3 ms·
> More and more people are okay with losing with privacy though, and the more who take that position, the more you lose by not taking it. I'm trying to simpl
by nonrandomstring 3y ago
> More and more people are okay with losing with privacy though, and
the more who take that position, the more you lose by not taking it.
I'm trying to simply that with an ear for contradiction;
If P; the more group A lose -> if NOT P; the more group NOT A lose. For
P -> L = some loss of privacy
(Okay it's late and I'm clutching at it a little, but something
doesn't ring true)
It seems like a formulation of "network effect" on the surface. But if
P => L it can't be the same L on the right hand side, no? For the
group who are the exclusion of A, their L has to be a gain. Or they
are not playing the game well/optimally,
- ImPostingOnHN 3y agoit would help for you to define your variables (A, P, L) and notation (=, ->, "lose") Or, if you could, would you mind rewriting it in english, please?
- nonrandomstring 3y agoFair enough, you asked, and my attempts to think out loud in logic isn't helping I admit. So the nub is that clearly, to me, when Levitz uses the word "lose" above, s/he cannot be talking about the same "lose" in both parts of the assertion.