4 ms·

Can you explain how this relates to my comment above? There was no sentiment there that all people should have the same possessions and experiences. The point o

by ysavir 3y ago

Can you explain how this relates to my comment above? There was no sentiment there that all people should have the same possessions and experiences. The point of the post was that objective price can't be evaluated without consideration of the actual subjective cost it represents to people.

renewiltord 3y ago
It's that it's preferable to any alternative. It's not a class tier so much as a gradient of availability and that is good.
- ysavir 3y ago
  I really need you to connect the dots for me here. What you described is vastly different to what I described. Why do you feel they are equal?
  - renewiltord 3y ago
    I'll do you one better. This prompt to ChatGPT-4 led to it comprehending quite well https://pastebin.com/KY9Zne5R https://pastebin.com/KY9Zne5R I think you should be able to query it for comprehension. I wrote it from your perspective to get you started. I tried it out with a conversation and it was able to have a very reasonable discussion about the subject. Should be easier than having to wait for my reply.
    - ysavir 3y ago
      You're putting a whole lot of effort into not having to explain something you were so willing to share.
      - renewiltord 3y ago
        It's clear that I cannot explain things to you, either through my fault of being legible or your fault at comprehending. Give the model a shot.
        ysavir 3y ago
        You didn't even try to explain. At no point did you even phrase your idea in the language I used, or connect your idea to the broader conversation. You brought in a conclusion without any hint of the work you put in to get to that conclusion. The conclusion may very well be valid, but you have to show your work or else others won't be able to follow.
- illiac786 3y ago
  You're taking gradient of availability but he's talking about the fact that this gradient is dependent on pwrsonal income. You're missing his point. If a medicine costs one million, you probably will agree it's only for the wealthy? Now, it's just a question of the price limit you assign to "reserved to the wealthy", that's all. You may have a different threshold here, but I find it hard denying there is a threshold.
  - renewiltord 3y ago
    Oh I'm not denying it, I'm celebrating it.
    - illiac786 3y ago
      You stating the "wealthy threshold" is not reached, you're not celebrating a threshold which has not been reached according to your standards. What you are writing in your previous answers makes little sense, it almost sound alike random words. I won't answer if the next reply doesn't make just a little sense, it feels too much like trolling on your part.

by ysavir 3y ago

renewiltord 3y ago

It's that it's preferable to any alternative. It's not a class tier so much as a gradient of availability and that is good.

ysavir 3y ago
I really need you to connect the dots for me here. What you described is vastly different to what I described. Why do you feel they are equal?
- renewiltord 3y ago
  I'll do you one better. This prompt to ChatGPT-4 led to it comprehending quite well https://pastebin.com/KY9Zne5R https://pastebin.com/KY9Zne5R I think you should be able to query it for comprehension. I wrote it from your perspective to get you started. I tried it out with a conversation and it was able to have a very reasonable discussion about the subject. Should be easier than having to wait for my reply.
  - ysavir 3y ago
    You're putting a whole lot of effort into not having to explain something you were so willing to share.
    - renewiltord 3y ago
      It's clear that I cannot explain things to you, either through my fault of being legible or your fault at comprehending. Give the model a shot.
      - ysavir 3y ago
        You didn't even try to explain. At no point did you even phrase your idea in the language I used, or connect your idea to the broader conversation. You brought in a conclusion without any hint of the work you put in to get to that conclusion. The conclusion may very well be valid, but you have to show your work or else others won't be able to follow.
illiac786 3y ago
You're taking gradient of availability but he's talking about the fact that this gradient is dependent on pwrsonal income. You're missing his point. If a medicine costs one million, you probably will agree it's only for the wealthy? Now, it's just a question of the price limit you assign to "reserved to the wealthy", that's all. You may have a different threshold here, but I find it hard denying there is a threshold.
- renewiltord 3y ago
  Oh I'm not denying it, I'm celebrating it.
  - illiac786 3y ago
    You stating the "wealthy threshold" is not reached, you're not celebrating a threshold which has not been reached according to your standards. What you are writing in your previous answers makes little sense, it almost sound alike random words. I won't answer if the next reply doesn't make just a little sense, it feels too much like trolling on your part.