4 ms·
I initially agreed with the parent comment, but you drive a good bargain as well with yours. Still, I think the actual problem is not that it needs to be define
by Jommi 8y ago
I initially agreed with the parent comment, but you drive a good bargain as well with yours. Still, I think the actual problem is not that it needs to be defined, but that we are trying to define it in the scope of singular current definition, while we actually need to implement a new definition, possibly with the help of mixing current definitions.
- asfasgasg 8y agoThe whole reason I made my comment was going through a back and forth with myself about whether there was a case to be made here. I'm still not positive, so I hope I'm not driving that bargain harder than it deserves to be driven. I do 100% agree that the default stance on debating definitions should be that one ought not, and one ought instead be more specific. Maybe the real thing to take care of is that most investors are really innocent and we have to be very careful about what kinds of expectations we give them (if we care about ethics, at any rate).