|
RealityApologist posted:^^ Thanks. I don't have archive/search (can't afford it) or I would have done it myself. No problem. Sincerely you used to be one of my favorite posters. I would really look forward to any philosophy of mind or cog sci thread that you weighed in on. But ever since Occupy Wall Street and the ideas you've steered towards in the aftermath, there has most certainly been a shift in your language and posts which does frankly drift towards glossolalia at times. Sure, I have become one of your harshest skeptics, but I would love nothing more for your work to become more coherent and prove me wrong.
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 08:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? Oct 13, 2024 03:10 |
|
|
RealityApologist posted:The rhetoric in this thread has have become so overblown that people are starting to snoop into personal details of my life, and several times people have advocated getting me booted from my program because of this thread. I mean maybe I write like poo poo and I'm out of my depth, and you can laugh at it all you want, but at some point this moves over into a kind of cyberbulling and identity stalking that just isn't cool. You know, I totally agree with this and that the stalking/bullying/getting you booted is awful behaviour, but I can't help seeing your reaction as horribly hypocritical after just reading the marble thread, where you advocated for "zero privacy, the internet needs to know everything about everything, let twitter vote on a person's toothpaste usage."
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 09:13
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:I use too many words. I will try to use fewer words. But the words I use are not arbitrary; I try to be careful about my choice of words and to use them consistently. That doesn't mean I'm always clear, but the thread sometimes acts like I'm a glossolalist. It's not that you are just using too many words, you are using esoteric, complex words that do not add any additional clarity to what you are saying. "If your writing is nonsense, then perhaps your thoughts are nonsense too." That sentence you wrote uses "ire", "articulate", "cognitive disabilities", terms that are easily replaced by much simpler straightforward words. This type of dressing up of language appears in all of your posts I've read. You claim you are careful about your choice of words but yet these carefully chosen words you use add no value and alienate your readers. (That's it from me, sorry for the derail.)
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 09:25
|
|
|
Lyapunov Unstable posted:Crazy or not these threads are shitloads more interesting than the infinite parade of stupid bullshit political-maneuvering analysis that tends to flood D&D. RealityApologist, the biggest flaw in all your ideas is how you express them. Take a writing course, read a book on writing, get a friend who is good at writing to proofread your papers, whatever it takes. If all that ever comes out of these threads is that you are forced to admit you have a problem with the way you write, and address it, this will all have been totally worthwhile.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 09:46
|
|
|
T-1000 posted:I think of them as the high water marks of D&D each year. If I had half a clue how this particular system worked I would be writing bad sci-fi set in it. I think it's more that the ideas are inane, and the only way that they can be made to look less so is through overly-complicated and exclusionary language.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 11:00
|
|
|
Hey, OP, did you in your academic 'work' ever had any sort of idea with any kind of practical relevance to anything at all? Please name one time when you made something useful to another human, tia.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 12:39
|
|
|
Gerund posted:So must StrangeCoin exist only in post-capitalism, or is it merely assumed that StrangeCoin is a vehicle for capitalist theory? In all seriousness, I've been wondering this the whole time.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 13:52
|
|
|
Badera posted:In all seriousness, I've been wondering this the whole time. Eripsa doesn't think it's worth worrying about, or at least not consistently. Remember, we're talking about God replacing all the properties of money with other ones because that would be interesting to see. That's all we're talking about.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 14:15
|
|
|
http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3402577&pagenumber=1&perpage=40#post390115949quote:Right. My claim is that, if people actually want to see furry porn, then the creators and distributors of furry porn should be valued in kind. If it is actually popular, then it is where resources should be allocated.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 14:20
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:"The very idea that I would attempt an ambitious proposal is what I perceive to be generating all this ire. You think I'm an idiot, and that idiots shouldn't have ambitions, or at least shouldn't talk about them with others." I don't think you're an idiot, nor do I think that you shouldn't have ambition. I think that you lack rigor, and that you're expecting people not invested in your idea to provide the rigor you are unwilling to put into your idea. But people are not going to want to contribute to an idea that does not appear to have solid backing. Also, I think you have a lot of hubris and equate attacking your ideas with attacks on you. You spend a lot of words on how unfair it is that people are attacking your idea and being uncharitable towards it, and how shocked you are that you have to defend your idea. You equate yourself with chemists in an age of alchemists. In one of the previous threads, you said that engineers don't think about the societal impact of their work