HN user
I agree. In many areas of pop-culture we seem to have a lot of people trying to convince us that "We don't know what we know", often with hilarious results. Like the EU officials who ruled that "drinking water has not been shown to reduce dehydration."
The more I see this trend, the more stubbornly I find myself clinging to "What I know"
I agree completely with a minor tweak: "Would you RISK $900 for a 90% chance to win $1000?" "Would you RISK $100 for a 10% chance to win $1000?"
It's all about managing the risk: generally speaking, I can afford to risk $100, but not $900. Furthermore, I've already spent/borrowed the second $1000 (We're TAKING my existing money, which I presumably have already planned on having). So the first is a windfall, but the second is a real need. So I WON'T risk a large amount of money for a windfall, but I WILL risk a small amount in order to meet a real need. I'd say that's 100% rational.
Bob
There's a hitch in your logic: The US IS the good guys: Freedom-loving, freedom-protecting, doing what's right good guys. China is an oppressive murderous communist regime. The US is good, China is evil.
So your premise doesn't hold up.
"In about a hundred years, there'll be a kid named Jesus born in Nazareth. Listen to him, he really knows his stuff. Do what he says, and you'll have the greatest society in history.
I think you struck out....I strenuously disagree with every single point you listed...but did it anger me? Are you kidding? You sound like such a lunatic, I couldn't help but chuckle as I read them....
Sorry to rain on your parade...
"Why did the universe have such low entropy in the past, resulting in the distinction between past and future and the second law of thermodynamics?[7]"
I die laughing at this one. "I know that my theory of the origin of the universe doesn't align with the laws of physics. SO THE LAWS OF PHYSICS MUST HAVE CHANGED SOMEWHERE ALONG THE WAY!"
ROFLLMAO