Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[smjjames]

A widget is a physical object. And I said you have to pay money to run it, but it saves electricity.

Do you really not get that people are assuming the cost to run it is a utility cost, such as electricity?

Which, frankly, is perfectly sensible since you never specified otherwise and what kind of device have you ever seen that you have to pay money to run directly in your own home? Is this some kind of coin-op generator? Does it turn pennies into electricity?

I think that's what everybody here is assuming, cost in utility, not physical money. 

[Reelya]

A widget is a physical object. And I said you have to pay money to run it, but it saves electricity.

Do you really not get that people are assuming the cost to run it is a utility cost, such as electricity?

Which, frankly, is perfectly sensible since you never specified otherwise and what kind of device have you ever seen that you have to pay money to run directly in your own home? Is this some kind of coin-op generator? Does it turn pennies into electricity?

I just said "cost to run it". That's just TCO. The fact that I said that you have to own it personally in your room and don't interact with the other tenants implies it's not a shared cost.

But remember that I also followed that up by doing the numbers and showing what the persons personal finances were in the scenario, so I clarified who pays the $3 in the very first post. Only the person who got the widget.

[Maximum Spin]

I just said "cost to run it". That's just TCO. The fact that I said that you have to own it personally in your room and don't interact with the other tenants implies it's not a shared cost.

It only implies that inside your own head, since you never stated as much. Don't assume that other people will interpret the ambiguity the same way you do.

[Reelya]

But I wrote who pays for it in the original post when I showed the maths. So no, the only ambiguity would be if someone ignored most of the post itself. This is what I wrote:

you live in a boarding house building with 3 other people. All electric bills are split. You have little interaction with the other tenants.

 If you buy a certain widget it that you put in your room, it costs $3 to run, but saves $4 in electricity. You will save $1 on your share of the electric bill, but have spent $3. Should you buy the widget?

The reasoning is implicit in that, that the $3 is a personal expense and not taken off the electric bill, because I already specified that the net saving on the bill is $1 per person. So the $3 cannot be off the bill because I already ruled that out when I wrote the example.

It just says that you can put this thing in your room which costs $3 to run, saves $4 in electricity, and saves you $1 off your 1/4 share of the electric bill. It's pretty clear from that that the $3 isn't also taken off the electric bill.

[wierd]

No, you just blandly said how much it costs to operate, and gave an ambiguous or contradictory condition.

That you assert that we must pay the full 3$ either specifies apples/oranges relationship between costs (making it a false comparison with the bitcoin miner), or it is contradictory to the all electrical bills are distributed rule.

[Maximum Spin]

Communication skills tip #2: Always assume people will ignore half of what you wrote, especially if it involved numbers.

Or, less facetiously, their point was that they considered your math wrong under the interpretation they'd formed, which makes your argument unhelpful.

[smjjames]

A widget is a physical object. And I said you have to pay money to run it, but it saves electricity.

Do you really not get that people are assuming the cost to run it is a utility cost, such as electricity?

Which, frankly, is perfectly sensible since you never specified otherwise and what kind of device have you ever seen that you have to pay money to run directly in your own home? Is this some kind of coin-op generator? Does it turn pennies into electricity?

I just said "cost to run it". That's just TCO. The fact that I said that you have to own it personally in your room and don't interact with the other tenants implies it's not a shared cost.

But where does the cost come from? Is the cost coming out of the electric bill (which you share with three other ppl) or is it physical money like you're using a credit card or physical money?

If it's physical or credit card, then that means it has absolutely no impact on your electric bill because that implies that its independent and separate from the electricity everybody pays, which mangles the whole thought experiment


Typing on iPad. So.  Slow. 

[Reelya]

Uh, no I'm not sure how you could draw that conclusion from the original statement. It says that the widget saves $4 worth of electricity, which is off the house's shared electric bill, so $1 per person. All those things were in black and white on the original post, so i'm not sure how you could say they were the ambiguous parts.

