|
RealityApologist posted:Why do you want your kid having an identity as an economic agent? I don't know, maybe you don't. I'm not telling you how to raise your kid. I'm not telling you how to raise your kid, I'm just saying that this is a good enough reason for me to cop out of this line of inquiry! People can get assigned their first account once they hit the age where they can be considered mature, rational economic actors, you know, maybe age 35 or so, once they get out of grad school.
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2014 21:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? Oct 8, 2024 06:56 |
|
|
RealityApologist posted:There's a sense of "economics" that deals with the nature of human social transactions in the most general possible sense, of which this article and Strangecoin and traditional economics all belong. How do you know you wont find some insight into your work without looking into it beyond the barest skim of the surface that you seem to have done? And if economics has nothing to do with social networks, why not study sociology since that, at its loosest definition, is the study of groups and their interactions? If not sociology, then maybe a sub field of psychology like Social Psychology which is the study of individuals as they interact within groups.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2014 21:53
|
|
|
No, it's the difference between giving a kid an iPhone, letting them play with mine, or letting ANYONE ON EARTH send my kid an iPhone.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2014 21:54
|
|
|
jre posted:Oh dear. You're resorting to posting meaningless word salad again because you don't have a good answer. This is just as embarrassing as your attempt to go , "Yes but what is 'science' really" when people pointed out that you didn't seem to understand the basics of the scientific method. It's not purely just meaningless word salad, he's trying to claim that normal economic theory doesn't apply to his model because of reasons. It's the exact same bullshit excuse that bitcoiners give when an actual economist calls them out on their idiocy.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2014 21:54
|
|
|
Eripsa, You've consistently described what the system does or how it will behave without even formulating the system. You constantly claimed to have "defined" a protocol, but instead you've made some generalized statements and jumped right to high-order effects, which is the dumbest loving thing. Apparently you are using a non-linear definition of the word "definition". Clearly your goal is to make a system that does whatever the gently caress Strangecoin is supposed to do. Great, fine, whatever. Explicitly define your goals and say, "I want to design a system that behaves sorta like this!" And then you could build countless models, run them through simulations, and see what works and what doesn't. Then you apply more complicated agent-based simulations, watch as everything burns, and start from scratch. You can't just blindly claim that your desired end-state is the inevitable outcome of the first dumb thing you thought up (without even bothering to explicitly define it!) because holy poo poo that stuff is hard! Even if you want to keep claiming your dumb thing is so special and fundamental that studying economics is a worthless subset of it, you would not have to look deep into economics to realize how hard it is to model (and predict) the net effect of billions of independent actors. There is no one MASTER EQUATION to describe all of human interaction, there never will be. So stop thinking you are some architectonic savant who is building A New Kind of Science that will invalidate existing thought. Economics is a field where countless people, each way more competent than you, have worked to try to figure out the ramifications of our well-understood economic system. You want to create something way more complicated---don't you think the ramifications of it would therefore be way less intuitive?
