Before: Patron : hands over $10 Creators : receive 90% of the money Patreon : receive 5% of the money
After Patron : hands over $13.80 Creators : receive 68% of that $13.80 Patreon : receive.. 3.6%?
Now assume the patrons can only afford $10.
Patron : hands over $10 Minimum per-creator is $1, so some maths needed here. 10 = x + 0.35x + 0.029x (x is $1, 0.35x is the flat fee, 0.029x is the variable fee) Nice easy equation, 10 = 1.379x, x = 7.25. So the patron can now only fund 7 creators, each of whom can receive 0.95*(((10 - (0.35*7)) / 7) / 1.029)$ = $0.99 each.
So: Creators : 7 get 10% extra, but 3 get 0, zero, nothing, nada, zilch. Patreon : get 3.5%
Except.. Nobody's going to fuck around doing that maths. Except me. And even if they do, they're not going to pledge $1.04 per creator, they're still going to pledge $1.
So fundamentally, seven out of ten creators get 5% more but three out of ten lose the income entirely.
Assume that the gains and losses average out over each creator, the final maths is
Patron : hands over $9.66 Creators : ten creators get an average of $0.67 each Patreon : still picks up their 5% cut
So creators go from roughly 90c per dollar of pledged money to just 67c - a drop of a quarter of their income from dollar pledges.
That's their best case scenario. Reality suggests that instead of splitting $10 of pledges amongst seven creators, patrons are just dropping their one dollar pledges. Creator income drops by 100%.
Reddit has horrifically censored conversations, I can't trust the discourse there. It's useful for (e.g.) looking up computer game hints (via a Google search) but just doesn't support the open discussions we get here.
They're just one of three different parties between consumer and merchant - and pages 6 and 8 detail the value that those three companies add to both parties.
Despite this, VISA have just 15000 employees to handle over 111 billion transactions a year. Every one of those transactions has to be secure, traceable, checked for fraud, compliant with AML (and other) regulations, carry assurances on funds availability and also actually be routed correctly. Ideally in a couple of seconds or less.
If they're as inefficient as you claim, then step up and undercut them. I know people that work there, they'd welcome the competition.
I have to admit, that's the bit that confuses the hell out of me.
That's such an obvious way to minimise transaction fees (which are to the detriment of creators, patrons and patreon themselves) that it just doesn't make sense not to do it.
Logic doesn't come into it. Double-standards in employment practices based on gender are the factor here.
I've been working long enough that I'm used to it now, I'm bloody good at navigating it and I don't let it stop me mentoring and supporting young female members of staff. I do though know other men that try to avoid any one-on-one meetings or situations.
Most people interact well, build teams, support each other, get things done. It's the others that cause the problems, and it only takes one of them to fuck over your job.
"Stop" is a harsh response to someone still finding her way in the workplace. It's also - stupid as this sounds - not certain that she was coming on to me; she may actually have been merely being friendly. I have Aspergers, I can't fucking tell.
At the time I continued the IM conversation relating to something else we'd been discussing and didn't otherwise response to the cuddles comment. She took the hint.
I've since left that company but she and I are still friends, although she's still with the boyfriend that she met while I was still working there.
You are overthinking this.
Oh? Had I expressed a preference to smother her with cuddles (or indeed, my female boss), I'd have been disciplined by the end of the day.
Had I responded to her with 'Great, what are you doing on Friday' I'd have had a strong risk of disciplinary action and/or damaging that relationship.
Had I cut off contact with her I'd have broken the working relationship, damaged team dynamics _and_ faced censure for failing to support junior female staff.
Welcome to the complex minefield of modern office sexual politics. The man can't fucking win.
- I never noticed how some women literally cowered in the corner of the elevator until I finished a rape and sexual assault class. A shock.
I have, I just didn't put it down to rape or sexual assault. I also tend to give them space and show courtesy, much as I would anybody else. If they're a paranoid muppet that fears me then there's not a lot I can do about that; they can take the stairs if it's that important to them.
- Some women in offices were deathly afraid of leaving work. They had men in their lives, exes etc., who would wait for them.
If only there were things they could do to address this. Get help from colleagues, their management, the police, others. Oh, wait..
Many a mistake made because the project was completed and the thrill of success lead to the lust for validation.
And many a marriage has been started during those late nights crunching to finish. Most of us just build friendships though.
Divorce has, among other things, left women in vulnerable positions, having children as a single parent can lead them to accept men they would not normally take into their lives
Which fuckwit told you that? Women have full control over which men they let into their lives. I meet a lot of single mothers and they're all very choosy, and many of them are very careful about their partners and their children. Hell, I had a three month relationship with one and never met her kids (which suited me just fine).
