4 ms·

I understood your reasoning until the last point. "because our desire for food has been satisfied." what? Similarly with clothing.

• apsec112 17y ago
  What I meant was, if you can buy 3,000 calories of food a day, you're not really going to buy much more no matter how cheap it is, because there's no point: your desire has effectively been satiated. Same thing with clothing: few people with a hundred outfits would go out and buy a hundred-and-first even if it was really cheap, because they already have all they want. I was arguing that many aspects of the Web are already like this: sure, you can make them better, but people are already satisfied enough that they won't pay all that much more for a better version. Eg., suppose you spend four hours a day on Reddit. Is a super-hyper-Reddit going to make you spend twelve hours a day, or even eight hours a day? Probably not, because your desire for Reddit-ness has already been satisfied with four hours a day.
  • chromatic 17y ago
    > ... few people with a hundred outfits would go out and buy a hundred-and-first even if it was really cheap, because they already have all they want. Aren't you assuming rationality from economic actors? Some people really enjoy shopping. (Whether "some" is more than "few" I can't answer.)