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2014 21:55
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:Why do you want your kid having an identity as an economic agent? I don't know, maybe you don't. I'm not telling you how to raise your kid. Let's just add 'Raising children' to the ever growing list of things you know nothing about, but will loving babble on about for hours while being HORRIFICALLY wrong about.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2014 21:56
|
|
|
Wanamingo posted:It's not purely just meaningless word salad, he's trying to claim that normal economic theory doesn't apply to his model because of reasons. It's the exact same bullshit excuse that bitcoiners give when an actual economist calls them out on their idiocy. I interpreted this as him saying his stupid network models are more "fundamental" than economics, with the implication that once the field is more complete, actual economics should just drop out of it as a specific subset. Basically, graphs of things with lots of lines drawn between them is Eripsa's version of Grand Unification.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2014 21:59
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:Why do you want your kid having an identity as an economic agent? I don't know, maybe you don't. I'm not telling you how to raise your kid. Strangecoin: wherein strangers give coins to your children
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2014 22:05
|
|
|
Slanderer posted:You can't just blindly claim that your desired end-state is the inevitable outcome of the first dumb thing you thought up (without even bothering to explicitly define it!) because holy poo poo that stuff is hard! Why be surprised that he's starting from the end and trying to work to a pre-selected result? He did say he identified with alchemists, and that's how they worked afaik.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2014 22:05
|
|
|
Slanderer posted:Eripsa, I agree with all of this. I wrote the strangecoin proposal so we have a more concrete model to work with instead of just idle speculation. I also spent time talking about what kind of things I wanted Strangecoin to do so we knew what the goals were and could prune the possible models to fit those goals. I'm trying to do this better. I'm trying to improve the project. I think it's happening, with help from you and others who can must some constructive comments in between the jabs. That's all I'm hoping for. With regard to your last point, I don't think complexity simpliciter is a barrier towards something being intuitive. Sometimes complexity represents a barrier to understanding, but we also find lots of things very intuitive that are very complex, because our brains have evolved to be very sensitive to those complex conditions. Distinguishing human cases is one of those things that is incredibly complex and subtle and yet perfectly intuitive and natural for us to do. Our brains are solving equations in high dimensional geometry like its butter, because the problem fits the tool. I think that reading and forming meaningful, actionable judgments about community structure is another one of those things our brains are just wired to do. It has to be presented in the right way for those connections to be exploitable, but once it is such a system could both be far more complex and yet simultaneously more intuitive. So, for instance, consider the huge array of pips and whistles can might adorn the breast of some decorated general, and all the myriad of signals distinguishing those badges from one of their arbitrary subordinates. These things are hugely complicated things, but they feed right into the human desire for a clear and stable social structure and to settle potential conflicts of authority and power through rank and hierarchy, and so the whole system (as complex as it is) becomes not only an efficient form of coordination but also of motivation and submission. The fact that the pips are complicated and varied isn't an argument against it's success; it's part of the reason why the system works. You need a symbol system complicated enough to express all those subtleties of rank and affiliation that actually exist in a real social structure.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2014 22:16
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:I'm trying to do this better. I'm trying to improve the project. How can you say this while simultaneously ignoring your harshest critics; the ones who you should be perusing the most? -EDIT- RealityApologist posted:So, for instance, consider the huge array of pips and whistles can might adorn the breast of some decorated general, Pips are not a thing outside of Star Trek. Literally 4 seconds of google would tell you this. Goddamn, dude, this is basic level stuff. Because even I thought that the Navy used pips. But I thought "no, I better make sure" and googled it. I googled it for every single branch of the US military. And none of them use pips, and it's really demeaning to call the other medals "whistles". But this is what I'm talking about. You absolutely refuse to do even the easiest and most basic research on even the most trivial things. And when you're presenting yourself as a scholar these things do matter! Take two seconds for some introspection and I guarantee you'll be shocked with what you find, and likely won't be happy with it neither. Who What Now fucked around with this message at 22:27 on Apr 7, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2014 22:21
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:How can you say this while simultaneously ignoring your harshest critics; the ones who you should be perusing the most? We're dumb idiots who think boring stuff like 'operationalization' matters, and thinks that you ought to not assert the results from your model before you, oh, design your model. Total buzzkills, man.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2014 22:23
|
|
|
Strangecoin: Our brains are solving equations in high dimensional geometry like its butter, because the problem fits the tool. Against complexity simpliciter? Suck. On. This.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2014 22:27
