[Noseshine]

I read all my WP articles via right-click "Open link in incognito window".

(OT now:) If anyone thinks that's cheating them out of money - the choices are not "read for free" and "read for the appropriate price", the choices are "read for free" or "don't read". The reason I read is to procrastinate, so the value I get out of it is actually negative (same with HN...). Even their occasionally excellent articles (like their series on asset forfeiture) is stuff I'm at most mildly interested in (as a foreigner) to distract myself. That's my issue with today's media, I don't actually feel "informed" as in "it this is good for my life that I know these things". I can't do anything about 99.99% of the stuff I read about anyway, nor is it a representative sample of reality but consists almost solely on reporting the outliers.

[pbhjpbhj]

>The reason I read is to procrastinate, so the value I get out of it is actually negative (same with HN...). //

Entertainment has value doesn't it? It's not a simple financial value like the simplistic use of opportunity cost as being the price you could bill those hours at, but it's a useful and functional part of being human.

I don't have a problem with you reading something people broadcast to the public internet though.

[Noseshine]

    > Entertainment has value doesn't it?

If it's procrastination the net value is negative. You may put any value you like on the "entertainment" - but what it displaces has higher value.

If I delay my work (which I do, even now) the overall value of writing comments on HN or reading a WP article that talks about issues that don't directly concern me and that I cannot do anything about is negative, even to myself (and don't try to argue they may concern me indirectly because, well, everything does).

It's like being addicted to drugs: Sure you can argue if the drugs (and let's assume those especially crazy and destructive ones) had no value to the person taking them they would not take them, but a more appropriate model than high school economics would be the neuroscience of addiction. But even if you decide to stick to using an economic model you would have to take a very narrow view - like picking exactly the period where a stock was rising to show how great a pick that company is - to argue the person gets a positive value from taking those drugs.

[pbhjpbhj]

>You may put any value you like on the "entertainment" - but what it displaces has higher value. //

Disagree. This conversation has a value, I [likely] can't derive anything financial from it, one might term it "entertaining" even [that wasn't supposed to sound quite so denigrating!]. The value is difficult to define, but it doesn't remove value from my life IMO. It possibly takes some time with which I can argue for opportunity cost, but I see the conversation as a generally positive thing.

I'm not sure if a mere conversation can be equated so easily to the value positions involved in drug addiction. However, I would say that it's a mixed bag. Some aspects that come out of drug addiction can have positive value - I'm thinking the progression of the arts: some great works of literature, paintings, dramatic performances, appear to have at least some relationship to the artists drug use [and in some cases addiction, it's hard to know where the divide is].

>"This is no more true than to say that Van Gogh was only Van Gogh because of his inner turmoil or than Jean-Michel Basquiat needed heroin to draw or paint. But it is also worth remembering that it killed them both." (http://www.worldcrunch.com/culture-society/under-the-influen...)

Similar ground with a greater focus on musicians - http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/mind-guest-blog/creativi....

[Noseshine]

You can disagree all you like - on what basis??? How do YOU know what I'm doing and what my time is worth? This discussion certainly has zero value - more like a negative value to have to encounter so annoying. Ridiculous!

    > This conversation has a value

I covered that!!! Do you actually READ the comments you respond to? I mean, without the filter that removes the things that don't fit your narrative?

[pbhjpbhj]

Lol, your indignation made me laugh ... um, does laughter have any value in your philosophical framework?

>I covered that!!! Do you actually READ the comments you respond to? //

Right back at your there - it has a value because I value it. Might seem a bit too self-referential but that's how value works.

>How do YOU know what I'm doing and what my time is worth? //

I don't. There's extrinsic and intrinsic values for sure - if you're chatting inanely to me on HN when you would normally be performing successful heart surgery on people who want to live longer then the opportunity cost [in terms of life enrichment for the people who would have been saved] is high, for sure, but that doesn't mean the intrinsic value is negative.

You appear to be arguing that because there is a potential for foregoing financial gain through having a conversation that the _value_ of the conversation -- the ability of it to enrich, educate, improve, entertain, etc. -- is negative. The true value can't be counted, you don't know it's effect on me and I don't know the effect on you (or others who are reading). Maybe an onlooker has read something in the conversation and that's inspired their PhD thesis on the teleology of communication.

IMO you appear to too readily decry the measurable negative aspect - potential for foregoing financial gain (opportunity cost) - whilst you under-estimate the potential for positive improvement, extrinsic value, and the like.

[FWIW Currently I'm suffering with mental health problems and this conversation has actually made me realise that I can be positive. I'm not saying this to try and shoe-horn in an extrinsic value, that's a genuine self-reflection.]

Happy to hear any further responses if you can steer away from declarations of "ridiculous!" and "annoying!" and illucidate why you feel it's ridiculous, how it conflicts with your value judgement in expanded terms?