It’s also worth flagging now that the people who amplified the Tweetstorm and made it succeed were not random Twitter users, but rather mostly belonged to the set of people who often care about the gears of physical models, who are more likely to respond in stronger fashion to many of these asymmetries. More on that in the section The Multilevel Signal Amplifier.
I’d say wide viewing is usually based around ‘random Twitter users’ sharing it, and that’s arguably why things like this are important:
1. Starts with a relatable physical story of a boat ride, and a friendly tone.
And a lot of other things on that list.
This was an asymmetric costly signal. Ryan had to spend time and money renting a boat and taking a three hour tour. It’s asymmetric because those seeking truth gain knowledge, and others… get to say they’re on a boat?
Eh. If everything’s slow because everything’s bottlenecked, arguably the comparative cost is lower. (You noted last time that he experienced benefits of fixing this problem.)
This cycles back into the ‘people don’t do things’ principle. Especially real physical things.
True. Though, what is the cost? (The boat? The billboard?)
Points five and six asymmetrically favor problems worthy of attention over those less worthy.
True. Though, this might also have relative elements. If more stuff is going wrong attention might be more divided. And yet, if there’s a bottle neck slowing down shipping, more people might have time because they’re waiting.
Yet there are advantages, especially together with ‘concrete physical model’ requirements to this vector, which act against purely symbolic actions.
If we lived in a world where ‘purely symbolic action’ included ‘the containers can be stacked higher, so that doesn’t become a bottleneck’ that would also be good, if not as good as people looking for the source of the problem and fixing it. (If there’s another shipping problem, it might not always be the solution.)
Lifting a random restriction that exists in life is probably not a good idea in isolation, although it wouldn’t shock me if I was wrong about that.
Another case for UBI. (Though, reasonably, it isn’t a random restriction.)
I did not amplify it myself, because my bar for amplifying anything on Twitter is super high and I didn’t see this as something that would work, which hopefully I will fix in the future.
I notice this is a discrete channel, rather than a continuous one.
Should we be able to keep up with a hundred year surge in demand?
I’d argue that the answer is pretty much no, we shouldn’t.
Having rules change in response to such a thing might be a good idea though. Like the stacking restriction.
I didn’t have much to say about stuff after that. It’s a great article.
I’d say wide viewing is usually based around ‘random Twitter users’ sharing it, and that’s arguably why things like this are important:
And a lot of other things on that list.
Eh. If everything’s slow because everything’s bottlenecked, arguably the comparative cost is lower. (You noted last time that he experienced benefits of fixing this problem.)
True. Though, what is the cost? (The boat? The billboard?)
True. Though, this might also have relative elements. If more stuff is going wrong attention might be more divided. And yet, if there’s a bottle neck slowing down shipping, more people might have time because they’re waiting.
If we lived in a world where ‘purely symbolic action’ included ‘the containers can be stacked higher, so that doesn’t become a bottleneck’ that would also be good, if not as good as people looking for the source of the problem and fixing it. (If there’s another shipping problem, it might not always be the solution.)
Another case for UBI. (Though, reasonably, it isn’t a random restriction.)
I notice this is a discrete channel, rather than a continuous one.
Having rules change in response to such a thing might be a good idea though. Like the stacking restriction.
I didn’t have much to say about stuff after that. It’s a great article.