People drop hundreds and thousands of dollars on in-game coins. There is a lot more money floating around than you realize.

> The suit included a screenshot of an August 2015 email Mr. Rubin sent to one woman. “You will be happy being taken care of,” he wrote. “Being owned is kinda like you are my property, and I can loan you to other people.”

Fools are easily separated from their money, but my ethics prevent me from taking advantage of those fools

Save 50% of your salary for 20 years, invest at even a mediocre rate and you will be a multimillionaire and able to retire on a 6 figure income for the rest of your life.

The difference between you the vast majority of the self made wealthy isn’t ethics, it’s drive, ambition, and the willingness to forgo luxuries.

such as?

If you exclude illegal acts, i cannot think of what unethical, but high demand goods/services there are that are currently under-served. Gambling, prostitution and other such vices? All highly competitive.

The hologram bracelet and other similar 'products' are unethical.

As for this article and OnlyFans. I don't see a problem with selling nudes (although some people might), but what I gives me pause is the analysis that the 'fans' think they're buying intimacy and friendship. If that is the case, this is highly unethical unless you actually provide some sort of a real human relationship (which of course would not scale very well).

For example I find Loot Boxes to be a highly predatory and unethical way of monetization in gaming yet they are legal, I also find it completely ethical for a person to grow a certain plant in their home garden but it is illegal...

yes, in some sense. when they differ, i would choose to make (or lobby for) what is unethical also illegal.

dislike is very different from unethical.

Dislike is my taste - other people could have different tastes.

Unethical is defined by me as actions that "if everybody did it, society would collapse".

It is always a sad reminder than humor and sarcasm really are dead in the world, I miss the mid 90's internet more and more every year....

In reality i do pretty good terms of my income and assets because i do provide value people are willing to pay for.

The bigger question is why my sarcastic comment seems to have struck a nerve with many people...

The question is why so many people are perpetually outraged or offended and attempt to fine offense at every turn, every comment, every interaction.

Victim Mentality is at a all time high in human society and it is not a good thing

Broadly speaking I have found many people aching for the smallest shred of sentimentality. This is what she's selling. The only amazing thing is just how little people will buy.

I would argue that the value is ultimately driven by people who want to own an item at a given price. People who are Elvis fans may want to buy an item and hold it forever, because of the nostalgia value for them.

It basically allows you to have the thing for only the difference between its investment value and the (presumably higher) investment value of an index fund, rather than having to pay its full price with no hope to ever get it back. Which causes the market price to be a lot higher than it would be otherwise.

“The most fundamental reason why there is no such thing as an objective or “real” value is that there would be no rational basis for economic transactions if there were. When you pay a dollar for a newspaper, obviously the only reason you do so is that the newspaper is more valuable to you than the dollar is.

At the same time, the only reason people are willing to sell the newspaper is that a dollar is more valuable to them than the newspaper is. If there were any such thing as a “real” or objective value of a newspaper—or anything else—neither the buyer nor the seller would benefit from making a transaction at a price equal to that objective value, since what would be acquired would be of no greater value than what was given up. In that case, why bother to make the transaction in the first place?”

As a toy example, imagine Alice farms Bananas and Bob farms Apples, but each is only able to eat the other food. They would both happily trade forever as they both gain value from this. This doesn't mean that the value is _subjective_, it means the value is _situational_, and I think the rigid vocabulary term and the connotations of the word are conflated a lot.

"Value" as in "utility", and "value" as in "currency" or unit of account.

When trading some currency for utility, each side of the transaction gains something more than what they gave up. The buyer of food got food they needed to eat. The seller of food (presumably has so much food they cannot eat it all) gains extra currency that they can use elsewhere.

Overall it’s a good thing that the internet can provide the “long tail” for content when it used to be dominated by a few major players, often with big barriers to entry.

For example I’m happy to buy self-published tech books. Thorsten Ball’s “Writing an interpreter / compiler in Go” series comes to mind. Those books don’t see the light of day in the old model. His books are well written and original.

So if you have a niche and someone produces content, esp high quality content, then by all means support it. But saying someone’s name in a live stream, sending some nude photos, etc. doesn’t seem to have much original value.

And, if the pictures/vids have been leaked, there are still people who will pay for personalized content, in which the celebrity personally mentions the payer's name or has a conversation with them or etc.

"Everything in the world is about sex except sex. Sex is about power."

Also, I'll get a picture up soon.

Additional: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1TEJNuOwgxsgTRi_j4AQo...

Here are pictures of the closet with non-Lego stuff cut out.

Lego1 contains sets I've built but are currently disassembled, with the exception of the Voltron which is at my office. I have the boxes for far fewer sets than are currently contained within those boxes. I typically keep the boxes only for certain sets.

Lego2 has pictures of the UCS Falcon and the UCS Star Destroyer. The Falcon was built and displayed, but is currently disassembled. The Star Destroyer has not been opened yet. The container underneath has the instructions and some sets in box I haven't built yet.

Lego3 is mostly unbuilt/unopened sets. You can also see my containers of loose bricks. Much older sets from throughout life.

Lego4 is the stuff on top of that. The NES set is currently built and on display.

Each picture represents probably anywhere from $1000 to $3000 worth of sets.

If this is what someone's discretionary budget is allocated to, more power to them.

People want to show their gratitude. It's more relevant to the Twitch conversations. OF is basically all paid members where twitch, the ratio is probably 20:1 or worse, free to paid.

The people who are paying are doing so because they want to, not because they have to. That's one big difference between Twitch and Onlyfans.

Value is subjective. Just because you don't think it has a lot of value doesn't mean the people paying for it don't.

Plenty of people probably think plenty of the things you pay for don't have as much value as you place on them. In a market economy, it's naturally the people that (ceteris paribus) value a thing the most that end up buying it.

Unless you mean “...according to one set of preferences”, it means exactly that..

> Clearly some things are more valuable than others.

No, you are again trying to make your own preferences and objective yardstick of value. Something's are more valuable to to some people, and these things are also less valuable to other people.

While there are lots of reasons to argue it's not an ideal aggregate (e.g., and this is far from the only factor, because people don't enter transactions in the same starting position, so preexisting wealth weights things) markets are one of the mechanisms of aggregating preference to arrive at “value”.

> To give a computer science analogy it’s like say that just because numbers are infinite you cannot count them.

No, saying that subjective value can't have objective ranking is more like saying that because there isn't a bijection between reals and naturals, the reals aren't countable.

I didnt mean the no value as in "you get nothing back for your money". Streaming is hard work - I dont doubt that. And it entertains me a lot so I dont mind paying some money.

But OTH I watched a streams where people literally donated thousands of dollars to the streamer (In the specific case even twitch refused to take the money and banned the person who spend it because they thought of money laundering). Iam really interested how this will develop the future of media consumption. Also I feel older every day.

$200 for the same picture and a "thank you, u so cute xoxo" is not the same as the chair.

It does solve a few problems though, that, in some people, put first over having a chair.

So much money is spent on things outside these necessities that I would argue for a particular person it's much more valuable than a chair. Buying "love" even temporarily might be better for the psyche than buying that new flatscreen that is just slightly improved than the old flatscreen.

I know several people that now have that to spend because they aren't taking public transit anymore and another gave up a $300/mo parking place in New York.

Now he's spending a bunch of the money he should be saving on OnlyFans, "Premium snapchats" and Fortnite.

Also I would guess poor people are more likely to lack intimate affection, so they are probably the most common profile.

They don't have the income, but they spend the money anyway.