hourly rate is not something I'd disclose, but Dutch minimal wage was €9.04 per hour in 2017.

800 times €9.04 is €7200 and a bit.

I'll donate this to a cat in a hat. You can do the conversion back to USD.

[Xerographica]

Sorry about the outcome of your experiment. It seems to have mainly gathered no attention because your audience doesn't respond well to it. Perhaps you could try family and friends?

The audience is my family and friends. Perhaps we aren't the most functional family... but I'd like to think that we're working on it.

[Kubra]

I mean, given that we've gotten far more data by the voting method than we have so far with the vote-by-donating method, maybe we ought to abolish money. It's given us no data here.

Go ahead and start a thread arguing that money should be abolished and replaced with voting. I look forward to reading the responses.

that's called the LWDT heyooooo

[Galloism]

So, I was a Moderator for four years, right?

Let's say I spent 5 hours per week on mod actions. And had 12 weeks of holidays. So 40 weeks per year. 40 times 5 times 4 years is 800 hours total.

It was volunteering work, so all time was effectively donated. Now, my professional hourly rate is not something I'd disclose, but Dutch minimal wage was €9.04 per hour in 2017.

800 times €9.04 is €7200 and a bit.

I'll donate this to a cat in a hat. You can do the conversion back to USD.

Rate of exchange fluctuates, but that’s right around $8400 for Cat in the Hat. I can pull the average of the four years if you want to be more precise.

Mark it down, Xero.