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:I don't think complexity simpliciter is a barrier towards something being intuitive. Sometimes complexity represents a barrier to understanding, but we also find lots of things very intuitive that are very complex, because our brains have evolved to be very sensitive to those complex conditions. Distinguishing human cases is one of those things that is incredibly complex and subtle and yet perfectly intuitive and natural for us to do. Our brains are solving equations in high dimensional geometry like its butter, because the problem fits the tool. this is magical thinking. you're saying that because people can read a general's ribbons (which are a one-to-one correlation, by the way, it's just translating from image to phrase such as "Purple Heart"), it follows that they are able to unravel arbitrarily complex systems because that's just how we are wired? This is a terrible argument. And do you understand that when people are able to solve complex mathematical problems "like butter", that they have exerted a great deal of effort to gain these skills? How can you say it is intuitive and natural when it takes years of training? As an example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_color_theorem quote:In mathematics, the four color theorem, or the four color map theorem, states that, given any separation of a plane into contiguous regions, producing a figure called a map, no more than four colors are required to color the regions of the map so that no two adjacent regions have the same color. Two regions are called adjacent if they share a common boundary that is not a corner, where corners are the points shared by three or more regions ... People would look at the problem and go, "yeah, my gut tells me that works," but they had to go through thousands of computer-based simulations and a couple hundred of pages of data on microfiche by hand. For a premise that can be stated in a few sentences. Do you see how much more complex your theory would be, were you able to articulate it in a rigorous fashion? There are simple looking problems that humans literally cannot solve before they die of old age, and you are talking about things much more complex than that. Forums Barber fucked around with this message at 22:34 on Apr 7, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2014 22:27
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Strangecoin: Our brains are solving equations in high dimensional geometry like its butter, because the problem fits the tool. See, this is the kind of writing you would find on Cracked.com or The Oatmeal. People that fellate science without truly understanding it. The brain doesn't solve high-dimensional geometry like it's butter. If it did, no child would ever need to be taught how to play catch. And every NBA star would have a 100% free throw record. The brain makes what can be called guesstimates at best, and isn't terribly good at them. EDIT: Outside of those that are highly trained for very specific ones, such as the aforementioned free throw shooters. Who What Now fucked around with this message at 22:36 on Apr 7, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2014 22:33
|
|
|
The Milk-Woman and Her Pail A farmer's daughter was carrying her Pail of milk from the field to the farmhouse, when she fell a-musing. "The money for which this milk will be sold, will buy at least three hundred eggs. The eggs, allowing for all mishaps, will produce two hundred and fifty chickens. The chickens will become ready for the market when poultry will fetch the highest price, so that by the end of the year I shall have money enough from my share to buy a new gown. In this dress I will go to the Christmas parties, where all the young fellows will propose to me, but I will toss my head and refuse them every one." At this moment she tossed her head in unison with her thoughts, when down fell the milk pail to the ground, and all her imaginary schemes perished in a moment. The Astronomer An astronomer used to go out at night to observe the stars. One evening, as he wandered through the suburbs with his whole attention fixed on the sky, he fell accidentally into a deep well. While he lamented and bewailed his sores and bruises, and cried loudly for help, a neighbor ran to the well, and learning what had happened said: "Hark ye, old fellow, why, in striving to pry into what is in heaven, do you not manage to see what is on earth?' The Seaside Travelers Some Travelers, journeying along the seashore, climbed to the summit of a tall cliff, and looking over the sea, saw in the distance what they thought was a large ship. They waited in the hope of seeing it enter the harbor, but as the object on which they looked was driven nearer to shore by the wind, they found that it could at the most be a small boat, and not a ship. When however it reached the beach, they discovered that it was only a large human being of sticks, and one of them said to his companions, "We have waited for no purpose, for after all there is nothing to see but a load of wood." Our mere anticipations of life outrun its realities. The Thirsty Pigeon A Pigeon, oppressed by excessive thirst, saw a goblet of water painted on a signboard. Not supposing it to be only a picture, she flew towards it with a loud whir and unwittingly dashed against the signboard, jarring herself terribly. Having broken her wings by the blow, she fell to the ground, and was caught by one of the bystanders. Zeal should not outrun discretion. The Vain Jackdaw Jupiter determined, it is said, to create a sovereign over the birds, and made proclamation that on a certain day they should all present themselves before him, when he would himself choose the most beautiful among them to be king. The Jackdaw, knowing his own ugliness, searched through the woods and fields, and collected the feathers which had fallen from the wings of his companions, and stuck them in all parts of his body, hoping thereby to make himself the most beautiful of all. When the appointed day arrived, and the birds had assembled before Jupiter, the Jackdaw also made his appearance in his many feathered finery. But when Jupiter proposed to make him king because of the beauty of his plumage, the birds indignantly protested, and each plucked from him his own feathers, leaving the Jackdaw nothing but a Jackdaw.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2014 22:36
|
|
|
Strangecoin: wherein people's brains excel at solving high dimensional geography (also I don't understand math)
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2014 22:42
|
|
|
Adar posted:Strangecoin: wherein people's brains excel at solving high dimensional geography (also I don't understand math) Really, isn't that the real tragedy of the commons?
