|
CheesyDog posted:Seriously guys, if you haven't look up Whuffies. It's clearly what he's trying to describe, only he's slapped on (valueless coin) and a bunch if half-understood theories so his idea can be an original one. Haha what the gently caress. So the idea's not even his? Was that mentioned at any point? That just makes me sad now.
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 20:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? Oct 8, 2024 06:05 |
|
|
midnightclimax posted:Haha what the gently caress. So the idea's not even his? Was that mentioned at any point? That just makes me sad now. Holy poo poo, I just wiki'd it and it's almost exactly like Strangecoin. Right down to the TUA-shaming and the support/endorse duality (the right-hand/left-hand thing mentioned in the article). RA... do you have something you'd like to tell us? EDIT: AHAHAHAHA Wikipedia posted:While there are few details in the novel of how this system actually works, it is described in idealistic terms:
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 20:16
|
|
|
midnightclimax posted:Haha what the gently caress. So the idea's not even his? Was that mentioned at any point? That just makes me sad now. Eripsa's is crueler and more libertarian than Whuffie, because in that system everyone's opinion mattered equally. In Eripsa's system, it's tied to your income. So they're very similar, but Eripsa's system is more dystopic and hosed up.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 20:17
|
|
|
Alien Arcana posted:There are most certainly distinctions between human 'choice' and ant 'choice'. Humans, for instance, can imagine. We can actively predict the future. We can communicate our predictions to one another, to arbitrary levels of abstraction. We can actively decide to screw over society for our own benefit. There's nothing *magical* about humans that let us do these things; they are possible because, as you say, because we are way more complex. But saying that the difference between human and ant brains is purely a matter of size and complexity is ignoring the emergent behavior (oho!) that our brains display and ant brains do not. I somewhat disagree---the complexity of the human brain (and consequently the complexity of a system of multiple humans) is such that it is extremely unfeasible to try to predict exactly how they will behave--not theoretically impossible, of course, just effectively so. Framing the matter in terms of free-will is not really that helpful, because it really does just boil down to complexity. Despite the complexity, some emergent behaviors are still present that are similar to those created by much simpler systems. If simple models can produce testable and accurate results (to a certain degree), then they are still useful models, regardless of whether or not a man chooses!!!. However, that requires doing the actual work to create testable models, which is not something Eripsa will ever actually do.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 20:17
|
|
|
Slanderer posted:a man chooses!!!. an ant obeys
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 20:21
|
|
|
Slanderer posted:I somewhat disagree---the complexity of the human brain (and consequently the complexity of a system of multiple humans) is such that it is extremely unfeasible to try to predict exactly how they will behave--not theoretically impossible, of course, just effectively so. Framing the matter in terms of free-will is not really that helpful, because it really does just boil down to complexity. Despite the complexity, some emergent behaviors are still present that are similar to those created by much simpler systems. If simple models can produce testable and accurate results (to a certain degree), then they are still useful models, regardless of whether or not a man chooses!!!. And moreover, the model has to take into account that humans appear to choose, that something happens that looks like choosing, whether or not free will is real. It's also really important, in evolutionary terms, that ants are, mostly, not competing reproductively. This gets into the selfish gene area, but there's obviously a big difference between a group where the individual values themselves, and one where the individual doesn't.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 20:21
|
|
|
Cantorsdust posted:an ant obeys Strangecoin: an ant obeys
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 20:26
|
|
|
Slanderer posted:I somewhat disagree---the complexity of the human brain (and consequently the complexity of a system of multiple humans) is such that it is extremely unfeasible to try to predict exactly how they will behave--not theoretically impossible, of course, just effectively so. Framing the matter in terms of free-will is not really that helpful, because it really does just boil down to complexity. Despite the complexity, some emergent behaviors are still present that are similar to those created by much simpler systems. If simple models can produce testable and accurate results (to a certain degree), then they are still useful models, regardless of whether or not a man chooses!!!. I never meant to frame it in terms of free will. My issue is that any definition of "choose" that describes ants as making choices is overbroad to the point of uselessness (it would also include simple computers, for instance). While technically human decisions are also predetermined by their neural structure and their circumstances, the process is far more involved and has many steps that don't exist in an ant brain, among them modelling possible outcomes of each choice and judging them as more or less desirable. I believe it's reasonable to define "choice" in a way that involves some subset of those processes. I think we're in agreement here, we're just quibbling over definitions. 
