4 ms·

Could you do so? It's non-obvious to me.

waterlink 9y ago
That reminds me of an amazing book "Thinking in Systems: A Primer." It is probably on my list of must-read books for software developers and other roles around them.
- crawfordcomeaux 9y ago
  I haven't read it, but systems theory is at the core of how I've been thinking lately. I'll check it out.
crawfordcomeaux 9y ago
If we incompletely define addiction as a cycle of compulsions with negative consequences, it's already an unsustainable process at the individual level. We can predict (and statistics confirm this) lifespans of addicts to be lower than those of comparable non-addicts. If a business intentionally develops a userbase of addicts, they are choosing customers who will live shorter lives than others. They'll need to get more people addicted over time in order to maintain the biz or grow it. As their impact on customers rises, so does their visibility. At some point, the public will become aware of the effects and push back, making it harder to cultivate new addicts. The company will likely have to start covertly converting addicts to keep up the game, adopting addiction patterns at an organizational level. Governments will have to step in before their tax bases are affected. Is that clearer?
- xg15 9y ago
  > If a business intentionally develops a userbase of addicts, they are choosing customers who will live shorter lives than others. That assumes that all addictions are deadly and that the company would mind. A company is not interested in a customer's life span but the span of time they are their customer. if someone dies with 30 after having been a "loyal" customer for 20 years, that's better for them than if they die with 90 but are a customer for 5 years. > They'll need to get more people addicted over time in order to maintain the biz or grow it. As their impact on customers rises, so does their visibility. Not really if the incentive is strong enough that everyone does it. As seems to be the case with the internet. > At some point, the public will become aware of the effects and push back, making it harder to cultivate new addicts. That's an assumption. Like the previous point, that won't happen if it's considered "normal". > The company will likely have to start covertly converting addicts to keep up the game, adopting addiction patterns at an organizational level. Yes. So what? > Governments will have to step in before their tax bases are affected. I don't see any evidence of that happening. Anyway, what are the sources for that theory?
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]

That reminds me of an amazing book "Thinking in Systems: A Primer." It is probably on my list of must-read books for software developers and other roles around them.

crawfordcomeaux 9y ago
I haven't read it, but systems theory is at the core of how I've been thinking lately. I'll check it out.

crawfordcomeaux 9y ago

If we incompletely define addiction as a cycle of compulsions with negative consequences, it's already an unsustainable process at the individual level. We can predict (and statistics confirm this) lifespans of addicts to be lower than those of comparable non-addicts. If a business intentionally develops a userbase of addicts, they are choosing customers who will live shorter lives than others. They'll need to get more people addicted over time in order to maintain the biz or grow it. As their impact on customers rises, so does their visibility. At some point, the public will become aware of the effects and push back, making it harder to cultivate new addicts. The company will likely have to start covertly converting addicts to keep up the game, adopting addiction patterns at an organizational level. Governments will have to step in before their tax bases are affected. Is that clearer?

xg15 9y ago
> If a business intentionally develops a userbase of addicts, they are choosing customers who will live shorter lives than others. That assumes that all addictions are deadly and that the company would mind. A company is not interested in a customer's life span but the span of time they are their customer. if someone dies with 30 after having been a "loyal" customer for 20 years, that's better for them than if they die with 90 but are a customer for 5 years. > They'll need to get more people addicted over time in order to maintain the biz or grow it. As their impact on customers rises, so does their visibility. Not really if the incentive is strong enough that everyone does it. As seems to be the case with the internet. > At some point, the public will become aware of the effects and push back, making it harder to cultivate new addicts. That's an assumption. Like the previous point, that won't happen if it's considered "normal". > The company will likely have to start covertly converting addicts to keep up the game, adopting addiction patterns at an organizational level. Yes. So what? > Governments will have to step in before their tax bases are affected. I don't see any evidence of that happening. Anyway, what are the sources for that theory?
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]