NationStates

Posted: **Sun Apr 23, 2017 6:10 pm**

Another situation to demonstrate that money spent on a thing does not accurately indicate your value of the thing that money was spent on.

It is a long-held position in my family that if any of our pets get cancer we won't subject them to chemo treatments and surgery. They can't consent to it, they don't understand it; all it does is prolong their life for a few months or a year, during which they feel terrible the whole time, all so that we don't have to say goodbye to them sooner rather than later. We would rather do what we can to make them comfortable (a decidedly less expensive option than chemo and surgery), rather than prolong their suffering.

Posted: **Sun Apr 23, 2017 6:14 pm**

Camicon wrote:Another situation to demonstrate that money spent on a thing does not accurately indicate your value of the thing that money was spent on.

It is a long-held position in my family that if any of our pets get cancer we won't subject them to chemo treatments and surgery. They can't consent to it, they don't understand it; all it does is prolong their life for a few months or a year, during which they feel terrible the whole time, all so that we don't have to say goodbye to them sooner rather than later. We would rather do what we can to make them comfortable (a decidedly less expensive option than chemo and surgery), rather than prolong their suffering.

You mean you might spend less money because you care more?

Heresy. You must pay the price of chemo/surgery in exchange for palliative care to show how much you truly value it. (Just be careful - vets do have medical training and may suggest you be psychologically examined to see if you're insane enough to be a danger to yourself or others.)

Posted: **Mon Apr 24, 2017 5:36 am**

Xerographica wrote:
Camicon wrote:
Sounds like a solid business strategy. Provided that use that information to keep me as a subscriber and attract new customers.

When it comes to how much of your money is spent on pets... for sure you worry about too much or too little of your money being spent on pets. This implies that you perceive that there is some optimal amount of your money that should be spent on pets.

Logically you also perceive that there is some optimal amount of your money that should be spent on shows about pets.

X = optimal amount of your money that should be spent on pets
Y = optimal amount of your money that should be spent on shows about pets

The endlessly fascinating and frustrating thing is that you perceive that nobody can know better than you what X is.... but you also perceive that Netflix can know better than you what Y is!!! This dichotomy is the biggest intellectual itch that I seriously struggle to scratch.

Camicon wrote:Why do you keep spewing random nonsense at people?

I like to compare different people's responses to the same exact thing. Whose response do you prefer... his or yours?

The optimal amount of my money to be spent on X for all X is £0.

Xerographica wrote:
Galloism wrote:Again, no. Only idiots would spend money they don't have to, so you'd be controlling for what idiots want.

Which is more idiotic... askers spending their money on the best answers... or answerers spending their time supplying answers?

The former, always: the latter very often makes a profit.

Xerographica wrote:
Galloism wrote:Askers spending money on the best answers when they can get them for free.

So I'm more idiotic than you if I spend a penny on an answer that took you 12 hours to produce?

If you had the option to get it for free, then yes.

And given that everything of any value that I've ever produced (plus a lot of stuff of questionable value) is available online for free, I think you can reasonably consider me to have put my money where my mouth is.

NationStates

Netflix And Virtue Signalling