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

Don't. Waste. Time.

humbledmba.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 75 posts

Re: Don't. Waste. Time.

#61

Post by goblin89 »

gbog wrote: post #56
goblin89 wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> if it was the case, the price of current products sold on the market should reflect well their inherent value, which I think it doesn't. Money is good since it provides a reference point, a solid ground for measurement and comparison. Although often you need to take into account some non-obvious stuff when you compare two amounts of money (esp. prices), it still does work. For ‘inherent value’ each person would see…

> most people would feet-vote for a big mac rather than a book Seriously? If you had to be thrown on a desert island and bring only one thing, would you bring a short term belly chemical satisfaction asset like a big mac, or a long term spirit satisfaction asset like a Classic book in your mother tongue?

Don't forget that most people on this planet reportedly are a) poor and b) not having English as their mother tongue (probably not even speaking it).

Re: Don't. Waste. Time.

#62

Post by goblin89 »

Fliko wrote: post #57
noahc wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What does this even mean? I assume that you're talking about in a moral sense because of the value judgement you appear to have made. Of course, when I say 'good' I don't mean in the moral sense. Imagine you were to design a way for people to keep score and they had to use tangible things. What would make one tangle item better than another? Here's a quick list I came up with... 1. Easily transferable. Money fulfills…

It means that money isn't a good point system. The simplest way to reason this is that many people around the world make tons of money for selling something that isn't useful/valuable. Scams are probably at the bottom of the 'point system' but pull in tons of money. For money to be a good point system, everyone with a wallet would have to be sensible and make good market choices but unfortunately the case is, for the…

I may be mistaken, but it appears that noahc's point is about ‘keeping score to two decimal points’. There's no way we can detect some true absolute value in things or deeds, but we can at least have unambiguity.

Let's be constructive: what would be a better point system?

Re: Don't. Waste. Time.

#63

Post by icebraining »

gbog wrote: post #45
count wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One of those can keep a starving man alive.

That is a real benefit on the big mac side, but in my current value scale it can't compete with the hours of delight, the self-improvement, the aesthetic pleasure, the deep insights in human hearts, etc. I am rewarded with when reading, say, Pride and Prejudice.

That's not inherent to the book, it's the value you put on the book. To my 8 year old brother, you can be sure the Big Mac will provide much more pleasure

The value system you are pitting against money is completely subjective and therefore somewhat useless as a points system.

Re: Don't. Waste. Time.

#64

Post by gbog »

goblin89 wrote: post #61
gbog wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> most people would feet-vote for a big mac rather than a book Seriously? If you had to be thrown on a desert island and bring only one thing, would you bring a short term belly chemical satisfaction asset like a big mac, or a long term spirit satisfaction asset like a Classic book in your mother tongue?

Don't forget that most people on this planet reportedly are a) poor and b) not having English as their mother tongue (probably not even speaking it).

It is a mistake to think that poor people don't value cultural assets. And I used Jane Austeen as an example, obviously.

Re: Don't. Waste. Time.

#65

Post by gbog »

rrrazdan wrote: post #53
gbog wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> in a moral sense No, not really. You said money is "an excellent points system". I inferred that if it was the case, the price of current products sold on the market should reflect well their inherent value, which I think it doesn't. Money is is too ductile and doesn't involve enough the "donor", a bit like "vote by SMS for your favorite star". The voting system itself is still not involving enough the person givin…

"Inherent value." How do you decide that? I mean how do you say that a Jane Austen novel is a more valuable than a Big Mac?

How I say it? Well, in plain English I say it. Do you mean How do I prove it? or How do I know it?

Re: Don't. Waste. Time.

#66

Post by gbog »

goblin89 wrote: post #62
Fliko wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It means that money isn't a good point system. The simplest way to reason this is that many people around the world make tons of money for selling something that isn't useful/valuable. Scams are probably at the bottom of the 'point system' but pull in tons of money. For money to be a good point system, everyone with a wallet would have to be sensible and make good market choices but unfortunately the case is, for the…

I may be mistaken, but it appears that noahc's point is about ‘keeping score to two decimal points’. There's no way we can detect some true absolute value in things or deeds, but we can at least have unambiguity. Let's be constructive: what would be a better point system?

