If you are so sure that you are right and already βknow it allβ, why bother and even read this? There is no comment section to argue.
I beg to differ. You utter fool! You created a comment section yourself on lemmy and you are clearly wrong about everything!
You take the mean of 1 and 9 which is 4.5!
/j
Fair point.
Get that unfunny,creatively bankrupt, so-called "AI" bullshit out of here.
There's a book on the subject by Simon Singh, where he writes about all the math jokes in the Simpsons. There are a bunch. ;)
I meant line 2 (it's actually a joke the math professors on the writing team of the Simpsons put in there: it doesn't disprove Fermat's Theorem, but most calculators at the time didn't have the accuracy to cumpute that directly, which is kind of the joke)
Did Homer just disprove Fermat's Last Theorem? O.o
Depends on your definition of "works". Do you want stabilityin your sound?
I'd like to show them but they are quite
(ββ _β ) rare-y
I would apt purge that if I were you.
Reducing value to nothing but commodities is already a very ideologically charged act. We were talking about value before. The value of commodities is only a subset of what counts as value.
My tone is reflective of my mistrust of your intention
How have I earned that mistrust? Do you think it's fair to continue that mistrust after my efforts to elaborate my point?
I am sorry if that is uncomfortable.
Pardon my tone, but: That's a nonpology. I can do without those.
On the contrary, I think applying theoretical models to current real-world economics is the only way to make sense of where theory and reality deviate.
I agree. My original "reminder" was to point out that deviations occur. The mental shortcut that I meant was to only take LTV into account when discussing economics.
I would have found it more interesting if you had been more specific in how you think LTV was being misused.
I don't know if "misused" is the right term, but one example where LTV falls flat is that it doesn't model the destruction of value due to environmental pollution.
I did (skimmed it, at least) and I liked it. π