@NathanMerrill Why is the gold standard ridiculous though?

(aren't gems/metals expensive because they're rare)

Unlike printer ink >_>

@ASCII-only Except for diamonds. Very much artificial scarcity at the moment for that.

@El'endiaStarman artificial scarcity?

@ASCII-only washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/02/…

@ASCII-only Why does rarity matter at all?

Seriously, the gold standard is really just another "We believe in it, so it works"

unless your currency derives its value from being used (like food), it's all fiat

@NathanMerrill Supply and demand, I would think.

I mean, I'm totally a fan of fiat currency, but I think that people that think that the gold standard is better is crazy

@El'endiaStarman It's not about demand. Except for stuff like gold plating of electronics, there is no demand for gold

@NathanMerrill Except people going "OOOH SHINY!".

right lol

(As a side note, I do understand that the current currency also puts our faith in the government not to print huge amounts of money, something that is pretty hard to replicate in the gold world)

On a related note, I remember reading this short story from SMBC about introducing scarcity into a post-scarcity world as a means of creating value. smbc-comics.com/comic/2012-12-24

How can I eventually keep in mind that it is drawback and not backdraw????

@flawr Do you back draw the string on a bow? (Actually a genuine question.)

@El'endiaStarman ok I hope I can grind this into my brain:)

thanks

@El'endiaStarman but I do not understand what you actually wanna know:)

I don't think there's any etymological relationship, but in English, there's nothing that we "back draw". ("Back fill" gets close.) Instead, there are drawbacks and we draw back the string on a bow, draw back the ammo in a slingshot, draw back one's arm to throw, etc.

Hence my question. When you have a bow and arrow and you pull back the string to fire, what do you call that?

I've never even considered that drawback is a compound word

@El'endiaStarman ah I see, well it is called the draw (and drawing the string)

@NathanMerrill That's the weird thing: it doesn't feel like one to me.

yeah, it doesn't to me either

@flawr Hmm, we say that too.

oh you wanted to know what it is in german?

It wouldn't surprise me if drawback was a compound word, then became its own word.

@flawr Yeah. I should've been more clear.

@El'endiaStarman also drawing (ziehen/aufziehen) or tensioning (spannen)

but I'm far from an expert on that topic:)

actually I don't think I'm an expert on any topic

at what point do you consider yourself an expert?

Does any one of you consider yourself an expert in some topic?

programming languages

@NathanMerrill right, you do know an aweful lot about them:)

I really identify more as jack flawr of all many trades

I think it's important to note that expert is a relative term

I'm the security expert in my family

@NathanMerrill This. I was just thinking that in 95% of my social circles, I'm the math and programming expert.

At my last job, I was the expert programmer: I was really quite good

but at my current job, I'm not an expert at all

I always thought of it as an absolute term. (And I've never given it a lot of thought.) But you're probably right!

programming languages is niche enough though, that it's rare that I feel like I don't know what's going on

The conventional wisdom, thanks to researchers like Malcom Gladwell, is that 10,000 hours of work/practice in a single subject basically defines an expert.

even in the subreddit, I feel like I'm in a group of peers (though, not an expert)

@El'endiaStarman have I lived that long? let me do the math

@flawr You might've hit that mark with regards to math.

nvm google failed me

1.14 years

slightly more than a year (continuously)

...that's not too bad.

I could become an expert in a lot of things

I think that games are a great exception though

In what way? If you played one game for 10k hours, I think you have every right to consider yourself an expert:)

like, if you consider highly competitive games like Starcraft, Dota, super smash

@NathanMerrill smbc-comics.com/comic/2012-09-02

think about the massive amounts of time people put into those

I think that there are a ton of people that have put over 10K hours

but only a few of them are really at the "top"

I mean, you could say much the same about mathematicians.

I don't think so. Mathematics isn't as popular as games

because as something increases in popularity, the average time per person spent on that thing goes up

so the expert has to spend more time becoming an expert

@NathanMerrill so if you work 52 weeks a year at 42 hours per week, this results in roughly 2000 hours per year. so you'd say there are people who put more than 5 work-years into those games?

Yes, absolutely

@flawr Let me put it this way: I recently saw a headline basically saying that 20-30 hours a week of gaming is an addiction. I've done that in one weekend with LotRO. Multiple times. In a row for months on end.

I mean, they aren't necessarily doing it from 8-5 each day

it's on the weekends, after work, or on days off (or maybe they don't have a job)

wow

Some gamers make it their job.

hm, I didn't consider that

at least I don't feel as bad about my "addiction" that I spent maybe an hour per day on^^

My wife did make a good point when I showed her that headline last night: it's really more about whether it causes problems in/with the rest of your life. When I played LotRO all day Saturday and Sunday, I didn't really have a social life. I still got okay sleep and I still went to church. My gaming didn't interfere with my life, and I eventually lost interest in that specific game.

It's not just interfering with life, though either. It also can't prevent your life from progressing

True; I did do other things during the week.

Yeah. I have a brother in law that spends all day playing video games. He says he wants to go back to school, get back together with a girlfriend, go more to church

but he still spends all day playing games :)

@El'endiaStarman right that is probably a more accurate definition

@NathanMerrill ... the rarer something is, the more rich people are going to pay for it. it's just how the world works isn't it >_>

it's basically the only reason it's "the gold standard" instead of like "the copper standard"

(obviously it can't be too rare either, e.g. osmium)