and that they should hire you so that you could figure that out for them. You apparently think that you are a great thinker with ambitious ideas, and you undoubtedly spend a lot of time working on them, but you're unwilling to engage in lines of thought that might completely undermine it. You are not willing to state goals, make testable claims, and develop in a manner that opens it up to failure. Your response to serious problems is basically "nuh uh," and to pretend that people have not made those claims. RealityApologist posted:I use too many words. I will try to use fewer words. But the words I use are not arbitrary; I try to be careful about my choice of words and to use them consistently. That doesn't mean I'm always clear, but the thread sometimes acts like I'm a glossolalist. Its not just a matter of using too many words. Its also the arrangement of those words. I find that your stuff doesn't really tend to have a logical flow that makes sense to an audience that is not already familiar with what you are trying to address. Your ideas tend to bounce around a lot. I pointed out the Bitcoin whitepaper previously because it stands in contrast. Its a very concise document and has a good logical flow.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 16:02
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:I don't give a poo poo about Strangecoin at all Progress!  It would be a great sign if you could demonstrate an ability to abandon bad ideas. So y-RealityApologist posted:except insofar as it helps me talk about the organizing relations I'm interested in. If there are better ways of talking about this then you'll never here me say the word Strangecoin again; the term is already replacing marbles from the original discussion, and nothing in the current discussion relies on any discussion of marbles. I see, this is just another one of your non-acceptances of criticisms, where you pretend to acknowledge the validity of the criticism, then deflect it by claiming that it only affects an insignificant part of your grander proposal, which remains just as worthwhile as before. So let's see what's left in your list of important things for marbles or whatever: RealityApologist posted:
That's what I interpreted as being left on your list of important features and/o possible points of discussion for StrangeCoin. I'm having a hard time seeing how this has nothing to do with economics or an attempt at making a currency. I'm wondering, since you apparently don't give a poo poo about StrangeCoin, can we just take out all of the things to do with transactions, individual and universal accounts, balance caps, etc? If we do, is there anything left to discuss? (Hint: no.) quote:
Ah okay, so StrangeCoin invites discussion of corporations. You told us that we should expect corporations to form spontaneously from networks of coupled people (ewww). We outlined how this is insane. You backpedalled without ever addressing the many criticisms, but now you're back to simultaneously claiming that this is a very interesting aspect of your proposal, but not an important one. Or maybe you mean to imply that we should solve the technical problems again since you can't really figure out what to do about any of them. Also half of this paragraph is the usual total bullshit word salad and you should be embarrassed for writing it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 16:10
|
|
|
quote:I'm attracted to these architectonic projects precisely because they have implications for politics and ethics; I think the digital age is a paradigm shift that reorients discussions across the entire epistemological network. this means "I like to imagine that cool poo poo may happen someday." which can be restated as "" since it's immediately followed with the statement, that you don't want to discourage discussion, which is a statement communicating meaning. Seriously, this is what we mean when we say you are using words without getting anything out of them. If you can restate your words in a simpler fashion, you should do it. Yes, even if it reveals the paragraph you just wrote literally doesn't say anything and you should delete it. Forums Barber fucked around with this message at 20:53 on Apr 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 20:48
|
|
|
eXXon posted:You posted links to your google+ account everywhere, you dumbass. 1. Let's postpone the question of whether nepotism is a "problem" for a minute. Nepotism is a fact of economic relationships. Other things equal, people tend towards a bias in hiring and preferentially treating their family and friends. In economics, nepotism is a form of discrimination, and in the case of wage discrimination this can be measured by a "coefficient of discrimination" that is basically a modifier on the value of the wage that accounts for the discriminatory behavior. These economic models have been around since the 50s and are well-understood. Discrimination also shows up in the Strangecoin proposal as a coefficient on the value of the transaction. So as far as I can tell, my discussion of discrimination is compatible with the existing economic literature on this subject. Before we ask how the current system deals with discrimination and how Strangecoin is different, let's deal with this issue of whether it's a "problem". The coefficient of discrimination is supposed to modify the "nonproductive" aspects of the worker, so it's called a "taste-based model". And we can think about a preference for kin in nepotistic situations as a kind of taste for workers who are family. Now, it seems obvious to me that some (maybe most) forms of discrimination are bad, in the normative sense of unjust or unfair. Discrimination is (usually) bad because it judges a person (their value, their owed wage) not on the basis of who they are (their abilities, skills, contributions) but on what they are (a minority, a woman). This is bad for a few reasons: it (potentially) misvalues the person, it