6 ms·

I do not see anything in the parent comment indicating a linear relationship. Making a more general comparison of prices is perfectly sound. If you must make an

I do not see anything in the parent comment indicating a linear relationship. Making a more general comparison of prices is perfectly sound. If you must make an inference, you should construe the argument in the most favorable terms. Also, your choice of comparisons were of unlike goods, and "argument from analogy" is a weak form of argument.

greggyb 8y ago
> Now, for fun, let's integrate the price dimension to this report. Yes I have better (maybe 1.5 to 2 times as fast) Internet than my parents who are in Europe, but I also pay 3 times what they pay for it. "Yes..., but" is a form of sentence that indicates disagreement. This was in response to a comment indicating that the US has faster internet than most large European nations. The commenter's first argument was about Norway and Sweden, which were held up as examples of good internet countries. I do not think it is is unfavorable to interpret the post as saying attempting to diminish the advantage posited in their parent (with the Akamai link). Please let me know if you disagree with this interpretation. In their argument they said that the speed is 1.5x-2x, but the price is 3x. Again, "yes, but" is typically a form of disagreement. The "yes" portion grants a specific fact, and the "but" is intended to diminish the importance. Let me know if this is too unfavorable. Since the "but" is intended to diminish the value of the double speed, we must infer that the expectation is that the price should be less than triple for double performance. There's not a lot of wiggle room here. We can bargain on fractions between double price and triple price. Let me know if you'd like to bargain on these fractions. Additionally, the form of the argument is "performance is double, but price is more than double". It is not such a large stretch as you seem to be implying that the expectation in the sentence is that price and performance are proportional. Let me know if I'm off or misinterpreting you here. Again, my argument is of two parts. One, that we should expect in the general case that, due to the widespread phenomenon of diminishing returns, doublings of performance are associated with prices that are much more than double. Two, that since this is the general case, the burden falls on the one expecting prices and performance to be so linear to show that we are in a special case. Note: I would make this argument for any value between double and triple price, so feel free to haggle on those fractions. You'll note I am not make analogies, unless you choose to interpret my quite explicit argument most unfavorably. I am arguing that there is a general case and that the general case predicts what the parent has "yes, but"ed. With this argument I am asking for a justification that we are in a special case. The valid counterarguments seem to me thus: 1. Present good evidence we are in a special case. 2. Argue that the general case is not a superlinear relationship between quality/performance and price. I am open to other counterarguments, of course, as I would hate to push you into a path of argumentation which you do not support. Of course, if you'd like to continue critiquing the form of arguments, rather than their content, it would become more difficult to trust in your good faith. There are so few teachers arrant these days.
- sethrin 8y ago
  The form of the argument is tangential, but the validity of "argument from analogy" is dependent on the strength of the analogy. Few analogies hold up to substantial scrutiny, and the specific examples cited were all fairly distant in kind from the product in question. I certainly don't mean to dwell on that more than might be relevant, but I did think it reasonable to offer this characterization, since you had similarly characterized the OP's form of argument. Nothing in the OP's comment can be inferred to be a denial of diminishing returns: if there is "wiggle room", then you should give them the benefit of the doubt. Also, there's no inherent reason to expect that the cost of bandwidth would be anything close to linear. The cost to the ISP does not necessarily increase due to the provisioned speed of a modem, and the used bandwidth is in most senses unmetered. Also, for what it's worth, whether the OP feels like they're getting a good deal is more-or-less independent of the actual mathematics at hand. There is every reason to believe that bandwidth is a special case: the cost to either the customer or the ISP is not linear with either usage or provisioned speed. However, since the parent's argument is not inconsistent with the concept of diminishing returns, it does not seem valid to arrive at that inconsistency by inference, when other more charitable interpretations exist. P.S. I'm afraid I don't understand your use of the word "arrant".
  - greggyb 8y ago
    I guess we'll have to disagree on the interpretation of, "Yes I have better (maybe 1.5 to 2 times as fast) Internet than my parents who are in Europe, but I also pay 3 times what they pay for it." To me, the most charitable interpretation of this is that 3x price is a negative that diminishes the argument made previously that speeds are higher in the US. For that to be true, then there is an implicit argument that the price should be lower. Either this argument is there, or the parent is simply complaining. I don't see much other possibility. Again, I am not arguing by analogy but offering a general case, movement against which must be justified. As was mentioned in a cousin post, and as I mentioned, there are different technologies in play: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18668662 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18668662 With this, why should one expect that the cost for ~2x speed on cable should have any relation to ~x speed on DSL. As for your argument on bandwidth, you seem to treat it as unlimited. It is absolutely a scarce resource and often overprovisioned. The network gear of any ISP only supports so much throughput. It is not an uncommon experience on cable to see drops in throughput at peak hours. Price and artificial bandwidth restrictions for individual modems (your package level) are the tools to handle such congestion and scarcity. Regarding arrant, I mistyped errant, a reference to knights-errant.

