|
Obdicut posted:^^^^^^^ I think we can all aspirE to Eripsa. I would love to sit in at E's upcoming dissertation defense. At the first question, the entire thing shifts and morphs in some macabre performance art.
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 23:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? Oct 10, 2024 15:00 |
|
|
RealityApologist posted:
Here, I will attempt some constructive criticism for you: go take a basic composition class. Your prose is terrible, it comes off like the writing of an undergrad who has learned all these really awesome technical terms and throws them all around in the hope that it'll make him sound smart. If people don't understand you, it's not because people in this thread haven't paid enough attention to it (plenty have). It's because even if your ideas are good, your prose is gibberish and incomprehensible on its own.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 00:02
|
|
|
I'll admit I've stopped trying to untangle his posts: in general I'll say he comes off as pretty blustery and stream-of-consciousness. Keeping up with him is a pretty significant chore even though I'd say I'm usually alright at following an argument. If it seems like I'm not being very hard on him it's because if he spontaneously started to make sense I probably wouldn't notice it. I'd feel really bad if it turned out he had some really clever idea I wasn't accurately able to tease out of his monologues.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 00:06
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:No, I'm not. I explicitly said that I was giving up the economic and political rhetoric to concentrate on modeling the multiagent network. I've explicitly adjusted my presentation and rhetoric on the basis of the criticisms raised in this thread. I'm being responsive to criticism. And y'all call me a flipflopper for doing so. You changed it without actually saying that you changed it. You just suddenly said it was a game with no preface as to why it suddenly became a game. Do you understand how that might be misinterpreted?
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 00:18
|
|
|
Krotera posted:I'll admit I've stopped trying to untangle his posts: in general I'll say he comes off as pretty blustery and stream-of-consciousness. Keeping up with him is a pretty significant chore even though I'd say I'm usually alright at following an argument. You really shouldn't. He has a long history of disingenuous crankishness that should justifiably cause anyone familiar with him to regard any new ideas (or "new" "ideas") of his with a large degree of skepticism. It's also generally an author's responsibility to ensure that he can make his ideas understood by his intended audience, and Eripsa's complete inability to articulate his ideas in an intelligible manner is a failure on his part, not on yours.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 00:20
|
|
|
Krotera posted:I'll admit I've stopped trying to untangle his posts: in general I'll say he comes off as pretty blustery and stream-of-consciousness. Keeping up with him is a pretty significant chore even though I'd say I'm usually alright at following an argument. Don't worry, he doesn't. We've checked. E: F, B
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 00:23
|
|
|
Xelkelvos posted:You changed it without actually saying that you changed it. You just suddenly said it was a game with no preface as to why it suddenly became a game. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 00:24
|
|
|
LGD posted:You really shouldn't. He has a long history of disingenuous crankishness that should justifiably cause anyone familiar with him to regard any new ideas (or "new" "ideas") of his with a large degree of skepticism. It's also generally an author's responsibility to ensure that he can make his ideas understood by his intended audience, and Eripsa's complete inability to articulate his ideas in an intelligible manner is a failure on his part, not on yours. Well, yes, all those things are givens, but I'm trying to be nice here. Somewhat inconsistently from post to post, and to someone who's pretty insufferable and who likes taking exaggerated offense at pretty ordinary insults, but still.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 00:34
|
|
|
Xelkelvos posted:You changed it without actually saying that you changed it. You just suddenly said it was a game with no preface as to why it suddenly became a game. It is at best a completely meaning semantic framework. "It's not meant to alter human behavior in REAL economies, it's just a game that alters human behavior within its own faux-economic confines, because"
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 00:40
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:If you don't want to talk about the technological mediation of social organization, or the potential for using tools like Strangecoin to study and even manage such systems, then I have nothing to tell you to change your mind or make you interested in this project. I am interested in the subject, mostly because I want to understand your thought processes. Let me rephrase and see if it jives better for you: You say that Strangecoin would provide advantages by revealing currently implicit relationships between economic entities like workers, corporations, or consumers. You also say that Strangecoin would allow these entities to interact in novel, more efficient ways. Can you provide an example of a current economic phenomenon where Strangecoin would provide new data or allow people to interact differently? I guess what I'm getting at is that transitioning even a small part of today's current economy to Strangecoin or your previously mentioned attention economy would require a huge investment in technology to track each transaction and present the data in a meaningful way. If we're going to invest in all this tech because apparently we need new economic data, what if instead we invested to track every dollar through every transaction? What data would Strangecoin provide that tracked dollars could not?