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 20:26
|
|
|
ProfessorProf posted:RealityApologist, please describe a situation where someone with more connections than me on the strangenet could impact me, and what that impact would entail. I really want to see an up-to-date response to this request now that the goalposts are in the parking lot. It should be a simple yet illustrative thing to do.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 20:53
|
|
|
Alien Arcana posted:Obdicut sort of beat me to it, but anyway: If you thought I was implying that there are no distinctions between human 'choice' and ant 'choice' then you completely missed the point of what I was trying to say. Of course there are differences, there are tons of them. Let me clear: I don't disagree with any of the broad strokes of how you and Obdicut talk about human decision-making. I don't disagree that we imagine and communicate and decide between alternatives and all that. My point is that this is at a different level of description than the one that is needed to actually think about what the similarities are between systems. Ants do things for reasons, humans do things for reason. Yes these reasons are wildly different qualitatively and quantitively . From a perspective of self-organization, the investigation is one where you say "given these simplified assumptions about the factors influencing individual behavior, what kind of structure emerges?" There is no reason this method doesn't work for humans because we think. It's just way more difficult and requires way more simplifying assumptions. I'll put my cards on the table, I guess. I'm studying for a PhD in a Psychology department that researches behavior from a perspective of self-organization. But the difference between what I do and what Eripsa does is that we do technical work and make lots of models and test assumptions and all that boring stuff. My advisor is a physicist. The criticisms I am hearing rub me the wrong way. A lot of interesting and successful work on self-organization comes from the study of patterns that emerge in convection currents in heated oil. There are some interesting mathematical analogies that can be drawn between human behavior and loving oil in a pan. This is real work that gets published and presented in conferences and funded by big agencies (e.g. DARPA). You could easily say "oil doesn't think, don't be ridiculous", but that mixes up levels of abstraction and completely misses the point. Even mainstream work in Psychology is based on simple models that could seemingly be dismissed by saying "but humans think! Where is the choice in that model!" It's just really lazy and misses the actual errors that are being made in the application of self-organizational principles in this thread by throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Obdicut posted:there's obviously a big difference between a group where the individual values themselves, and one where the individual doesn't. ... differences that perhaps can be examined within a common framework that generalizes over both cases. That's sort of what I'm trying to say. SurgicalOntologist fucked around with this message at 21:00 on May 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 20:56
|
|
|
SurgicalOntologist posted:If you thought I was implying that there are no distinctions between human 'choice' and ant 'choice' then you completely missed the point of what I was trying to say. Of course there are differences, there are tons of them. Let me clear: I don't disagree with any of the broad strokes of how you and Obdicut talk about human decision-making. I don't disagree that we imagine and communicate and decide between alternatives and all that. Okay, I see where you're coming from. My original point was that humans and ants follow very different sets of rules and, consequently, generate very different types of emergent behavior. RA seems to think the systems are similar enough that we can look at what ants are doing and somehow replicate that in a human setting. Or, in other words, I don't object to the idea that you can draw analogies between humans and ants (or between humans and oil!), but rather to the idea of using those analogies as a starting point. I object to the idea that superficial similarities necessarily imply deep similarities. I certainly didn't mean to besmirch any legitimate research that's being done in the field.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 21:03
|
|
|
SurgicalOntologist posted:
The problem is you're not analogizing all human interaction to oil in a pan. I mean, there's ways Fibonacci sequence is used in architecture, but that doesn't mean nautilus and humans have any real resemblance. If the papers do not address the fact that human self-organization occurs in the context of apparent choice, then they're missing out on a cool bit in the discussion section. So if humans and ants self-organize in any similar way, the fun and interesting thing is figuring out why, not then jumping to further analogies.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 21:09
|
|
|