is prejudiced (the bias exists prior to judgment), and it implicates other members of that group without warrant. Nepotism is a kind of discrimination that is both prejudiced and potentially misvalues a person. But I'm tempted to argue that there's an important difference between nepotism and other forms of discrimination, in that nepotism doesn't judge a person based on what they are as a type or caste, but on who they are in terms of the direct relations between them. I'm giving you the job because you're my cousin, and that's a particular relationship between us, not a stereotype of a social group. So I'm not really implicating or judging anyone else when I'm preferring you for the job. For this reason, I hesitate to treat nepotism as the same kind of problem as racial or gender discrimination, even if it is analyzed on the same economic model. There's other considerations here too: racial/gender discrimination is often the result of generalizations on the type that are untrue or the result of explicit ignorance, whereas recognizing and acting on kinship relations is probably part of the very basis of sociality and has nothing to do with ignorance or stereotype. Now, it might be the case that nepotism isn't morally wrong but it still has a negative impact on the economic network. So it might still be a "problem" to deal with. But hopefully that explains why I hesitate to just simply call it a problem. 2. The current economic system has lots of techniques to address discriminatory practices. Some of these are political and not economic, in the form of laws and regulation, the development of policies and hiring practices consistent with nondiscrimination, etc. But from the economic perspective, discrimination isn't really a bad thing at all; from the MIT lecture notes linked above: quote:That is, statistical discrimination is the optimal solution to an information extraction problem. Economists would generally say that employers ‘should’ statistically discriminate. It is profit-maximizing, it is not motivated by animus, and it is arguably ‘fair’ since it treats people with the same expected productivity identically (though not necessarily with the same actual productivity). Hence, many economists might endorse statistical discrimination as good public policy. So this isn't really a problem the economists want to solve. But there remains the question: how much should we discriminate? What should our tastes be, to both maximize profits and stay within the constraints of ethics? We can model the impact of discrimination on the economy and the effect it has on different minority groups, but it's difficult to see that impact in the transactions as we're having them. An employer might hire an employee in good faith to the complete satisfaction of both parties, with both remaining completely ignorant on the impact that discriminatory biases had on the process. It's usually not the case in a nepotistic hiring that both parties are ignorant of the bias, but again nepotism is a special case of discrimination. In any case 3. Strangecoin doesn't solve this "problem". What it does, instead, is include a measure of this discriminatory bias as an explicit modifier on each transaction, so parties are explicitly aware of its impact on each transaction. This is different from regularcoin because now you'd have to do a large empirical study to study the impact of discrimination on the economy, and with strangecoin its among the core data points to consider every time you make a transaction. Introducing this kind of feedback could have any number of behavioral consequences for the system. Although the data may have been available before, making it a central feature of the currency gives a direct way of quantifying, evaluating, and comparing the discriminatory practices of different economic agents. It may suggest ways of standardizing these behavior to allow for more explicit ways to determine when such practices are legally and ethically reasonable and when they are not. It may also have an impact on the apparent value of certain kinds of transactions that wouldn't have otherwise been salient in the decision making process. Discrimination exists everywhere in our system, but its impact is nebulous and difficult to discern, but Strangecoin puts a spotlight on it. Concerning nepotism in particular, I'm imagining a situation where it was clear from the pattern of support and coupling relations when a person's wealth and influence is largely a product of nepotistic relationships, or is genuinely a product of broad network support. Where, for instance, we aren't just told the amassed wealth (in dollars and houses and so on) of a Romney or Bush, but instead we are told of the network of economic ties and relations that support that wealth, so that it's clear their economic influence is the result of a tightly clustered and densely interconnected subnet and not a widely distributed and deeply integrated network that is more representative of the broader economy. Making these values and network modifiers explicit doesn't so much fix the problem as make it fixable.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 21:10
|
|
|
Nepotism is literally only about choosing the preferred individual between two equivalent actors, and not ever the case of giving inequitable rewards to those of your own social strata? This is libertarian fallacy 101 stuff.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 21:16
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:Making these values and network modifiers explicit doesn't so much fix the problem as make it fixable. This is a hilariously unfounded assertion.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 21:17
|
|
|
Forums Barber posted:this means My claim is that: 1. Systematic philosophies have broad implications across the sciences 2. I'm attracted this philosophical approach. Aristotle is awesome. 3. Digital philosophy is an example of a systematic philosophy. These are each distinct and substantive claims. The quote you cite makes these claims reasonably clearly, in prose, without the pedantic formalism above.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 21:18
