SourceForge takes over SF accounts; releases gold-laced installers of questioned monetary value


  • Banned

    You have neither stated that gold is a good medium of exchange (which was @boomzilla's point), nor that this was the only metal available to the very early civilizations (which was @HardwareGeek's).


  • ♿ (Parody)

    @Gaska said:

    Again - I'm not saying it's wrong; I'm saying it's irrational. Irrational doesn't always mean wrong.

    Yes, and I'm saying you're wrong to say it's irrational.

    @Gaska said:

    Too bad @RaceProUK couldn't provide one.

    True, but irrelevant.

    @Gaska said:

    Excuse me? What do you mean by provincialism?

    Literally:

    concern for one's own area or region at the expense of national or supranational unity.

    @Gaska said:

    Then please explain how status symbols are rational. And I mean status symbols, not having status symbols - which is indeed rational, considering how our society works.

    This is irrelevant to what I said, but...There are benefits to be had in identifying other members of your group quickly and excluding others. Status symbols can facilitate this.


  • FoxDev

    @Gaska said:

    this was the only metal available to the very early civilizations

    That may be the case, but
    @Gaska said:
    You have neither stated that gold is a good medium of exchange

    is wrong; did I not mention gold coins? And the suitability for investment?


  • Banned

    @boomzilla said:

    Yes, and I'm saying you're wrong to say it's irrational.

    You didn't before.

    @boomzilla said:

    concern for one's own area or region at the expense of national or supranational unity.

    And how does it relate to anything I said?

    @boomzilla said:

    There are benefits to be had in identifying other members of your group quickly and excluding others. Status symbols can facilitate this.

    That's an explanation for having status symbols. I was asking for a rational explanation how status symbols become status symbols.

    @RaceProUK said:

    did I not mention gold coins?

    All you said about gold coins is that they're made of gold.

    @RaceProUK said:

    And the suitability for investment?

    Investing in orange juice works too, and it's not a medium of exchange.


  • FoxDev

    @Gaska said:

    All you said about gold coins is that they're made of gold.

    And there I was expecting you to realise that coins are a Chaos-damned medium of exchange!


  • ♿ (Parody)

    @Gaska said:

    You didn't before.

    Not in so many words. But I pointed out rational reasons why you were wrong.

    @Gaska said:

    And how does it relate to anything I said?

    You were quite categorical about its irrationality and never considered other things. Medium of exchange seems pretty obvious.

    @Gaska said:

    That's an explanation for having status symbols. I was asking for a rational explanation how status symbols become status symbols.

    Seriously?



  • @xaade said:

    It's a part-time job, not a career.

    What planet do you live on?



  • @Gaska said:

    this was the only metal available to the very early civilizations (which was @HardwareGeek's).

    I never made that statement. Several metals were available to very early civilizations; of those, gold has unique properties that made, and continue to make, it more desirable than those other metals.


  • ♿ (Parody)

    C'mon, he has to rationalize irrationality somehow.


  • BINNED

    @boomzilla said:

    > That's an explanation for having status symbols. I was asking for a rational explanation how status symbols become status symbols.

    Seriously?

    I got this. There's a national standards board made up of professional athletes, lottery winners, and the nouveau riche in general. They code their personal preferences as the objective reality of what constitutes a status symbol.


  • FoxDev

    @Gaska said:

    That's an explanation for having status symbols. I was asking for a rational explanation how status symbols become status symbols.

    I have this and you don't!

    Maybe?



  • @CoyneTheDup said:

    The same can be asked about diamonds, emeralds, rubies, works of art, furs, and so on. Status. Power. Control.

    Those are always very pricy...and only arguably irrational.

    I used to have a couple of sapphires laying around my house, if my recollection is correct -- good analog meter movements used (synthetic) sapphire bearings for many years because they provide a low-friction, no-maintenance-needed, high-precision bearing when cut correctly.