Alien Arcana posted:Okay, I see where you're coming from. My original point was that humans and ants follow very different sets of rules and, consequently, generate very different types of emergent behavior. RA seems to think the systems are similar enough that we can look at what ants are doing and somehow replicate that in a human setting. Yeah, I didn't really think you would disagree just that I wasn't getting my point across. And yes that third sentence "RA seems to think..." is really the problem. More specifically, we might be able to introduce some of the constraints of ant societies in human societies, in order to improve the latter, if human societies were simpler than ant societies. But they're not, not even close. So it doesn't really make sense to transfer constraints in that direction. Better to examine what constraints ("signals" in RA's terms) already exist in human societies and use a model to examine the effects of adjusting them, removing some, adding new ones, etc. You can't just transfer the constraints from ant society to human society. My contention in the last couple posts is just that a model that attempts this could be at the societal level and not make any sort of reference to specifically how humans make decisions, evaluate consequences, etc.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 21:09
|
|
|
Man I'm bad at double-posted.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 21:10
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:If the papers do not address the fact that human self-organization occurs in the context of apparent choice, then they're missing out on a cool bit in the discussion section. So if humans and ants self-organize in any similar way, the fun and interesting thing is figuring out why, not then jumping to further analogies. Yes of course to the second sentence. It's just that often when you're researching self-organization those reasons are abstract, involving mathematical regularities, without recourse to the specific systems at hand. Yes, in the discussion section you'd (sometimes) speculatively bring it down a level of abstraction and give examples or whatever. But I don't know if it's often or ever appropriate to bring in a concept like "apparent choice" in this context. E: All I mean by that is that not all Psychology papers end by making broad and imprecise speculations about consciousness and the role of choice and what makes humans special and all that crap. In fact most don't. SurgicalOntologist fucked around with this message at 21:22 on May 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 21:14
|
|
|
Cantorsdust posted:You're absolutely right that it's the same idea. Sorry if I stole your thunder. If I had to guess why RA didn't pay attention to your question when you asked it, it's because you framed it as a question of spec instead as an alternative formulation to RA's original idea. Which shows how little thought went into RA's original idea that he didn't consider that. I'm presenting as a bit more huffy than I ought to be. It's just the exact same idea and I don't buy for a second that it's the slight difference in presentation that led to the manic fawning over the potential on the second pass. It's like Coupling suddenly needing 4 variables instead of 2. RA never acknowledges the massive shift, but for anyone reading along it gives a little peek at the cards he's holding. Now I feel bad I blew the game early by pointing it out instead of an end run.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 21:26
|
|
|
CheesyDog posted:Seriously guys, if you haven't look up Whuffies. It's clearly what he's trying to describe, only he's slapped on (valueless coin) and a bunch if half-understood theories so his idea can be an original one. Holy poo poo. Eripsa: dumber than Cory Doctorow.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 21:28
|
|
|
midnightclimax posted:Haha what the gently caress. So the idea's not even his? Was that mentioned at any point? That just makes me sad now. It came up a few times in passing. I think it was glossed over both because there isn't really a good reason for most people to know what Whuffies are, and because any perceived lack of originality is among the very least of Strangecoin's problems.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 21:32
|
|
|
Cantorsdust posted:edit: Okay, now things are gonna get weird. Your examples are along the right lines, but they aren't complete. Let me give more detailed examples below. But first, let me say two things: 1) I think it's ultimately arbitrary to put the modifications on the buyer or seller side; I assumed they'd be put on the seller side, but you are raising good reasons for thinking they might be put better on the buyer side. After sleeping on it I think that the discrimination can happen either way, and that seems to be the suggesting of your post too. So the different is a practical one of what would make the network easier to use and reason about. So going over more examples will help, hopefully. 