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 00:55
|
|
|
The funny thing about threads like this is that, if Eripsa were to suddenly post "You know, I really was being an idiot and backpedaling. I'm sorry about that and will try not to do it in the future", most of the people making fun of him would probably not respond negatively.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 01:12
|
|
|
I don't think anybody here would respond negatively to that.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 01:19
|
|
|
Wanamingo posted:I don't think anybody here would respond negatively to that. I think most people would respond very favorably towards that. But I honestly don't think Eprisa would actually mean it of he did say it, and when he inevitably went back to doing the same things people would respond even more harshly than ever.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 01:29
|
|
|
Cantorsdust posted:What data would Strangecoin provide that tracked dollars could not?
Caveat: I don't believe that a Strangecoin implementation could actually yield any of this data, because there's currently no incentive to actually create social networks within it (since anyone can achieve an arbitrarily-large transaction flow by bouncing coins between sockpuppet accounts, and because transaction flow itself is just a Cookie Clicker score). I could see some potential in a system which lies somewhere between Ripple and routing protocols - something which is inherently based on locality and real-world links (e.g. copper, fibre, roads, and human relationships), limited trust, imperfect information, limited computing power, and iterative refinement of links (rather than an omniscient hypercomputer running the economy as a single-threaded state machine). Edit: removed accidental suggestion of inappropriate relationship. GulMadred fucked around with this message at 02:36 on Apr 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 01:42
|
|
|
Boy I can't wait to play that game
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 01:46
|
|
|
GulMadred posted:
Dude, that's totally and utterly wrong. I can't believe you could possibly write something like that after following this thread. At least try to be charitable and show some basic comprehension. Payments are one-time transactions, obviously. They don't have a duration, like, at all. Also I'm not sure that's not what Eripsa meant by coupling nepotism.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 01:55
|
|
|
Muscle Tracer posted:It is at best a completely meaning semantic framework. "It's not meant to alter human behavior in REAL economies, it's just a game that alters human behavior within its own faux-economic confines, because" There was a comment applying it as a game as an example. However, his sudden change to that frame had no reference to this until after he was called out on it and he becomes defensive because people apparently misunderstood him (which is at least 40% of our arguments against him). Part of academics is the ability to express ideas clearly. This is a significant flaw in how Eprisa communicates. And while he acknowledges this criticism and has presumably applied some of it, we're essentially providing a trial by fire in terms of criticism which may be a bit too much for him. Xelkelvos fucked around with this message at 02:04 on Apr 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 01:58
|
|
|
Xelkelvos posted:There was a comment applying it as a game as an example. However, his sudden change to that frame had no reference to this until after he was called out on it and he becomes defensive because people apparently misunderstood him (which is at least 40% of our arguments against him). But phrasing it as a game instead of a currency is literally meaningless inasmuch as the validity of the content of the concept—it would be a game about currency. That's like saying we're not talking about Eripsa's concepts, just the posts describing his concepts: they are the same exact thing reframed. The only thing this could possibly get out of is the ethical questions, which to be honest are the very least of Strangebutts' concerns.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 03:11
|
|
|
^^^ Nah, because a game about currency feels like a more comfortable mind experiment, then one about actual currency. Diffusion of responsibility and all that... SedanChair posted:This is a lie. You have hungrily co-opted a poster's suggestion that the only way we can get any use out of this is as a game. You never had any intention for it to be a game. The only time you speak clearly is when you tell lies. To be fair he says it is a game in the first post (if you read in between the lines): quote:In the proposal below, I'll describe Strangecoin as an method for keeping track of a nonzero sum game, where parties can enter into financial transactions that accrue value just by engaging in that transaction. In this way, Strangecoin is a model of the value that our complex economic relationships generate. You might read this as financial transactions being orthogonal to the strangecoin transactions. I know it also says that the financial transaction would receive some additional financial benefit. He has always been very wishy-washy as to whether strangecoin was meant to be a replacement for currency, a separate protocol or something in between. Each of those options have different, equally problematic issues associated with them, so its best to ignore the issue entirely. The problem I have with the orthongonality assumption is that the way individuals value a strangecoin