The OP states how much the bill was changed by the widget being there, $4. And that if you have one then it costs you $3 to run, personally. (hence, "in your room" and "limited interaction").

You will save $1 on your share of the electric bill, but have spent $3. Should you buy the widget?

$3 is just listed as an abstract cost here, but it's clearly indicated to be separate from what you saved on your share of the electric bill.

[wierd]

You just said it was A cost. Not what KIND of cost.  All other costs are in terms of metered electrical use, including the costs of operation of the bitcoin miner.

So, either you purposefully created a false comparison (comparing apples and oranges) by asserting that the cost was something OTHER than electrical use fee based- (such as licensing), or you created a condition that is contradictory, should the reader assume that your cost was electrical (given the context of the proposed comparison between offerings)

[Reelya]

I just said it's money. And it was listed as a separate category from the electric bill. How much simpler does that need to be?

You will save $1 on your share of the electric bill, but have spent $3.

the "but" here is clearly saying the $3 is a separate cost that's not part of the electric bill. And the way it's phrased as a deliberate contrast between "your share of X" and "[you] have spent Y" implies that one is a shared amount and that the other is a personal amount.

[wierd]

I can "spend" 3$ in any number of ways. The statement does not strictly say that I spent MY OWN 3$, only that I spent 3$.

You are trying to imply too much with your statement. It is, as myself and others have pointed out, not sufficiently clear.

This is especially important in light of the "Spending other people's money inefficiently to get money for myself" basis of the bitcoin miner widget. It operates exactly that way--- spending OTHER peoples money, via the fungibility of the bill.

So, AGAIN, either this is a FALSE COMPARISON (because the two devices' costs operate in WILDLY different ways)--- Or a contradictory statement.

[Reelya]

Who's $3 would you spend if you make a personal decision to put a thing in your own room, and you don't have much interaction with the other people?

It really doesn't sound like a very sensible objection.

If you buy a certain widget it that you put in your room, it costs $3 to run

"if you" do X" then it costs "Y".

Which is reasonably clear that the person buying the thing paid the costs. But then I clarified that again:

You will save $1 on your share of the electric bill, but have spent $3.

You, as in the person, saved the $1 and spent the $3. It's fairly clear because it says "you" did it.

[smjjames]

Uh, no I'm not sure how you could draw that conclusion from the original statement. It says that the widget saves $4 worth of electricity, which is off the house's shared electric bill, so $1 per person. All those things were in black and white on the original post, so i'm not sure how you could say they were the ambiguous parts.

The OP states how much the bill was changed by the widget being there, $4. And that if you have one then it costs you $3 to run, personally. (hence, "in your room" and "limited interaction").

You will save $1 on your share of the electric bill, but have spent $3. Should you buy the widget?

$3 is just listed as an abstract cost here, but it's clearly indicated to be separate from what you saved on your share of the electric bill.

Except, as weird says, the Bitcoin producing widget explicitly CONSUMES 4 in electricity, so, therefore, the reader assumes the 'cost to run is electricity. You can't have one be electricity and the other something else because it breaks the thought experiment.

I just said it's money. And it was listed as a separate category from the electric bill. How much simpler does that need to be?

You will save $1 on your share of the electric bill, but have spent $3.

the "but" here is clearly saying the $3 is a separate cost that's not part of the electric bill.

Okay, fine, money, but the context here is paying an utility bill, so, is the money drain coming from your pocket or the bill

Also, if the three dollar cost is separate from the bill, then how much DOES it cost to run on the electricity?

[smjjames]

Who's $3 would you spend if you make a personal decision to put a thing in your room, and you don't have interaction with the other people?

What does that have to do with the bill?? It'll matter the first bill, but not the next...

[wierd]

Who's $3 would you spend if you make a personal decision to put a thing in your room, and you don't have interaction with the other people?

If the device's cost is in the form of electricity?

Everyone else in the building. They dont know that your bill increased, because you dont tell them. They dont know that you installed a widget, because you dont tell them. The landord assessing the fee does not know who's use increased, and he does not care. Everyone pays.