Meanwhile the fathers are frequently lacking contact with those kids while being forced to hand over vast sums of money to the mother. Divorce does not leave women in a vulnerable position at all, just check the fucking suicide rates and homelessness statistics post divorce by gender.
Divorce has also led some men to believe they have carte blanche to treat divorced women as their rightful prey.
That's possible but also hyperbolic. By 'some men' do you mean that more than three exist? Probably.
My experience is that divorced women are much the same as any other woman, and some of them are very sexually aggressive. Others are not.
Same for the powerful, irresponsible man. He is designed wrong. Fix the design, or leave it to those who can handle the danger.
You really don't believe in personally responsibility. First you're telling us that women have no control, now you're telling us men have no self-control. This is no help to anybody; a manager that will use their position to take sexual advantage of their workers is dangerous even if some of those workers are able to say no.
It shouldn't be tough if there is an attractive woman that you are working with... First, recognize it isn't about the woman being 'attractive'. It's about you being responsible, honest with yourself, and respectful. There is a way to engage a woman at work in a personal relationship, but it's difficult. And it should be. Relationships are difficult, and the effort must be balanced against the reward.
When the attractive woman sends you IMs telling you she wants to smother you with cuddles, it gets very fucking difficult. Especially when she's much more junior, you give her work to do and HR's guidance is, "It's all down to how this makes you feel"
That guidance is no fucking use at all when a response building a relationship could lead to being sacked for sexual harassment two hours later, but a failure to reply and respond would be reported to your manager as "doesn't support female members of staff".
I've been in that situation. It's a fucking minefield even if you aren't trying to start a relationship.
And, sir, you will not know if you've offended her even if you ask
Some women can't not be offended. I've worked with a couple, and the only response is to get the fuck out of there. They're toxic and they destroy teams.
It isnâ(TM)t like in the work environment we are hugging and touching the other guys
Now that's just utter bollocks. I've been hugged by many men and women in the workplace, touched on the arms, back, shoulders and head by a lot and touched on the leg by a couple.
Physical contact in the workplace is commonplace, for men and women.
rating their sexual assets
I've sat with women discussing which man from the call centre they'd like a tumble with. I've sat with a man that's been pointing out the male construction workers across the canal he'd like to fuck.
Sex is part of life, and it does happen in the workplace.
We can have friendly relations with employees without crossing that line.
Some people can't. I've been accused of sexual harassment for holding the door open for someone; I mentioned this a few years later and someone else said they'd been reported to HR for exactly the same thing. Some women are so fucking paranoid about harassment that basic courtesies are being misinterpreted.
If you are too stupid to know when you are getting in the gray zone where harassment could be considered then you really should stay out of society.
Given all that, no. Society should fucking well fix itself so that the grey zone gains some clarity, because right now it's a fucking mess that's impossible to navigate.
It's also defamation. Prove it or shut the fuck up.
Too many men getting their lives ruined by lying cunts making shit up and/or a lack of due process. Including elected politicians killing themselves because of how they've been treated.
If he broke the law then he should be prosecuted and we can examine the evidence properly and impartially. Until then quit throwing accusations around.
Yeah, comparing training, equipment, the benefits of holding a defensive position, the logistics involved in materially outnumbering the US at any given location and the speed with which reinforcements will arrive I was sat here thinking, "That's almost a fair fight."
Since 2000 there's been a lot of volatility - but that's over the course of a decade, not a week.
Even the 10 year daily chart shows the maximum gain is around 10-15% over the course of four weeks (in August 2011), although there was a 15% crash over two days in April 2013 - http://news.goldseek.com/GoldS... has some analysis of that.
So no, gold is nowhere near as volatile as Bitcoin. Not even close.
Slashdot Mirror
Nonetheless, the maths is simple:
Before:
Patron : hands over $10
Creators : receive 90% of the money
Patreon : receive 5% of the money
After
Patron : hands over $13.80
Creators : receive 68% of that $13.80
Patreon : receive.. 3.6%?
Now assume the patrons can only afford $10.
Patron : hands over $10
Minimum per-creator is $1, so some maths needed here.
10 = x + 0.35x + 0.029x
(x is $1, 0.35x is the flat fee, 0.029x is the variable fee)
Nice easy equation, 10 = 1.379x, x = 7.25.
So the patron can now only fund 7 creators, each of whom can receive 0.95*(((10 - (0.35*7)) / 7) / 1.029)$ = $0.99 each.
So:
Creators : 7 get 10% extra, but 3 get 0, zero, nothing, nada, zilch.
Patreon : get 3.5%
Except.. Nobody's going to fuck around doing that maths. Except me. And even if they do, they're not going to pledge $1.04 per creator, they're still going to pledge $1.
So fundamentally, seven out of ten creators get 5% more but three out of ten lose the income entirely.