transaction in relation to a financial or any other form of transaction (which merits a strangecoin transaction) is completely arbitrary. It would be next to impossible to reconcile what it means when a person is endorsed by a multiple people with differing opinions as to the intrinsic value of a strangecoin and how they quantify/value those relations. That is the main reason why you would need to peg the strangecoin to a monetary (or something else of value); aside from the whole universal adoption issue. RealityApologist posted:You are all absolutely terrible at basic comprehension and argumentation. Yeah, the fact that ~100% of people can't comprehend what you are saying or constantly have to ask you to clarify your statements mean that we are babbys who cant read  Maybe your the babby for continuing to engage us? CheesyDog posted:It seems the only winning move is not to play Yeah, I think this is where I'm heading with things. He isn't really making an effort to develop things further; I've probably explained the same issues (in different contexts) to him on at least three separate occasions. Tokamak fucked around with this message at 03:56 on Apr 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 03:53
|
|
|
If strangecoin is just a game/thought experiment, what are the victory conditions. Even in something like an iterated prisoner's dilemma, the incentives are clear, but I'm not sure what incentives are explicitly present in the spec that make maximizing throughput the most attractive option. Eprisa had stated that the reason for this would be as a measure of economic power, so in a game scenario what does this power confer as a benefit? If we're to take the monopoly example (which I realize was largely in jest, but then again, StarCraft...), then maximizing throughput could be a victory condition, but if so, at what level?
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 05:34
|
|
|
Tokamak posted:^^^ Yes. Exactly. All I'm saying is that every single one of the fundamental problems is still present, most significantly "what is anyone's motivation to take any action at all, and why?"
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 06:55
|
|
|
And also we're back to the question we had back on page one of this thread, 'why does anyone give a poo poo?'
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 07:58
|
|
|
Ratoslov posted:And also we're back to the question we had back on page one of this thread, 'why does anyone give a poo poo?' I'd give a poo poo if I had to defend my thesis on this crapola in a month.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 08:01
|
|
|
Ratoslov posted:And also we're back to the question we had back on page one of this thread, 'why does anyone give a poo poo?' The question "why should anyone give a poo poo" can be used to cripple just about any project of passion a person can have. A pack of a dozen people yelling "who gives a poo poo" after everything you say is the perfect way to pummel a person's passions into submission. I'm not complaining about it, except that it's a distracting noise in the thread. It's like sand I have to slog through to say anything important in the thread, and it requires a lot of confidence in myself and my abilities to push forward in the face of this pummeling. All I'm asking for is discursive charity; if people are confused in the thread let me remind everyone again that I'm responding to about a half dozen genuine interlocutors and another dozen assholes simultaneously, and any such conversation is bound to get confusing. I just enjoy the topic enough that I'm willing to slog through sand to have it. If you want to throw poo poo at me and make it difficult for me to do this, well, I'm not exactly making it difficult for you to get your kicks too. But you must all understand that the arguments most of you are giving demonstrate no comprehension of anything that's gone on in the thread, and fails to persuade me largely because y'all just aren't persuasive. If any of you sincerely believe that these threads have demonstrated these ideas to be without merit, then you are as guilty of sloppy thinking and half-baked self-serving conclusions as you believe I am. I've tried to respond sincerely to the criticisms that are sincere, and I've tried to revise my ideas and presentation in light of criticism I take to be genuine and on target. I think the complaints that I never change my positions or that I'm blind to criticism is simply unfair. I think any fair reading of these threads will bear that out. I wrote the strangecoin proposal because I thought it would be a way of talking about the marble network description of the attention economy, without using marbles or anything so abstract and mysterious. I believed that this forum and its history with my writings on the attention economy would be savvy enough to understand how the altcurrency fad could be used to put flesh on the abstract marble network, so that we could get around a lot of the problems people have with talking about attention itself as a source of value. Trading coins is a straightforward enough behavior to circumvent all the difficulties with attention-tracking that bogged down the original AE discussion. So I thought these threads would give a poo poo because I thought it represented some progress in refining the ideas in a practical way; Strangecoin was clear enough that it could be turned into code in a weekend in the free time of volunteers. I don't think it's wrong for me to conclude from these threads that 1) there is interest in the idea, and 2) progress has been made. I don't think