Editing Talk:1908: Credit Card Rewards

Jump to: navigation, search
Ambox notice.png Please sign your posts with ~~~~

Warning: You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you log in or create an account, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.

The edit can be undone. Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then save the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
Latest revision Your text
Line 3: Line 3:
 
I wonder if he's changed his outlook or if he's just inconsistent :P
 
I wonder if he's changed his outlook or if he's just inconsistent :P
 
: I read it as if the character likes doing this, and wouldn't be doing anything more fun otherwise. So if it is a game to you, sure waste your time, but if you are doing something you don't particularly like and waste more time than you save in money, you are just being stupid.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.202.28|162.158.202.28]] 22:43, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
 
: I read it as if the character likes doing this, and wouldn't be doing anything more fun otherwise. So if it is a game to you, sure waste your time, but if you are doing something you don't particularly like and waste more time than you save in money, you are just being stupid.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.202.28|162.158.202.28]] 22:43, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
: There's also the fact that in "Working" the additional work was required every time, and so each additional penny saved comes from additional work. Here, this is about doing the work once and getting the outcome several times. This is actually pretty consistent with someone who is into programming - where in theory you do more work once to save time on each occurence of a repeted task. Now the fact that even "optimizing once and for all" isn't a sure outcome is discussed in https://xkcd.com/1319/ . [[Special:Contributions/162.158.92.136|162.158.92.136]] 11:24, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
 
::I've often used this reasoning myself, actually. First example to mind is renaming multiple files (like episodes of a TV show). I COULD rename them one by one according to my naming scheme, but often I put a little extra work into having Excel figure out my scheme and renaming them programmatically, then rename them all in under a second. The time I spent is more than how long renaming a file or two would have been, but less time than if I had renamed them all. :) [[User:NiceGuy1|NiceGuy1]] ([[User talk:NiceGuy1|talk]]) 04:38, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 
:Actually I find the point of view here is roughly identical to Working... In that one he has successfully determined that the extra time isn't worth it in that particular case, while here he's trying to find a balance between the extra time spent and the rewards of his analysis. :) [[User:NiceGuy1|NiceGuy1]] ([[User talk:NiceGuy1|talk]]) 04:38, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 
  
:I don't it goes against 951, essentially he's trying to stop before he's spent 9 minutes to save a dollar (and hairy is questioning that he would have otherwise spent that 9 minutes earning more than a dollar) [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.136|108.162.216.136]] 01:17, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
+
I don't it goes against 951, essentially he's trying to stop before he's spent 9 minutes to save a dollar (and hairy is questioning that he would have otherwise spent that 9 minutes earning more than a dollar) [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.136|108.162.216.136]] 01:17, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
  
 
This reminds me of [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hofstadter%27s_law Hofstadter's law] // See also [https://xkcd.com/1658/ #1658] and [https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/917:_Hofstadter this Explain xkcd for #1658] 18:26, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 
This reminds me of [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hofstadter%27s_law Hofstadter's law] // See also [https://xkcd.com/1658/ #1658] and [https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/917:_Hofstadter this Explain xkcd for #1658] 18:26, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
Line 14: Line 11:
  
 
This is similar to comic [https://xkcd.com/1205/ 1205 (Worth the time]), except that it's just a one-time event and just thinking about the table makes it worse. For example the top right cell of that table could just say "none, because it took you longer to search for and apply this chart). [[User:Fabian42|Fabian42]] ([[User talk:Fabian42|talk]]) 09:36, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
 
This is similar to comic [https://xkcd.com/1205/ 1205 (Worth the time]), except that it's just a one-time event and just thinking about the table makes it worse. For example the top right cell of that table could just say "none, because it took you longer to search for and apply this chart). [[User:Fabian42|Fabian42]] ([[User talk:Fabian42|talk]]) 09:36, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
 
There's also [https://xkcd.com/1445/ 1445 (Efficiency)], in which Randall confesses this search to optimize tasks killing his effeiciency is a personal problem for him. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.69.241|162.158.69.241]] 14:30, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
 
 
Simple, use an infinite summation to figure out exactly. [[User:Jacky720|That's right, Jacky720 just signed this]] ([[User talk:Jacky720|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Jacky720|contribs]]) 18:41, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 

Please note that all contributions to explain xkcd may be edited, altered, or removed by other contributors. If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly, then do not submit it here.
You are also promising us that you wrote this yourself, or copied it from a public domain or similar free resource (see explain xkcd:Copyrights for details). Do not submit copyrighted work without permission!

To protect the wiki against automated edit spam, we kindly ask you to solve the following CAPTCHA:

Cancel | Editing help (opens in new window)