2 ms·
Network effects are at the heart of most of the tech/culture/economy discussions that crop up here. Aside from the very obvious company spin, this is a good sta
by intended 5y ago
Network effects are at the heart of most of the tech/culture/economy discussions that crop up here. Aside from the very obvious company spin, this is a good stab at the issue.
However, any system that rewards only 10% of its participants, is essentially Hollywood. It’s not sustainable, and people will simply check out. The only way to prevent that is to either change the odds, or to sell propaganda.
I like the gambler/house analogy. It’s also has intuitive suggestions on how they can be handled.
What is to stop governments from just taking over that spot? It’s perfect for what governments are meant to do, or think they are meant to do.
“You will have access to training” is a few rungs below the “lift yourself up by your bootstraps”. Especially after acknowledging that only 10% of the population actually perform fast enough for the system to reward you.
- secabeen 5y ago> However, any system that rewards only 10% of its participants, is essentially Hollywood. It’s not sustainable, and people will simply check out. The only way to prevent that is to either change the odds, or to sell propaganda. Hollywood seems to reward a lot more than 10% of its participants. There are many thousands of people living middle-class lives as part of the movie business in Los Angeles and elsewhere. Much of their ability to do so is driven by the unions active in the entertainment industry and the protections they demand for non-superstar workers.
- intended 5y agoSorry, let me rephrase that- I’m describing reward distributions in different industries - for example holly wood actors or major league athletes. For each successful actor/athlete there are millions who never even saw the light of day. I am not talking about the larger business ecosystems, as those would exist for any industry.