zlacker

> More and more people are okay with losing with privacy though, and the more who take that position, the more you lose by not taking it.

I'm trying to simply that with an ear for contradiction;

If P; the more group A lose -> if NOT P; the more group NOT A lose. For P -> L = some loss of privacy

(Okay it's late and I'm clutching at it a little, but something doesn't ring true)

It seems like a formulation of "network effect" on the surface. But if P => L it can't be the same L on the right hand side, no? For the group who are the exclusion of A, their L has to be a gain. Or they are not playing the game well/optimally,

>>nonran+(OP)
it would help for you to define your variables (A, P, L) and notation (=, ->, "lose")

Or, if you could, would you mind rewriting it in english, please?

>>ImPost+ab
Fair enough, you asked, and my attempts to think out loud in logic isn't helping I admit. So the nub is that clearly, to me, when Levitz uses the word "lose" above, s/he cannot be talking about the same "lose" in both parts of the assertion.