|
|
|
Slanderer posted:This is a hilariously unfounded assertion. What, that making something explicit is a good way of dealing with it? http://www.amazon.com/Making-Explicit-Representing-Discursive-Commitment/dp/0674543300
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 21:19
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:2. I'm attracted this philosophical approach. Aristotle is awesome. How is 2 a substantive claim? You're attracted by something? Aristotle is awesome? That's substantive? Also please provide a definition of "digital philosophy" in a single, one-clause sentence.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 21:20
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:My claim is that: Again, your philosophy isn't systematic. It covers a very narrow ambit.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 21:21
|
|
|
Gerund posted:Nepotism is literally only about choosing the preferred individual between two equivalent actors, and not ever the case of giving inequitable rewards to those of your own social strata? What? Where did I say anything like this? I explicitly define nepotism in terms of preferrential treatment. Its the second sentence in the essay.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 21:22
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:What, that making something explicit is a good way of dealing with it? The assertion was: if this stuff is explicit then it can be fixed Trying to clarify some interaction does not imply that it will provide revelatory insight, and it does not imply that this changes a problem from intractable to tractable. Case in point: Most people know how much the rich cheat on their taxes, steal from people who do actual labor, and generally exploit people to some degree. This has been made explicit countless times. And yet as the solution seems to be "bloody revolution", most people don't care enough to advocate for it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 21:26
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:What? Where did I say anything like this? I explicitly define nepotism in terms of preferrential treatment. Its the second sentence in the essay. quote:Other things equal, people tend towards a bias in hiring and preferentially treating their family and friends.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 21:28
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:1. Let's postpone the question of whether nepotism is a "problem" for a minute. Nepotism is a fact of economic relationships. Other things equal, people tend towards a bias in hiring and preferentially treating their family and friends. And what a great second/third sentence you wrote there, where your initial definition is about between equals taste preferences rather than the more onerous nepotistic rot as seen throughout history. Learn to approach your writing from a stance outside of your privilege and construct a thesis that passes a laugh test.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 21:32
|
|
|
^^ wtf is going on If I said "a bias in hiring and otherwise preferentially treating family and friends" would it be more clear? I was trying to cut words out. The accusation was that I'm not considering cases of inequitably treating members of one's own strata, but the whole point here is to define explicitly the extension and degree of the strata. If I'm preferring to only engage with on group exclusively (as demonstrated my Strangecoin transactions), that's preferential and inequitable treatment of members of my own strata. I'm not sure what I'm missing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 21:34
|
|
|
Slanderer posted:This has been made explicit countless times. "Has appeared in headlines countless times" is different than "is a deciding factor in a transaction". The point is that this has behavioral consequences on the decision of the transaction itself, whereas the "made explicit" in your case only forms the background context in which the decision takes place, and may or may not be explicitly considered in the transaction itself. By making it explicit, in some sense it forces (in the sense of a nudge) consideration.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 21:37
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:
Please rephrase this incredibly ugly and awkward sentence, and specify what the gently caress 'transaction' you're talking about.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 21:39
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:^^ wtf is going on It was the other things equal part. You're treating nepotism like it's purely used to decide which similarly skilled candidate to hire.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 21:39
|
|
|
Gerund posted:And what a great second/third sentence you wrote there, where your initial definition is about between equals taste preferences rather than the more onerous nepotistic rot as seen throughout history. Appealing to a ceteris paribus clause = evidence of privilege. Yowza, I don't even know how to respond to that. I mean you're right, other things aren't always equal, but that doesn't help much in defining the problem. Given the definition, we can explicitly deal with cases where other things aren't equal. Strangecoin gives an explicit way to discuss the preferrential treatment of members of one's own strata without depending on the ceteris paribus clause.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 21:40
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:Appealing to a ceteris paribus clause = evidence of privilege. Yowza, I don't even know how to respond to that. Why would you say that, instead of just saying 'without all other things being equal'?
