No one knows the difference. That doesn't mean it's not important, but it's in the hands of god.
-
-
-
Replying to @averykimball
It's fully general so it explains the mixture of victory and defeat that occur irl equally well.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Alephwyr
fully general explanations can't have any informational content 'this is all a dream' is fully general, and explains nothing
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @averykimball
I think for the most part there's a distribution of contradictory horseshit opinions held inconsistently by people and being allowed to do things with other people's money/resources is mostly a matter of feeding speech tokens into this slot machine.
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @Alephwyr @averykimball
And the consistent opinions are wrong.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Alephwyr
"inconsistent" and "wrong" seems tautological from my perspective
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @averykimball
Like what does it mean to "not do anything"? Who litigates what counts as a valid thing? It's not litigated. It's not even talked about. It's arbitrary, based on sentiment. Inconsistency can be valuable though, like when what you're doing is basically gambling.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Alephwyr @averykimball
There aren't any Midas Mulligans in this world who can tell a sound business proposition by a handshake and eye contact and the people who think there are just create incentives for incompetents to invest all their energy into shaking hands well and maintaining eye contact.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Alephwyr
shaking hands and maintaining eye contact isn't necessarily worse than the alternatives, if the technology is based in sound theory
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
It's consistently worse. It's the same thing as a college degree these days. You're expected to do it precisely because it's worthless. The expectation didn't shift to think "this isn't informative", but "anything below this line must somehow be even worse"
-
-
-
Replying to @averykimball
It tells people you reason conventionally, respond to incentives conventionally, and have the same predictable fallacies as others (sunk cost for instance). This is useful but it shouldn't be foundational when you are trying to select principally for capacity to do things.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like - Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.