Assume that the gains and losses average out over each creator, the final maths is
Patron : hands over $9.66
Creators : ten creators get an average of $0.67 each
Patreon : still picks up their 5% cut
So creators go from roughly 90c per dollar of pledged money to just 67c - a drop of a quarter of their income from dollar pledges.
That's their best case scenario. Reality suggests that instead of splitting $10 of pledges amongst seven creators, patrons are just dropping their one dollar pledges. Creator income drops by 100%.
Reddit has horrifically censored conversations, I can't trust the discourse there. It's useful for (e.g.) looking up computer game hints (via a Google search) but just doesn't support the open discussions we get here.
Nonsense. Take VISA, their operational costs are over $6 billion a year.
Now look at page six of their annual report:
http://s1.q4cdn.com/050606653/...
They're just one of three different parties between consumer and merchant - and pages 6 and 8 detail the value that those three companies add to both parties.
Despite this, VISA have just 15000 employees to handle over 111 billion transactions a year. Every one of those transactions has to be secure, traceable, checked for fraud, compliant with AML (and other) regulations, carry assurances on funds availability and also actually be routed correctly. Ideally in a couple of seconds or less.
If they're as inefficient as you claim, then step up and undercut them. I know people that work there, they'd welcome the competition.
I have to admit, that's the bit that confuses the hell out of me.
That's such an obvious way to minimise transaction fees (which are to the detriment of creators, patrons and patreon themselves) that it just doesn't make sense not to do it.
Hopefully you (and all of the people that replied in agreement with you) let the creators know why you're not now supporting them.
It's easily inferred that this is the reason, but making it explicit should help.
Logic doesn't come into it. Double-standards in employment practices based on gender are the factor here.
I've been working long enough that I'm used to it now, I'm bloody good at navigating it and I don't let it stop me mentoring and supporting young female members of staff. I do though know other men that try to avoid any one-on-one meetings or situations.
Most people interact well, build teams, support each other, get things done. It's the others that cause the problems, and it only takes one of them to fuck over your job.
they're serving as an example of what should be done on a broader scale
Really? Get rich through invention, creativity and good marketing, then use other people's money to make grand gestures that benefit almost nobody?
They come across as entrepreneurs turned pretentious pricks.
"Stop" is a harsh response to someone still finding her way in the workplace. It's also - stupid as this sounds - not certain that she was coming on to me; she may actually have been merely being friendly. I have Aspergers, I can't fucking tell.
At the time I continued the IM conversation relating to something else we'd been discussing and didn't otherwise response to the cuddles comment. She took the hint.
I've since left that company but she and I are still friends, although she's still with the boyfriend that she met while I was still working there.
You are overthinking this.
Oh? Had I expressed a preference to smother her with cuddles (or indeed, my female boss), I'd have been disciplined by the end of the day.
Had I responded to her with 'Great, what are you doing on Friday' I'd have had a strong risk of disciplinary action and/or damaging that relationship.
Had I cut off contact with her I'd have broken the working relationship, damaged team dynamics _and_ faced censure for failing to support junior female staff.
Welcome to the complex minefield of modern office sexual politics. The man can't fucking win.
Nobody talks much about Dijkstra either, or even people like Von Neumann.
the slap to the face
Do not assault people. The correct response to the slap to the face is a punch to the nose; do not initiate one without expecting the other.
There was no rapey input. You're being stupid.
- I never noticed how some women literally cowered in the corner of the elevator until I finished a rape and sexual assault class. A shock.
I have, I just didn't put it down to rape or sexual assault. I also tend to give them space and show courtesy, much as I would anybody else. If they're a paranoid muppet that fears me then there's not a lot I can do about that; they can take the stairs if it's that important to them.
- Some women in offices were deathly afraid of leaving work. They had men in their lives, exes etc., who would wait for them.
If only there were things they could do to address this. Get help from colleagues, their management, the police, others. Oh, wait..
Many a mistake made because the project was completed and the thrill of success lead to the lust for validation.
And many a marriage has been started during those late nights crunching to finish. Most of us just build friendships though.
Divorce has, among other things, left women in vulnerable positions, having children as a single parent can lead them to accept men they would not normally take into their lives
Which fuckwit told you that? Women have full control over which men they let into their lives. I meet a lot of single mothers and they're all very choosy, and many of them are very careful about their partners and their children. Hell, I had a three month relationship with one and never met her kids (which suited me just fine).
Meanwhile the fathers are frequently lacking contact with those kids while being forced to hand over vast sums of money to the mother. Divorce does not leave women in a vulnerable position at all, just check the fucking suicide rates and homelessness statistics post divorce by gender.
Divorce has also led some men to believe they have carte blanche to treat divorced women as their rightful prey.
That's possible but also hyperbolic. By 'some men' do you mean that more than three exist? Probably.
My experience is that divorced women are much the same as any other woman, and some of them are very sexually aggressive. Others are not.
