Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Jonathan's Card shut down

jonathanstark.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–106 of 106 posts

Re: Jonathan's Card shut down

#101

Post by ajays »

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…

"He exposed the vulnerability."

What 'vulnerability' did he expose, that wasn't already STARING everyone in the face? The card was no more 'vulnerable' than an unattended tip jar or an unattended farmstand. This was like taking money from a 1-year old.

Ooooh! Look at the big boy Sam! He's so smart, he showed how you can rip a child off!

To me, Mr. Odio seems like an attention whore who got jealous that Stark's experiment was creating a buzz.

I'm sorry if this sounds like an adhominem rant, but I'm sick of people who will piss in the punch just to make a point that there's someone thirsty in Africa.

Re: Jonathan's Card shut down

#102

Post by ajays »

davidw wrote: post #39
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…

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

... and is a prefix of "odious", a word which describes his behavior to the T.

Re: Jonathan's Card shut down

#103

Post by Dylan16807 »

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #50
Cushman wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't buy your logic. If I, as a researcher, leave a car in a bad neighborhood overnight to see what happens, the guy who smashes the window to steal the radio is still a bad guy whether or not that's relevant to my results. Science doesn't concern itself with morality, but that doesn't mean it exists in a moral vacuum.

> as a researcher, leave a car in a bad neighborhood overnight // I think you have to label the car "free car" leaving all the doors unlocked and with the keys in the ignition. Then when someone sells the car and gives the money to charity everyone organises a lynch mob it seems because apparently selling the car wasn't part of the experiment you expected it to be driven. Of course experiments are best when they have…

I'd change your analogy to make the label 'free rides', as the intent of this was to get a cheap disposable cup of coffee. And rather than selling the car the guy drains most of the gas out of the tank and takes it.

So yes, it's an experiment but the guy was violating the stated rules.

Re: Jonathan's Card shut down

#104

Post by nchlswu »

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…

> The "experiment" was to see if a system based purely on goodwill, like take-a-penny, leave-a-penny, can survive.

Although this is a whole other discussion, the experiment had a few more implications than that, and Odio pointed them out.

>I'm baffled by your surprise at the reaction. 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, leaving none for anyone else? "But I'm just demonstrating that any system based on goodwill is open to abuse!" Well, yeah. We know. People hate that.

I should say I'm more surprised at the magnitude and nature of the outrage. There's lots of thoughtful commentary, but at the same time, I've read lots of blind hatred towards Sam. The community around Jonathan's Card appear to be outraged and are touting their moral superiority over Odio. He may have been a dick, but to me, it appears like so many were acting as if Jonathan's Card was their only act of goodwill - and many were acting like this was going to benefit those in need (debatable). Sam said it was about 'yuppies buying other yuppies coffee.' He was pointing out an issue that other people who were taking advantage of the cards were not doing. Unfortunately he chose to game the system.

The Jonathan's Card experiment is not over, and what people do next is the critical result of the experiment.

Re: Jonathan's Card shut down

#105

Post by nchlswu »

jwilliams wrote: post #23
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…

There seems to be a habit to define the rules of the experiment - on the basis that there are no rules - and then use this to illustrate a particular point of view as "right" or otherwise justifiable. By your definition it would have also been fine if Sam had actually gone out and bought himself and iPad. Technically fair game? Would that have been ok? Probably not to most people. Not because of the rules, but becaus…

> I don't buy that it's a social experiment more than someone trying to be clever and game a system.

That's fair. But would you be more inclined to think of it as a social experiment if it wasn't limited to Jonathan's physical gift card? To elaborate, what if you consider the Jonathan's Card spinoffs and broader reaction to Odio's actions?

Re: Jonathan's Card shut down

#106

Post by true_religion »

lurker19 wrote: post #85
TeMPOraL wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You might be a different person if you steal for poor family and not for a ferrari, but not in the way I think you're implying. You would use the money differently, but still you would be a thief. Also, this behaviour doesn't scale. If everyone was allowed to steal bread because he/she is hungry, the whole trading system would probably collapse and make everyone hungry.

Well, It is quite possibly scalable to allow impoverished to take free bread, if there is a defined poverty level and an insurance safety net provided by the not impoverished. This is the principle behind Social Security

That's not the principle behind social security. Social security is a store of your accrued wealth of today that is meant to be returned to you once you are retired.
Post reply on HN