3 ms·

I think the answer here is to have a system that can't be "gamed" by more tech-literate people. Have a time period where people can throw in their names for con

I think the answer here is to have a system that can't be "gamed" by more tech-literate people. Have a time period where people can throw in their names for consideration, and a randomly-ordered list is generated. You go down the list until you reach a person who can put down the deposit. A lottery, essentially. You could probably poke holes in that system I just described, but it seems more fair than one that is prone to someone writing up a script to scoop it up. I don't want to live in a world of script wars where every desirable entity is quickly snatched by one of several competing computer programs.

fsckboy 5y ago
> I think the answer here is to have a system that can't be "gamed" by more tech-literate people The person selling the house wants to see offers as soon as possible and can accept one at any time--the sooner the better--or hold out for a better one if they're not satisfied. Any system that changes that dynamic to the seller's detriment is not "more fair" to the seller. we expect that an auto mechanic gets a good deal getting his own car fixed, that real estate brokers have an edge getting their own properties, doctors with medical care, etc. You spent years becoming tech savvy to save you a little time scanning real estate ads... I'm not sure what problem you're trying to fix?
yojo 5y ago
I’m hard pressed to think of any first-come, first-served system for allocating scarce goods that wouldn’t be better run as a lottery. The problem is that typically the person selling the item doesn’t care who gets it, so there’s literally zero incentive to spend any effort making a fairer distribution system.
- fellerts 5y ago
  What about an auction? That’s how the housing market works in e.g. Norway.
  - tellarin 5y ago
    That's definitely not fair either, as it disproportionally benefits those with more funds. Which only leads to wider inequality.
  - yojo 5y ago
    I didn’t mean to imply that lottery was the best system in all cases, just that it’s pretty much always better than first one wins. Though thinking about it more a lottery probably results in more total entries, and you might end up giving the thing to someone who is closer to ambivalent than the folks willing to stand in line at 5AM. Auctions are a great way to see that the item ends up in the hands of the person who “values” it most, where value is measured in currency. It does have the problem that in a system of high inequality the people at the bottom have essentially zero chance of winning.
BeFlatXIII 5y ago
> Have a time period where people can throw in their names for consideration, and a randomly-ordered list is generated. You go down the list until you reach a person who can put down the deposit. A lottery, essentially. Stocks should be traded this way, too. Having an arms race for fiber latency makes a mockery of the idea that they are for efficient allocation of capital. Queue up all the trades requested in each second/minute, then execute them in random order.

fsckboy 5y ago

> I think the answer here is to have a system that can't be "gamed" by more tech-literate people The person selling the house wants to see offers as soon as possible and can accept one at any time--the sooner the better--or hold out for a better one if they're not satisfied. Any system that changes that dynamic to the seller's detriment is not "more fair" to the seller. we expect that an auto mechanic gets a good deal getting his own car fixed, that real estate brokers have an edge getting their own properties, doctors with medical care, etc. You spent years becoming tech savvy to save you a little time scanning real estate ads... I'm not sure what problem you're trying to fix?

yojo 5y ago

I’m hard pressed to think of any first-come, first-served system for allocating scarce goods that wouldn’t be better run as a lottery. The problem is that typically the person selling the item doesn’t care who gets it, so there’s literally zero incentive to spend any effort making a fairer distribution system.

fellerts 5y ago
What about an auction? That’s how the housing market works in e.g. Norway.
- tellarin 5y ago
  That's definitely not fair either, as it disproportionally benefits those with more funds. Which only leads to wider inequality.
- yojo 5y ago
  I didn’t mean to imply that lottery was the best system in all cases, just that it’s pretty much always better than first one wins. Though thinking about it more a lottery probably results in more total entries, and you might end up giving the thing to someone who is closer to ambivalent than the folks willing to stand in line at 5AM. Auctions are a great way to see that the item ends up in the hands of the person who “values” it most, where value is measured in currency. It does have the problem that in a system of high inequality the people at the bottom have essentially zero chance of winning.

BeFlatXIII 5y ago

> Have a time period where people can throw in their names for consideration, and a randomly-ordered list is generated. You go down the list until you reach a person who can put down the deposit. A lottery, essentially. Stocks should be traded this way, too. Having an arms race for fiber latency makes a mockery of the idea that they are for efficient allocation of capital. Queue up all the trades requested in each second/minute, then execute them in random order.