|
He's advocating an anti-democratic political system owned wholesale by telecommunications companies and corporate fiefdoms. This is literally a dystopia and he's a moron if he's does not understand the consequences of this. I honestly hope he does secede so that American Civil War Mark 2: The Union vs. Neckbeards can get into full swing. edit: oh wow, should have read the custom title. I given Eripsa attention and therefore made him richer, dammit! rudatron fucked around with this message at 12:51 on Nov 30, 2013 |
#
¿
Nov 30, 2013 12:47
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 18:28 |
|
|
Attention Economy Mark II: Marble Harder Too long; didn't read. Eripsa can you summarize this in 10 lines or less.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 30, 2013 23:56
|
|
|
It's because the OP is exactly the same person, but with a different account.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2013 00:14
|
|
|
I like technology, but eripsa is insane, and if you ignore class issues with technology you're going to gently caress over society.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2013 01:45
|
|
|
A moon colony in 1 year is also within the realms of possibility. You better start your astronaut training!
|
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2013 00:07
|
|
|
Guys, I have a self organizing system. It'll be great, and more important then that, it's within the realms of possibility. Okay, here it goes: You do what I say. That's it! You'll get some leeway to how you might do something. But think of me as the, uh, kernel of this grand amorphous and flexible new economy, and you're like the applications that do things. Here, have some pictures:   
rudatron fucked around with this message at 01:07 on Dec 4, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2013 00:18
|
|
|
Cream_Filling posted:As I've been saying, "self-organizing" is an empty term since any system with humans in it is going to be self-organizing by your definition. Name me a single human grouping or institution that's not self-organizing in the general way you use the term. You're not going to see it short of somehow circumventing human autonomy.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2013 01:44
|
|
|
I've still yet to see what relationship attention has to utility. Most people do not pay attention to poo poo that is super important until it breaks.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 6, 2013 06:21
|
|
|
You didn't answer the question. 'Utility' is also a moral and super-ego dominated judgement of what one needs and deserves and so on. A reflexive response to something like a flashlight doesn't inform you at all about what that person values. It doesn't even tell you that much about what they actually feel, because its contingent on the events happening around them. You cannot deduce, for example, what someone desires from what they randomly decide to look at this day or the other. Suppose someone is very thirsty. They need water, but their environment has no water to look at, except a (salt-water) lake. This person then stares at a lake for however long it takes for your magical algorithms to figure out that it is important. What should the algorithm decide, based on only this? Does the lake need upgrading? Maybe it's dirty? Maybe he doesn't like the lake, and it should be drained? Maybe lakes are valuable to communities of people, because of the attention it is receiving, and therefore more lakes should be built? The algorithm determines that the lake should get upgraded, and so sends a crew of people to add more features and wildlife. The citizen has died of dehydration induced heat stroke. rudatron fucked around with this message at 23:12 on Dec 7, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2013 23:09
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 18:28 |
|
|
If your political economy has a literal deus ex machina in it, then your understanding of history and other people is pretty boned. Crazy uncle has this one weird trick to solve politics forever! Economists HATE him!
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2013 23:38
|
|