2) Muscle tracer seems to want me to defend some intrinsic value to strangecoin, but that's a red herring. I'm not committed to any conception of intrinsic value, and neither is any other economic framework. Influence is valued over coins in the strangecoin network because the network connections one maintains is what constrains a person's economic opportunities; someone with more connections has more options available for taking advantage of opportunities as they arise. So let's do another example, using your framework. The most helpful aspect of your suggestion is the discussion of a UEV, but we can carry that along whether we put modifiers on the buyer or seller side. In any case: quote:There are two sellers. Seller A has modifier 2, and Seller B has modifier 1. There are also 2 buyers. Buyer C has modifier 2, and Buyer D has modifier 1. Let's run some transactions. Both sellers are selling hamburgers at a UEV price of 100. Okay. In Cantorcoin (buyer-side modifications), the system works like this: quote:For Buyer C, the real prices appear as follows: In other words, when C buys from A, C trades 25 of his own coin and 25 coins from his network, and A receives those 50 coins matched with 50 coins from A's network. In contrast, Seller B is only modified by 1. I'm supposing that a modifier of 1 means there is no adjustment? In which case C would trade 50 of his own coin, and 50 from his network, while B's network doesn't contribute anything to the transaction. So assuming that C wants to minimizing the coins coming from his own account in this transaction, Buyer C has reason to prefer seller A to B in this transaction, because A has the bigger network of support. This is the same for Buyer D, who would also prefer A to B. So again, in the Cantorcoin buyer-side system, buyers are discriminating among sellers to find an offer suited to the resources they and their network can bring to bear on the transaction. Now contrast with Strangecoin, the original proposal, which has seller-side modifications. In this case: quote:For Seller A, the real prices appear as follows: I this case C and D would both trade their own 100 coin, but A would receive different amounts based on their and the buyer's network. Contrast with Seller B: quote:For Seller B, the real prices appear as follows: Both A and B observe the same basic difference in C and D, and (assuming the sellers want to maximize the coins they receive in this transaction), they both have reason to prefer C in their hamburger sell. So this establishes that the network-based discrimination can happen in either Cantor- or Strangecoin worlds. These are examples of simple network-based descrimination, for whoever was asking for it. For what it's worth, the original spec specifies that TUA transactions are unmodified; engaging with someone with a maxed account is essentially like trading with someone who has no network, where all the modifiers are 1. This means transactions with others are potentially a lot more valuable than the ones with maxed accounts, hence the incentive to balance one's account via transactions other than TUA transactions. In any case, the basic issue here is whether we want a system where buyers are choosing among sellers, or sellers are choosing among buyers. GulMadred expressed a worry that buyer-side modifications ala Cantorcoin still conceal the information about the network in the transaction, while it is made more apparent in the seller-side Strangecoin. Although his argument was meant to be sympathetic (and really he's been giving some of the best analysis in the thread, so thanks again), I think he's wrong, and that the cases are symmetrical. Go back to the example. In the first case considering Seller A, the UEV is 100. But A has a modification of 2 (and knows it), so in order to meet that UEV, it knows it only needs half the amount from the buyer. The buyer, meanwhile, knows that they're responsible for 50 coin, and (for C) that their mod is 2, meaning that they're responsible for only half of their side of the transaction. In this situation, the Seller doesn't need to know anything whatsoever about the network the Buyer brings to bear, since they are getting the same amount regardless of the Buyer's network. But it is exactly the opposite with seller-side modification. In the first seller side example above, the seller is guaranteed the price of the transaction (100 coin), so any additional value must be the result of evaluating the network the buyer brings to bear. So the seller has some incentive for assessing the buyer's network. But the buyer is losing the same either way, and so doesn't care much who the seller is. So the issue isn't about which way loses information. This issue is who we want to have the decision making power, buyers or sellers. As I've said, my inspiration was from ants and their division of labor-- which again functions at the abstract level which Surgical Ontologist is defending; I'm sure glad he's defending complexity theory so that it's reputation survives the onslaught of the thread. In any case, my intuition was that the caste structure can be made more explicit from the seller's perspective; the idea is that she sets the price at 100 dollars, and only selects clients with modifiers above 5 to ensure that every transaction is earning at least 500 dollars. So she can command a predictable price for the service by setting tiers of clients, which effectively establishes the available community of participation. Put simply: if the sellers are choosing, then the buyers must always be representing their network. In the buyer-side case, however, the community of participation can be much more diverse, because buyers can get around by being either coin or network-rich. So in the buyer-side case, buyers aren't tasked with representing their network, sellers are. In the buyer-side case, the caste structure is salient not among the buyers but the sellers. Thinking through this carefully here still leaves me a little ambivalent about which would be better, but I'm pulled in the direction of Cantorcoin as a result of this discussion, and I'm open to the revision. I'd be interested in seeing more discussion, though. I'm somewhat dismayed that JawnV6 is taking this discussion as evidence that I ignored his contributions earlier in the thread, especially since at that time the discussion had not matured to a point where these issues could have been considered more carefully. I'm sorry I don't have all these details worked out in advance, but I suppose that if I did then I wouldn't need to come here and talk about it with all of you.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 22:01
