Money Stores

What if we had money stores for OCD people?

For instance, you accept the ragged/dirty money and exchange it for nice, clean money.

You can profit off of this by skimming a % off the top. Or, you could have people order clean money from your website, so your operational costs are down.

Kappa

Dude, wtf?
This belongs in serious life discussions.

Why do people keep posting in the wrong forums?

Going to seriously entertain this idea.

There would certainly be a demand for that sort of business, especially if some sort of advertisement campaign was shoved down people's throats about how dirty notes spread "nu swine flu" or some other hip paper-based disease.

Sadly however noone's going to go specifically shopping for clean notes from a supermarket, unless they're really OCD. But I suppose the bank could probably run such a business with ease, and a button could be added to credit card machines which prints "unused" notes. In fact, they could make "clean notes" the default setting and force you to click extra buttons with a warning message if you specifically pursue "dirty" notes.

^^In that situation, I can imagine a lot of people paranoid about their health (particularly the elderly) going along with it "just to be safe, anyway". In the same way people arbitrarily prefer mineral water "just in case all those ads ARE true", even though a google search tells you 30% of mineral water sold in the UK comes from the tap.

It would be cheap, too. As long as the bank ensures the paper "feels" new, it doesn't even actually have to be new. If we've just made up the standards for what constitutes a "clean note" we can make it whatever we want, in the same way there's no legal definition of what "mineral water" needs to be.

Sadly, I think this brilliant idea has come 30 years too late though. The internet will bite back and humiliate such a business and may even make it "uncool" to get such a note. If this idea predated the internet and predated the time where credit cards were prevalent EVERYWHERE (and contactless, which literally makes a card payment quicker than cash anyway) this could have been a good idea.

Money Laundering.

How amusing.

I have OCD and I would pay for this kind of service

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Magoroth

I have OCD and I would pay for this kind of service

---

OK, I was pulling your leg :P I wouldn't really pay for this. I would, however, be far happier indeed if everyone correctly ordered the role list in their setups

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yzb25

Going to seriously entertain this idea.

There would certainly be a demand for that sort of business, especially if some sort of advertisement campaign was shoved down people's throats about how dirty notes spread "nu swine flu" or some other hip paper-based disease.

Sadly however noone's going to go specifically shopping for clean notes from a supermarket, unless they're really OCD. But I suppose the bank could probably run such a business with ease, and a button could be added to credit card machines which prints "unused" notes. In fact, they could make "clean notes" the default setting and force you to click extra buttons with a warning message if you specifically pursue "dirty" notes.

^^In that situation, I can imagine a lot of people paranoid about their health (particularly the elderly) going along with it "just to be safe, anyway". In the same way people arbitrarily prefer mineral water "just in case all those ads ARE true", even though a google search tells you 30% of mineral water sold in the UK comes from the tap.

It would be cheap, too. As long as the bank ensures the paper "feels" new, it doesn't even actually have to be new. If we've just made up the standards for what constitutes a "clean note" we can make it whatever we want, in the same way there's no legal definition of what "mineral water" needs to be.

Sadly, I think this brilliant idea has come 30 years too late though. The internet will bite back and humiliate such a business and may even make it "uncool" to get such a note. If this idea predated the internet and predated the time where credit cards were prevalent EVERYWHERE (and contactless, which literally makes a card payment quicker than cash anyway) this could have been a good idea.

---

Your bank idea is why I was moving towards an online model. However, your thoughts about the elderly and other exploitative people, who could be reached by a bank but not necessarily by the internet, actually make it possible. All you have to do is fund a scientist's research into the effects of germs/money (not very ethical). It would be pretty simple.

But, even if it were possible, it would take an immense amount of capital to set up this sort of operation. In that case, it might be better for an individual to simply invest it.

What a shame too. I could have seen a future where having dirty money is a stigma. Poor people around the nation could have taken pride in their clean money - though they had little - as a way to pretend their status were higher.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fury

Your bank idea is why I was moving towards an online model. However, your thoughts about the elderly and other exploitative people, who could be reached by a bank but not necessarily by the internet, actually make it possible. All you have to do is fund a scientist's research into the effects of germs/money (not very ethical). It would be pretty simple.

But, even if it were possible, it would take an immense amount of capital to set up this sort of operation. In that case, it might be better for an individual to simply invest it.

What a shame too. I could have seen a future where having dirty money is a stigma. Poor people around the nation could have taken pride in their clean money - though they had little - as a way to pretend their status were higher.

---

Yh, as a statistics boi I'm sure you know damn well how to repeat dem experiments until you get a result which happens to fall into dat 95% certainty margin XD. I was imagining an ad that showed an old lady taking out cash notes covered in CG green while a troubled narrator reads out "tru statistiks".

