Separately, great point on labeling the "break-even" price explicitly. I also find that practice helpful for calibrating expectations. I forgot to do that for a recent event but I probably should have.
I agree. The gift economy framework is a useful lens to view a lot of this, in particular labor. But ticket pricing tiers are pure price discrimination, very market-shaped, and that is good. I don't think pricing is mostly about charity, I think it is mostly about distinguishing willingness to pay, enforced by social norms.
A few examples illustrate the point:
- If a rationalist software engineer making $500k doesn't enjoy Solstices but is dragged along as someone's date, I think he should reasonably pay the lowest (subsidized) price. I expect someone would raise an eyebrow at that, and then he should explain, and everyone would recognize "Ah, yes, you have a low willingness to pay for this event, this is the tier system working as intended, thank you for the information."
- If a rationalist software engineer making $500k enjoys Solstices and pays the subsidized or even the break-even rate, I predict that would probably be seen as a defection, albeit minor. Some flavors of gift economies would also see this as a defection[1], but I think the New England genteel/egalitarian gift economy that Skyler is describing would not.
- I think a key feature of gift economies is that you're actually discouraged from giving gifts "above your station". If a relatively poorer family brings a monetarily-expensive dish to the church potluck, or tries to donate too much to the annual capital fund without a good reason, this would be seen as embarrassing in some way, and actively discouraged. But if a graduate student who isn't independently wealthy really loves solstices, and chooses to pay twice the list price, I predict that would be interpreted as "wow, thank you for the vote of confidence, I'm glad you appreciate this event."
More thoughts on this in my Ticket Pricing Strategy post.
- ^
You would absolutely get a bitchy letter about this from Ashur-uballit I. See one of my favorite letters of all time: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amarna_letter_EA_16
Dan, thanks, that helped diagnose the problem.
Looks like I have two separate Lighthaven Waypoint accounts associated with my email address. My work computer can only see the account that has Solstice Season access. My phone and home computer can only see the account that has LessOnline, Summer Camp, and Manifest 2025. Unsure how waypoint sorting between the two accounts, but I used my work computer to pay for Solstice Season so there must be a token or cookie somewhere.
I imagine Ray is slammed this week, I'll reach out on Intercom to try to merge or fix.
I'm seeing this too. May be an Eastern Time Zone issue?
When I first registered for the West Coast Megameetup I had access to a LessOnline-style calendar and set of bios through:
https://www.waypoint.lighthaven.space/events
However now that's no longer accessible, I'm only seeing LessOnline, Summer Camp, and Manifest from earlier this year. Reporting in case it's a bug.
Maneuver warfare. Combined Arms Offensives. Breakthrough operations against prepared defenses in high-intensity conflicts. Counter-offensives to stop enemy advances (i.e. Kursk).
Here's some published US Army discussion of this problem. Yes, Armor officers have tanks and are motivated to say they're the solution to every problem. But they have a point that other countries failing to successfully execute combined arms does not mean that NATO would. There's some things we're good at, skills that we've invested in disproportionately compared to peer competitors. Joint Operations at all scales (nations, services, combined arms), is top of that list.
https://warontherocks.com/2025/07/steel-in-the-storm-recent-wars-as-guides-for-armor-transformation/
I'd be interested to discuss this more sometime.
I'll be at Lighthaven next weekend, Friday and Saturday, happy to discuss in person. This isn't my focus, but I can present some common views. I can't discuss specific developing tech or countermeasures, and generally don't know the specifics anyway. Some sort of countermeasure always develops, though how costly and effective it is, how it changes the various warfare niches, remains to be seen.
Who would win in a fight: an Abrams or six million dollars worth of drone troops?
It's worth noting that tanks will basically always lose a one-on-one fight to dismounted troops of an equivalent cost-to-equip, given reasonable cover, morale, and equipment. This was true in 1940, in 1970, in 2000, and now. Sending unscreened tank columns alone into battle in anything other than a flat desert is suicidal. Tanks shine in combined arms, but are vulnerable on their own. Combined arms warfare is extremely difficult to coordinate; neither Russia nor Ukraine have been able to pull it off much in recent years, with the initial Kursk offensive as a notable exception. It shouldn't surprise us that heavy tanks struggle in geography they're not suited for, used by armies who are unable to use them to best effect. That is not the only relevant scenario.