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:Influence is valued over coins in the strangecoin network because the network connections one maintains is what constrains a person's economic opportunities; someone with more connections has more options available for taking advantage of opportunities as they arise. Why. How. How does having connections give me more options, when all it does is give me more money (that I already have an infinite supply of) and/or give me pretty AttentionPoints that don't cost anyone anything to give me, because they are, again, modifiers of literally meaningless transactions? How would this be any different if every transaction were replaced with giving people gold star stickers to put on the back sheet of their notebook? Other than that gold stars are limited in quantity and availability, which Strangecoins are not? I mean at this point it's obvious that you don't have the slightest idea what the value of network influence is in this context, and that's why you're blowing past this question, but it would be nice for you to actually, you know, engage with the groundwork of your imaginary system instead of pissing into the clouds.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 22:05
|
|
|
LGD posted:It came up a few times in passing. I think it was glossed over both because there isn't really a good reason for most people to know what Whuffies are, and because any perceived lack of originality is among the very least of Strangecoin's problems. Yeah, within the first few pages people were making references to Down and Out in the Magic Kingdom, but it's cool, nobody is going to judge people for not having read enough Cory Doctorow.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 22:07
|
|
|
Slanderer posted:Strangecoin: an ant obeys  Re: Whuffies I've talked a bunch about various scifi implementations of the attention economy, my favorite being from Sterling's discussion in the Caryatids, which was suggested to me in these threads. I don't see any shame in the similarities between this idea and Doctorow's; they're both pretty immediately inspired by attention economy considerations from Simon and McLuhan and Shirky and others who I've also cited in the thread. I've asked the thread if they're aware of any existing technical implementations of the idea or anything like it, and even offered that I would shut up and leave the thread if any were produced. The offer still stands. RealityApologist fucked around with this message at 22:20 on May 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 22:12
|
|
|
I've said this several times before: if the coins are unlimited, they are valueless, and everything might as well cost 1 coin. The modifiers can change and are not unlimited, (unless a single person can endorse someone at a greater than 1:1 ratio) thus they will become a meta currency and then the currency itself. And congrats, you've just reinvented the dollar - you've abstracted influence down to a number that can be bought and sold. You've done nothing but adding tracking, which could be done with dollars, and decentralization, which is at best a debatable benefit ( see: Bitcon).
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 22:15
|
|
|
I'm still looking for a response here.Wanamingo posted:
I know it's a minor point that I'm constantly going on about, but drat if I'm not personally invested in seeing you admit a mistake. e: I'll be more than satisfied if you admit not not having admitted to making any mistakes yet.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 22:27
|
|
|
SurgicalOntologist posted:Yeah, I didn't really think you would disagree just that I wasn't getting my point across. For the record, my criticism was basically coming from this direction. I was taking issue with the fact that we can already observe the effects of self-organization in caste structures in human society, and that RA's analogy breaks down the moment he failed to account for observable behaviour that we see in humans, but not in ants. He claimed that both systems were generated via self-organization at the point of individual decision making, whatever form that decision making takes, totally ignoring system wide patterns of behaviour that are easily observable in every human society that has ever existed basically. Why should an ant inspired signal induce a change in behaviour for individuals in a human social network, when we are exposed to more factors and modifiers to our behaviour, including ones that preclude the decision making at the level of the individual? I think the far more interesting question would be what would happen if you introduced a parameter for say, racism, in a model of an otherwise eusocial animal. How would the ideal anarchist society fair if human-inspired behaviours were added in? What does this tell us about racisms effect on our own society?
