3 ms·

Um ... I'm not 100% sure, but I suspect what the poster had in mind was a little bit different. I'm thinking perhaps he meant like if you wanted to get in touc

by NSX2 19y ago

Um ... I'm not 100% sure, but I suspect what the poster had in mind was a little bit different. I'm thinking perhaps he meant like if you wanted to get in touch with Bill Gates or Larry Page or Steve Jobs or something like that. That's a tad bit different.

dfranke 19y ago
Well, Bill Gates is just about equal to a head-of-state. The other two I'm pretty sure I could pull some strings and get in touch with (off the top of my head, they're each a friend of a friend of a friend), but I'm not about to waste their time for the sake of a social experiment.
- NSX2 19y ago
  Right. Case in point. Even though you can get to them through personal connections, you're reluctant to "waste their time." So what about people who can't get to them through 2 degrees of contact. What if they wanted to contact them with an affirmation of the value of their proposals? As in, "I don't know you and I don't want to waste your time, but 83,000 people in this industry think what I have to tell you is important enough for you to drop everything and read." That in itself is something. Now compare that to the next guy who may be able to say, "That guy's idea is good. But my idea is sooooo good, 210,000 people in the industry think you should read and consider what I have to say." As someone with limited time, which one, all other things equal, would you open first and which second? And if the third next idea only had 300 votes and you were pressed for time, you'd skip it most likely, right?
  - dfranke 19y ago
    My point is that there are very few people on this planet whom I couldn't get in touch with if I had something useful to say to them. The five people I initially listed are people who travel many of the same circles that I do, so it's common that I have comments that are worth their attention (Schneier less so than the others; that was basically just a fan letter that got answered). Somebody like Larry Page is further outside my circle, and correspondingly it would be both harder to get hold of him and less likely that I would have any good reason to. In the most extreme case, it's both seriously doubtful that I'd be able to get in touch with George Bush, and seriously doubtful that I could say anything to him that he wouldn't consider a waste of his time upon hearing it. These are all examples of how the filters that form through organic social interaction are already very efficient. Trying to create some kind of voting mechanism to supersede them is like trying to beat a market economy with a planned one.
    - NSX2 19y ago
      > Trying to create some kind of voting mechanism to supersede them is like trying to beat a market economy with a planned one. HUH??? I'm not sure what this has to do with planned economies and such, but if you put it that way, I see it as exactly the opposite. People who he talks about are hard to get to by design - mostly by the design of their administrative assistants. On the other hand, tons of people voting your idea up is by definition the very essence of a market-based decision-making system. In the spirit of your reply, I'll give it a go now: "Disagreeing with me is like trying to replace the Constitution with the manual for your DVD player."

by NSX2 19y ago

dfranke 19y ago

Well, Bill Gates is just about equal to a head-of-state. The other two I'm pretty sure I could pull some strings and get in touch with (off the top of my head, they're each a friend of a friend of a friend), but I'm not about to waste their time for the sake of a social experiment.

NSX2 19y ago
Right. Case in point. Even though you can get to them through personal connections, you're reluctant to "waste their time." So what about people who can't get to them through 2 degrees of contact. What if they wanted to contact them with an affirmation of the value of their proposals? As in, "I don't know you and I don't want to waste your time, but 83,000 people in this industry think what I have to tell you is important enough for you to drop everything and read." That in itself is something. Now compare that to the next guy who may be able to say, "That guy's idea is good. But my idea is sooooo good, 210,000 people in the industry think you should read and consider what I have to say." As someone with limited time, which one, all other things equal, would you open first and which second? And if the third next idea only had 300 votes and you were pressed for time, you'd skip it most likely, right?
- dfranke 19y ago
  My point is that there are very few people on this planet whom I couldn't get in touch with if I had something useful to say to them. The five people I initially listed are people who travel many of the same circles that I do, so it's common that I have comments that are worth their attention (Schneier less so than the others; that was basically just a fan letter that got answered). Somebody like Larry Page is further outside my circle, and correspondingly it would be both harder to get hold of him and less likely that I would have any good reason to. In the most extreme case, it's both seriously doubtful that I'd be able to get in touch with George Bush, and seriously doubtful that I could say anything to him that he wouldn't consider a waste of his time upon hearing it. These are all examples of how the filters that form through organic social interaction are already very efficient. Trying to create some kind of voting mechanism to supersede them is like trying to beat a market economy with a planned one.
  - NSX2 19y ago
    > Trying to create some kind of voting mechanism to supersede them is like trying to beat a market economy with a planned one. HUH??? I'm not sure what this has to do with planned economies and such, but if you put it that way, I see it as exactly the opposite. People who he talks about are hard to get to by design - mostly by the design of their administrative assistants. On the other hand, tons of people voting your idea up is by definition the very essence of a market-based decision-making system. In the spirit of your reply, I'll give it a go now: "Disagreeing with me is like trying to replace the Constitution with the manual for your DVD player."