Hacker News Reader

Comment by notsofastbuddy | Hacker News Reader

This seems like an argument to remove all randomization from purchases.

At the very least, all purchases should include info about the randomization. It shouldn't be legal to sell randomized products while keeping the randomization secret.

Yes.

I hate the Lego minifig series, and Panini sticker albums, and Pokemon cards.

They should all have to include how many packets you'd expect to buy to complete a collection.

At least with the Lego minifig series, if you buy them in a store, you can feel the polybag to get some kind of an idea what might be contained.

Sure, but for a series of 16 figures you'd expect to buy about 55 packets to complete the collection.

I don't think parents (or children) are aware of that, or have any idea how to work it out. (I didn't, I just searched until I found this wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coupon_collector%27s_problem

That seems like a reasonable step in the right direction. You wouldn't be forcing companies to abandon products (and preventing consumers from buying things that they potentially do actually want), but you do help the consumer make informed decisions and weigh the costs versus the potential benefits.

Do you think that will prevent the supposed harm?

Lottery tickets include odds on the back of the cards. I think that has a very small effects on discouraging play. And those odds are pretty straight forward (1 in 2,000,000 for a 500k payout). I imagine information about how randomization works would be even more indecipherable.

>Do you think that will prevent the supposed harm?

Which supposed harm in this case, there is more than one.

Currently online games are free to swap out algorithms in realtime in order to maximize revenue. You have no idea what your chance of winning even is.

I don't think knowing the chances of winning would change behavior of the consumer, much like knowing the lottery payoff is abysmal doesn't stop people from playing. That was my point.

It doesn't stop everyone but it does stop me and most of my friends

No, but it requires the purchaser to be informed of the odds. The only reason a company wouldn't want to inform a customer about their product is when they are hiding something.

I am fully supportive of that.

Does that mean you're also in favor of ending state sponsored lottories, raffles, etc...?

I’m not the parent poster, but yes, that sounds like a great idea.

I am.

Unless it's not-for-profit or single use (e.g. lottery revenue going to schools), then it's a regressive tax on people who don't understand probability.

Are there any lotteries in the US that don't directly fund public sectors like education or elderly care? I thought that was how lotteries became legal across the states.

Even if it’s funding education, it’s doing so through what is essentially a tax on the poor. Why not tax those that can afford it instead?

Well, that's how they sell it. When they started the lottery in my state, they sold it as a wonderful benefit to society, because all the proceeds would be used to fund education.

What they didn't tell us is it wasn't additional funds to existing budgets, but they would pilfer the existing budget and replace it with lottery proceeds.

Lying, smarmy politicians. You'd figure we'd learn by now.

Money is fungible single-use funding doesn't exist in reality.

> a regressive tax on people who don't understand probability

This is precisely why I support lotteries etc.

What you support is immoral. IF you want to live in a society where people prey on each other in every way possible, do not be surprised to eat a bullet. This shit is destabilizing because you advocate taking food off the tables of the poor.

Impressive karma btw.

I mean, whoever is dumb enough to gamble, deserves to lose everything. And if they want to then shoot people, I'm sure the police will be more than obligated to do their jobs.

Do the minor, elderly, disabled or other types of dependenents deserve to lose everything too because the person charged with their care loses everything?

I would be in favor of ending state sponsored lotteries.

I could see an argument in favor of them if:

* Sellers were obligated to disclose the odds of winning the jackpot at the time of purchase punishable to the same extent as underage liquor sales

* The state was required to render, upon request, financial consultation at the burden of the state to winners whose consultation can, at the winner's discretion, be recorded and later reviewed to understand the advice rendered and its context with respect to the winner's financial situation and risk profile

What does bullet 3 even mean

Good to hear you want to combat companies like CDPR who use techniques to like this to sell to children.

Supportive of it being illegal for one individual or group of individuals to give an item with an agreed upon element of randomization to another individual in exchange for money?

That is more than a little heavy handed, if not a downright Draconian economic policy.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com