Better way to value something: count how many people would want their kids to have this thing.

Re: Don't. Waste. Time.

#67

Post by noahc »

Fliko wrote: post #57
noahc wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What does this even mean? I assume that you're talking about in a moral sense because of the value judgement you appear to have made. Of course, when I say 'good' I don't mean in the moral sense. Imagine you were to design a way for people to keep score and they had to use tangible things. What would make one tangle item better than another? Here's a quick list I came up with... 1. Easily transferable. Money fulfills…

It means that money isn't a good point system. The simplest way to reason this is that many people around the world make tons of money for selling something that isn't useful/valuable. Scams are probably at the bottom of the 'point system' but pull in tons of money. For money to be a good point system, everyone with a wallet would have to be sensible and make good market choices but unfortunately the case is, for the…

Again, this goes to a moral basis. Or at least a value judgment. The original question asked about which was cooler and supposed that money had a factor.

My point was that money is a factor, but not because it can be converted into signed limited edition Jane Austeen books for your private island. It is because it serves as a point system when you play the game of life.

Sure, we should think about how someone got the money. But that isn't what the question is about. The question is about how does an individual judge that something is cool. For many, it's about keep score. For a large subset of those money serves as a valid point keeping system.

Re: Don't. Waste. Time.

#68

Post by noahc »

goblin89 wrote: post #62
Fliko wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It means that money isn't a good point system. The simplest way to reason this is that many people around the world make tons of money for selling something that isn't useful/valuable. Scams are probably at the bottom of the 'point system' but pull in tons of money. For money to be a good point system, everyone with a wallet would have to be sensible and make good market choices but unfortunately the case is, for the…

I may be mistaken, but it appears that noahc's point is about ‘keeping score to two decimal points’. There's no way we can detect some true absolute value in things or deeds, but we can at least have unambiguity. Let's be constructive: what would be a better point system?

This is correct. My point was never about who has created the best life or even who added the most value. It was about a way to keep score.

Re: Don't. Waste. Time.

#69

Post by noahc »

kamaal wrote: post #51
noahc wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you can see this in real world. Look at Linus or David of 37 Signals. They have created at least millions if not billions of dollars worth of value (uncollected). As a quick experiment with my girlfriend: Do you know who Linus is? => Uh, No. Do you know what Linux is? => Yeah, it's your system. Do you know what IBM is? => Yes, it's a computer company. It's pretty clear to me that outside of our nerd/geek bubb…

Talking about 'How much someone is rich' without talking about 'How someone became rich' is so plainly wrong. You have to work in order to make money. And to make a lot of money you need to work a lot, or at least harder. To do that you need to know how to use your time well. Understanding some meta aspects of work is very important. And sometimes studying nerd lives can give you how they manage those meta aspects wh…

Everything you've said is true, except for your first sentence. What we're talking about here is money as a proxy for an actual score board. At this resolution the score board is all that matters because we can't see the game being played.

Re: Don't. Waste. Time.

#70

Post by Fliko »

goblin89 wrote: post #62
Fliko wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It means that money isn't a good point system. The simplest way to reason this is that many people around the world make tons of money for selling something that isn't useful/valuable. Scams are probably at the bottom of the 'point system' but pull in tons of money. For money to be a good point system, everyone with a wallet would have to be sensible and make good market choices but unfortunately the case is, for the…

I may be mistaken, but it appears that noahc's point is about ‘keeping score to two decimal points’. There's no way we can detect some true absolute value in things or deeds, but we can at least have unambiguity. Let's be constructive: what would be a better point system?

Ahh, I missed that very subtle point. Most of my experience with business comes from a taste of the music industry and reading on (most) bands struggling to make a dime, so my bias says that a good point system is the amount of fans you have, but! this clearly doesn't work for most things in life. I think the point system depends on what you are talking about, so perhaps for startups $$$ is the best point system we have available right now.
Post reply on HN