There’s no such thing as a tree, phylogenetically

Re:There’s no such thing as a tree, phylogenetically by Sebguer on Sunday May 09, 2021 @07:30PM (#27100892)

The idea that the validity of an idea is measured by how much money you can make by implementing it is /why/ our current system is flawed.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:There’s no such thing as a tree, phylogenetically by lolsal on Monday May 10, 2021 @11:04AM (#27106711)

Money represents value. It's the lowest common denominator when talking about whether or not an idea is worth doing. It's hard to quantify altruism.

e.g. An idea to plant a garden with entirely toxic plants is just as valid, but not as valuable.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:There’s no such thing as a tree, phylogenetically by kjeetgill on Monday May 10, 2021 @08:17PM (#27112619)

I think ideas like "money represent value" are tru-ish enough approximations from a distance but comments like this show just how easy it is to slip into seeing them as definitions or absolute truth.

Useful models are still models after all.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:There’s no such thing as a tree, phylogenetically by lolsal on Monday May 10, 2021 @09:46PM (#27113207)

I'm not sure why you think I was defining 'money is value','value is money' or some other absolute truth. I did not say such a thing.

Money does represent value of some kind, right? Whether that's time, labor, or [fill-in-the-blank]. It's a tool to represent generic value.

I'm interested to hear what you think a better unit of measurement might be for determining whether or not an idea is 'valid' or worth doing. Can you elaborate?

[ Parent | on HN ]