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

The Tyranny of the Marginal User

nothinghuman.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

581–590 of 840 posts

Re: The Tyranny of the Marginal User

#581

Post by theresistor »

User23 wrote: post #575
sneak wrote: post #451

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A big thing to consider is the fact that everyone got online all the time during the enshittification phase of OKC - it wasn't just OKC's userbase, but it was the median of the whole internet that got dumber and less sophisticated/more basic. When OKC was great, the random median many-hours-on-the-internet-every-day user was a lot better than it is today. Now that's just a median member of the general public, thanks…

When I first got online the average user’s IQ was no joke north of 120. Now of course it’s around 100. Someone needs to come up with a pithy term for how a subpopulation’s average value for any attribute approaches the population’s average value for same as the subpopulation’s size approaches that of the population. It’s conceptually a simple, even trivial, notion, but it’s cumbersome to talk about. That’s also why u…

Regression to the mean

Re: The Tyranny of the Marginal User

#582

Post by Roark66 »

throwaway2037 wrote: post #510
lr4444lr wrote: post #454

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I fondly remember the one that showed men's rating of women approaching almost a perfect normal distribution, and then the men messaging mostly the hot ones anyway, whereas the women rated most men as ugly and then sloping downward toward very few as good looking, kind of like an exponential distribution, but that they also messaged the men almost exactly in tandem - uglier getting the most, with a steady drop as men…

This is basically the foundation of modern, online dating -- aka red pill. Roughly, the top 20% of men get 80% of the attention from women. (I'm pretty sure that figure comes from Tinder data.) It makes sense from an evolutionary perspective, but is brutal in the real world. What do you do if you are average (or less) in looks and income (potential)? Prepare for a lonely existance.

>What do you do if you are average (or less) in looks and income (potential)? Prepare for a lonely existance.

You try to improve these things. Going to the gym etc, or focusing on one's career is a start.

Re: The Tyranny of the Marginal User

#583

Post by mellosouls »

This article seems to misdiagnose completely what is going on, using an established description to boot and flipping it (without explaining where he has lifted the phrase from).

The Tyranny of the Majority [1] for instance is a well-known phrase that when applied to markets succinctly describes the tendency to blandness and conformity as once-niche products remove bit by bit the original and distinguishing features that made them marginally successful.

The hypothetical user described is just a representation of short-attention spans; the mix of concepts apparently adding to the author's confusion here.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority

Re: The Tyranny of the Marginal User

#584

Post by coldtea »

caturopath wrote: post #383
coldtea wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The Repugnant Conclusion is one of those silly problems in philosophy that don’t make much sense outside of academics. Not even for academics. It's something for "rational"-bros.

(Real, academic philosophers actually care about the case, too.)

Only because the practice (in the US mostly) has been watered down a lot to include all kinds of rational-bros in the tradition of "analytical philosophy", usually also involved in the same circles and arguments with the wide rational-bro community.

Then again the opposite side has also devolved into a parody of 20th century contintenal philosophical concerns with no saving grace.

Re: The Tyranny of the Marginal User

#585

Post by FearNotDaniel »

throwaway2037 wrote: post #510
lr4444lr wrote: post #454

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I fondly remember the one that showed men's rating of women approaching almost a perfect normal distribution, and then the men messaging mostly the hot ones anyway, whereas the women rated most men as ugly and then sloping downward toward very few as good looking, kind of like an exponential distribution, but that they also messaged the men almost exactly in tandem - uglier getting the most, with a steady drop as men…

This is basically the foundation of modern, online dating -- aka red pill. Roughly, the top 20% of men get 80% of the attention from women. (I'm pretty sure that figure comes from Tinder data.) It makes sense from an evolutionary perspective, but is brutal in the real world. What do you do if you are average (or less) in looks and income (potential)? Prepare for a lonely existance.

There's a lot about redpill culture that is inexcusably execrable, but it does offer a true and practical answer to the question you have posed: do everything in your power to make yourself more attractive. Work out, get a good haircut, improve your wardrobe, develop your career, improve your social/conversation skills, have interesting hobbies. Become the best version of yourself and you will get more attention from others.

