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

Deadweight Loss as a Service

unoriginal.blog

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 77 posts

Re: Deadweight Loss as a Service

#61

Post by orangecat »

codingdave wrote: post #8
reactordev wrote: post #5

I believe you may have something with Anti-dollar. Joking aside, there’s almost always a company on the other side of the coin. Boycotting or otherwise public outcry’s and cancel culture would look a whole lot different if it were a value-based voting platform where competing interests vie for the value. Add reporting for government agencies on what’s “hot” and it sends a clear picture on what the national sentiment…

I know this is a joke, too, but I worry that you aren't seeing the joke if you think there is something here. This is a setup to take in dollars from everyone and arbitrage the sentiment difference across the userbase, effectively meaning they don't have to pay anything and just take the dollars home. That's the joke. And anyone who actually would put in dollars are who the joke would be being played upon were it rea…

The joke is that there is something there. For example in a presidential election, I'm indifferent between my preferred candidate having $1 more and the opposing candidate having $1 less. If it were possible to honestly negotiate with my counterpart who supports the other candidate, we could either save our money or agree to both donate to a mutually agreeable charity, and everyone would be better off.

Re: Deadweight Loss as a Service

#62

Post by orangecat »

skybrian wrote: post #15
reactordev wrote: post #5

I believe you may have something with Anti-dollar. Joking aside, there’s almost always a company on the other side of the coin. Boycotting or otherwise public outcry’s and cancel culture would look a whole lot different if it were a value-based voting platform where competing interests vie for the value. Add reporting for government agencies on what’s “hot” and it sends a clear picture on what the national sentiment…

If all proceeds went to charity, it could work as a snarky way to raise money for some other charity that’s boring but uncontroversial. It reminds me of the publicity stunts that Cards Against Humanity would do.

In all seriousness, this is an excellent idea.

Re: Deadweight Loss as a Service

#63

Post by passion__desire »

mnmalst wrote: post #24
mcherm wrote: post #22

Satire at its finest, I was 2/3 of the way through the article and still trying to tell whether it was a spoof, or the public unveiling of a terrible, TERRIBLE startup.

I didn't realize until I read the comments. I am not smart...

I consider this to be Trust Pollution. When you trust something, you will believe it without much thinking, caught off-guard.

Is this the best April Fool's ever? Witness - BBC News

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MEqp0x6ajGE

Re: Deadweight Loss as a Service

#64

Post by sneak »

Icathian wrote: post #55
sneak wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you pay the Danegeld to the Dane, I think “in peace” should be in quotes.

Paying for a service someone is providing and appeasing ransacking murderers doesn't really seem equivalent to me.

Oh, you’re right. I’ll go and sign up for the alternative to YouTube instead.

If you pay the ad company, don’t ever expect fewer ads.

Re: Deadweight Loss as a Service

#65

Post by reactordev »

codingdave wrote: post #31
reactordev wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know but I was referring to just the concept of dollar vs anti-dollar. Not the payout or anything but just the idea that companies get X dollars where X is the sum of users who voted for them. Let the people decide. The reality is humans will find a way to make this corrupt.

But that doesn't let the people decide. That lets the people with spare dollars decide.

Sure, fair point, replace dollar with vote point…

Re: Deadweight Loss as a Service

#66

Post by rglullis »

jancsika wrote: post #59
ben_ipsen wrote: post #20

Being Rickrolled just doesn't have the same feels now that Youtube will immediately blast an add in your face before you can enjoy the classic.

I just don't get the entitlement around Youtube. It costs money to maintain the servers and keep it running, 24/7 so you can enjoy the content. It certainly doesn't owe you a free Rickroll. If for whatever reason Youtube wants to enshittify its service to destroy its UX it is 100% within its rights to do so. If you want it to (temporarily) work again, just get everyone within 6 degrees of separation from you to sign…

It also cost them money to run it when they had competition. Why didn't they charge then? Their dumping tactics worked and they are the only global platform now, do you think they are entitled to extort us and profit from our attention?

And to top it off, you think we should reward this behavior?

Re: Deadweight Loss as a Service

#67

Post by reactordev »

jerf wrote: post #29
cyanydeez wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

cancel culture is a meaningless phrase , it's just culture.

"Cancel culture" may have been meaningless in the past , but now with the new Antidollars™, it literally exists. #include Life moves fast.

Culture 2.0 invokes meaningful change and collaboration on a scale never seen before. Protocols are faster, more robust, efficient by up to 35% versus previous generations. It’s the fastest we’ve ever produced and we didn’t stop there. We went deep to heart of the product to enhance even the most subtle of inefficiencies, rearchitecting the core from the ground up…

Re: Deadweight Loss as a Service

#68

Post by dmurray »

plagiarist wrote: post #39
JonChesterfield wrote: post #6

Despite being satire, I think that could work in the US. It plays off the my team / their team dynamic and sends some fraction of the donated money onwards. Very like an inefficiently run fundraising organisation. There's an outside chance of the setup making a loss for the organisers but only if a pair is very unevenly matched (and that's fixable by letting the 'onmimatch' run down to 0%). I'm not even sure it quali…

I think it is literally a satire of US FPTP voting. Tons of money go in and the winner receives a pittance. Compare to something like proportional representation or score voting.

What? Other voting systems still end up with a winner. If you had score voting for the US President, people would still spend a fortune on it, and the winner would get the same as he does now.

"No matter who you vote for, the Government always gets in"

Re: Deadweight Loss as a Service

#69

Post by JonChesterfield »

codingdave wrote: post #49
JonChesterfield wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a business model, not a joke.

A business model includes a transaction where one side gets value in exchange for returning value to the other side. When it is a one-sided transaction like this, where one side gives money and the other just pockets it... that is more often referred to as a "scam"

One side gives money, and a fraction of that money goes to the intended cause, is referred to as "fundraising". One of the more dubious aspects of donating to a charity is that some of their resources are spent persuading other people to donate to them, in what looks like a strongly zero sum game for the sector as a whole. I think there's a credible chance the system outlined here would end up at a higher effective efficiency than the current state of the art of charity fundraising.

Re: Deadweight Loss as a Service

#70

Post by plagiarist »

dmurray wrote: post #68
plagiarist wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it is literally a satire of US FPTP voting. Tons of money go in and the winner receives a pittance. Compare to something like proportional representation or score voting.

What? Other voting systems still end up with a winner. If you had score voting for the US President, people would still spend a fortune on it, and the winner would get the same as he does now. "No matter who you vote for, the Government always gets in"

If we had score voting we wouldn't have to choose between an artificial two choices, the winner of which having barely any resources to actually accomplish anything. I'm interpreting the small amount of money as representing fear to do what the majority of their voters want, lest they lose a crucial 1-2% from the middle.
Post reply on HN