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2014 22:45
|
|
|
Forums Barber posted:it follows that they are able to unravel arbitrarily complex systems because that's just how we are wired? You misunderstood the argument, because I explicitly denied this. I'm not saying people can unravel arbitrarily complex systems, I'm saying that can unravel systems that are suited to their dispositions. Facial recognition isn't an arbitrarily complex issue. It's complex in a very specific way to which our brains are highly adapted. I'm saying community structure is something our brains are highly evolved to be responsive to. Strangecoin is more complex than money, but it gains that complexity by reflecting features of the community structure of the network, and that's a particular kind of complexity to which we're particularly disposed to thinking about. That's not magical thinking. Human beings know how to think about communities, community membership, and status within communities. The more complex features Strangecoin highlights are features that pertain precisely to those features that human brains are particularly disposed to thinking about. That's a perfectly coherent and reasonable argument.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2014 22:46
|
|
|
Do you understand what 'operationalization' is?
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2014 22:47
|
|
|
A big flaming stink posted:Just chiming in to say: Eripsa, where the hell do you get off calling Obdicut a bully, of all people. He's putting far more effort than others into giving you constructive criticism and honest engagement with your ideas. Engagement that is far more than you deserve and have reciprocated. Considering Obdicut's hypocritical answer to me earlier, where he avoids answering criticism only to nitpick poo poo: He's dishonest. He is throwing poo poo and only afterwards being smug about whatever sticks. It's a bully tactic, and he does it only because gets off by degrading Eripsa. If only people were 50% as critical of Eripsa's critics as of Eripsa.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2014 22:48
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Pips are not a thing outside of Star Trek. Literally 4 seconds of google would tell you this. Goddamn, dude, this is basic level stuff. Because even I thought that the Navy used pips. But I thought "no, I better make sure" and googled it. I googled it for every single branch of the US military. And none of them use pips, and it's really demeaning to call the other medals "whistles". But this is what I'm talking about. You absolutely refuse to do even the easiest and most basic research on even the most trivial things. And when you're presenting yourself as a scholar these things do matter! This was an attempt at wordplay on a common phrase, using a common term for military insignia. You are pulling your hair out because I made a pun. But apparently I'm the one that needs some perspective.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2014 22:49
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:This was an attempt at wordplay on a common phrase, using a common term for military insignia. I'm sorry. My mistake was thinking puns and jokes should actually be funny.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2014 22:51
|
|
|
BernieLomax posted:If only people were 50% as critical of Eripsa's critics as of Eripsa. Hell I don't even care if they are critical of each other as long as they can straighten out the interpretive confusions among themselves. People are making so many mistakes jumping over themselves to attack me that when my critics step in just to correct a misinterpretation (as Slanderer did here, and others have done before)it does a world of good for moving the thread forward.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2014 22:53
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:I'm saying community structure is something our brains are highly evolved to be responsive to. Strangecoin is more complex than money, but it gains that complexity by reflecting features of the community structure of the network, and that's a particular kind of complexity to which we're particularly disposed to thinking about. Or, to put it in logical terms and also in a way a fourth grader can understand: Brains like "A" "Z" is complex like "A" because I wiggle my fingers around and say so Humans know all about "A" because their brains like it and also because I said so "Z"'s complexity is exactly fine tuned to "A", although I haven't defined "Z" yet Ergo, Strangecoin: wherein strangers give coins to your children
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2014 22:53
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:I'm sorry. My mistake was thinking puns and jokes should actually be funny. Also, as someone else pointed out, that stuff is just translating things, it's not an example of figuring out anything complex. There's a one-to-one correlation between each medal and something with definite meaning. It's not like there's a spectrum that you have to figure out. There's not even a grammar.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2014 22:54
