Post a video from the same people before (or rather many times as the same guy also does the Periodic Table of Videos I have repeatedly used as a ToTD), but this one is also great:
So, I work the stock truck at 6am on Tuesdays. It's usually routine labor, but Techno Santa came back! He's this cool trucker that looks like Santa and plays all this techno and club music from his truck. He's friendly and helpful unlike the other truck drivers. It made a bleak chilly morning happier.
No, he'd fail twice as hard because he'd have put in a lot of effort andstillbeen wrong. :P
The amount of effort put in should not be factored into fail, nor win. For example, when I sit a university exam after (only) two hours of study, it does not increase the amount of win if I do well, nor decrease the amount of fail if I do badly.
No, he'd fail twice as hard because he'd have put in a lot of effort andstillbeen wrong. :P
The amount of effort put in should not be factored into fail, nor win. For example, when I sit a university exam after two hours of study, it does not increase the amount of win if I do well, nor decrease the amount of fail if I do badly.
I disagree. I believe I'll let Linkin Park weigh in on this one:
I tried so hard and got so far But in the end it doesn't even matter I had to fall to lose it all But in the end it doesn't even matter
Clearly, we must factor the amount of effort put forth into the magnitude of the fail. Trying very hard and failing is certainly a larger fail than not trying and still failing. If I invest $10 into a business that goes bankrupt, I have failed much less than then guy who invested $10 million into that same company.
Clearly, we must factor the amount of effort put forth into the magnitude of the fail. Trying very hard and failing is certainly a larger fail than not trying and still failing. If I invest $10 into a business that goes bankrupt, I have failed much less than then guy who invested $10 million into that same company.
Let me propose a slight variation on your hypothetical: In both cases, your estimated net worth ends up at $20 million at one point in time. At that point, you're offered $18 million for your investment, but you decline. Shortly afterwards, the company goes bankrupt and you have nothing. How much fail has happened in either case?
I would say that it is $18 million worth of fail in both cases.
Yeah, you have to add the initial outlay to the fail. You didn't lose just the $18 mill you were offered...you also lose your investment. So unless both have recouped their entire investments already and are now on equal footing as far as what they have in the company, the guy who invested more still fails harder.
I would say that it is $18 million worth of fail in both cases.
Plus the additional $10 or $10m fail.
That doesn't work either - if you had taken the $18 million offer, you would've had $8 million over where you started, but you ended up with $10 million less - hence $18 million worth of fail, not $28 million.
Yeah, you have to add the initial outlay to the fail. You didn't lose just the $18 mill you were offered...you also lose your investment.
If we're considering the amount of fail that occurs at the time of bankruptcy, both parties lost an investment valued at that time at $20 million. It's just that in the case where the initial investment was $10, that fail is offset by a gain of $19,999,990 prior to the fail.
If we wanted to measure "net fail" over the entire investment period, then yes, we would have to factor in the amount of win as well - $19.99999m of win vs $10m of win, followed by ~$20m of fail, which results in $10 of net fail vs $10m of net fail - but I believe that instantaneous fail is the more relevant concept. "Net fail" is analogous to the sunk costs fallacy.
*shrug* Depends on your timeline, I suppose. I don't think you can accurately value something like that with an instantaneous snapshot. If I spend money on something and it later breaks or fails, I have lost more than if I got that thing for free, no matter how long it has been since I got it. Not to mention that the money I spent on it could have been spent on something else in the meantime. Earning interest, for example, such that I would be able to afford a replacement for the thing that broke. If I paid for it, I would not be able to do something else with that money. That's an even bigger fail.
*shrug* Depends on your timeline, I suppose. I don't think you can accurately value something like that with an instantaneous snapshot. If I spend money on something and it later breaks or fails, I have lost more than if I got that thing for free, no matter how long it has been since I got it. Not to mention that the money I spent on it could have been spent on something else in the meantime. Earning interest, for example, such that I would be able to afford a replacement for the thing that broke. If I paid for it, I would not be able to do something else with that money. That's an even bigger fail.
Shit, economics is complicated.
In paying for the item compared to getting it for free, you lose the amount of money you spent (which is equivalent to the opportunity cost of what else you could do with that money), though you gain the item in both cases. However, this occurred when you bought the item.
When the item breaks, in both cases you have lost the item and suffered an equivalent amount of fail.
Your line of thought would lead one to conclude that something is worth less if you got it for free - this is a huge mistake.
Comments
I would say that it is $18 million worth of fail in both cases.
If we wanted to measure "net fail" over the entire investment period, then yes, we would have to factor in the amount of win as well - $19.99999m of win vs $10m of win, followed by ~$20m of fail, which results in $10 of net fail vs $10m of net fail - but I believe that instantaneous fail is the more relevant concept. "Net fail" is analogous to the sunk costs fallacy.
Shit, economics is complicated.
When the item breaks, in both cases you have lost the item and suffered an equivalent amount of fail.
Your line of thought would lead one to conclude that something is worth less if you got it for free - this is a huge mistake.