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 21:45
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:Why would you say that, instead of just saying 'without all other things being equal'? As a deliberate attempt to deflect from the fact he has no response to the flaws pointed out, as he has done every other time someone points out a problem.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 21:46
|
|
|
jre posted:As a deliberate attempt to deflect from the fact he has no response to the flaws pointed out, as he has done every other time someone points out a problem. It's like self-parody at this point.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 21:47
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:Appealing to a ceteris paribus clause = evidence of privilege. Yowza, I don't even know how to respond to that. What are you talking about? We can define and discuss the problem of nepotism without simplifying it like that. Hell, if we simplify nepotism that much then it wouldn't be a problem. Obdicut posted:Why would you say that, instead of just saying 'without all other things being equal'? He's spent the last 10+ years living in academia and doing absolutely nothing else. e: I still want to know how he can afford to be a perpetual student. That much schooling doesn't come cheap.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 21:48
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:3. Strangecoin doesn't solve this "problem". What it does, instead, is include a measure of this discriminatory bias as an explicit modifier on each transaction, so parties are explicitly aware of its impact on each transaction. This is different from regularcoin because now you'd have to do a large empirical study to study the impact of discrimination on the economy, and with strangecoin its among the core data points to consider every time you make a transaction. Uh, what? How? Is a party in a potential transaction going to be aware of the degree of nepotism in the other party's network? How is it an explicit modifier? What are we supposed to do with this information anyways, refuse to engage in transactions with people who have tightly knit networks? And you still haven't explained how you couldn't do this with an electronic currency with infinite knowledge over past payments... like you could do with btc, or just regularcoin if you're going to be invading everyone's privacy anyways. RealityApologist posted:Concerning nepotism in particular, I'm imagining a situation where it was clear from the pattern of support and coupling relations when a person's wealth and influence is largely a product of nepotistic relationships, or is genuinely a product of broad network support. Where, for instance, we aren't just told the amassed wealth (in dollars and houses and so on) of a Romney or Bush, but instead we are told of the network of economic ties and relations that support that wealth, so that it's clear their economic influence is the result of a tightly clustered and densely interconnected subnet and not a widely distributed and deeply integrated network that is more representative of the broader economy. How would this even work if people aren't using support or coupling transactions at all? You don't need those transaction types to track nepotistic relationships, since all you need to track is payments between family members. Hell, no amount of information about transactions will give you any information on the most obvious form of nepotism - hiring unqualified friends or family relations to a position with no payment from either party.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 21:50
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:How is 2 a substantive claim? You're attracted by something? Aristotle is awesome? That's substantive? "Substantive" means it has content, meaning it is not synonymous with the empty sentence. A claim about my philosophical preferences is not an empty claim. Digital philosophy is the network-theoretic approach to philosophical issues. The core idea is that network theory provides a unifying framework for explaining the dynamics of organized systems at both the level of fundamental physics and at the level of human social and political systems. We've never had a scientific framework capable of such a broad scope of treatment, although we've had plenty of philosophical frameworks that do so, grounded in other metaphysical assumptions. Digital philosophy takes the organization of networks as ontologically basic, and is concerned with the implications across the sciences and the humanities.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 21:56
