I would consider it the kind of thing you want to leave in a science museum. so people can try them and go “thats how it works!” then get over it and go about their lives. not something worth spending money on for yourself.
A novelty thats cool to try, not one each person need own. Another example might be a lava lamp. after owning one for a while you stop bothering to turn it on.
A science museum amortizes the cost of the demonstration across many people, but that only works for short demonstrations. If you need to play with the rings for a week or a month, they don’t fit in a museum. But you can amortize the cost of lava lamp with your friends: after you get bored of it, pass it on. This is harder with a ring because of sizing. Also, if they weaken after two months.
I would have said a set or so for 10mins would show you some of the fun stuff, but also should be enough. Heck—a “rent them” sorta policy. two rings, $5 to play, $50 deposit. You can keep the rings but you can also give them back for the deposit.
How about amortizing it among LessWrong users? If there are enough interested people we can pool up to buy a pair, each one in the pool gets to keep it for (say) a month, and then mails it in an envelope to the next guy. Maybe everyone has to write an experience report as a Less Wrong comment, too.
I am not against the idea but also in the US they are quite reasonably priced. I had to pay shipping to far away, shipping was almost as much as the rings.
The point of my post was a that its a null-experiment (AKA—don’t bother trying it because it wasn’t that exciting). If I don’t share the fact that it was actually not worthwhile, someone else motivated to do it won’t know it has already been reported on.
I would consider it the kind of thing you want to leave in a science museum. so people can try them and go “thats how it works!” then get over it and go about their lives. not something worth spending money on for yourself.
A novelty thats cool to try, not one each person need own. Another example might be a lava lamp. after owning one for a while you stop bothering to turn it on.
A science museum amortizes the cost of the demonstration across many people, but that only works for short demonstrations. If you need to play with the rings for a week or a month, they don’t fit in a museum. But you can amortize the cost of lava lamp with your friends: after you get bored of it, pass it on. This is harder with a ring because of sizing. Also, if they weaken after two months.
I would have said a set or so for 10mins would show you some of the fun stuff, but also should be enough. Heck—a “rent them” sorta policy. two rings, $5 to play, $50 deposit. You can keep the rings but you can also give them back for the deposit.
How about amortizing it among LessWrong users? If there are enough interested people we can pool up to buy a pair, each one in the pool gets to keep it for (say) a month, and then mails it in an envelope to the next guy. Maybe everyone has to write an experience report as a Less Wrong comment, too.
I am not against the idea but also in the US they are quite reasonably priced. I had to pay shipping to far away, shipping was almost as much as the rings.
The point of my post was a that its a null-experiment (AKA—don’t bother trying it because it wasn’t that exciting). If I don’t share the fact that it was actually not worthwhile, someone else motivated to do it won’t know it has already been reported on.