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

Breaking Down OnlyFans' Economics

matthewball.co

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

861–870 of 878 posts

Re: Breaking Down OnlyFans' Economics

#861

Post by sulandor »

CryptoBanker wrote: post #817
luizfzs wrote: post #658

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This somewhat misses the point of my comment, tough. The post was written in English, so one should stick to how English represents millions. Based on that, I can say `1.000.000` is equal to MM because Brazil uses `.` to separate groups of 3 digits, and `,` to separate integer and decimal parts. My point is to stick to using the units the language you're writing on uses. Btw, thanks for explaining the origin of MM! I…

mm as an abbreviation is still the standard in finance, so still very relevant in English

engineers tend to interpret it as

   million * million = terra
   10^6 * 10^6 = 10^12
because the suffix m or M is associated with million or 10^6 in the international system of units.

Re: Breaking Down OnlyFans' Economics

#862

Post by sulandor »

quectophoton wrote: post #572
foobarian wrote: post #555

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wait until we need to talk about billions!

How to forget one of the holy wars of natural languages, with half the world using it to mean "one million million", and the other half using it to mean "one thousand million". Still less confusing than "mph" (I always read it as "meters per hour" and have to go back to correct myself).

babylonian confusion costing real lifes

Re: Breaking Down OnlyFans' Economics

#863

Post by ath3nd »

broken-kebab wrote: post #853
ath3nd wrote: post #376

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But my harmful behavior still doesn't make your harmful behavior good, and vice versa In principle I agree. We have a society praising a soldier for killing and risks losing limbs and life (basically selling his body) during military service, but demonizing a sex worker. This society needs to take a good hard look in the mirror. We have people admonishing sex work and marijuana use, while its most "successful" memb…

This is pretty illogical comparison. When we praise soldiers, we do it not for them getting paid for their bodies, but for hard work, and risks they take protecting us.

> and risks they take protecting us.

Considering the risk are bodily harm, there is some similarity to the risks of bodily harm that some sex workers take, and far more frequently, than soldiers. STDs, violent guys, etc etc.

> but for hard work

Do sex workers not work hard (pun potentially intended)? I don't see society praising them for their hard work and the risks they take.

Re: Breaking Down OnlyFans' Economics

#864

Post by ath3nd »

benterix wrote: post #841
ath3nd wrote: post #422

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Getting naked and spreading your legs is neither as productive nor difficult as serving your country We have different moral compasses, I guess. To me, obeying military orders (which often result in killing people) is neither productive, nor difficult (as a big part of thinking/initiative is replaced by blindly following orders). Military personnel basically outsource a large chunk of thinking and assessing good/ba…

> Imo, money spent on weapons and the military could be better spent to build more social housing, solve healthcare problems, etc. In an ideal world, 100% yes. In our world, where every now and again a crazy power-hungry dictator appears and wages a war against a weaker country and is killing civilians - unfortunately it's a comfort we can't afford.

> again a crazy power-hungry dictator appears and wages a war against a weaker country

With the risk of being political, I see nothing "defensive" or moral about the military, even in the most advanced nations that are supposedly paragons of human rights.

Take the "dictator attacks weaker country" narrative. The NATO defensive alliance fits this narrative by providing weapons and military training to weaker Ukraine so it can defend itself against the aggression of bigger Russia. On the other hand, the same defensive alliance has no scruples to providing weapons to Israel so it can wipe out and cause immense suffering and casualties to Palestine, a weaker nation.

Which brings me to my conclusion that there is nothing inherently moral about the army, it's just a blunt instrument to do the government's bidding. Hence, I don't see military as our "protectors", but as the government's institutionalized thugs. I also don't see a reason for them to be lauded for their actions, as their actions are often immoral and sinister. I am talking things like the military secrets Assange unveiled, or the illegal treatment of prisoners in Guantanamo, or the sometimes indiscriminate bombings of civilians to hit 1 potential target.

And since they are not protecting me but the government's interests, I don't see a need to thank them for their service more than I see the need to thank bouncers at a disco I don't own for theirs.

Re: Breaking Down OnlyFans' Economics

#866

Post by dragonwriter »

Der_Einzige wrote: post #535
yieldcrv wrote: post #503

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And your women in tech won’t be SWERFs last two decades all the representation was sex worker exclusionary, fighting for a libidoless morph of the corporate world, talking over and on behalf of any women that thought or acted differently glad that was temporary booth babes and atmosphere models coming back soon

Not in a million years. Men’s sexuality is a bad, no good, evil, unethical thing. All types of “objectification” have been deemed extremely unethical and immoral. Progressives think you’re a horrible person if you take part in any kind of beauty pageant or other activity which causes objectification.

> Progressives think you’re a horrible person if you take part in any kind of beauty pageant or other activity which causes objectification.

No, progressives in general don't. In fact, the assumption on which this attitude rests, that anything, particularly any clothing or activity of the target, causes objectification besides the choice of the objectifier is a conservative, victim-blaming viewpoint that is widely attacked by progressives.

Re: Breaking Down OnlyFans' Economics

#868

Post by ghastmaster »

jappgar wrote: post #447
ghastmaster wrote: post #377

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's an inherent risk to hiring someone who has sexualized themselves. False allegations or true allegations are more likely to arise that put the employer in legal jeopardy. It adds risk that another hire may not have.

"sexualised themselves" I would say there's a greater risk hiring sanctimonious prudes.

What is the risk you have in mind?

Re: Breaking Down OnlyFans' Economics

#869

Post by BizarroLand »

evantbyrne wrote: post #685
bigstrat2003 wrote: post #666

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not only is it basically impossible to do a national minimum wage fairly, it is completely antithetical to our system of government. We are a federation of states, not a centralized national government that runs everything else. I wish people would stop trying to make the US something it isn't and was never meant to be.

Not sure where you're getting that idea. Maybe there is some niche case law out there that I'm unaware of, but I can't even think of an example of state law voiding federal law.

The only thing I can think of is the states that have legalized Marijuana. It's federally illegal, but the states simply have chosen to not prosecute.

That being said, if you are pulled over by a federal agent in a legal state, if you meet the federal requirements you can still be prosecuted for possession of marijuana at the felony level, that being said, unless you were doing something super sketchy like having a full pound of weed split into little baggies or something, that is unlikely to stick.

Re: Breaking Down OnlyFans' Economics

#870

Post by yieldcrv »

dragonwriter wrote: post #866
Der_Einzige wrote: post #535

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not in a million years. Men’s sexuality is a bad, no good, evil, unethical thing. All types of “objectification” have been deemed extremely unethical and immoral. Progressives think you’re a horrible person if you take part in any kind of beauty pageant or other activity which causes objectification.

> Progressives think you’re a horrible person if you take part in any kind of beauty pageant or other activity which causes objectification. No, progressives in general don't. In fact, the assumption on which this attitude rests, that anything, particularly any clothing or activity of the target, causes objectification besides the choice of the objectifier is a conservative, victim-blaming viewpoint that is widely at…

thats what surprised me about the sf bay area’s “inclusion by exclusion” throughout last decade

there were some women that wanted to excise the presence of other women, because they (purportedly) felt that men didnt take them seriously after being around the other women. but thats a problem with the particular men?

it was masqueraded as progressive and was successful, they were the only women in tech representation and people didn't challenge the inconsistency

Post reply on HN