Goddamn reality always ruining the fun.

OMG that's exactly what I was thinking. I also imagined a Halifax funded buzzfeed video where they ask attractive waitresses how they react when they receive "dirty money" XDDDD.

p;edit your last point about the poor people gives me an idea tho. If we allowed "designer brand notes" i.e. we allowed supreme to make notes that may be another way of making this feasible. Any production costs would be offset by the unreasonable extortionate price these designer brands would charge, and vain people would get a kick out of keeping it in their wallet pp;edit or showing off in a fancy store/restaurant

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yzb25

Yh, as a statistics boi I'm sure you know damn well how to repeat dem experiments until you get a result which happens to fall into dat 95% certainty margin XD. I was imagining an ad that showed an old lady taking out cash notes covered in CG green while a troubled narrator reads out "tru statistiks".

Goddamn reality always ruining the fun.

OMG that's exactly what I was thinking. I also imagined a Halifax funded buzzfeed video where they ask attractive waitresses how they react when they receive "dirty money" XDDDD.

p;edit your last point about the poor people gives me an idea tho. If we allowed "designer brand notes" i.e. we allowed supreme to make notes that may be another way of making this feasible. Any production costs would be offset by the unreasonable extortionate price these designer brands would charge, and vain people would get a kick out of keeping it in their wallet pp;edit or showing off in a fancy store/restaurant

---

While I majored in statistics, I'm actually working full-time as an Actuary :p

I'd never have gone into statistical research x.x Also, as an aside, "statistical significance is neither necessary nor sufficient for determining the scientific or practical significance of a set of observations. This view was affirmed unanimously by the U.S. Supreme Court," (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4877414/)

Statistical significance is a sham as it is so easily manipulated. (Edit: Unless everything is done ethically).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fury

What if we had money stores for OCD people?

For instance, you accept the ragged/dirty money and exchange it for nice, clean money.

You can profit off of this by skimming a % off the top. Or, you could have people order clean money from your website, so your operational costs are down.

Kappa

---

So... like... a bank?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fury

What if we had money stores for OCD people?

For instance, you accept the ragged/dirty money and exchange it for nice, clean money.

You can profit off of this by skimming a % off the top. Or, you could have people order clean money from your website, so your operational costs are down.

Kappa

---

This is called money laundering... and is illegal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marshmallow Marshall

This is called money laundering... and is illegal.

---

Not necessarily. It would be money laundering if someone printed a thousand pounds worth of this "clean money" and then started spending it all without deducting a thousand pounds from their bank account. When you see people "robbing banks" in the movies with the big bags of cash, what's actually happening is they're stealing the "pre-printed cash" that hasn't entered the economy yet, rather than someone getting informed after the bank robbery "err it turns out those bank robbers stole the 1 thousand pounds put aside for you specifically"... Or at least I think...

Is there someone here who is actually informed enough to answer this? XDD

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yzb25

Not necessarily. It would be money laundering if someone printed a thousand pounds worth of this "clean money" and then started spending it all without deducting a thousand pounds from their bank account. When you see people "robbing banks" in the movies with the big bags of cash, what's actually happening is they're stealing the "pre-printed cash" that hasn't entered the economy yet, rather than someone getting informed after the bank robbery "err it turns out those bank robbers stole the 1 thousand pounds put aside for you specifically"... Or at least I think...

Is there someone here who is actually informed enough to answer this? XDD

---

I just doubt banks would have such an inefficient process where they literally have a number of notes equivalent to the total amount of cash in the economy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yzb25

I just doubt banks would have such an inefficient process where they literally have a number of notes equivalent to the total amount of cash in the economy.

---

Banks are only required to store an amount that is set by the Federal Reserve. This is why the term "run on the bank" exists whereby everyone tries to withdraw money at the same time. The banks cannot possibly meet such a demand, and then the banks have no more money - yet your account value still exists.

We used to use a thing called the gold standard, then later the silver standard around 100-150 years ago where all money had to have its value in gold/silver stored somewhere. Now it's all just digital.

What if there was a cummy store haha

You do realize that this 'money store' concept already exists, right? It's called the Federal Reserve. They are the ones that both shred old/bad currency and recycle/reprint it into new currency.

Apo that's a bot ^^

Fury is a bot?
(thought kurtbronj could have been, but kinda ignored them)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Apocist

Fury is a bot?
(thought kurtbronj could have been, but kinda ignored them)

---

Well fury’s post was 3 years ago lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marshmallow Marshall

This is called money laundering... and is illegal.

---

Banks do this regularly. :shrug:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yzb25

Going to seriously entertain this idea.

