Slider's Shortform

Slider

This is a special post for quick takes by Slider. Only they can create top-level comments. Comments here also appear on the Quick Takes page and All Posts page.

Since I did not keep it in a drawer as much as I thought let me make a note here to have a time stamp.

Instead of going

(units sold * unit price) - productions costs => enterpreneour compensation

go

(production costs+ enterpreneour compensation)/units sold => unit price

you get a system where it is impossible to misprice items.

Combined with other stuff you also get not having to lie or be tactical about how much you are willing to pay for a product and a self-organising system with no profit motive.

I am interested in this direction but because I do not think the proof passes the musters it would need to, I am not pushy about it.

Not comenting on the referenced content as here we are at:
epistemic status: crazy corner

Something that is very resonant to the approach but has a big point of deviation https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/rCZ9fruWriD6uGNLp/who-are-some-prominent-reasonable-people-who-are-confident

$30 for each link that leads to me reading
Total bounty capped at $600, first come first served.

I have a ideological beef with that "first come first served" bit. At 20 links the cap is exactly filled. If you receive 40 links each linker should get 15$. Even as is, it is nearly i... (read more)

2Dagon4y

I have no clue what this model means - what parts are fixed and what are variable, and what does "want" mean (it seems to be different than "willing to transact one marginal unit @ specific price)? WTF is a patron and why are we introducing "maybe later income"? Sorry to have bothered you - I'm bowing out.

2Slider4y

I am not bothered. Cool to have interaction even if it is just reveals that inferential distance / mistepping is large. Patron is a customer. Because they have a more vested interest how the product they bought is doing, it might make sense to use a word to remind of that. We pay customers retroactively the difference they would have saved if they shopped later, so that they do not have reason to lie about their willingness to pay or have a race to shop last. All customers at all times have lost equal amount to have access to the product and this trends downwards as time / customer base goes on. [...] "wants" means "declares by own volition that the fair compensation for the project is" [...] "wants" means "[subject] prefers an outcome in a choice another agent is doing" [...] "wants" means "is ready to spend above average amount of resources to aquire" [...] "wants" means "commits to a conditional transaction" [...] "wants" means "is willing to compromise by consenting to receive less than previous arrangements would entitle them to"