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:You misunderstood the argument, because I explicitly denied this. I'm not saying people can unravel arbitrarily complex systems, I'm saying that can unravel systems that are suited to their dispositions. Facial recognition isn't an arbitrarily complex issue. It's complex in a very specific way to which our brains are highly adapted. Except that your system formalizes those things, and this thread is the very opposite of convincing evidence that you even have an inkling of how to go about doing something like that. What you're proposing isn't a natural evolution of the social sorting and tracking people do intuitively all the time- it's requiring those interactions and all economic exchanges to operate through an unworkable crackpot system that you haven't even begun to flesh out. People's ability to track their relative social status isn't going to do you a bit of good in making your proposed system less terrible.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2014 22:54
|
|
|
Human beings know how to think about communities, community membership, and status within communities. This is why Occupy was a roaring success while the Hindu caste system never happened.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2014 22:57
|
|
|
Adar posted:Human beings know how to think about communities, community membership, and status within communities. This is why Occupy was a roaring success while the Hindu caste system never happened. People also gently caress up socialization all the time. We're actually pretty loving terrible about it. We get the statuses and stuff of people mistaken a lot. And it's really easy to fool people about status, really, really easy.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2014 22:58
|
|
|
The more complex features Strangecoin highlights are features that pertain precisely to those features that human brains are particularly disposed to thinking about. That is why economics has been solved.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2014 22:58
|
|
|
Strangecoin is more complex than money, but it gains that complexity by reflecting features of the community structure of the network, and that's a particular kind of complexity to which we're particularly disposed to thinking about. That is why everyone who matters spends their time navelgazing about who follows them on Twitter.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2014 23:00
|
|
|
Strangecoin: ten years ahead of his time, the stranger gives candy to an eight year old
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2014 23:03
|
|
|
Adar posted:Strangecoin is more complex than money, but it gains that complexity by reflecting features of the community structure of the network, and that's a particular kind of complexity to which we're particularly disposed to thinking about. That is why everyone who matters spends their time navelgazing about who follows them on Twitter. You should write a paper on stuff.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2014 23:04
|
|
|
LGD posted:Except that your system formalizes those things, and this thread is the very opposite of convincing evidence that you even have an inkling of how to go about doing something like that. What you're proposing isn't a natural evolution of the social sorting and tracking people do intuitively all the time- it's requiring those interactions and all economic exchanges to operate through an unworkable crackpot system that you haven't even begun to flesh out. People's ability to track their relative social status isn't going to do you a bit of good in making your proposed system less terrible. That's fair enough. I've given a proposal designed explicitly to help me learn how to do it, in a framework that general and works according to principles I find agreeable. I'd like to be able to study how this structure I've proposed works, but I don't know how to do that on my own and don't have the resources to attempt it in a reasonable timeframe without the help of others. Which is why I come here to talk about it. The opinion of the thread is that: - this framework is impossible - I have an inflated ego and a messiah complex for wanting to play with such an idea in an informal setting like this in my free time. The first point is fair enough, although talking about why its true also helps me learn and isn't uninteresting. I think the second one is false. I think an internet comedy forum is a perfectly fine place to entertain such a proposal, especially since its members are both familiar with the idea and capable of insightful analysis from a perspective I find generally agreeable. I don't think there's anything messianic about the Strangecoin proposal, or even all that radical; its just a twist on the general altcurrency meme that is being replicated like mad at the moment. The implication of the thread's second opinion above is that only a messiah (that world changing genius) could successfully propose the sort of theory that I've proposed and have a shot of it working, and since I'm obviously not such a person then there's no hope for my proposal. The idea is that you don't have to weigh the merits of the proposal itself (which you couldn't do anyway), but instead you only need to weigh the merits of the person offering the proposal, and the thread consensus about that person, and that's enough to address whatever proposals may come. Be sure to add a confirmation bias, so that any mistakes incidental to the proposal are considered themselves refutations of the proposal. It's quite the efficient method for sorting the genuine messiah from his imposters.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2014 23:09
