3 ms·

I have a very simple theory about this - If we assume the 80/20 rule to hold about most things in world (80% profits from 20% customers, 80% of benefits to soc

I have a very simple theory about this - If we assume the 80/20 rule to hold about most things in world (80% profits from 20% customers, 80% of benefits to society from 20% workers), then we can assume the same 80/20 rule applies to the bits left over - ie the remining 20% of profits will have 80% of those generated by 20% of the left over 80% of customers) Roughly speaking then 96% of all good stuff comes from 36% of stuff we do We could say then that if we could find the 2/3 of useless activity that only generates 4% of good stuff we can for example cut carbon emissions by 2/3 - and only need to lose the crappy plastic toys on front of magazines, or most peoples commutes or … What I think I am saying is that 2/3 of the jobs people do are useless - and yet in any organisation they are the majority and hence bend the organisation Don’t worry dear reader I am sure like me you are one of the non useless ones … like me , like me

mistermann 3y ago
This seems like an absolute genius idea, but I can't imagine us considering trying it, even if climate change really started to get bad. China or maybe Japan though, I could see it being able to maybe catch on there though, it could be very beneficial to the problems they're facing with their aging populations and abysmal and worsening (heading to ~zero?) reproduction.
- actionfromafar 3y ago
  We humans could try it but we wouldn’t succeed. We’d just find a way to fudge the numbers and stack the ranks. :-)
  - kevindamm 3y ago
    Wouldn't even have to fudge the numbers if you choose the "right" metrics.
scotty79 3y ago
> Roughly speaking then 96% of all good stuff comes from 36% of stuff we do That's just pulling arbitrary number out of thin air with extra steps.
- OJFord 3y ago
  And the '80/20 rule' is already a fairly arbitrary/rule of thumb case of the general cumulative distribution function over a Pareto distribution.
nonrandomstring 3y ago
You and I, we've gone through the same thought process and, sadly, where it ended up for me was; Golgafrinchans [0] Now if we could only work out what that useless third is. ?! But there's always the finite risk that plastic landfill fodder and chindogu attached to kids magazines is the essential saving grace of humanity. :) [0] https://hitchhikers.fandom.com/wiki/Golgafrinchans https://hitchhikers.fandom.com/wiki/Golgafrinchans

mistermann 3y ago

This seems like an absolute genius idea, but I can't imagine us considering trying it, even if climate change really started to get bad. China or maybe Japan though, I could see it being able to maybe catch on there though, it could be very beneficial to the problems they're facing with their aging populations and abysmal and worsening (heading to ~zero?) reproduction.

actionfromafar 3y ago
We humans could try it but we wouldn’t succeed. We’d just find a way to fudge the numbers and stack the ranks. :-)
- kevindamm 3y ago
  Wouldn't even have to fudge the numbers if you choose the "right" metrics.

scotty79 3y ago

> Roughly speaking then 96% of all good stuff comes from 36% of stuff we do That's just pulling arbitrary number out of thin air with extra steps.

OJFord 3y ago
And the '80/20 rule' is already a fairly arbitrary/rule of thumb case of the general cumulative distribution function over a Pareto distribution.

nonrandomstring 3y ago

You and I, we've gone through the same thought process and, sadly, where it ended up for me was; Golgafrinchans [0] Now if we could only work out what that useless third is. ?! But there's always the finite risk that plastic landfill fodder and chindogu attached to kids magazines is the essential saving grace of humanity. :) [0] https://hitchhikers.fandom.com/wiki/Golgafrinchans https://hitchhikers.fandom.com/wiki/Golgafrinchans