Didn’t like this post much either (sorry!). Yes, if you assume a substantial level of temporal discounting that makes the future matter less. If you don’t like that, perhaps do not apply so much temporal discounting.
The dense maths hinders the reader here. I don’t really approve of the dissing of expected utility maximizers at the end either.
This is an argument against the reader, not the post. Anyone interested in these matters should be able to handle basic calculus, or else should withhold voting on such matters.
This is an argument against the reader, not the post. Anyone interested in these matters should be able to handle basic calculus, or else should withhold voting on such matters.
I would agree, if the post treated the reader that way. When you multiply a polynomial by an exponential, the exponential wins. That’s all the author needed to get to his point; instead we have dense paragraphs poorly explaining why that is the case.
Didn’t like this post much either (sorry!). Yes, if you assume a substantial level of temporal discounting that makes the future matter less. If you don’t like that, perhaps do not apply so much temporal discounting.
The dense maths hinders the reader here. I don’t really approve of the dissing of expected utility maximizers at the end either.
“The dense maths hinders the reader here.”
This is an argument against the reader, not the post. Anyone interested in these matters should be able to handle basic calculus, or else should withhold voting on such matters.
I would agree, if the post treated the reader that way. When you multiply a polynomial by an exponential, the exponential wins. That’s all the author needed to get to his point; instead we have dense paragraphs poorly explaining why that is the case.
“Dense paragraphs” and poor/unclear wording is not the same thing as “dense maths”. So I disagree with timtyler’s point, but not with yours.
Presumably, even if the exposition were phrased more clearly, timtyler would still have a problem with the “dense maths”.