  • Banned

    I could reply to you all, all day long, but I've got headache and got bored with this discussion anyway (especially the little leaps of logic made all the time by @RaceProUK and @boomzilla that are caused by confusing the abstract qualities with concrete things, and probably by thinking I don't think gold is a good currency, which it is, regardless of if the reasons behind it are rational or not). So let's say you convinced me I was wrong, because you did in one half of argument, and let's don't dig in any further. 200 posts per flamewar is enough I think.



  • You may have been trolled by my disregard for the cooperative principle here: Just because I was saying things doesn't necessarily mean I had anything to say.


  • FoxDev

    @Buddy said:

    Just because I was saying things doesn't necessarily mean I had anything to say.

    There's a time and a place for that sort of behaviour. And that's t/1000 ;)



  • @Gaska said:

    I was asking for a rational explanation how status symbols become status symbols.

    Quick pick something that is hard for other people to get.

    You mean this block of gold, or this diamond.

    Yes, that will do.


  • ♿ (Parody)

    @Gaska said:

    especially the little leaps of logic made all the time by...@boomzilla

    Wrong again.

    @Gaska said:

    So let's say you convinced me I was wrong,

    Either you know you're wrong or you're hopeless. I'm satisfied either way.



  • @Gaska said:

    They're expensive because they're rare, and you want rare things because they're expensive. Yeah, totally rational.

    Actually you want rare things because they are rare. Nothing more. The system of value for them, only reflects demand.

    I think it's partially because we are natural hoarders of resources. That doesn't explain why we prefer exclusivity, but it at least explains why we collect things to begin with.

    It's possible that we prefer rare things because we are hoping for a rare benefit, that gives us an edge.

    But the desire of rare things for just rarities sake is a glitch. Ironically, that glitch turned out to be a benefit, because everyone is wanting rare things for rarities sake at the same time. Thus the paradox is propped up.


    Imagine a tribe of people who have only seen brown birds, stumble upon a red feather.
    Someone might think, 'that feather is rare, and if I have one, it might convey some advantage to me in the future'. They may justify it by imagining some large bird they hunted and killed, and telling that story impresses people. Either way, it doesn't matter, because enough people thought of that idea at the same time that they all want the feather, creating a demand for the feather simply because it is rare.


    Of course, none of that above is driven by rationality, but merely base instincts.

    I think you overestimate how rational humans really are. And you also overestimate the value of being rational.

    Sometimes rational choices lead you down a bad path. They overtake the ability to make creative choices, and spray and pray is often more effective if you have a large amount of ammo (large population).

    But if you're spraying in the opposite direction, your probability drops to zero.

    So, both rational and irrational choices are needed in balance.


  • ♿ (Parody)

    @xaade said:

    Of course, none of that above is driven by rationality, but merely base instincts.

    Stopped too soon. The laws of the universe aren't rational so nothing is rational.

    And now someone else will be by to go beyond what I posted. But that's what you get for getting trolled into a reductio ad absurdum troll.



  • @boomzilla said:

    The laws of the universe aren't rational so nothing is rational.

    The clever man is the man whose irrational choice worked.
    The idiot is the man whose irrational choice didn't work.

    In internet discussions, you hardly ever have the chance to see if a proposed idea works or not.

    So, everyone online is a troll.

    reductio ad absurdum subverted.


  • Banned

    @boomzilla said:

    The laws of the universe aren't rational

    How can you say it's irrational if you can't even objectively observe the world around you?



  • @Gaska said:

    How can you say it's irrational

    Unless you think there is some entity behind it's creation, the universe can't be rational.

    It can be consistent. It can be discoverable.

    But it cannot be rational.


  • ♿ (Parody)

    @Gaska said:

    How can you say

    I have a device in front of me. It has buttons with letters on them. I press them in a special order and....viola!


  • Banned

    Is it really in front of you, or is it just your imagination?


  • ♿ (Parody)

    I only keep it in front of me as a symbol of my status.





  • @tarunik said:

    good analog meter movements used (synthetic) sapphire bearings

    You've probably heard of jeweled watches. Jewels are used as bearings for the same reason — the more jewels (within reason; it can be taken to ridiculous extremes for marketing), the higher the quality (in theory), because more metal-metal bearings have been replaced by low-friction jeweled bearings.



