2 ms·

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.
      - IanCal 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. It's simply not the case that spending more money to get more channels is always more economical just because the cost per channel goes down. Which is more economical depends on the value you associate with each channel. If one channel cost $20, or I could get that channel and 9 others for $40, which is better for me? It depends on whether or not those 9 channels are worth $20 to me. If they're not, then it's not a better deal. Just because I might be willing to pay some money for those 9, doesn't mean I'm willing to pay $20 for them. If those channels are worth more than $20 to me, then it may well be a good deal for me. Therefore, packages are good deals for some, unbundled channels are good deals for others.
        diminoten 12y ago
        The person I replied to set the value of the 10-20 channels at "worth paying for" at the price set, so the value beyond that is irrelevant for this discussion.
        IanCal 12y ago
        Are you interpreting > So you're really paying $65 bucks for 10-20 channels at best. Not much of a deal there. as meaning "those 10-20 channels are worth $65 to me"?
        diminoten 12y ago
        That's irrelevant, so no. "Worth buying" is a boolean. It's either "worth" or it's not, because we've already establish that "worth" channels are willing to be paid for at $17.50, so less than $17.50 is still within any pricing range that might exist. Would it be easier for you to grasp if we called them "quality" channels? 10-20 quality channels? Paying for 10-20 quality channels that are bundled together is more economical than paying for each quality channel on its own, based on the values given by the commenter. Your "scale" idea is just a pointless intermediary step towards deciding if a channel is "worth" or not. While yes, you could decide what cost you're willing to pay for each channel, you will still arrive at a "yes/no" decision for each channel (a decision that will only get more generous the less expensive the cost of the individual channel), which will be the "worth" value I've been talking about.

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.
    - IanCal 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. It's simply not the case that spending more money to get more channels is always more economical just because the cost per channel goes down. Which is more economical depends on the value you associate with each channel. If one channel cost $20, or I could get that channel and 9 others for $40, which is better for me? It depends on whether or not those 9 channels are worth $20 to me. If they're not, then it's not a better deal. Just because I might be willing to pay some money for those 9, doesn't mean I'm willing to pay $20 for them. If those channels are worth more than $20 to me, then it may well be a good deal for me. Therefore, packages are good deals for some, unbundled channels are good deals for others.
      - diminoten 12y ago
        The person I replied to set the value of the 10-20 channels at "worth paying for" at the price set, so the value beyond that is irrelevant for this discussion.
        IanCal 12y ago
        Are you interpreting > So you're really paying $65 bucks for 10-20 channels at best. Not much of a deal there. as meaning "those 10-20 channels are worth $65 to me"?
        diminoten 12y ago
        That's irrelevant, so no. "Worth buying" is a boolean. It's either "worth" or it's not, because we've already establish that "worth" channels are willing to be paid for at $17.50, so less than $17.50 is still within any pricing range that might exist. Would it be easier for you to grasp if we called them "quality" channels? 10-20 quality channels? Paying for 10-20 quality channels that are bundled together is more economical than paying for each quality channel on its own, based on the values given by the commenter. Your "scale" idea is just a pointless intermediary step towards deciding if a channel is "worth" or not. While yes, you could decide what cost you're willing to pay for each channel, you will still arrive at a "yes/no" decision for each channel (a decision that will only get more generous the less expensive the cost of the individual channel), which will be the "worth" value I've been talking about.