greggyb 8y ago

> Now, for fun, let's integrate the price dimension to this report. Yes I have better (maybe 1.5 to 2 times as fast) Internet than my parents who are in Europe, but I also pay 3 times what they pay for it. "Yes..., but" is a form of sentence that indicates disagreement. This was in response to a comment indicating that the US has faster internet than most large European nations. The commenter's first argument was about Norway and Sweden, which were held up as examples of good internet countries. I do not think it is is unfavorable to interpret the post as saying attempting to diminish the advantage posited in their parent (with the Akamai link). Please let me know if you disagree with this interpretation. In their argument they said that the speed is 1.5x-2x, but the price is 3x. Again, "yes, but" is typically a form of disagreement. The "yes" portion grants a specific fact, and the "but" is intended to diminish the importance. Let me know if this is too unfavorable. Since the "but" is intended to diminish the value of the double speed, we must infer that the expectation is that the price should be less than triple for double performance. There's not a lot of wiggle room here. We can bargain on fractions between double price and triple price. Let me know if you'd like to bargain on these fractions. Additionally, the form of the argument is "performance is double, but price is more than double". It is not such a large stretch as you seem to be implying that the expectation in the sentence is that price and performance are proportional. Let me know if I'm off or misinterpreting you here. Again, my argument is of two parts. One, that we should expect in the general case that, due to the widespread phenomenon of diminishing returns, doublings of performance are associated with prices that are much more than double. Two, that since this is the general case, the burden falls on the one expecting prices and performance to be so linear to show that we are in a special case. Note: I would make this argument for any value between double and triple price, so feel free to haggle on those fractions. You'll note I am not make analogies, unless you choose to interpret my quite explicit argument most unfavorably. I am arguing that there is a general case and that the general case predicts what the parent has "yes, but"ed. With this argument I am asking for a justification that we are in a special case. The valid counterarguments seem to me thus: 1. Present good evidence we are in a special case. 2. Argue that the general case is not a superlinear relationship between quality/performance and price. I am open to other counterarguments, of course, as I would hate to push you into a path of argumentation which you do not support. Of course, if you'd like to continue critiquing the form of arguments, rather than their content, it would become more difficult to trust in your good faith. There are so few teachers arrant these days.

sethrin 8y ago
The form of the argument is tangential, but the validity of "argument from analogy" is dependent on the strength of the analogy. Few analogies hold up to substantial scrutiny, and the specific examples cited were all fairly distant in kind from the product in question. I certainly don't mean to dwell on that more than might be relevant, but I did think it reasonable to offer this characterization, since you had similarly characterized the OP's form of argument. Nothing in the OP's comment can be inferred to be a denial of diminishing returns: if there is "wiggle room", then you should give them the benefit of the doubt. Also, there's no inherent reason to expect that the cost of bandwidth would be anything close to linear. The cost to the ISP does not necessarily increase due to the provisioned speed of a modem, and the used bandwidth is in most senses unmetered. Also, for what it's worth, whether the OP feels like they're getting a good deal is more-or-less independent of the actual mathematics at hand. There is every reason to believe that bandwidth is a special case: the cost to either the customer or the ISP is not linear with either usage or provisioned speed. However, since the parent's argument is not inconsistent with the concept of diminishing returns, it does not seem valid to arrive at that inconsistency by inference, when other more charitable interpretations exist. P.S. I'm afraid I don't understand your use of the word "arrant".
- greggyb 8y ago
  I guess we'll have to disagree on the interpretation of, "Yes I have better (maybe 1.5 to 2 times as fast) Internet than my parents who are in Europe, but I also pay 3 times what they pay for it." To me, the most charitable interpretation of this is that 3x price is a negative that diminishes the argument made previously that speeds are higher in the US. For that to be true, then there is an implicit argument that the price should be lower. Either this argument is there, or the parent is simply complaining. I don't see much other possibility. Again, I am not arguing by analogy but offering a general case, movement against which must be justified. As was mentioned in a cousin post, and as I mentioned, there are different technologies in play: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18668662 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18668662 With this, why should one expect that the cost for ~2x speed on cable should have any relation to ~x speed on DSL. As for your argument on bandwidth, you seem to treat it as unlimited. It is absolutely a scarce resource and often overprovisioned. The network gear of any ISP only supports so much throughput. It is not an uncommon experience on cable to see drops in throughput at peak hours. Price and artificial bandwidth restrictions for individual modems (your package level) are the tools to handle such congestion and scarcity. Regarding arrant, I mistyped errant, a reference to knights-errant.