this means we can pop champagne, but I think it means the work hasn't been in vain. I've conceded multiple times in this thread that I don't have the math or coding skills to develop Strangecoin into something interesting on my own. Perhaps I should also concede that the idea is too abstract and poorly thought out to motivate this thread to meaningfully contribute to its development. This makes me feel guilty, because I feel that there's been a lot of good faith attempts by people in this thread to contribute, and if that effort is wasted because the idea is too abstract and poorly thought out, then that's my fault, and I'm sorry. I don't want to waste that effort, or whatever interest and good will is left in these forums. Recasting Strangecoin explicitly as a game makes it sound a lot like Swarm!, a project I started developing last summer. Swarm! is connected to my research, and is really built to be a game people might actually want to play, and I've done actual fundraising to try and develop it further. The project got put on hold in the winter so I could finish writing my thesis, and I plan to pick the project up again after I defend this summer. I'm writing about Strangecoin with y'all, which again has absolutely nothing to do with my thesis or academic work, while I'm waiting on comments from my committee in the run up to my defense. I've been trying hard to keep the discussions in these threads distinct from my academic work, so I've avoided talking about Swarm! in the thread. But in an effort to salvage the good will of the thread, maybe I should. Swarm! is a resource collection game for mobile devices, designed as an ant colony simulation. Each player is an ant, assigned to a particular caste within a particular colony, and as they move around their environment they lay down trails and collect resources, which have to be moved around the player map in coordinated ways to earn points for the player and their colony. Practically, the game would feel a little like Ingress but with ant colonies, with the feature that it could be played passively without staring at your phone and tapping. The gameplay was designed to work with the hands-free interface of Glass (and our pitch last summer featured Glass pretty heavily, which is why it got a bunch of press) but would work just as well on any mobile device you'd like. All the documentation on Swarm can be found here, which includes a game bible that goes over the structure of the game in significant detail: quote:Swarm! simulates the experience of being a member of a functioning ant Colony. In Swarm!, you play an individual ant working to expand your own Colony and defend it against rival Colonies. As you walk around your neighborhood, commute to work, or meet a friend for lunch downtown, you automatically collect resources and leave Trails that mark the environment with the color of your Colony. Crossing Trails left by another ant can signal the location of useful resources, Colony members in need, or rival Colonies encroaching on your territory. A direct encounter with another ant from your Colony might more evenly distribute your resources for the Colony’s benefit, but an encounter with an ant from a different Colony might result in a fight that leaves you without any food at all! Level up your ant and your Colony to improve your stats and dominate the map. For the Swarm! To be clear, I'm not suggesting that the thread should start building Swarm for me. But it is the sort of serious project that I'd actually want to spend my professional time pursuing, and I think it has potential beyond idle theorizing. Since that's what the thread seems to want from me, I'm offering Swarm! as an example for discussion, both to contrast with Strangecoin and to explain more about its structure and inspiration. Strangecoin is quite different than Swarm!. But they share a lot of features discussed in this thread: resource management, complex caste structure, collective networking strategy, etc. Swarm! isn't anywhere near as complex or abstract as Strangecoin, and is designed explicitly to be a game people might want to actually play as a form of entertainment. Since there's particular interest in justifying the caste structure of Strangecoin, maybe Swarm will provide a more straightforward way to discuss organization and the division of labor without getting caught up in the political and ethical complexities-- which is not to say those complexities don't exist, but that a toy world like Swarm can provide a more neutral basis of discussion.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 17:41
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:The question "why should anyone give a poo poo" can be used to cripple just about any project of passion a person can have. A pack of a dozen people yelling "who gives a poo poo" after everything you say is the perfect way to pummel a person's passions into submission. RealityApologist posted:I'm not complaining about it, except that it's a distracting noise in the thread. Yes you are. RealityApologist posted:It's like sand I have to slog through to say anything important in the thread, and it requires a lot of confidence in myself and my abilities to push forward in the face of this pummeling. All I'm asking for is discursive charity; if people are confused in the thread let me remind everyone again that I'm responding to about a half dozen genuine interlocutors and another dozen assholes simultaneously, and any such conversation is bound to get confusing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 17:54
|
|
|
Game concept="I'm the Idea Guy!"