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 22:41
|
|
|
ProfessorProf posted:RealityApologist, please describe a situation where someone with more connections than me on the strangenet could impact me, and what that impact would entail. RealityApologist posted:I've made mistakes in this thread, many of which I've admitted to and tried to compensate for. Wanamingo posted:Give me specific examples. CheesyDog posted:Seriously guys, if you haven't look up Whuffies. It's clearly what he's trying to describe, only he's slapped on (valueless coin) and a bunch if half-understood theories so his idea can be an original one.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 22:57
|
|
|
If he wanted a reputation economy, why bother with the "coin" aspect of strangecoin at all?
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 23:01
|
|
|
Little Blackfly posted:If he wanted a reputation economy, why bother with the "coin" aspect of strangecoin at all? he already did the attention marble thing, but adding "coin" to the name got him a successful thread on Hacker News, man!!! (because that site has people who will upvote any cryptocurrency thread including the ones not actually about cryptocurrency.)
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 23:20
|
|
|
Little Blackfly posted:If he wanted a reputation economy, why bother with the "coin" aspect of strangecoin at all? Because he noticed someone had done something that looked like it could possibly be related to the project he'd been mentally masturbating to for years and then decided to appropriate it without fully understanding the implications. First time that has ever happened, clearly. e: video of emergent network theory model found https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i_7PRDPa7I4 Good Citizen fucked around with this message at 23:56 on May 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 23:46
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:As I've said, my inspiration was from ants and their division of labor-- which again functions at the abstract level which Surgical Ontologist is defending; I'm sure glad he's defending complexity theory so that it's reputation survives the onslaught of the thread. In any case, my intuition was that the caste structure can be made more explicit from the seller's perspective; the idea is that she sets the price at 100 dollars, and only selects clients with modifiers above 5 to ensure that every transaction is earning at least 500 dollars. So she can command a predictable price for the service by setting tiers of clients, which effectively establishes the available community of participation. Put simply: if the sellers are choosing, then the buyers must always be representing their network. In the buyer-side case, however, the community of participation can be much more diverse, because buyers can get around by being either coin or network-rich. So in the buyer-side case, buyers aren't tasked with representing their network, sellers are. In the buyer-side case, the caste structure is salient not among the buyers but the sellers. If you want 500 coins, you can either set your pre-modifier price at 100 and only sell to people with modifier 5 or higher (and thus limit your pool of buyers) or set your post-modifier price to 500 and sell to anyone and have a greatly increase pool of buyers. What reason is there to prefer the first? Also none of this matters because coins are worthless and you can get an infinite amount any time you want, so why are you selling burger for money instead of just pulling everything from TUA?
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 00:06
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:Both A and B observe the same basic difference in C and D, and (assuming the sellers want to maximize the coins they receive in this transaction), they both have reason to prefer C in their hamburger sell. This makes no sense whatsoever. If D's coins are worth half of C's, they're simply going to demand twice as many coins from D before they hand over the hamburger.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 00:27
|
|
|
"Why participate in the strangecoin game?" is an excellent question, but it is triggering to Eripsa so he has generally ignored it or tried to mock the person who has asked it. However I think "in a session of the strangecoin game, what is the incentive to sell things?" is an even better way of putting that question and warrants a response.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 00:56
|
|
|
If I sit down to play a rousing game of Monopoly using Strangecoin, who wins and how?
