2 ms·

Of course it's not settled. But the article says what I wanted to say better than I could say it. I don't see any benefit in restating what has already been sai

Of course it's not settled. But the article says what I wanted to say better than I could say it. I don't see any benefit in restating what has already been said, worse. Think of the article as a library function I called. It's an obvious point that there will be some rare souls who prefer Android. For example, if the importance you put on a working Google Voice implementation counts for more than the sum of all possible other goods a phone might offer you, then maybe the iPhone is not right for you. Likewise, a child who will eat nothing but fish sticks will likely prefer them to the best filet mignon ever cooked. But for the most useful definitions of "good," there's still an order on the set in both cases. It probably won't surprise you that I mostly agree with the hypothetical chefs and authors you cite.

dejb 17y ago
> Likewise, a child who will eat nothing but fish sticks will likely prefer them to the best filet mignon ever cooked. Actually the child in your analogue more closely resembles a devoted iPhone user than anything else. The image of a reluctant child being encouraged to try a new food is quite a good match. 'I TOLD you I wouldn't like it' they say. Of course in the case here we aren't comparing frozen food with high cuisine where 'better' really is obvious. We are comparing the meals of 2 of the most accomplished chefs in town. In that case individual differences in taste are often likely to be the deciding factor. > It probably won't surprise you that I mostly agree with the hypothetical chefs and authors you cite. Correlations in taste are to be expected. Within a cluster of highly correlated tastes the notion of 'better' will make more sense. If you chose to define your cluster as being 'better' then by extension you could say that their/your tastes are 'better' in some absolute sense.

dejb 17y ago

> Likewise, a child who will eat nothing but fish sticks will likely prefer them to the best filet mignon ever cooked. Actually the child in your analogue more closely resembles a devoted iPhone user than anything else. The image of a reluctant child being encouraged to try a new food is quite a good match. 'I TOLD you I wouldn't like it' they say. Of course in the case here we aren't comparing frozen food with high cuisine where 'better' really is obvious. We are comparing the meals of 2 of the most accomplished chefs in town. In that case individual differences in taste are often likely to be the deciding factor. > It probably won't surprise you that I mostly agree with the hypothetical chefs and authors you cite. Correlations in taste are to be expected. Within a cluster of highly correlated tastes the notion of 'better' will make more sense. If you chose to define your cluster as being 'better' then by extension you could say that their/your tastes are 'better' in some absolute sense.