Profile: 6e70253f...
Oh god no. Tbf chatgtp is about two years behind on news.
I get ya, however, that is also fraught with problems. Maybe it's just the two clients I use, they don't organise posts really well. When others do as you say, their second post gets lost in all the replies.
I prefer the long note, as I don't need to exit the app and see a bunch of advertisements on another site. Also, try out some other clients, mine only shows the first few lines with a show more button. It takes up the same space.
So you choose to buy and eat that ice-cream even thou it would have consequences after. This just means your desire for that food was greater then any future consequence you were aware of. Good or bad doesn't factor into this valuation. Even if it did, there wouldn't be a way to determine what is good or bad, as there is no such thing as objective purpose in the world.
Due to your knowledge of the unhealthy consequences of ice-cream, this will likely reduce your valuation of the good. Maybe to the point where you would only eat it if it was free.
Therefore the market will reach an equilibrium providing ice-cream to the Curtis's of the world that eat it even if they know it's unhealthy for them. This doesn't mean ice-cream is being over supplied. The market 'sees' your desire for the ice-cream is greater then your concerns about your health, and attempts to meet that demand. Good or bad is just someone else's opinion.
The power of centralised services, but that is a double edge sword. There will be a whole group of people who were on-boarded to bitcoin using other -custodial LN service on Bluewallet, who won't have their bitcoin come 30 April 23.
Btw, I'm finding it really difficult following this conversation in Nostr. My client, #Amethyst is not really displaying it well.
Read my note on subjective/objective definitions. I think this is where the confusion is arriving from. Subjective as in individual context dependent, not biased view of reality subjective.
I think we need to be clear on what we are talking about in regards to the definitions of objective/subjective. When I'm saying value is subjective I mean that value is relative to the individual (which you may be considering that as context dependent), and I don't mean subjective as in biased opinion.
To further explain, with sufficient psychological experimentation and examination one could objectively determine what an individual values one thing over another. This would all depend on the make up of the individuals brain chemistry. These could all be objective facts. Or we could just ask the individual, and assuming they aren't lying, we could get our correct answer.
It sounds like you are thinking measurement in cardinal values. As I mentioned earlier, the measure is ordinal, not cardinal. The individual will just value order all things, e.g. a hammer is more valuable then a sandwhich etc.
What contradiction? If value is not subjective then how is value to be measured?
You're predicting rates will continue to climb?
What is the purpose behind seeing a particular action as wrong? I ask this question as I think within Subjective Value Theory, all actions are seen as rational, in the sense that the action at that particular time was based on the only available information. Having some type of moral judgement on that doesn't play a part.
The intent here is a theory that can describe the actions of humans and how each persons actions fit together in the whole. Naval gazing at what could've been (e.g. that I knew the price was a scammer) does not help us get there.
No. This is similar to the desert example. If we had known there was an oasis over the hill, we would've valued our only water bottle differently. Just like if we knew the prince was a fraud, we would've valued our money differently.
As you see there are two distinct examples I'm going with:
1. A change in information about the external world
2. A change in our wants/needs/desires
Your Nigerian price example is more of the type 1 example.
So you are saying even thou today I prefer strawberry ice-cream over chocolate, that my choice in that moment could be 'wrong'? Wrong in what way?
It may seem trivial, but I'm nearly sure we could still disagree on something as simple as this. Btw, my choice of flavoured ice-cream is not inconsequential. This will have an impact on my quality of life, the ice-cream vendor, and other customers.
So yesterday I choose chocolate ice cream, as that is what I liked best, but today my favourite flavor is strawberry, so I choose that. Which one was the better choice?
A distributed ledger is a type of database
So in short, we're never incorrect about our evaluations, we just change our methods of evaluation, which is likely linked to additional information or an additional insight into our wants.
As I understand the theory correctly, it's says no. In the moment our decision is deemed rational. The tools we used to evaluate the information and our wants define the value we assign to that good or service. With all things being equal, if in the future our eveluation methods change then the value we assign to a good may also change.
I think I understand your line of questioning. You are exploring the idea that there is an underlying truth to the absolute value of a good and our tools/information are somehow imperfect to find that.
How we value a good or service is based on the available information and our wants at that particular time. For example, if we were lost in the desert with only a bottle of water left, this may be the most valuable thing we possessed at that moment. If however we knew there was a desert oasis just over the next hill, the subjective value of that bottle of water would diminish quite a lot.
Each of us assigns our own value to goods and services. This value is ordinal, not cardinal, for example if I exchange $10 for a hat, it's not that I see that hat valued at $10 (which would be a cardinal value), its that I see the hat more valuable then my $10, and the hat vendor sees the $10 more valuable then the hat.
Also have a look into diminishing marginal returns.