NATO is certainly not "dangerously unaware" that drones are flipping the table of armored warfare. Drones are a huge focus of the new Army Secretary, DoGE, and major defense contractors (particularly Anduril). A few months ago, we had what was sadly not called "Bring Your Drone to Work Day" with all sorts of new prototypes set up in the Pentagon courtyard for us bureaucrats to see and touch and get a real felt sense for what's new.
But quadcopters aren't everything! They certainly haven't allowed Russia to conquer Ukraine, if anything they seem to favor the defender. American military power was already built on drones, in terms of intelligence, electronic warfare, loiter munitions, and even "traditional" precision bombs (as @Hastings pointed out below).
Yes, the incumbent Defense Primes are over-specialized in "exquisite" hardware that's expensive, technologically advanced, and produced in low numbers. But that also means they're very incentivized to develop drone countermeasures. Most things they try won't work. Some likely will. Even early things they've tested have helped in Ukraine, it's just not the case that an Abrams tank is "dangerously outdated". There are more threats to a heavy tank than there have been in the past, and lighter tanks are a better fit for Ukraine's geography, but you'd still rather have the tank than not. This is not always the case!
Western militaries are acutely aware of that viral tweet from a while back:
every Pacific naval encounter from late 1943 onward is like the IJN Golden Kirin, Glorious Harbinger of Eternal Imperial Dawn versus six identical copies of the USS We Built This Yesterday supplied by a ship that does nothing but make birthday cakes for the other ships
Original source lost, but here's an example
Yes, if given the choice, you should prefer six identical copies of the USS We Built This Yesterday + the ice cream support ship. That doesn't mean the IJN Golden Kirin, Glorious Harbinger of Eternal Imperial Dawn was useless.
Disclosure: Literally written from the Pentagon. (Off duty, speaking in a personal capacity, waited to type this until after hours, etc.)
1Understood, thanks for explaining. I'll reach out to Foresight about a one-day ticket, since I'll be in the area.
I see. Yes, I think that mostly does.
I misread you, your paying-your-own way price is more nuanced than I had realized. I think after including things like protecting against not selling all tickets and providing some extra for subsidizing student tickets, it would be noticeably above the break-even price. I think Skyler's East Coast Megameetup provides a good case study, as of yesterday he had a "Low" price of $65, a "breakeven" price of $100, a "high" price of $120, with several additional sponsorship tiers. He defines the "breakeven" price as something like if everyone paid this and the event sells all tickets, we would break even, and the "high" price as something like if 2/3rds of participants paid High and 1/3 paid "Low", while selling all tickets, the event would breakeven. I think under your schema the "paying your own way price" is the High one ($120), or even higher to account for the risk of not selling out, not the breakeven price of $100, right?
I think yes, this does resolve at least most of our disagreement. I think it's reasonable to expect the software engineer to contribute more to public goods than the grad student. I think events count as mostly public goods (they're technically club goods, since they're somewhat rival and somewhat excludable, but there are still substantial spillover effects from events that should provide you value by binding the community together even if you don't go, so I think rounding them to public goods is close enough.) Descriptively, not endorsing, I think some in the community would expect the software engineer to pay more than $120 or $135 (building in sales risk) for the East Coast Rationalist Megameetup, unless they have some good reason to have a low willingness to pay. But your framework has a lot to recommend it, and I think could reasonably be the median expectation from the community.
I agree with Skyler that it's not reasonable to describe expecting public goods to be funded more proportionally to income as "stealing," at least not at the margins we're typically looking at in practice in the community. But it could get there! If, for instance, there was a social pressure and expectation that the richest 10 people in the community must pay for the whole event, I would describe that social pressure as immoral. I'd probably call it something like an "unjust entitlement to someone's resources", rather than stealing, but these are mainly prudential questions with fuzzy boundaries.