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 01:02
|
|
|
Alien Arcana posted:Holy poo poo, I just wiki'd it and it's almost exactly like Strangecoin. Right down to the TUA-shaming and the support/endorse duality (the right-hand/left-hand thing mentioned in the article). Oh my god, this is incredible. This makes the flip flopping and goofy math on strangecoin even funnier. He hasn't even figured out the thing he's trying to rip off. edit: to save everyone the trouble of looking it up, here it is quote:In the novel Down and Out in the Magic Kingdom, Industrial-era economic constraints and scarcity-management regimes have been made obsolete by technology: Whuffie has replaced money, providing an esteem- & admiration-rewarding motivation for people to do useful and creative things. A person's Whuffie is a general measurement of his or her overall reputation and is gained (or lost) according to a person's favorable (or unfavorable) actions. Public opinion determines which actions are favorable or unfavorable. The Whuffie of one who rudely pushes past others may suffer, as she falls within the disapprobation of those pushed, or witnesses of the event. A much-loved symphony, on the other hand, continues to earn the composer Whuffie as more people enjoy it. Some judgments contributing to an individual's Whuffie are automatic and require no conscious thought on the part of others, as all possess brain chips. As brain dumps allow machines to carry consciousness, the machines can do the thinking for people and allow them to know the results automatically.[3] Best Friends fucked around with this message at 01:18 on May 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 01:15
|
|
|
ALL-PRO SEXMAN posted:I legitimately like this thread, and I want to see it Goldmined or stickied forever as a warning to others that grad school can become a black hole into which all coherence and rational thought can disappear forever. No ditch digger would ever write something as obtuse, nonsensical, and just plain pointless as Eripsa without the benefit of a severe head injury or full-blown schizophrenia. His understanding of the scholarship of which he is soon making a dissertation hinges upon a classical fallacy of a undistributed middle where, somehow, gender- the social institution made up of different tools- is itself a tool separate from the social institution it makes up. Because through the magic of science philosophy all things are technology, including social dynamics and morality and ethics- and as such we need not worry about their impacts as long as we continue to race towards the coming oh holy Singularity. RealityApologist posted:I just want to build the drat thing so the future can loving get here already because it isn't here yet and things are pretty poo poo, and you all have a hell of a lot better loving chance of making it happen than me. (this future includes his phd)
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 01:28
|
|
|
Best Friends posted:Oh my god, this is incredible. This makes the flip flopping and goofy math on strangecoin even funnier. He hasn't even figured out the thing he's trying to rip off. It really can't be stated enough that Doctorow's book involves Whuffie only arising after both death and scarcity have been solved.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 01:41
|
|
|
Install Windows posted:It really can't be stated enough that Doctorow's book involves Whuffie only arising after both death and scarcity have been solved. My god, I just read the wiki article and...it's exactly what he's proposing, except the article can actually explain what it is.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 03:05
|
|
|
Little Blackfly posted:If he wanted a reputation economy, why bother with the "coin" aspect of strangecoin at all? Because it never occurred to him that having a limitless wellspring of currency immediately at hand to all people might have the effect of making the produce of that infinite wellspring valueless. There's still not been a method put forward about how reputation could even be quantified in SC, as since coins are worthless there's no reason for some punk kid not to endorse everybody on Earth at 100000000000%, thereby destroying everything. Actually, he did say in the last spec that endorsements (along with all other transactions) must be accepted both parties, so technically you'd only be sending out an endorsement request. But the case in which not accepting that is a good idea, but ACTUALLY accepting someone else's "more reasonable" endorsement for some other reason, has yet to be put forward.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 04:22
|
|
|
Yeah, but the whole point of a reputation economy is to do away with the need for something like a currency. Networked reputation allows people to barter goods and services directly, trading favours in big chains of reputable parties without the need of a stable unit of value that people can count on. A reputation based economy like what RA seems to be pushing for would basically work on the premise that the more networked someone was, the more valuable a favour owed from them would be. You would do things for people because everybody could be trusted due to available information. So why even bother with the coins at all?
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 04:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? Oct 8, 2024 06:05 |
|
|
Jay-Z: "I would like to buy a burger." Vendor: "Your aura already tipped me off, I looked at your profile and held the mayo. Payment is unnecessary; hail TUA." Jay-Z: "Hail TUA."
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 04:36
|
|