6 ms·

> When I worked at a publicly traded dating website, female users were known internally as "inventory". It makes sense from a certain perspective, if your prima

> When I worked at a publicly traded dating website, female users were known internally as "inventory". It makes sense from a certain perspective, if your primary focus is extracting value from paying customers. But when your motto is "together we serve the users", it would be ridiculous to imagine something so inhumane. To me, this is the crux of the issue. I’ve never been more motivated in my life, than to serve the community around me, and help people accomplish their own goals. "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest." - Adam Smith It's great that you're motivated by helping people. Sincerely. But most people aren't built that way. We get up on Monday morning to make a small circle of precious lives better, not just anyone's. Maybe it shouldn't be that way, but it is. Therefore reorganizing society around service rather than profit likely means a much smaller economy. To many people that's a feature.

bluejekyll 6y ago
Just because it’s a non-profit, doesn’t mean the folks working for it won’t make money and have decent lives. In fact the post pretty clearly states that as a desired goal, “Part of the goal of the ZSF is to provide excellent jobs that make people happy to work, and leave them financially well off, as well as having gained the kind of work experience that they wish to invest in for their own careers.” Now the question I have, is it possible to create recurring revenue at a non-profit that is based of contracts with customers, or must all the revenue come from donations?
- OldHand2018 6y ago
  > is it possible to create recurring revenue at a non-profit that is based of contracts with customers Sure. I once worked at a non-profit that provided educational material to schools on a subscription basis. There is a line somewhere, as eventually the non-profit starting providing additional services to those same schools that required them to keep a second set of books and pay taxes on those activities.
- O_H_E 6y ago
  > is it possible to create recurring revenue at a non-profit that is based of contracts with customers? Yes definitely. The main difference from for-profits is that the revenue have to be spent towards the mission and not blindly creating more profit.
pzone 6y ago
This is a "smaller" economy as in "more tight-knit," not as in "smaller GDP."
- hirundo 6y ago
  Smaller as in the butcher, brewer and baker don't work as hard so beef, beer and bread are more scarce.
pixelherodev 6y ago
In my experience, the people who talk about how everyone else acts selfishly tend to be the most selfish of all.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- JackFr 6y ago
  That speaks to your cognitive biases.
- AsyncAwait 6y ago
  See also Milton Friedman
dnautics 6y ago
adam smith ALSO wrote the Theory of Moral Sentiment, which I think also falls in line with some of the things written in the announcement.
airstrike 6y ago
> Therefore reorganizing society around service rather than profit likely means a far smaller economy. It probably just means you get outcompeted by people who put profit first and can afford to pay their employees more competitive wages, invest higher amounts in Capex and R&D, and generally best you at running a firm. Profit is the goal we're all maximizing for, like it or not. And greed is inherent to human being, which makes Capitalism the most successful economic system given that the inherently greedy efforts of an individual eventually creates prosperity for the collective (over a long enough time-horizon and with regulations aiming to prevent local maxima such a factory with 20-hour shifts) It seems to me that we can't change greediness, and we can't change the fact that companies run on profit. What we can seem to change is customers' preferences. If we ingrain into people's mindsets that buying from companies that aim to serve the collective (seek the global maximum over local maxima), then we can nudge corporations to act on the behalf all of us rather than just its stakeholders
- klyrs 6y ago
  It's true, you can't stop that which you accept and toil for. The arguments you're making are familiar to the gray-hairs in open source software. It was long predicted that our efforts would fade under competition with the Oracles and Microsofts of the world. > Profit is the goal we're all maximizing for, like it or not. You're not alone in your bubble, but you might want to peek outside of it once and a while.
  - airstrike 6y ago
    > > Profit is the goal we're all maximizing for, like it or not. > You're not alone in your bubble, but you might want to peek outside of it once and a while. Nice shallow dismissal, but I'm talking about corporations, not "my bubble". By and large, they are maximizing for profit. And you're happy to have the goods and services they provide, and they provide more of those if they are profitable than if they aren't, so indirectly you are still hoping everyone profits.
    - klyrs 6y ago
thebradbain 6y ago
“But most people aren’t built that way” seems to be a pretty big assertion that, if really that obvious, would seem to imply some of the central questions posed and grappled with by centuries of religion and philosophy — “are humans naturally greedy or generous?” or the age-old government/cultural policy debates on collectivism versus individualism — are nothing more than superfluous navel gazing. I don’t have an answer either way. But I’m inclined to question this idea that just because things are the way they are now means that is the way they always were and will always be. How many people would be happy to expand that “small circle of precious lives” they make better if they could, but can’t due to the fact that, modern life now is seemingly a tangle of actively contradicting incentives? And how many people would, if they knew others would provide for all their needs and wants, act as solely a parasite to the system that feeds them? And would it be a critical mass that makes the whole system untenable, or just a relatively small group of bad apples accounted for by the number of people who give more than they take? Again, I don’t know the answer, and I do not pretend to. But I do think a blanket statement that more people are greedy than generous is more a commentary on modern politics - that maybe our current system of society forces people to behave that way - than the human condition.
- andrewflnr 6y ago
  > “are humans naturally greedy or generous?” I would say this one in particular is ill-posed. Paraphrasing hirundo, people are naturally generous toward a small circle of precious lives (and skeptical at best of the rest of the world). Asking about their attitude in general is meaningless.
  - thebradbain 6y ago
    > "people are naturally generous toward a small circle of precious lives (and skeptical at best of the rest of the world)" Yes, that's a paraphrase of Hirundo's point. However, my point is that this assertion is by no means universally nor obviously a hard truth, and indeed still a large area of philosophical debate.
coldtea 6y ago
>It's great that you're motivated by helping people. Sincerely. But most people aren't built that way. Or that's what an 18th century quote says. Several centuries of later evolutionary, psychological, and sociological research doesn't much agree...
xixixao 6y ago
I don’t know about the particular dating company, but I use “inventory” sometimes simply because it’s shorter than “all profiles of people with matching attributes and preferences eligible to be suggested to the viewer”. It might be inhumane, and I wouldn’t use it in a press release, and I don’t mean to demean any user by it, I’m just trying to save time and spend it on making whatever product I’m working on better for the people using it.
mlyle 6y ago
Hey, I disagree pretty strongly. The butcher, the brewer, or the baker likely takes pride in the role he has in feeding and enriching families around him. But he's also got to feed his own. And the fact that there's money involved gets him to work on those days he'd -reaaaaally- rather not go. But money isn't enough to feel fulfilled in one's work. And if you don't feel fulfilled in your work and your work's role in society: I'm sorry for you.

