Deadweight Loss as a Service • Hacker News Board

Re: Deadweight Loss as a Service

#71

Post by jnwatson » Sat, Dec 09, 2023, 7:22 PM UTC

orangecat wrote: post #61

codingdave wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The US certainly spends a lot on elections, and one might debate whether that's too much or not. But what is certain is that campaign money contributes to the GDP. It funds a lot of salaries.

I'd rather that money go to people instead of a faceless cryptofund. I think that's the joke.

Re: Deadweight Loss as a Service

#72

Post by reactordev » Sat, Dec 09, 2023, 7:37 PM UTC

PaulHoule wrote: post #56

stevage wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah but imagine if there was something like this for real, only the dollars weren't greedily kept, but spent in some way that people on both sides support. Like, maybe pro-choice and anti-abortion supporters would both support the excess money going to support new mothers or adoption programs.

There is a similar game that distributes more of the money to causes where people vote with their dollars and antidollars and the winning side gets 1-epsilon of it because the operator of the game requires vigorish. It's like poker with no cards. Ideally the winner puts in just a dollar more than the loser and they nearly double their donation. If the winner can't get enough information to do that and has to spend to…

I believe I know this game. Strange how wording it this way makes way more sense.

Re: Deadweight Loss as a Service

#73

Post by genewitch » Sat, Dec 09, 2023, 8:03 PM UTC

ImPostingOnHN wrote: post #40

genewitch wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I suppose it's more that a culture that encourages actions that result in someone deemed unworthy experiencing negativity. Read as: don't say anything, ever*, anywhere that isn't droll corp-speak, because somebody, somewhere will have an issue with it and try to take you to task. If that somebody has a lot of followers, you could be out of a job/home/country/freedom. *trawling through post history et al to find narra…

> I suppose it's more that a culture that encourages actions that result in someone deemed unworthy experiencing negativity. This sounds like most cultures in history. The majority of them have some sort of social shunning for people who act like a jerk (read: acts in ways society and culture have decided are jerkish) > Read as: don't say anything, ever, anywhere that isn't droll corp-speak, because somebody, somewhe…

"In my opinion, i don't believe that narrative is complete or correct" is enough to instigate a nasty backlash.

"kittens are cute" is droll corp-speak.

Re: Deadweight Loss as a Service

#74

Post by ryukoposting » Sat, Dec 09, 2023, 8:44 PM UTC

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.

The gratuitous use of the TM emoji instead of ™ seemed like a giveaway to me.

Re: Deadweight Loss as a Service

#75

Post by orangecat » Sat, Dec 09, 2023, 8:56 PM UTC

jnwatson wrote: post #71

orangecat wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The US certainly spends a lot on elections, and one might debate whether that's too much or not. But what is certain is that campaign money contributes to the GDP. It funds a lot of salaries. I'd rather that money go to people instead of a faceless cryptofund. I think that's the joke.

But what is certain is that campaign money contributes to the GDP. It funds a lot of salaries.

This is the broken window fallacy. If you have two groups with diametrically opposed goals, giving them each more money to spend "increases GDP" in a local sense, but the result is that a bunch of people spend a lot of effort for a net result of zero, when it could have gone toward something useful.

I'd rather that money go to people instead of a faceless cryptofund. I think that's the joke.

Yeah, the crypto piece is just for additional silliness. For a real version of this you'd need, like, a spreadsheet with two columns.

Re: Deadweight Loss as a Service

#76

Post by smashah » Sun, Dec 10, 2023, 3:49 PM UTC

sneak wrote: post #64

Icathian wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Invidious is heaven-sent! I'm just a bit lazy :) and watch a lot of youtube so hope it they get something out of it.

Re: Deadweight Loss as a Service

#77

Post by ImPostingOnHN » Sun, Dec 10, 2023, 7:29 PM UTC

genewitch wrote: post #73

ImPostingOnHN wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I suppose it's more that a culture that encourages actions that result in someone deemed unworthy experiencing negativity. This sounds like most cultures in history. The majority of them have some sort of social shunning for people who act like a jerk (read: acts in ways society and culture have decided are jerkish) > Read as: don't say anything, ever, anywhere that isn't droll corp-speak, because somebody, somewhe…

"In my opinion, i don't believe that narrative is complete or correct" is enough to instigate a nasty backlash. "kittens are cute" is droll corp-speak.

> "In my opinion, i don't believe that narrative is complete or correct" is enough to instigate a nasty backlash.

I don't think that is indeed enough to instigate a "nasty backlash" (read: people in society shunning you for jerk behavior) if the "narrative" is that kittens are cute, but certainly it'd be reasonable for society to shun someone who seems hateful. It certainly seems on its face to be a trollish statement (designed to inflame rather than understand), given that it omits any details.

> "kittens are cute" is droll corp-speak

Is it? According to who? I certainly don't think so. My corporation hasn't said that at any point. Are you sure you aren't using the term to mentally dismiss anything which disagrees with your theory?