I imagine the biggest thing on offer (for N = 0 to 9) is the distant
promise of what it's designed to do. We have to express that promise,
and hold it out as worth reaching for (which it is!).
Raph Frank wote:
It has potential as an organising system. However, with only 10
people,
On 9/24/08, Michael Allan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yes, if Nmax (population size) is low, then a voting medium is not
needed. The purpose of the medium is support the growth of the
discussion in the population as a whole. By providing structural
handholds for agreement, it enables the
Raph Frank wrote:
True, it was just an approx.
P(N) N+1
is probably more accurate :p, but gives less info.
Oh you mathematicians, your equations evaporate!
Maybe, it would work better if it was a sum or some kind. The value
function is unlikely to be equal for everyone.
Except that
On 9/22/08, Michael Allan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We're sunk if V(0) depends on short term benefit. We've got nothing
short term to offer. And we're asking a lot (high material C). The
initial users will have to test the code.
I meant personal benefit, not short term, but the issue still
On Sat, Sep 20, 2008 at 3:34 AM, Michael Allan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Raph Frank wrote:
V(N) is the value per user if N users are using the system.
P(V) is the number of people who would use the system if it had value V
C = cost per user (time, direct cost etc.)
V increases with N and P
Raph Frank wrote:
V(N) is the value per user if N users are using the system.
P(V) is the number of people who would use the system if it had value V
C = cost per user (time, direct cost etc.)
V increases with N and P increases with V
The critical mass, Nc, is the lowest N where, it is
On 9/18/08, Michael Allan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sorry, then my definition of network effect was wrong. I doubt we
disagreed about anything else.
Np, there is also a possibility that mine was wrong too :).
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_effect
In economics and business, a
Kristofer Munsterhjelm wrote:
If computers are permitted, then to keep sock puppets away and formalize
trust networks, you might use a trust metric. When given direct trust (A
trusts B to this extent), they extrapolate indirect trust (A trusts C
because A trusts B and B trusts C). Some of the
I think I can finally document the theory. I've been in list
discussions for a year now. It's payed off in design ideas. Now I
have working code. But it's hard to sustain a discussion (and maybe
hard to put the code into practice) without a clear theory.
I hope it's on topic for this
On 9/16/08, Michael Allan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Like you said about Napster, even with a small number of people, it
was worth using. But I'm mistaken to claim that Napster was
therefore free of scale dependencies. It's not either/or. A
start-up threshold can be orthogonal to a network
Michael Allan wrote:
But I was speaking of overlay networks like Napster...
Raph Frank wrote:
...even with a small number of people, it was worth using. You
could use it to send files to friends.
Yes, that's the key. It's free of scale dependencies. Same for open
voting (though I
This is another for film ratings. It gives each moving a score and is
resistant to random raters.
http://www.mathaware.org/mam/08/reputation.pdf
Meant 'movie a score'
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Raph Frank wrote:
Vote buying could be an issue. In fact, it is possibly the Achilles
Heal of the proxy system.
Vote buying will be a poor investment. The votes are too shifty.
Voters will take the money and run: they'll take it from one side,
then shift their votes and take it from the
Raph Frank wrote:
Michael Allan wrote:
... The faults or failings in democracy are located outside of
state institutions. ... The fixes and changes are needed
elsewhere.
Right, if the people are organised, they can change the constitution.
That brings to mind organizations like
On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 11:32 PM, Michael Allan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Raph Frank wrote:
Michael Allan wrote:
... The faults or failings in democracy are located outside of
state institutions. ... The fixes and changes are needed
elsewhere.
Right, if the people are organised, they can
On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 7:38 PM, Michael Allan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Call this the formal defense of the modern state. It claims that
the constitutional structures are not at fault. The faults or
failings in democracy are located outside of state institutions. But
whether we argue that
16 matches
Mail list logo