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 17:55
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:The question "why should anyone give a poo poo" can be used to cripple just about any project of passion a person can have. But that is not the criticism. The criticism is that the indigenes of SC-topia, be they virtual or biological, would have zero incentive to use SC in the manner you describe. "Network impact." You assert that this is an incentive, but you have yet to actually substantiate it. What is 'network impact?' How is it quantified? And why does a person want to have a given network impact? There is no intrinsic value to impacting a network, but rather from other effects derived from that impact, so how does this nebulous metric lead to an actual value for the user? I don't want to go down the SedanChair route (he is eminently qualified to do that himself), but I think you need to take several steps back, ask yourself "what behavior(s) do I want to examine/encourage/whatever," and then "is StrangeCoin even remotely suited to this task?" Because right now, you've completely lost the thread of what you'd hoped this would become, and if you're going to actually do something serious with all of this, you're going to have to be able to clearly formulate your ideas, and the reasoning and justification behind why you think they are worthwhile. Until you can succinctly say in one sentence, "This is what StrangeCoin hopes to achieve, and this is why you should care about it," you do not have the foundations to be wrangling these deep details. These details might be (hint: they almost certainly are) completely counter to what you hope to achieve.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 18:03
|
|
|
If you want me to play your game then you should consider adding some tits and/or explosions to your spec.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 18:07
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:I've conceded multiple times in this thread that I don't have the math or coding skills to develop Strangecoin into something interesting on my own. You really should try picking this stuff up. Take an online Python course, read Strogatz' dynamics textbook. None of it's hard stuff, and if you truly want to do complex systems research, you need a technical way in. I can suggest plenty of material. For example Warren (2006), "The dynamics of perception and action" in Psychological Review and Kelso's (1995) book "Dynamic Patterns" have a good mix of theory and gentle introduction to mathematical concepts in a theoretical context. It's really not hard, doesn't require much beyond basic calculus concepts. You clearly have some background on complex systems theory, and I'm not familiar with the approach you seem to be most familiar with (Network Theory I think you call it). But I think learning technical approaches would help you greatly and really drive your intuitions about things like coupling and inhibition. Which at this point you seem to be sort of just throwing together without understanding what their role typically is in other systems. Hint: You probably only need coupling and inhibition. Then an interesting thing to do would be to say that social/economic activities like "endorsement" and "support" can be defined in terms of constituent technical concepts like coupling and inhibition. As is you're mashing levels of analysis together without any real reason for each element to be there or even clear objective of the whole enterprise. SurgicalOntologist fucked around with this message at 18:11 on Apr 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 18:08
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:The question "why should anyone give a poo poo" can be used to cripple just about any project of passion a person can have. A pack of a dozen people yelling "who gives a poo poo" after everything you say is the perfect way to pummel a person's passions into submission. I'm not complaining about it, except that it's a distracting noise in the thread. It's like sand I have to slog through to say anything important in the thread, and it requires a lot of confidence in myself and my abilities to push forward in the face of this pummeling. All I'm asking for is discursive charity; if people are confused in the thread let me remind everyone again that I'm responding to about a half dozen genuine interlocutors and another dozen assholes simultaneously, and any such conversation is bound to get confusing. Forgive me for pointing out, but didn't you frame your presentation of strangecoin as a proposal? "Why should my audience, who likely are not immediately familiar with my sources, give a poo poo?," is the first question you need to have a ready answer for. In fact, that's the entire point of writing a proposal. And if you can't, the failure is on you.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 18:13
|
|
|
Numerical Anxiety posted:Forgive me for pointing out, but didn't you frame your presentation of strangecoin as a proposal? "Why should my audience, who likely are not immediately familiar with my sources, give a poo poo?," is the first question you need to have a ready answer for. In fact, that's the entire point of writing a proposal. And if you can't, the failure is on you. The first section/paragraph of any proposal should be "Intended Audience" which should explain who should be interested and why.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 18:16
|
|
|
Eripsa just consider this thread to be a spontaneous set of individual decisions that have led to a simultaneously collective and leaderless decision to assign you to the caste of crank. I'd love to hear you out, but your caste status prevents it now. I do hope you enjoy your caste solidarity with TimeCube guy and BasilMarceaux.com! Truly this is a system that works!