There would certainly be a demand for that sort of business, especially if some sort of advertisement campaign was shoved down people's throats about how dirty notes spread "nu swine flu" or some other hip paper-based disease.

Sadly however noone's going to go specifically shopping for clean notes from a supermarket, unless they're really OCD. But I suppose the bank could probably run such a business with ease, and a button could be added to credit card machines which prints "unused" notes. In fact, they could make "clean notes" the default setting and force you to click extra buttons with a warning message if you specifically pursue "dirty" notes.

^^In that situation, I can imagine a lot of people paranoid about their health (particularly the elderly) going along with it "just to be safe, anyway". In the same way people arbitrarily prefer mineral water "just in case all those ads ARE true", even though a google search tells you 30% of mineral water sold in the UK comes from the tap.

It would be cheap, too. As long as the bank ensures the paper "feels" new, it doesn't even actually have to be new. If we've just made up the standards for what constitutes a "clean note" we can make it whatever we want, in the same way there's no legal definition of what "mineral water" needs to be.

Sadly, I think this brilliant idea has come 30 years too late though. The internet will bite back and humiliate such a business and may even make it "uncool" to get such a note. If this idea predated the internet and predated the time where credit cards were prevalent EVERYWHERE (and contactless, which literally makes a card payment quicker than cash anyway) this could have been a good idea.

---

dies

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brendan

So... like... a bank?

---

Oh someone already said it nice

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fury

While I majored in statistics, I'm actually working full-time as an Actuary :p

I'd never have gone into statistical research x.x Also, as an aside, "statistical significance is neither necessary nor sufficient for determining the scientific or practical significance of a set of observations. This view was affirmed unanimously by the U.S. Supreme Court," (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4877414/)

Statistical significance is a sham as it is so easily manipulated. (Edit: Unless everything is done ethically).

---

You probably won’t reply to this as it’s been 3 years, but why isn’t statistical significance necessary for determining whether an observation is scientific/has practical significance? I can see why it wouldn’t be sufficient? But it seems necessary for it to be scientific. :shrug:

Is it just a legal thing?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oberon

You probably won’t reply to this as it’s been 3 years, but why isn’t statistical significance necessary for determining whether an observation is scientific/has practical significance? I can see why it wouldn’t be sufficient? But it seems necessary for it to be scientific. :shrug:

Is it just a legal thing?

---

Take a look at this: https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/p-hacking/

P-Hacking is just one of many things that can be used to "lie with statistics"
This doesn't mean that you should ignore statistics - but rather it is important to be cognizant of the methodologies used and look for results that are reproducible and peer-reviewed

I’m aware of P-Hacking, but that doesn’t show that statistical significance isn’t necessary for having a scientific observation.

IIRC in Physics they still use p-values to determine “statistical significance” but their alphas are significantly lower than in most other fields, by several orders of magnitude.

Ah I see what you mean. Yeah I'm not sure why they said it's not a necessary condition. It's certainly not sufficient but I'd agree that it ought to be necessary

I like pancakes. With apple jam.

oh wow, i ignored the bot/advertiser originally because it didn't seem to post any links anywhere, even on its account. Then a day later it edited the post and added an advertisement. Very clever.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by aamirus

Well fury’s post was 3 years ago lol

---

What? oh. ummm.... no? ...how did apo..?

time is relative! *poofs*

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oberon

I’m aware of P-Hacking, but that doesn’t show that statistical significance isn’t necessary for having a scientific observation.

IIRC in Physics they still use p-values to determine “statistical significance” but their alphas are significantly lower than in most other fields, by several orders of magnitude.

---

I read into the case that they cite and it actually goes a bit deeper into it, it's quite an interesting problem.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matrix..._v._Siracusano

tl;dr a drug company was sued for failing to disclose reports of a particular side effect of a drug because the occurrence of said side effect wasn't statistically significant. The SC sided against the company saying that statistical significance isn't necessary for an observation of the side effects of a drug (in the legal context, at least).

I kinda agree with this tbh. One of the less considered effects of making the threshold for statistical significance more rigorous is also increasing the likelihood of type II errors (i.e. not rejecting the null hypothesis when there is an effect). This is not necessarily what you want, practically speaking, when dealing with side effects of drugs and critical things like people's health.

We're seeing this currently playing out with the AZ vaccine for COVID. There are reports of blood clots worldwide following the AZ vaccine, however the increase in blood clot rates/fatalities is not statistically significant. A lot of countries are stopping the AZ vaccine anyway. Is this the right choice? Could be argued either way tbh.

I prefer my money with trace amounts of cocaine and COVID on it. Keep that shit as dirty as it is immoral : )