bluejekyll 6y ago

Just because it’s a non-profit, doesn’t mean the folks working for it won’t make money and have decent lives. In fact the post pretty clearly states that as a desired goal, “Part of the goal of the ZSF is to provide excellent jobs that make people happy to work, and leave them financially well off, as well as having gained the kind of work experience that they wish to invest in for their own careers.” Now the question I have, is it possible to create recurring revenue at a non-profit that is based of contracts with customers, or must all the revenue come from donations?

OldHand2018 6y ago
> is it possible to create recurring revenue at a non-profit that is based of contracts with customers Sure. I once worked at a non-profit that provided educational material to schools on a subscription basis. There is a line somewhere, as eventually the non-profit starting providing additional services to those same schools that required them to keep a second set of books and pay taxes on those activities.
O_H_E 6y ago
> is it possible to create recurring revenue at a non-profit that is based of contracts with customers? Yes definitely. The main difference from for-profits is that the revenue have to be spent towards the mission and not blindly creating more profit.

pzone 6y ago

This is a "smaller" economy as in "more tight-knit," not as in "smaller GDP."

hirundo 6y ago
Smaller as in the butcher, brewer and baker don't work as hard so beef, beer and bread are more scarce.

pixelherodev 6y ago

In my experience, the people who talk about how everyone else acts selfishly tend to be the most selfish of all.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
JackFr 6y ago
That speaks to your cognitive biases.
AsyncAwait 6y ago
See also Milton Friedman

dnautics 6y ago

adam smith ALSO wrote the Theory of Moral Sentiment, which I think also falls in line with some of the things written in the announcement.

