= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
cousin_it comments on Explanations for Less Wrong articles that you didn't understand - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (118)
I sense there may be a contradiction between a decision theory that aims to be timeless and the mandate to ignore sunk costs because they're in the past. But I fear I may be terribly misunderstanding both concepts.
Yes, that might be a genuine contradiction, and ignoring sunk costs might be wrong. Can you try to come up with a simple decision problem that puts the two into conflict?