A general oversimplified theory of vice: People want to buy variance.
-
-
Related error: conceiving of vices separately, each in its own vacuum, rather than as interacting, substitutable experiences
Show this thread -
So people might be tempted to think "how can we reduce the harm of vaping nicotine?" and come up with "only allow awful flavors to be legal"
Show this thread -
But not thinking about the fact that a mint juul pod is objectively better than cigarettes, while cigarettes are objectively better than all the legal flavors
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
is gambling anti-insurance or is insurance anti-gambling
-
within gambling (poker e.g.) there are lots of way to reduce variance (“running it twice” comes to mind) - wonder if there are ways within insurance to increase variance?
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Ok, do what would be the most pro-social and responsible ways to satisfy the thirst of variance? Gaming? Pick-up artistry? Watching sports? Competitive low-stakes sport playing?
-
that’s the question I would like to see instead of debates about particular forms of buying variance in a vacuum
End of conversation
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.