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 18:37
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:The question "why should anyone give a poo poo" can be used to cripple just about any project of passion a person can have. A pack of a dozen people yelling "who gives a poo poo" after everything you say is the perfect way to pummel a person's passions into submission. I'm not complaining about it, except that it's a distracting noise in the thread. It's like sand I have to slog through to say anything important in the thread, and it requires a lot of confidence in myself and my abilities to push forward in the face of this pummeling. All I'm asking for is discursive charity; if people are confused in the thread let me remind everyone again that I'm responding to about a half dozen genuine interlocutors and another dozen assholes simultaneously, and any such conversation is bound to get confusing. Goddammit, you pretend to be an academic and dare whine about the "why should anyone care" question? One of the most valuable bits of advice I ever got in grad school was you always, always had expect that question and be able to answer in kind. If your subject material is worthwhile, answering it should be a breeze (and should definitely rise above the level of "I think it's cool"), and if you can't satisfactorily convince others that what you're talking about have any value, *pause for effect,* maybe you should reconsider whether it actually does. quote:I just enjoy the topic enough that I'm willing to slog through sand to have it. If you want to throw poo poo at me and make it difficult for me to do this, well, I'm not exactly making it difficult for you to get your kicks too. But you must all understand that the arguments most of you are giving demonstrate no comprehension of anything that's gone on in the thread, and fails to persuade me largely because y'all just aren't persuasive. If any of you sincerely believe that these threads have demonstrated these ideas to be without merit, then you are as guilty of sloppy thinking and half-baked self-serving conclusions as you believe I am. I've tried to respond sincerely to the criticisms that are sincere, and I've tried to revise my ideas and presentation in light of criticism I take to be genuine and on target. I think the complaints that I never change my positions or that I'm blind to criticism is simply unfair. I think any fair reading of these threads will bear that out. Man, it must hurt to type all of this, what with those nails through your palms and all.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 18:42
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:The question "why should anyone give a poo poo" can be used to cripple just about any project of passion a person can have. A pack of a dozen people yelling "who gives a poo poo" after everything you say is the perfect way to pummel a person's passions into submission. I'm not complaining about it, except that it's a distracting noise in the thread. It's like sand I have to slog through to say anything important in the thread, and it requires a lot of confidence in myself and my abilities to push forward in the face of this pummeling. All I'm asking for is discursive charity; if people are confused in the thread let me remind everyone again that I'm responding to about a half dozen genuine interlocutors and another dozen assholes simultaneously, and any such conversation is bound to get confusing. 1) "Why should anyone give a poo poo" is not a crippling or distracting question. It is the first and most important question any writer must answer for his or her audience. This is writing 101 level poo poo here. You, creator of the marble attention economy, should know better than anyone else that attention is limited and valuable, and you as a writer must convince me, the reader, that your poo poo is worth spending attention on. The fact that you see this as a needless distraction rather than the raison d'etre of your writing speaks volumes to your qualifications as an academic. 2) The amount of "why should anyone give a poo poo" or "why should we actually implement your idea" you get is going to be proportional to the magnitude of the change for which you're calling, and you literally want to change the world in the most radical of ways. You want us to give up currency, redesign our entire economy, and apparently give up private property in order to fully implement Strangecoin. This idea, if implemented, would be as radical as full communism, and that was an ideology wars were fought over and for which millions died. You better have some pretty drat good evidence to back you up. The fact that all you can offer is handwaving and paragraphs of word salad is pathetic compared to what you are calling on your readers to do. 3) Finally, don't you dare ask for discursive charity in this thread when you haven't offered us a loving shred of it. You dodge questions, take quotations out of context, claim victory in past arguments you lost, and, worst of all, didn't even try to do the loving calculations you implied you did and which you asked the thread to do! You are the most disingenuous and disrespectful poster in this entire thread. And I am a genuine interlocutor. I entered with a legitimate question, "why should I care?" and got poo poo on and dismissed in your first reply. And despite writing several more paragraphs of word salad and introducing an entirely different project of yours, you still haven't answered my question.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 19:10
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mC8Vh76vy0w Very troubling.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 19:20
|
|
|
