3 ms·
That's a super, super weird formulation here. First from the abstract standpoint, the math here is not right. Discussion: https://pastebin.com/qqQ3KGS5 https://
by rpearl 8y ago
That's a super, super weird formulation here. First from the abstract standpoint, the math here is not right. Discussion: https://pastebin.com/qqQ3KGS5 https://pastebin.com/qqQ3KGS5 because I don't want to divert from the more important point.
More importantly, you've failed to account for the externalities, entirely. It's not just a bet ("pay for a chance"). Trying the bet--in this case, allowing government censorship to control search results--has complicated to quantify, but significantly negative human rights cost.
So to summarize: I wouldn't think twice about taking your bet--I absolutely would, because the chances are absurdly in my favor (see the pastebin). But I--and generally, the people protesting this--would decline a bet that actually has the right stakes, even if there is a payout.
- DSingularity 8y agoI doubt the externalities or the low likelihood of getting a fair shot at selling to Chinese consumers is lost on these companies. The point I’m trying to make is that from a business perspective it’s worth a shot. If successful PR can take care of the blowback. It’s a moonshot. Despite that, in the eyes of people who are just trying their best to boost profits wherever and however they can it’s stupid not to attempt it. Also for my game, you got one shot at playing. My formulation was not meant to be so rigorous— just trying to highlight the angle that the decision makers are taking here.