Search the Community

If you have 20-30 minutes to spare, this is a great mini browser game that delves into the ideas of game theory, trust, and society (also references the Christmas truce of WWI): [http://ncase.me/trust/] Enjoy!

This youtuber, MatPat, is an expert with regards to growing channels. He can demonstrate how less videos can result in greater growth and even overall views per video. His channel views alone should be enough to back up his claims of expertise (besides the fact he advises large channels) since at 4 million subscribers he gets 75%+ views per Game Theory video. That's massive considering youtube stars such as Markiplier actually rake in less views that he does even though he has a channel 1.5x larger. Even PewDiePie can't compete with those percentages. Yes he has higher view counts but not higher percentages which is key. According to the system MatPat uses he will not, or at least attempts to prevent, subscriber burnout. He gets 75%+ of total subscriber views for each main video and he intends to keep that percentage locked as the channel grows. Imagine if Stef had those same percentages? In essence, MatPat is an expert in creating return customers. I suggest Stefan and the crew look into this if they haven't already and, should they see merit in it, consult this man on how to grow FDR. He may even suggest that the second channel actually hinders Stef's growth. Who knows? He's gone so far as to analyze the youtube algorithm and monitors it for any changes. He makes a good albeit quick case that playing the algorithm is key to getting views and what worked before a new update might not work now thus one must monitor it regularly. It's a scary thought that the distributor, youtube, could be unintentionally destroying your channel but it is a reality. Anyway, here is the video: Y'know, Stef's analysis of movies is fun, but perhaps he could attempt to do what MatPat does with his Game Theory show? Present an interesting theory and argue for it but in the realm of movies or popular books. For example, recall the post Stef had read about Harry Potter being a mental patient in a mental health facility called Hogwarts? That theory was interesting and dare I say brilliant. Mix in the sort of editing style that people appear to enjoy the most (use stock images, no talking head, etc) and this could make for an interesting addition to the channel. If the analysis of MatPat determines that Stef should make less of [X] type of video or space them out more, he will necessarily have more time for other things. We know that some shows are more popular than others like his 'Truth About' series for example. On that note I don't think Stef should address the title of the series in the way he does. It's called 'The Truth' but recently he's tempered that by calling it an opinion. Well, I think he would be better served to explain that, in using the methodology of reason and evidence, he has determined that this is indeed the truth. In calling it that it is left to us, the viewer, to prove him wrong otherwise we cannot claim that Stef's 'truth' isn't actually the truth given that he has adhered to the method by which we would determine it anyway. Suffice to say Stef isn't making a truth claim without evidence thus we can't dismiss it without evidence either. But neither should Stef temper his claim my calling it an opinion. To me the title of the series has always been an open challenge wherein to disagree necessarily requires we refute his reasoning and evidence and not merely his opinion. We can't just say, "That isn't the truth!" because we have no idea what the truth is ourselves. We cannot make such an objective claim. Therefore we must do our due diligence with regard to the topic in order to disagree or just shut up and refer to Stef's reasoning and the evidence he provides. I think making this point, though less harshly, at the beginning of each video would be effective at incentivizing others to investigate the topic themselves (hopefully bringing them to the same conclusion and thus subscribing) and for others to share it as a strong challenge to others. I can't be the only one who sees the title as an open challenge. I think that has a lot to do with it's popularity. Anyway yeah, something to consider for everyone and the FDR crew. Best to refer to an expert with regard to growing the channel until you are one yourself. I guess that's my advice.

TZM tzm tzm. you say we should get rid of money.let's say we achieve an RBE (resource based economy).are people free to do what they want? what if they create a cryptocurrency like bitcoin? supercomputers is not a magical answer to infinite everything. scarcity will still exist, whether it be in the form of gold, bottlenecks on production capabilities, inflexibility of capital goods, or limited living space in 3d.When the supercomputer cannot create the things people want in time, people will want to exchange among themselves. But how do you trade a car for some bread? how much is worth what? And lots of goods don't last very long, how will save up to trade those? They also need to barter, because there is no medium of exchange.People will naturally start instituting money in one form or another - (again, stop with the delusion that suptercomputers will put an end to scarcity. if it's not infinite, it's scarce. It just means the world will be able to support a lot more people, but once that limit is reached, scarcity will apply once again).So once a currency is instituted, there will be so many advantages to it, that it will stick around. TZM ppl like Peter Joseph say states are a natural result of freedom of action and wanting better for yourself in competition with others. Well, that's questionable. What's more solid is that media of exchange will arise naturally in an RBE.Now My big question is this: Will the people in charge of the central RBE system forcibly outlaw and ban money, in order to maintain the RBE? Or will people be free to do what they want, and use whatever media of exchange they want (or not) under an RBE? Will they be "cut off" from receiving resources from the RBE supercomputer, or in reduced amounts (I know you will say "no", but scarcity will hit, so that is not a legitimate answer). Will you support the RBE system to the point of disallowing the monetary system that was so reviled by TZM-ers? Will you engage in force to stop monetary systems from coming back alive? Will money be the new 'sin" of the new "state"?And while we're at it, when scarcity hits, and everything is free, how do "runs" or flocking to deplete the resource about to become in shortage get prevented? In a market system, prices go up, and you have a nautrally self-regulating feedback mechanism, which also sends signals to tell people to produce more of it and increase the supply. if you can push a button and just get it, you've essentially engaged in price-fixing, so you will get the same results as rent-control: no additional housing development, and massive shortage of housing (or the particular good). *edit: tries really hard not to calling TZM-ers economic illiterates, and instead posts this instead.My real question and purpose of this thread is to inquire about the policy and use of force of the RBE / TZM utopia, knowing that the time would come when they'd have to face that decision. You do have to face that decision because scarcity is not gone with a supercomputer whose magical algorithm is not even being developed by TZM as far as i know.Also, is there only one super computer that handles all the variables of everyone's supplies and demands and preferences and tastes? or can there be multiple? If multiple, who decides which computer governs which area or number of people? If so, is there a central management group that does this? What if everyone wnats to work for that? Who says they can or can't? Can there be overlapping of geographic or person coverage by different supercomputers? Why is it so deplorable to rely on supply and demand, property rights, voluntary trade, and the price mehcanism, which accomplishes things that no central supercomputer can't? the supercomputer would have to tap into everyone's brains (or just get super super scarily accurate in predicting what people want) to be anywhere near accurate. privacy issues. do we even want such a computer? Isn't that much power just a giant barrel of gunpowder waiting to be lit up by a violent sociopath that works for the world's suptercomputer department? It hardly seems stable from a game theory point of view.I used to be pretty ignorant, but critical of anarchy before i heard how it would work and all of the game theory objections were addressed by podcasts 1,2,64,131,and 203. So it's possible I'm being like that again about RBE. But i've yet to hear any real address to these issues. Why not have a king of the hill approach to truth? Science seems to do that just fine. But seriously, if we're going to talk, you have to accept that scarcity is not rid of by a supercomputer (again, which you aren't building). You have to learn basic economic principles. edit: excuse the grammar and the spelling. I just don't really care that much. Infer or impose whatever irrational, or statistically true judgement you want. I'm more concerned about the substance of the discussion, and if you're not, then do what you want. If I'm making money with this, or doing it for some professional thing, I'd consider it, but I just don't care. Just like I don't wear suits in my own home or when I visit my neighbor's house.