airstrike 6y ago

> Therefore reorganizing society around service rather than profit likely means a far smaller economy. It probably just means you get outcompeted by people who put profit first and can afford to pay their employees more competitive wages, invest higher amounts in Capex and R&D, and generally best you at running a firm. Profit is the goal we're all maximizing for, like it or not. And greed is inherent to human being, which makes Capitalism the most successful economic system given that the inherently greedy efforts of an individual eventually creates prosperity for the collective (over a long enough time-horizon and with regulations aiming to prevent local maxima such a factory with 20-hour shifts) It seems to me that we can't change greediness, and we can't change the fact that companies run on profit. What we can seem to change is customers' preferences. If we ingrain into people's mindsets that buying from companies that aim to serve the collective (seek the global maximum over local maxima), then we can nudge corporations to act on the behalf all of us rather than just its stakeholders

klyrs 6y ago
It's true, you can't stop that which you accept and toil for. The arguments you're making are familiar to the gray-hairs in open source software. It was long predicted that our efforts would fade under competition with the Oracles and Microsofts of the world. > Profit is the goal we're all maximizing for, like it or not. You're not alone in your bubble, but you might want to peek outside of it once and a while.
- airstrike 6y ago
  > > Profit is the goal we're all maximizing for, like it or not. > You're not alone in your bubble, but you might want to peek outside of it once and a while. Nice shallow dismissal, but I'm talking about corporations, not "my bubble". By and large, they are maximizing for profit. And you're happy to have the goods and services they provide, and they provide more of those if they are profitable than if they aren't, so indirectly you are still hoping everyone profits.
  - klyrs 6y ago

thebradbain 6y ago

“But most people aren’t built that way” seems to be a pretty big assertion that, if really that obvious, would seem to imply some of the central questions posed and grappled with by centuries of religion and philosophy — “are humans naturally greedy or generous?” or the age-old government/cultural policy debates on collectivism versus individualism — are nothing more than superfluous navel gazing. I don’t have an answer either way. But I’m inclined to question this idea that just because things are the way they are now means that is the way they always were and will always be. How many people would be happy to expand that “small circle of precious lives” they make better if they could, but can’t due to the fact that, modern life now is seemingly a tangle of actively contradicting incentives? And how many people would, if they knew others would provide for all their needs and wants, act as solely a parasite to the system that feeds them? And would it be a critical mass that makes the whole system untenable, or just a relatively small group of bad apples accounted for by the number of people who give more than they take? Again, I don’t know the answer, and I do not pretend to. But I do think a blanket statement that more people are greedy than generous is more a commentary on modern politics - that maybe our current system of society forces people to behave that way - than the human condition.

andrewflnr 6y ago
> “are humans naturally greedy or generous?” I would say this one in particular is ill-posed. Paraphrasing hirundo, people are naturally generous toward a small circle of precious lives (and skeptical at best of the rest of the world). Asking about their attitude in general is meaningless.
- thebradbain 6y ago
  > "people are naturally generous toward a small circle of precious lives (and skeptical at best of the rest of the world)" Yes, that's a paraphrase of Hirundo's point. However, my point is that this assertion is by no means universally nor obviously a hard truth, and indeed still a large area of philosophical debate.

coldtea 6y ago

>It's great that you're motivated by helping people. Sincerely. But most people aren't built that way. Or that's what an 18th century quote says. Several centuries of later evolutionary, psychological, and sociological research doesn't much agree...

xixixao 6y ago

I don’t know about the particular dating company, but I use “inventory” sometimes simply because it’s shorter than “all profiles of people with matching attributes and preferences eligible to be suggested to the viewer”. It might be inhumane, and I wouldn’t use it in a press release, and I don’t mean to demean any user by it, I’m just trying to save time and spend it on making whatever product I’m working on better for the people using it.

mlyle 6y ago

Hey, I disagree pretty strongly. The butcher, the brewer, or the baker likely takes pride in the role he has in feeding and enriching families around him. But he's also got to feed his own. And the fact that there's money involved gets him to work on those days he'd -reaaaaally- rather not go. But money isn't enough to feel fulfilled in one's work. And if you don't feel fulfilled in your work and your work's role in society: I'm sorry for you.