3 ms·

On average, you and I eat half a chicken. I'm not the one considering one single outcome, if anything I feel like I'm the only one in these comments considerin

by micampe 12y ago

On average, you and I eat half a chicken. I'm not the one considering one single outcome, if anything I feel like I'm the only one in these comments considering a different possible side effect of the trick.

Dylan16807 12y ago
>On average, you and I eat half a chicken. I have no idea what you're trying to say. There are millions of people involved. Averages make sense to use. For example maybe 450k are unable to get a ticket because a plane filled up with non-riders, and 550k are able to get a ticket when they couldn't before because additional capacity was allocated to the route. Is it 'disrespectful'? Hell no, in my view. It's just shuffling what are fundamentally random numbers. These people are buying tickets too late to be assured seats. Some will get them, some won't, and buying your own is not a negative unless you do something like coordinate to buy out an entire route. Edit: >I'm not the one considering one single outcome Yes you are. You are only considering the possible downsides of a purchase. I could use a similar argument to say that nobody should ever buy anything non-critical because stock might run out and screw over the person behind them. And then the economy collapses.
- micampe 12y ago
  No. I don't need to discuss the other effects because everyone else is discussing those. I'm adding another point of view to the conversation, it doesn't mean I don't understand the other side.
  - Dylan16807 12y ago
    >No. I don't need to discuss the other effects because everyone else is discussing those, I'm adding another point of view to the conversation, it doesn't mean I don't understand the other side. No, 'everyone else' is not discussing the effects I'm talking about. 'everyone else' is focusing on about the person buying the split ticket. You are focusing on the other passengers on the plane, which is a noble goal. But you're only looking at half the picture of those other passengers. 'everyone else' is looking at 50% of the picture, you are bringing 25%, I'm showing the last 25% and how (in my opinion) it counters your argument. The person buying the split ticket has an effect on the other passengers, but their main effect is changing which potential other passengers are able to buy tickets. Since this is a random and chaotic process subject to the butterfly effect, I declare that it is impossible to not affect it, and therefore affecting it is not disrespectful. It can only be disrespectful if you reduce the total number of seats fulfilled by other passengers. Because supply chases demand, buying extra seats should not have this effect. Therefore there is no disrespect.
    - micampe 12y ago
      Fair. We are looking at different scales.

by micampe 12y ago

Dylan16807 12y ago

>On average, you and I eat half a chicken. I have no idea what you're trying to say. There are millions of people involved. Averages make sense to use. For example maybe 450k are unable to get a ticket because a plane filled up with non-riders, and 550k are able to get a ticket when they couldn't before because additional capacity was allocated to the route. Is it 'disrespectful'? Hell no, in my view. It's just shuffling what are fundamentally random numbers. These people are buying tickets too late to be assured seats. Some will get them, some won't, and buying your own is not a negative unless you do something like coordinate to buy out an entire route. Edit: >I'm not the one considering one single outcome Yes you are. You are only considering the possible downsides of a purchase. I could use a similar argument to say that nobody should ever buy anything non-critical because stock might run out and screw over the person behind them. And then the economy collapses.

micampe 12y ago
No. I don't need to discuss the other effects because everyone else is discussing those. I'm adding another point of view to the conversation, it doesn't mean I don't understand the other side.
- Dylan16807 12y ago
  >No. I don't need to discuss the other effects because everyone else is discussing those, I'm adding another point of view to the conversation, it doesn't mean I don't understand the other side. No, 'everyone else' is not discussing the effects I'm talking about. 'everyone else' is focusing on about the person buying the split ticket. You are focusing on the other passengers on the plane, which is a noble goal. But you're only looking at half the picture of those other passengers. 'everyone else' is looking at 50% of the picture, you are bringing 25%, I'm showing the last 25% and how (in my opinion) it counters your argument. The person buying the split ticket has an effect on the other passengers, but their main effect is changing which potential other passengers are able to buy tickets. Since this is a random and chaotic process subject to the butterfly effect, I declare that it is impossible to not affect it, and therefore affecting it is not disrespectful. It can only be disrespectful if you reduce the total number of seats fulfilled by other passengers. Because supply chases demand, buying extra seats should not have this effect. Therefore there is no disrespect.
  - micampe 12y ago
    Fair. We are looking at different scales.