We would've just warned you, but since you've acknowledged the guidelines and chosen not to follow them we've banned the account. But please don't tell anyone about our secret scheme to try to have discussions on the internet that are just a bit more thoughtful and informative.
> An anonymous action cannot possibly be signaling of any kind. Words mean things.
What meaning are you ascribing to "signal"? According to a few common ones[1]:
1) two anonymous parties can exchange meaningful signals about each other or a third party thing,
2) one party can receive, either directly or via observation/interception, a meaningful signal from a group of anonymous parties exchanging signals in any permutation or combination between them.
An anonymous consensus reflexively contributes a signal; if it did not, various forms of cryptography would not be possible.
As a meta point, being pedantic only works if you do it correctly. Otherwise it lowers the signal to noise ratio of a forum :)
1) "virtue-signaling" is an idiom that doesn't directly map to the economic concept in contract theory, so you are specifying a definition the original commenter was probably not using (it's closer to evolutionary signaling),
2) even if we assume the definition of economic signaling, unless there is a special definition for anonymity in the economic context that both you and the commenter share, it is not necessary for two individuals honestly signaling about themselves to deanonymize themselves in order to enter into a contract,
3) more pertinently to #2, I could use examples of theoretical cryptography here, but we already have applied examples: it is possible to enter into smart contracts where both parties are anonymous.
It takes ~33 bits of meaningful information to uniquely identify anyone. Using the example from Wikipedia: someone betting on a sports team might be sending a signal about their own identity as a fan, but that signal is not sufficient to deanonymize them (many people are pessimistic about any given team) and it may not be honest (they may simply be a pessimistic fan).
I'm objecting to your bastardization of the English language. "Virtue signaling" doesn't mean "something I don't like". It has a specific meaning that comes out of behavioral economics. It's a quite interesting concept actually. Unfortunately it is the process of being taken by people like you and turned into a contentless insult to fling at people. That's a destruction of the richness of our linguistic commons and you ought to be ashamed of yourself for doing so.
The down-voters and rightness or wrongness of their actions are a separate matter.
"That's a destruction of the richness of our linguistic commons and you ought to be ashamed of yourself for doing so."
Never read a more US-centric comment on HN towards people who are a.) not native speakers b.) don't have the vocubulary which seems to be necessary to leave comments on HN. But I assume these are the times.
Luckily the most common language in 50y will be Chinese.
> Luckily the most common language in 50y will be Chinese
China has multiple languages and ‘Chinese’ isn’t really a single language. Mandarin is already the most spoken language by a large margin, and even that has several dialects.
In case you are not aware, British people on HN are way outnumbered by commentators from the US, so HN is US centric and by no way UK centric.
Also concerning the nation-centric point of view, people from the UK are way less focused on their country and know other people outside their country exist.
Anyone downvoting this instantly correctly doesn't see any value in a post making a lot of allegations without any evidence. The "lol f u" attitude makes it easier to click the down arrow without attempting to engage someone who appears close-minded and lacking an ability to engage in civil discourse.
Right, so the burden of proof is on me to prove that selling on Amazon was in fact unprofitable. Would you like to see my receipts?
Or maybe you could just take my comment as an idea that sparks interest in your brain, and then you can go Google around for stories that confirm what I'm saying?
Wasn't aware that I was being held to such standards of academic rigour on this site where so many others get a free pass, if they're saying the right things that confirm HN's biases.
If you think you're entitled to act like a jerk if other people get a free pass, then you learned the wrong lesson. Acting like you're in some battle of YOU VS HN is just avoiding what I'm talking about, while proving everything I've said is correct.
You're now dishonestly focusing on only one part of what you said. I have sold on Amazon, not for large amounts, and could give a better explanation of why people should stay away. The fees are high, Amazon will arbitrarily gate off categories from experienced sellers with good records, and so on. That's not a high bar.
Dismissing that you should have to support what you say with substance as "academic rigor" is just stupid. Flying the flag of censorship is disingenuous when your post is all style and no substance. (Response to another comment.)