SurgicalOntologist posted:You really should try picking this stuff up. I've read the Strogatz book and lots of other introductory complexity texts, and I've played around with python on code academy, and honestly a decent amount of my old CS training is still kicking around. I've just spent the last decade studying something entirely different, so I'm trying to find an angle into this field given the interests and background I already have. I'm sure you can see why threads like these help me to organize my thoughts, practice my writing, and motivate my further research. I consider them very productive. You guys are also occasionally clever and insightful, despite the hostility. There's a good 10 pages of material in this 60 page thread. The thread next year will be even better I'm sure.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 19:23
|
|
|
Okay. RealityApologist, I know what it's like to get personally invested in a project. So when I say this, I'm not trying to poo poo on you. I mean it in the kindest possible fashion. You're obsessed with the idea of analyzing social and economic systems using network theory. You do not have the tools you would need to accomplish this. You don't even know where to begin; you put forth schemes that fit the general concept but you never fill in the details or do any real analysis yourself until someone else has basically done it for you. Part of that is because you don't know enough about sociology or economics or mathematics to do any useful analysis, and part of it, I think, is because you're not actually interested in the details. It's the idea that you are enamored with, not the implementation - you want a forest but you don't care for planting trees. I know, you've given a lot of detail as to how Strangecoin is meant to work. That's not the kind of details I meant. The question is: why is it meant to work that way? Specifically what information are you looking to gather, and how do the support/endorse/inhibit interactions, the TUA, etc. relate to that goal? You kept changing those details in response to this or that criticism, or trying to justify them in terms of how you expect people to use them, which makes me think that you didn't actually have any real reasoning behind including them beyond "they seemed appropriate." Now, I should clarify: I'm not actually asking you those questions. I'm asking you if you asked yourself those questions. Because you should have. Because that's how you develop a new system. First you figure out why you want it, then you build the parts that get you what you want, then you build the parts that support the other parts. The end result might look nothing like you expected. Actually, you shouldn't have an expectation in the first place, because you'll end up building towards that expectation even if it's counterproductive to do so. In your case, you've been focused on making Strangecoin workable as a digital currency (the expectation) at the expense of its usefulness as an analytical tool (which is what you claimed you wanted it for). Alien Arcana fucked around with this message at 19:27 on Apr 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 19:24
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:I've read the Strogatz book and lots of other introductory complexity texts, and I've played around with python on code academy, and honestly a decent amount of my old CS training is still kicking around. I've just spent the last decade studying something entirely different, so I'm trying to find an angle into this field given the interests and background I already have. I'm sure you can see why threads like these help me to organize my thoughts, practice my writing, and motivate my further research. I consider them very productive. You guys are also occasionally clever and insightful, despite the hostility. There's a good 10 pages of material in this 60 page thread. Then you shouldn't say you don't have the required technical skills to test your ideas, because you do. Of course there's value in talking it through and working on your writing but that only takes you so far. I was going to say more but what Alien Arcana said sums it up.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 19:31
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:The question "why should anyone give a poo poo" can be used to cripple just about any project of passion a person can have. A pack of a dozen people yelling "who gives a poo poo" after everything you say is the perfect way to pummel a person's passions into submission. I'm not complaining about it, except that it's a distracting noise in the thread. It's like sand I have to slog through to say anything important in the thread, and it requires a lot of confidence in myself and my abilities to push forward in the face of this pummeling. All I'm asking for is discursive charity; if people are confused in the thread let me remind everyone again that I'm responding to about a half dozen genuine interlocutors and another dozen assholes simultaneously, and any such conversation is bound to get confusing. So to summarize your answer to the most basic question of any proposal ever which is "Why should anyone care?" or "Why is this relevant?" quote:This is relevant because of my other idea whose relevance I have not necessarily explained or defended adequately. You should care because I'm putting it out there and I think it's a good idea. Is this a succinct answer?
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 19:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? Oct 10, 2024 15:00 |
|
|
If you go back twenty pages, you'll see where people asked him these questions. And you can go back twenty more pages, and see where they were asked before that. And you can go three threads back, etc. etc. I'm not complaining, though; everyone needs to experience Eripsa in their own way.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 19:40
|
|
