Jonathan's Card shut down • Hacker News Board

Re: Jonathan's Card shut down

#71

Post by Duff » Sat, Aug 13, 2011, 2:37 PM UTC

Cushman wrote: post #26

nchlswu wrote: post #21

While Sam's post was admittedly a bit snarky, and his actions did seem a bit 'scummy.' But Sam simply contributed to the experiment. Surely others were going to take advantage of the system. While his actions may run counter to the 'spirit of the experiment,' it's fair game and part of the experiment. Stark didn't enforce any sort of rules for a reason. People who participated in the experiment can continue to pay it…

Sam literally did the opposite of contribute to the experiment. There is nothing he could have done which would be more disruptive. The "experiment" was to see if a system based purely on goodwill, like take-a-penny, leave-a-penny, can survive. And in fact, it largely can , as the growing popularity of Jonathan's Card showed. That there are people who will abuse the system does not excuse the people who abuse the sys…

Don't you care? Think of the children!

Re: Jonathan's Card shut down

#72

Post by dbingham » Sat, Aug 13, 2011, 2:41 PM UTC

jonhohle wrote: post #69

Cushman wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sam literally did the opposite of contribute to the experiment. There is nothing he could have done which would be more disruptive. The "experiment" was to see if a system based purely on goodwill, like take-a-penny, leave-a-penny, can survive. And in fact, it largely can , as the growing popularity of Jonathan's Card showed. That there are people who will abuse the system does not excuse the people who abuse the sys…

> Sam literally did the opposite of contribute to the experiment. There is nothing he could have done which would be more disruptive. > > The "experiment" was to see if a system based purely on goodwill, like take-a-penny, leave-a-penny, can survive. I took from this that a system like this cannot survive, because there will always be actors trying to game it. I think this actually parallels how many entitlement prog…

The problem is that usually that same subset of people are just doing it to prove that it can be done and therefor the programs "aren't sustainable".

They form a kind of self-fulfilling prophecy.

Re: Jonathan's Card shut down

#73

Post by Vivtek » Sat, Aug 13, 2011, 2:59 PM UTC

jrockway wrote: post #42

davidw wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I am surprised at the hate against Sam Odio. His surname, in Italian, means "hate" or "hatred".

No, it means "from the family Odio". Snopes explains this sort of thing better than I can: http://www.snopes.com/business/misxlate/nova.asp

And let's not talk about the meaning accruing to "jrockway".

Re: Jonathan's Card shut down

#74

Post by kens » Sat, Aug 13, 2011, 3:09 PM UTC

Interestingly, Sam Odio's sale of the $500 Starbucks card on Ebay is currently at $3950. Unless the bidder is feeling really charitable, I assume someone is sabotaging Sam's "experiment" with massive overbidding they won't pay.

Ebay sale is at: http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=16063...

Re: Jonathan's Card shut down

#75

Post by EponymousCoward » Sat, Aug 13, 2011, 3:33 PM UTC

shabda wrote: post #28

I am surprised at the hate against Sam Odio. Sam had the option of taking the gift card and selling the card and keeping the iPad. He exposed the vulnerability. If he hadnt you would have paid in for the card, but someone would have abused the system, and not disclosed it. Here is a though experiment. There is a widely used piece of software which has a vulnerability. There are bad guys who are going to abuse it. A g…

Exposed the vulnerability? Can I kick you in the nuts to demonstrate the importance of wearing a cup?

Re: Jonathan's Card shut down

#76

Post by n09n » Sat, Aug 13, 2011, 3:37 PM UTC

randallsquared wrote: post #66

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Are you likewise surprised by the fact that people don't like the guy who comes up to the bowl labeled "Free Candy" and takes all of the candy // Well it's like a guy coming up to a bowl of free candy in a place where everyone already has their pockets stuffed with candy, then going to some other place where people haven't got any candy and giving the candy to them. Oh and the kicker, the guy who took all the free…

> Well it's like a guy coming up to a bowl of free candy in a place where everyone already has their pockets stuffed with candy, then going to some other place where people haven't got any candy and giving the candy to them. The merits of that action aside, we don't actually know that's what he's going to do with the money from eBay. We do know that he's going out of his way to convert it to cash, and we also know th…

He's converting it because he doesn't think starving children in Africa have much use for a Starbucks gift card.