|
|
|
RA, what makes you assume that human brains are good at choosing beneficial community structures, especially in a generalized sense? The social value attributed to a charismatic demagogue like  was obviously misplaced if communal structures are supposed to be for general benefits, and the problems of communal identity are at the core of every nationalist movement, and every terrible genocide, in recent history. Your proposal relies on human social relations functioning in a way that you have no evidence for. And there is a gigantic body of literature in sociology, social psych, and yes, economics that buttresses this point. Your example of the medals and pips is frankly bizarre. Military structures are actually very simple, if highly artificial, structures of social hierarchy. The pinning of medals onto the breast of a soldier is much more a self-affirmation exercise for the individual soldier, and by extension the military as a whole, than it is any sort of assignation of social value within the military hierarchy. At most, it could provide a fuzzy justification for a later promotion, though these would be arbitrary and subject to the whims of the promoter, and so not at all like the sort of explicit social valuation system you describe. And even then, the military, which i'll admit is perhaps the closest modern day example to a system like Strangecoin describes, one that tries to explicitly quantify social worth and reputation, is still subject to all sorts of horrible consequences, including inurring those at the top from the consequences of their actions (say, raping a subordinate) once they have enough social power to protect themselves. Why should the Strangecoin network not be subject to these pitfalls?
Political Whores fucked around with this message at 23:12 on Apr 7, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2014 23:10
|
|
|
You proposed a complex economic theory while admitting you didn't really know much about economics. Edit: Do you know what 'operationalization' means?
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2014 23:11
|
|
|
get down off that cross, Eripsa. People have offered concrete criticisms left and right, and you've pretended they are ad homs. Go back to Hacker News if you want people to skim your proposals and fellate you based on their syllable count, we are going to read them and try to see if you have an actual argument. You have gotten more intellectual attention and rigor in this thread then you did throughout your education, because guess what, if you sign a loan for a couple hundred thousand bucks, there is a strong motivation to just pass you through the system.
Forums Barber fucked around with this message at 23:19 on Apr 7, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2014 23:15
|
|
|
Human beings know how to think about communities, community membership, and status within communities. Why don't people on SA like me?
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2014 23:18
|
|
|
LGD posted:The Milk-Woman and Her Pail drat, son. For 300 eggs per pail, that has to be some bomb-rear end milk she got there.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2014 23:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? Oct 8, 2024 06:56 |
|
|
RealityApologist posted:Hell I don't even care if they are critical of each other as long as they can straighten out the interpretive confusions among themselves. People are making so many mistakes jumping over themselves to attack me that when my critics step in just to correct a misinterpretation (as Slanderer did here, and others have done before)it does a world of good for moving the thread forward. Having been at the butt end of the same type of jokes (and called out in this very thread on basis of at thread I posted 8 years ago, when I was under strong medication because of schizophrenia), and even recognizing many of the same names... One of the persons who did the role of Obdicut was this guy, and nobody ever criticized him. His intention was sociopathic in nature, and given that some of the high-volume shitheads in this thread behave in the exact way I can only assume they are having similar interests. They are only in it for some kind of dick pleasure. On your stuff, I find it interesting in some ways, but I do agree with the occasional reasonable criticism. I find most value in it because it is novel, and I dig counter-culture. And the reason I want to pluck the simulator is in order to generalize it for other "weird coins" and some game-mechanic tests; an exercise. Seems Jawn fixed most of the glaring errors anyway, so I am looking forward to it stabilizing. But I am 100% sure that someone will use my prior post history and schizophrenia to ridicule me, and you, for associating. Because ridiculing someone for being mentally sick is cool and in with the bro's. It already happened edit: On-topic, while much attention has been on the modelling of the economy, it seems your project requires actually modelling the simulated agents in order to be useful. How do you propose modelling agents that could be tested against a normal systems (ie. the different real-world economic systems)? BernieLomax fucked around with this message at 23:23 on Apr 7, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2014 23:21
|
|