  • @RaceProUK said:

    There's a time and a place for that sort of behaviour. And that's t/1000

    But that's certainly not the only place, or TDWTF would have only 1/10th the posts it has.



  • @tarunik said:

    I used to have a couple of sapphires laying around my house, if my recollection is correct -- good analog meter movements used (synthetic) sapphire bearings for many years because they provide a low-friction, no-maintenance-needed, high-precision bearing when cut correctly.

    I'm not saying they don't have utility. Gold is used in electronic circuits, a handful of medicines, spacecraft shielding and such. Sapphire, or ruby, are used for jewel movements. Diamonds are used for all kinds stuff; drilling, wire manufacture, abrasives and high pressure research, to name a few. Platinum is one of the most valuable metals we have for a whole series of chemical reactions and high temperature applications.

    Emeralds are the only common valuable gem that I can't think of having another common use, but maybe that's just knowledge limitation.

    On one hand, the values are set separately in many cases: diamonds too flawed or clouded to make good gems get used for the utilitarian stuff and have one price, while the gemstones have another. On the other hand, metals like gold and platinum have one price regardless of use.

    But the pretties: gems and gold jewelry, those are mostly used to indicate status, power, or control, as I noted above. @gaska says that is irrational, but look at what you get if you're rich--and those things are mostly indicators of richness and your ability to use that wealth to influence others. For every person who might argue that such displays are irrational, there's another who would argue that they are essential in order to demonstrate importance.



  • @CoyneTheDup said:

    Emeralds are the only common valuable gem that I can't think of having another common use, but maybe that's just knowledge limitation.

    Beryl, of which emerald is a type1, is the principal ore of beryllium. Of course, gem-quality beryl isn't used as ore.

    @CoyneTheDup said:

    the utilitarian stuff and have one price, while the gemstones have another.

    Of course, in neither of those cases is there a price, there are ranges of prices based on quality and availability. Many consumers have at least heard of the "4 C's" that determine the price of a gem diamond (and other gemstones, though not as rigidly): cut, clarity, color and carat (weight). The first three affect the stone's suitability for use2 as well as the available supply (unsurprisingly, top-quality stones are rarer than lower-quality stones). The size (as measured by the weight, which is, of course, proportional to the volume) reflects both the larger quantity of stone and the fact that large stones are much rarer than small ones, so the supply is much smaller3. Similarly, industrial diamonds of size and quality to be used as high-pressure anvils or wire-drawing dies are in much shorter supply than those suitable for use as abrasives, and the price reflects this.

    @CoyneTheDup said:

    metals like gold and platinum have one price regardless of use.
    This reflects the fact that, to a large extent, a piece of gold is equally suitable for any of the uses, utilitarian or luxury, to which one may want to put it. Even so, the price one pays for gold, even as a raw or semi-processed material, reflects in part the labor involved in producing it. A jeweler who buys, say, an ounce of gold wire from which to make jewelry pays slightly more for that wire than he/she would for an ounce of gold blobs to be melted down and used for casting an object. Even bullion commands a (substantial) premium when it is in a form readily identified as coming from a reputable source (e.g., US Gold Eagle or Canadian Maple Leaf coins) relative to a generic bar straight from a mine.


    1 Like corundum (ruby, sapphire), the name given depends on the color. Impurities of chromium and/or vanadium cause the green color of emerald. Other impurities cause other colors: Fe2+, light blue (aquamarine); Fe3+, golden yellow (golden beryl) to greenish yellow (heliodor); Mn2+, pink (morganite); Mn3+, red (red beryl, sometimes called red emerald).

    2 Here is an area that "beauty" can be reasonably quantified; the beauty of a diamond comes from the way it reflects light, and the amount of light reflected, the evenness with which it is reflected, and the amount of dispersion in the reflected light can all be determined more-or-less objectively, without regard to a specific individual's standard of "beauty."

    3 For very small gem diamonds, the cost of cutting and polishing becomes the dominant factor in the price, and the price/weight increases for stones smaller than a certain size.


