4 ms·
I'd stick to first order thinking, thanks. It's easy to get things wrong trying to do second order thinking, or just make things up. There's no reason to beli
by fooker 10mo ago
I'd stick to first order thinking, thanks.
It's easy to get things wrong trying to do second order thinking, or just make things up.
There's no reason to believe companies would do as you say. There are several other options, including choosing different financial vehicles to store the users money, implementing even more dark patterns to store N% more money so they are even, or can improve their returns over the status quo.
- mulmen 10mo agoYour entire second paragraph is second order. You can’t just ignore consequences in a policy debate.
- fooker 10mo agoyes, my second paragraph is second order to explain how there can be many many possibilities, not the one you wish would happen. > You can’t just ignore consequences in a policy debate. Consequences of consequences though, you can route almost any argument to any conclusion you want :)