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:Appealing to a ceteris paribus clause = evidence of privilege. Yowza, I don't even know how to respond to that. You are needlessly obscurant by way of your lack of writing skill combined with your own obvious biases. The result is an ill-defined and, in my opinion, incorrect approach to the issue of nepotism as if it was merely the consequence of an otherwise Just World, which you have rhetorically absolved as merely a TED talk-esque 'problem with a simple solution' that StrangeCoin acts as a cure-all. My own conclusion is that if you are unable to consider that nepotism is, rather, a larger and more frightening issue of ethics and economics- a contributor to institutional rot that must be consistently treated and re-treated at all levels- than perhaps the time spent during your self-stated leisure time (a product of your massive privilege as a long-term academic) on what has resulted in an admittedly half-baked Twitter/BitCoin alternative would have had greater fruits if you read a book more concerned with the common social issues of the day. At that point, you would have already known how the problem would be defined from your own knowledge rather than attempting to create a problem (that you then mislabel) for StrangeCoin to solve. (edit for grammar) Gerund fucked around with this message at 22:06 on Apr 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 22:00
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:1) Digital philosophy is the network-theoretic approach to philosophical issues. 2) The core idea is that network theory provides a unifying framework for explaining the dynamics of organized systems at both the level of fundamental physics and at the level of human social and political systems. 3) We've never had a scientific framework capable of such a broad scope of treatment, although 4) we've had plenty of philosophical frameworks that do so, grounded in other metaphysical assumptions. 5) Digital philosophy takes the organization of networks as ontologically basic, and 6) is concerned with the implications across the sciences and the humanities. Please loving try again. One sentence, one clause. woke wedding drone fucked around with this message at 22:03 on Apr 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 22:00
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:Digital philosophy is the network-theoretic approach to philosophical issues. The core idea is that network theory provides a unifying framework for explaining the dynamics of organized systems at both the level of fundamental physics and at the level of human social and political systems. We've never had a scientific framework capable of such a broad scope of treatment, although we've had plenty of philosophical frameworks that do so, grounded in other metaphysical assumptions. Digital philosophy takes the organization of networks as ontologically basic, and is concerned with the implications across the sciences and the humanities. Are you using a Markov chain generator to produce this ?
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 22:01
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:Please rephrase this incredibly ugly and awkward sentence, and specify what the gently caress 'transaction' you're talking about. The issue here is over different senses of explicit. Slanderer uses the example of the rich cheating taxes. Everyone knows this happens, and everyone knows it has an impact on the economy. In this sense it is explicit. But no one does anything about it. Hence, making it explicit doesn't change anything. Slanderer is right that the cheating is explicit in the public discourse, but this discourse is only among the background considerations one has in engaging in any particular transaction. When I'm buying a burger, I'm not typically thinking of the impact of tax loopholes on the price of my burger. Strangecoin makes the bias explicit in a different way: it makes it explicit in the transaction itself, in terms of the modifiers like endorsement that must be considered by the parties engaging in the transaction. Instead of simply being part of the background discourse in which the transaction is made, the transaction to some extent requires explicit consideration of this bias and the potential impact it has on the transaction. Regularcoin might operate in conditions where the bias is explicit in the background, but not explicit in the foreground of the transaction itself. I'm basically saying that the bias is now a nudge, and that will have an impact on behavior different from regularcoin which has no such nudges.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 22:06
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Please loving try again. One sentence, one clause. The first sentence was your one sentence definition. The rest was an explanation of that definition because I'm using technical terms.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 22:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? Oct 13, 2024 03:10 |
|
|
Actually wait, I get the nepotism thing now. Essentially, if we had an economic system where individuals were required to form and then disclose their nepotistic relationships, we could see them more clearly. As a result, I propose a new currency where individuals are not required to form nepotistic relationships, and it's not very clear whether they're required to disclose them either. This uniquely solves the nepotism problem in a way that simple legislation and/or a vast invasion of privacy wouldn't because network synergy of architectonic digital philosophy. Also, Aristotle was an arrogant rear end who set back European science for millennia with his half-baked ideas.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 22:07
|
|