4 ms·

Person I replied to said 10-20 "valuable" channels.

IanCal 12y ago
No, at best they classified them as "not absolute trash". And again you're assuming that all those channels have the same value.
- diminoten 12y ago
  They do have the same value, and that value is "do I want to pay for this channel?" The person I replied to said there were 10-20 channels worth paying for, and then complained about the cost of those channels, despite the fact that they were undeniably cheaper than anything the person could get individually. I hope you realize I have no dog in this fight, and am merely commenting based on internal argument consistency. The argument the above poster made was incorrect, internally. That's all I'm pointing out. We've now spent the better part of 3 hours talking about this. Consider for a moment the possibility that this isn't a very important distinction, and that your continual insistence on the issue is perhaps detrimental to the greater conversation and HN in general.
  - IanCal 12y ago
    > They do have the same value, and that value is "do I want to pay for this channel?" By that logic, all items in the world have the same value and that value is "do I want to pay for this item"? They each have a different value based on "what do I want to pay for this channel". It is not a binary option of "I WILL PAY NO MATTER THE COST" and "I WILL NEVER PAY NO MATTER HOW CHEAP". > The argument the above poster made was incorrect, internally. That's all I'm pointing out. And all I'm pointing out is that your argument is incorrect. > We've now spent the better part of 3 hours talking about this. Which is odd, since all I've been saying is that the choice: More expensive & more channels vs less expensive & fewer channels has no clear winner without agreeing on what each particular channel is "worth". This is a classic case of multi-objective optimisation. I'm quite interested in finding out why this is such a disagreeable concept to you. > Consider for a moment the possibility that this isn't a very important distinction, and that your continual insistence on the issue is perhaps detrimental to the greater conversation and HN in general. And yet your continual insistence is beneficial? I'm a little confused, it's worth your time to try and point out a problem in someone's thinking, but not worth anyone else's time to point out problems in yours?
    - diminoten 12y ago
      The person I replied to was stating that 10-20 channels are "worth". The rest of your comment is just "I don't want to be wrong" nonsense.
      - IanCal 12y ago
        > The person I replied to was stating that 10-20 channels are "worth". Worth what? > The rest of your comment is just "I don't want to be wrong" nonsense. Silly me. I have two offers for you: 1. I have a pack of 10 different coins. I will sell them for $5. 2. I have a pack of 5 coins, and am willing to sell them for $3. Which do you want to buy?
        diminoten 12y ago
        You're so far off topic and against the spirit of HN at this point, the only reason I'm even replying is to hopefully make you realize that. This isn't Reddit, our comment chain isn't supposed to be this long.
        IanCal 12y ago
        I'm unsure as to why pointing out problems in your argument is against the spirit of HN. Perhaps you want a hackernews where we all misquote each other and logical flaws are left unchallenged. I'd hoped we'd all try and at least have sound arguments, which is what prompted you to post your original sarcastic comment. I'd hoped that through discussion we could straighten it out, but that seems futile now as I've repeated myself enough times in different ways. Instead I'll just ask that you look at the honestly look at the claims you've made and see if you find any problems with them. And finally, in case it isn't clear, I think that both you and urda are wrong.
        diminoten 12y ago
        10-20 channels worth buying at a price of $3.25-$6.50/channel is a better economical choice than 1-2 channels worth buying unbundled at a price of $17.50/channel. Everything else here is you making HN a worse place to be. That's it.

No, at best they classified them as "not absolute trash". And again you're assuming that all those channels have the same value.

diminoten 12y ago
They do have the same value, and that value is "do I want to pay for this channel?" The person I replied to said there were 10-20 channels worth paying for, and then complained about the cost of those channels, despite the fact that they were undeniably cheaper than anything the person could get individually. I hope you realize I have no dog in this fight, and am merely commenting based on internal argument consistency. The argument the above poster made was incorrect, internally. That's all I'm pointing out. We've now spent the better part of 3 hours talking about this. Consider for a moment the possibility that this isn't a very important distinction, and that your continual insistence on the issue is perhaps detrimental to the greater conversation and HN in general.
- IanCal 12y ago
  > They do have the same value, and that value is "do I want to pay for this channel?" By that logic, all items in the world have the same value and that value is "do I want to pay for this item"? They each have a different value based on "what do I want to pay for this channel". It is not a binary option of "I WILL PAY NO MATTER THE COST" and "I WILL NEVER PAY NO MATTER HOW CHEAP". > The argument the above poster made was incorrect, internally. That's all I'm pointing out. And all I'm pointing out is that your argument is incorrect. > We've now spent the better part of 3 hours talking about this. Which is odd, since all I've been saying is that the choice: More expensive & more channels vs less expensive & fewer channels has no clear winner without agreeing on what each particular channel is "worth". This is a classic case of multi-objective optimisation. I'm quite interested in finding out why this is such a disagreeable concept to you. > Consider for a moment the possibility that this isn't a very important distinction, and that your continual insistence on the issue is perhaps detrimental to the greater conversation and HN in general. And yet your continual insistence is beneficial? I'm a little confused, it's worth your time to try and point out a problem in someone's thinking, but not worth anyone else's time to point out problems in yours?
  - diminoten 12y ago
    The person I replied to was stating that 10-20 channels are "worth". The rest of your comment is just "I don't want to be wrong" nonsense.
    - IanCal 12y ago
      > The person I replied to was stating that 10-20 channels are "worth". Worth what? > The rest of your comment is just "I don't want to be wrong" nonsense. Silly me. I have two offers for you: 1. I have a pack of 10 different coins. I will sell them for $5. 2. I have a pack of 5 coins, and am willing to sell them for $3. Which do you want to buy?
      - diminoten 12y ago
        You're so far off topic and against the spirit of HN at this point, the only reason I'm even replying is to hopefully make you realize that. This isn't Reddit, our comment chain isn't supposed to be this long.
        IanCal 12y ago
        I'm unsure as to why pointing out problems in your argument is against the spirit of HN. Perhaps you want a hackernews where we all misquote each other and logical flaws are left unchallenged. I'd hoped we'd all try and at least have sound arguments, which is what prompted you to post your original sarcastic comment. I'd hoped that through discussion we could straighten it out, but that seems futile now as I've repeated myself enough times in different ways. Instead I'll just ask that you look at the honestly look at the claims you've made and see if you find any problems with them. And finally, in case it isn't clear, I think that both you and urda are wrong.
        diminoten 12y ago
        10-20 channels worth buying at a price of $3.25-$6.50/channel is a better economical choice than 1-2 channels worth buying unbundled at a price of $17.50/channel. Everything else here is you making HN a worse place to be. That's it.