  • Banned

    @boomzilla said:

    I only keep it in front of me as a symbol of my status

    Your status where? In the society? How do you know that other people care? Hell, how can you be sure there are other people to start with!?



  • @Gaska said:

    Your status where? In the society? How do you know that other people care?

    Yes, among other people. Hell, half of what we do, as people, is posture so the other people know how great we are. That big SUV, the greensward in front of our house, the house itself, that ermine coat, the swimming pool out back, the honorariums ("Yes, your Honor/professor/doctor/Eminence,etc."), the monster towers we build: All of those are tied to a human psychological need to establish rank. In one sense, all of that is irrational, but ask Donald Trump if they aren't an essential part of human society.There's a reason why Donald Trump built his own damn tower, and it has nothing to do with practical concerns; it had to do with showing he was the biggest boy on the block.

    @Gaska said:

    Hell, how can you be sure there are other people to start with!?

    I think, therefore I am. If there were just I, everyone else would conform to my whims, therefore there is at least some(one/thing) other than I. Occam's razor says, "other people".

    (Ask a stupid question, get a nonsensical philosophical answer.)


  • Banned

    @CoyneTheDup said:

    I think, therefore I am. If there were just I, everyone else would conform to my whims, therefore there is at least some(one/thing) other than I. Occam's razor says, "other people".

    Occam's razor also says time flows the same for everyone, yet it has been proven wrong by Einstein.


  • FoxDev

    Occam's Razor also says you have no clue what Occam's Razor actually is


  • Banned

    Then what it is, if not the simplest approach?



  • @Gaska said:

    Occam's razor also says time flows the same for everyone, yet it has been proven wrong by Einstein.

    @RaceProUK said:

    Occam's Razor also says you have no clue what Occam's Razor actually is

    @Gaska said:

    Then what it is, if not the simplest approach?

    You guys are totally obfuscating my philosophical statement.


  • FoxDev

    Given two correct explanations for a phenomenon, the simpler of the two is more likely.


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @Gaska said:

    Then what it is, if not the simplest approach?

    Given two hypothesis that predict the same result, the one with the fewest assumptions should be used.

    @Gaska said:

    Occam's razor also says time flows the same for everyone,

    No - that's the (alleged) result. Occam's razor applies to the hypotheses as to why this might be. But..

    @Gaska said:

    yet it has been proven wrong by Einstein.

    So if the result is wrong, you throw out/modify the hypotheses, then apply Occam to the new ones instead.


  • Banned

    @CoyneTheDup said:

    You guys are totally obfuscating my philosophical statement.

    That's called derailing.

    @RaceProUK said:

    Given two correct explanations for a phenomenon, the simpler of the two is more likely.

    And until 20th century (or late 19th?), "time just keeps going" was simplest explanation for the phenomenon and not contradicted by any experiment.


  • FoxDev

    @Gaska said:

    And until 20th century (or late 19th?), "time just keeps going" was simplest explanation for the phenomenon and not contradicted by any experiment.

    Then Einstein proved it wrong. Which means it's not correct. And since it's not correct, you can't apply Occam's Razor to it.


  • Banned

    But before Einstein, you could.


  • FoxDev

    And? Still doesn't excuse you for getting Occam's Razor so wrong.


  • Banned

    So, even if currently everything seems right, I can't use Occam's razor because it might turn out to be wrong in the future?


  • FoxDev

    OK, now you're just being stupid again.


  • Banned

    No, just confused. Why Occam's razor is a right tool to claim that there are other people in the world but not to claim, given the 17th century knowledge about the world, that time just keeps going?


  • FoxDev

    You said
    @Gaska said:

    Occam's razor also says time flows the same for everyone, yet it has been proven wrong by Einstein.

    Which, roughly translated, means

    Occam's razor also says this wrong thing that's proven wrong is actually right.


  • Banned

    Okay, I admit I used a wrong tense. It should be "said", not "says".


  • Banned

    You didn't need to be so harsh on me for this simple typo, though.



  • @Gaska said:

    That's called derailing.

    They're doing that, too!


  • Banned

    Singular or plural they?


Log in to reply