1
23

[–] Frenchgeek 1 points 23 points (+24|-1) ago 

( through the gravitational pull on his wallet, mainly )

2
2

[–] givemeallyourpennies 2 points 2 points (+4|-2) ago 

you deserve a up-goat. sadly i spent them all on porn.

0
2

[–] 7258431? 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

Sick burn.

But what if the dollars are deposited to his bank account in digital format from the get go? Will any amount of money be enough, then?

0
4

[–] Frenchgeek 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

E=mc²
so
m= E/c²

14
-4

0
12

[–] 7258451? 0 points 12 points (+12|-0) ago 

Good showerthought, Techius, thank you. Free from political agendas and persuasions, unlike most.

1
14

[–] weredawg 1 points 14 points (+15|-1) ago 

Yeah, not like those damn liberals.

0
8

[–] Sciency 0 points 8 points (+8|-0) ago 

I appreciate and acknowledge your use of irony, and your ability to laugh at yourself and others here on voat.

That is all.

1
0

[–] 7259454? 1 points 0 points (+1|-1) ago 

Techius is a liberal

0
6

[–] XPS 0 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago 

What's the equilibrium point? As average attractiveness rating (A) is considered negative, W (wealth) increases 1 to 1.If you simplify by having starting wealth of 0, there must a floor attractiveness rating for each individual. That is increased by the function F (fuckability) for every rating in negative sentiment. There must be some plateau where the increase in W effect no longer garners further attractiveness. Assuming a series of raters with no repetition. We're left with F(0)=A naught with the graph asymptotic to the max value of A as W approaches infinity. This creates an S curve graph value of F, what I call "Whore's number".

0
4

[–] Sciency 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

I suppose the logical answer to that plateau, would be the point at which the whore can no longer reasonably expect to consume the subject's projected supply of W, when measured against the whore's projected lifespan and changing tastes. Because it is unreasonable to expect the whore to have an accurate understanding of their own tastes and longevity, it must be assumed that the equilibrium point will fluctuate with the particular whore's level of self-introspection, independent of a given subject's A and W quotient.

I would postulate that a given whore's level of self-introspection is inversely proportional to their tendency to gold-dig, so for further analysis we must first create a function that defines whorish proclivities; a ranking system which I propose we call "Jezebel's gradient."

0
1

[–] Big_Amish 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

This video should explain. The beginning is for choosing women, the women choosing men bit is at the end. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hKWmFWRVLlU

0
3

[–] armday2day 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

Hello Mr BetaBux

0
3

[–] AlphaWookie 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

This needs to be graphed out one day.

4
2

[–] smokratez 4 points 2 points (+6|-4) ago 

They still wouldn't find you attractive, only the money.

2
1

[–] NeedleStack 2 points 1 points (+3|-2) ago 

3
0

[–] Techius [S] 3 points 0 points (+3|-3) ago 

I got it off Facebook, fuckface.

0
4

[–] NeedleStack 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

Language!

[–] [deleted] 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

[Deleted]

1
1

[–] Techius [S] 1 points 1 points (+2|-1) ago 

Totally!

load more comments ▼ (6 remaining)