Same for the powerful, irresponsible man. He is designed wrong. Fix the design, or leave it to those who can handle the danger.
You really don't believe in personally responsibility. First you're telling us that women have no control, now you're telling us men have no self-control. This is no help to anybody; a manager that will use their position to take sexual advantage of their workers is dangerous even if some of those workers are able to say no.
It shouldn't be tough if there is an attractive woman that you are working with... First, recognize it isn't about the woman being 'attractive'. It's about you being responsible, honest with yourself, and respectful. There is a way to engage a woman at work in a personal relationship, but it's difficult. And it should be. Relationships are difficult, and the effort must be balanced against the reward.
When the attractive woman sends you IMs telling you she wants to smother you with cuddles, it gets very fucking difficult. Especially when she's much more junior, you give her work to do and HR's guidance is, "It's all down to how this makes you feel"
That guidance is no fucking use at all when a response building a relationship could lead to being sacked for sexual harassment two hours later, but a failure to reply and respond would be reported to your manager as "doesn't support female members of staff".
I've been in that situation. It's a fucking minefield even if you aren't trying to start a relationship.
And, sir, you will not know if you've offended her even if you ask
Some women can't not be offended. I've worked with a couple, and the only response is to get the fuck out of there. They're toxic and they destroy teams.
It isnâ(TM)t like in the work environment we are hugging and touching the other guys
Now that's just utter bollocks. I've been hugged by many men and women in the workplace, touched on the arms, back, shoulders and head by a lot and touched on the leg by a couple.
Physical contact in the workplace is commonplace, for men and women.
rating their sexual assets
I've sat with women discussing which man from the call centre they'd like a tumble with.
I've sat with a man that's been pointing out the male construction workers across the canal he'd like to fuck.
Sex is part of life, and it does happen in the workplace.
We can have friendly relations with employees without crossing that line.
Some people can't. I've been accused of sexual harassment for holding the door open for someone; I mentioned this a few years later and someone else said they'd been reported to HR for exactly the same thing. Some women are so fucking paranoid about harassment that basic courtesies are being misinterpreted.
If you are too stupid to know when you are getting in the gray zone where harassment could be considered then you really should stay out of society.
Given all that, no. Society should fucking well fix itself so that the grey zone gains some clarity, because right now it's a fucking mess that's impossible to navigate.
You can't get _into_ a relationship without risking accusations of sexual harassment.
"Want to grab a coffee?" "STOP HARASSING ME!!!"
I think the theory is that commodities offer a stable form of investment when everything else is crashing around you.
If property and the stock markets have a bad week, watch Gold prices rise..
Not atypical for many stock price graphs - most of them exhibit peaks and troughs in a fractal manner.
he's still a skeevy ne'er do well
No objections to that one :)
A few billion from three people would be akin to using a sledgehammer to start a domino rally.
(I suspect they don't have more than a few million lying around in cash, to be fair)
The market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent.
To be fair, this market only needs to keep going a few minutes to achieve that one :)
Predicting it will crash is axiomatic, it has no usefulness as a thesis.
Not strictly true. There are people arguing that Bitcoin is gaining value rapidly because it hasn't yet reached its stable price point.
It's also possible for the price to remain volatile without ever actually crashing.
That's what I'm predicting wont happen. I think it'll lose around 80-85% of its value within two days. Sadly I just don't know when.
It's also defamation. Prove it or shut the fuck up.
Too many men getting their lives ruined by lying cunts making shit up and/or a lack of due process. Including elected politicians killing themselves because of how they've been treated.
If he broke the law then he should be prosecuted and we can examine the evidence properly and impartially. Until then quit throwing accusations around.
Was it just last week some Russian official nailed it
No.
Any other silly questions?
Yeah, comparing training, equipment, the benefits of holding a defensive position, the logistics involved in materially outnumbering the US at any given location and the speed with which reinforcements will arrive I was sat here thinking, "That's almost a fair fight."
If Buffet, Gates and Bezos all collaborated they could definitely shift the market in USD.
Shit, Soros managed to shaft the GBP all on his own.
Hmm. http://www.macrotrends.net/133... disagrees with you - especially if you remove inflation and turn off the log scale.
Since 2000 there's been a lot of volatility - but that's over the course of a decade, not a week.
Even the 10 year daily chart shows the maximum gain is around 10-15% over the course of four weeks (in August 2011), although there was a 15% crash over two days in April 2013 - http://news.goldseek.com/GoldS... has some analysis of that.
So no, gold is nowhere near as volatile as Bitcoin. Not even close.
If republicans can stomach a pedophile in their midst
Oh? Who's that?
they literally would rather have Roy Moore despite his shortcomings over -any- democrat
It's possible to acknowledge this without resorting to assuming guilt based on accusation.