Re: The Tyranny of the Marginal User

#586

Post by Retric »

User23 wrote: post #575
sneak wrote: post #451

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A big thing to consider is the fact that everyone got online all the time during the enshittification phase of OKC - it wasn't just OKC's userbase, but it was the median of the whole internet that got dumber and less sophisticated/more basic. When OKC was great, the random median many-hours-on-the-internet-every-day user was a lot better than it is today. Now that's just a median member of the general public, thanks…

When I first got online the average user’s IQ was no joke north of 120. Now of course it’s around 100. Someone needs to come up with a pithy term for how a subpopulation’s average value for any attribute approaches the population’s average value for same as the subpopulation’s size approaches that of the population. It’s conceptually a simple, even trivial, notion, but it’s cumbersome to talk about. That’s also why u…

Undergraduate degrees are becoming a stronger signal just not in the same way.

It’s even more obvious with high school degrees. Most people cross that threshold, so the people who didn’t now represent a usual group of under achievers. The threshold is far below what FAANG’s are looking for, but requiring a HS/collage degree can effectively presort applicants for jobs with lower thresholds.

Unfortunately, such methods consistently exclude many worthwhile applicants from a wide range of jobs the same way asking for a criminal background check. But that then sets up a stronger feedback loop as people have stronger incentives to cross that threshold.

Re: The Tyranny of the Marginal User

#587

Post by lovich »

User23 wrote: post #575
sneak wrote: post #451

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A big thing to consider is the fact that everyone got online all the time during the enshittification phase of OKC - it wasn't just OKC's userbase, but it was the median of the whole internet that got dumber and less sophisticated/more basic. When OKC was great, the random median many-hours-on-the-internet-every-day user was a lot better than it is today. Now that's just a median member of the general public, thanks…

When I first got online the average user’s IQ was no joke north of 120. Now of course it’s around 100. Someone needs to come up with a pithy term for how a subpopulation’s average value for any attribute approaches the population’s average value for same as the subpopulation’s size approaches that of the population. It’s conceptually a simple, even trivial, notion, but it’s cumbersome to talk about. That’s also why u…

Isn’t that just Eternal September? At least in the internet

Re: The Tyranny of the Marginal User

#588

Post by soorya3 »

This is a broader issue, I feel like tech has have marginalized the very people. By looking at the amount of technology we have built in the past 25 years, most of the technology is built (in terms of time and cost) for wrong purpose like social apps, chat apps, games, video streaming, all those non essential physical products built because of desire to have everything. Only some of the technology is used for solving real problems like healthcare, education, food, shelter. Just think about it, did our parents/grand parents had problems with communication? entertainment? no they needed good health care, good education, easy to farm and get fresh food delivered to the customer.

Re: The Tyranny of the Marginal User

#589

Post by beefield »

somedude895 wrote: post #166
munificent wrote: post #29

> We’ve all been Marl at one time or another This, to me, is the key line in this quite good article. It's not that software companies are catering to those other people who are infinitely stupid and deserving of our scorn. It's that they are catering to the worse impulses in all of us and encouraging us to become those people.

It's a very good point that I think some commenters here should take to heart. No matter how enlightened we think we are, we're all part of the masses and behave this way at one point or another.

This is something important that people do not seem to grasp. Intelligence is a really high dimensional thing. Even the ones that are highly intelligent in some dimensions are dumb as rock in vast majority of other dimensions. So we all are basically morons with some occasional flashes of intelligence in some individuals.

Re: The Tyranny of the Marginal User

#590

Post by jeffreygoesto »

User23 wrote: post #575
sneak wrote: post #451

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A big thing to consider is the fact that everyone got online all the time during the enshittification phase of OKC - it wasn't just OKC's userbase, but it was the median of the whole internet that got dumber and less sophisticated/more basic. When OKC was great, the random median many-hours-on-the-internet-every-day user was a lot better than it is today. Now that's just a median member of the general public, thanks…

When I first got online the average user’s IQ was no joke north of 120. Now of course it’s around 100. Someone needs to come up with a pithy term for how a subpopulation’s average value for any attribute approaches the population’s average value for same as the subpopulation’s size approaches that of the population. It’s conceptually a simple, even trivial, notion, but it’s cumbersome to talk about. That’s also why u…

Just imagine how high it must have been when there were only hundreds of users? =;-}

Bitnet Relay in 1992 had some, not even all universities connected and I know of marriages that originated in the IRL(!) relay parties. We actually drove across Europe to meet our online friends.

Post reply on HN