Re: Jonathan's Card shut down

#77

Post by lylejohnson » Sat, Aug 13, 2011, 3:43 PM UTC

bitdiffusion wrote: post #62

It might be slightly off-topic, but I used to work in the same building as "Save the Children" at a swanky address in central London (this is the charity where the money ended up iirc). The employees dressed better than us and I could see (when the lift opened on their floor on the way up) that their offices were pretty awesome. Anyway - how much of the donation actually ended up feeding starving children I guess is…

According to Charity Navigator, "Save the Children" is a four-star charity, with about 90 percent of their budget going to program expenses. That seems pretty reasonable.

http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary...

Re: Jonathan's Card shut down

#78

Post by randallsquared » Sat, Aug 13, 2011, 4:11 PM UTC

n09n wrote: post #76

randallsquared wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Well it's like a guy coming up to a bowl of free candy in a place where everyone already has their pockets stuffed with candy, then going to some other place where people haven't got any candy and giving the candy to them. The merits of that action aside, we don't actually know that's what he's going to do with the money from eBay. We do know that he's going out of his way to convert it to cash, and we also know th…

He's converting it because he doesn't think starving children in Africa have much use for a Starbucks gift card.

My point is that if he intends to give the money to starving children in Africa (or, really, to people who say that some percentage will end up being given to starving children...), the fact that money is money means that there's no reason not to do that at once.

I'm not one of those willing to call what Odio did theft; it's merely rude and underhanded. But I do wonder if people who do business with him in the future will not pause to remember that he's proud of being someone who will exploit the exact letter of the rules to his own advantage (probably mere self-satisfaction in this case, but one does wonder why he didn't do the donation first...), even when the spirit of the thing was otherwise. It seems possible that he has given up considerable future income in return for the personal satisfaction he derived from stepping on someone else's fun.

Re: Jonathan's Card shut down

#79

Post by jerf » Sat, Aug 13, 2011, 4:23 PM UTC

dbingham wrote: post #72

jonhohle wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Sam literally did the opposite of contribute to the experiment. There is nothing he could have done which would be more disruptive. > > The "experiment" was to see if a system based purely on goodwill, like take-a-penny, leave-a-penny, can survive. I took from this that a system like this cannot survive, because there will always be actors trying to game it. I think this actually parallels how many entitlement prog…

The problem is that usually that same subset of people are just doing it to prove that it can be done and therefor the programs "aren't sustainable". They form a kind of self-fulfilling prophecy.

If someone had not done it loudly and publicly, someone would have done it quietly and probably larger.

I mean, come on, what's the alternative? "There exist no exploitative jerks in the world"? We already know that's not true, just to cite http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociopath as one (very large) example. Maybe Jonathon has learned some stuff from his experiment, it went exactly as I expected.

It works for a while, because at first people make grand gestures to show how cool they are to each other, and they outnumber the abusers, but as the fame wears off, so too does the benefits of making the grand gesture, whereas the benefits of sponging never go away. It doesn't mean life is hopeless nor does it mean the bad will always outweigh the good in the world, it just means you need some more structure to things before you can expect net positive outcomes, and that structure will take some experience, and reflections and refinements based on that experience, to best manifest.

Re: Jonathan's Card shut down

#80

Post by awakeasleep » Sat, Aug 13, 2011, 4:43 PM UTC

deltaqueue wrote: post #29

Maybe I'm getting too cynical and pessimistic about society, but an abuse of the system seemed like a guaranteed result of this project. Jonathan's card is simply a redistribution of wealth based on the honor system (masked by words like "karma" and "good will"). Some people will throw ten bucks on the card because it makes them feel great, but leeches will always take part in the project, and at some point there wil…

You're right, and at the same time the card existed for a couple weeks and it made a bunch of people happy while giving everyone a lot to think about!

You're right, and at the same time we have a functioning society where people love and grow and the sun's still shining, and I experience kindness more frequently than the opposite!