Alright now that you got me started I'm going to crash out for a little bit.
I fucking hate how Econ-101 types conflate the economic definition of rationality with the general definition of rationality.
This, combined with a fundamental misunderstanding of what economic rationality is in the first place forms their justification for looking down on people's "irrational" decisions, which are basically anything other than selfish asshole behaviour.
First, economic rationality simply means that given some set of choices, you are able to order them in terms of their utility, and that your decisions are consistent with this ranking. Utility, as every economist stresses, is entirely dependent on every individuals needs and wants, and there is a wealth of research which shows that people enjoy charitable decisions, like shouting a meal for a friend, or volunteering.
Even then, it is well known (and immediately taught) that rationality is basically impossible to hold in reality, and this most people are economically irrational. E.g. for a fast food set of a burger, fries, and drink, when comparing two items I prefer burger > fries, fries > drink, and drink > burger, which forms an impossible order of utility.
And even for seemingly frivolous/trashy decisions like gaudy designer bags made by poorer people, there is extensive economic evidence that the resulting recognition of wealth from their peer groups results in net positive effects such as promotions/better networks. This is no different conceptually to the "quiet luxury" purchases of rich people - the only difference is that only other rich people are able to recognise the "simple" $700 plain t shirts. In either scenario, depending on the individual, there is a strong case for these decisions to be "rational".
On a related note, these types also play a few games related to the prisoners dilemma, and believe they are the experts on matters of public policy (in most cases, that the tragedy of the commons is inevitable and we should give up).
Except that the prisoner's dilemma is a stupid and unrealistic thought experiment. Elinor Ostrom won a fucking Nobel prize by documenting extensive evidence that if everyone in a community is properly represented and co-ordinate, the tragedy of the commons does not occur; the tragedy of the commons does occur if any participant wields too much socio-economic power.
Econ 101 types are so insufferable and are often the C+ student in Econ 101.
Supply and demand only works in perfectly competitive markets where all parties have perfect information (literally taught in Econ 101).
Companies know this, and do everything in their power to ensure this doesn't happen, because any surplus due to assymetries flow to the participant with the advantage (also taught in Econ 101).
I was repeatedly told that when I got older I would "understand" why policy makers made the terrible decisions they did, and that it was immature to believe they were cartoonishly evil.
Instead, I learnt that the reality was even worse than cartoonishly evil.
Perhaps, but it is documenting an open secret in the LLM space. System prompts as security is basically the best we have, and it's jank af. People literally have competitions with cracking the latest models, often succeeding within hours of release.
Funny meme aside, it wouldn't actually work because cremation is way too hot to pop corn. At around 1000 Celsius, the corn would instantly carbonise and turn to ash, just like the rest your body.
Even baking corn at 200 Celsius (typical oven roasting temperature) is already too hot for corn to pop, and burns it instead.
No, because Zelda has unironically one of the worst examples of button layouts due to them being different to other games for seemingly no reason.
Why is sprint the bottom face button instead of right trigger? Why is the top face button jump?
Even basic things like running and jumping are so difficult and unintuitive. So many actions are all tied to the badly placed jump button with no prompts given, like shield surfing and triggering flurry rushes.
Alright now that you got me started I'm going to crash out for a little bit.
I fucking hate how Econ-101 types conflate the economic definition of rationality with the general definition of rationality.
This, combined with a fundamental misunderstanding of what economic rationality is in the first place forms their justification for looking down on people's "irrational" decisions, which are basically anything other than selfish asshole behaviour.
First, economic rationality simply means that given some set of choices, you are able to order them in terms of their utility, and that your decisions are consistent with this ranking. Utility, as every economist stresses, is entirely dependent on every individuals needs and wants, and there is a wealth of research which shows that people enjoy charitable decisions, like shouting a meal for a friend, or volunteering.
Even then, it is well known (and immediately taught) that rationality is basically impossible to hold in reality, and this most people are economically irrational. E.g. for a fast food set of a burger, fries, and drink, when comparing two items I prefer burger > fries, fries > drink, and drink > burger, which forms an impossible order of utility.
And even for seemingly frivolous/trashy decisions like gaudy designer bags made by poorer people, there is extensive economic evidence that the resulting recognition of wealth from their peer groups results in net positive effects such as promotions/better networks. This is no different conceptually to the "quiet luxury" purchases of rich people - the only difference is that only other rich people are able to recognise the "simple" $700 plain t shirts. In either scenario, depending on the individual, there is a strong case for these decisions to be "rational".
On a related note, these types also play a few games related to the prisoners dilemma, and believe they are the experts on matters of public policy (in most cases, that the tragedy of the commons is inevitable and we should give up).
Except that the prisoner's dilemma is a stupid and unrealistic thought experiment. Elinor Ostrom won a fucking Nobel prize by documenting extensive evidence that if everyone in a community is properly represented and co-ordinate, the tragedy of the commons does not occur; the tragedy of the commons does occur if any participant wields too much socio-economic power.