Benjamin Davies
@davies·Joined Oct 2025·Ideas
A life aimed at infinity 🦉 🐚 🕯️ 🚀
#4162·Benjamin DaviesOP, about 1 month agoHere I will list essential vitamins and minerals, and their sources. It is my amended version of the list featured in How to Heal Your Metabolism by Kate Deering.
Vitamin B
Consists of eight water-soluble vitamins described below (these cannot be stored in the body)
#4162·Benjamin DaviesOP, about 1 month agoHere I will list essential vitamins and minerals, and their sources. It is my amended version of the list featured in How to Heal Your Metabolism by Kate Deering.
Vitamin A
Functions:
- Growth and development
- Immune function
- Healthy skin
- Vision
- Cholesterol conversion into pregnenolone
Sources: milk, cheese, eggs, beef liver
Here I will list essential vitamins and minerals, and their sources. It is my amended version of the list featured in How to Heal Your Metabolism by Kate Deering.
#4160·Dennis Hackethal, about 1 month agoBut if you decided, despite the dollar’s shortcomings, that you want to trade an asset for dollars, you wouldn’t measure your asset in ounces of gold. You’d measure it in dollars, wouldn’t you?
Or are you saying one should never trade assets for dollars?
What asset you measure in and what asset you trade for don't necessarily need to be related.
There is nothing wrong with trading goods for dollars. This is more an argument against measuring the changing value of assets across time in dollars.
I was careful to say "It is important to buy assets for significantly less than you think they are worth". Value is certainly subjective (in the sense that things are valued differently by different people).
As for methods of valuation, there are many out there, each with their pros and cons. Discounted cashflow (DCF) valuations are my preferred method as they directly address the purpose of investing: giving up value today in exchange for more value in the future. The key problem with this is that the future is inherently unpredictable, so building a DCF involves educated guesswork and is imprecise.
The flaws in valuation methods are why we should try to buy assets at steep discounts to our valuations of them, in case we are wrong.
I was careful to say "It is important to buy assets for significantly less than you think they are worth". Value is certainly subjective (in the sense that things are valued differently by different people).
As for methods of valuation, there are many out there, each with their pros and cons. Discounted cashflow (DCF) valuations are my preferred method as they directly address the purpose of investing: giving up value today in exchange for more value in the future. The key problem with this is that the future is inherently unpredictable, so building a DCF involves educated guesswork about the future and is inevitably imprecise (varying massively by the nature of the asset... the USD return from a US govt bond is more predictable than the USD return of a tech stock).
The unavoidable flaws in valuation methods are why we should try to buy assets at steep discounts to our valuations of them. The deeper the discount, the bigger our mistake can be without it hurting us.
#4153·Erik Orrje, about 1 month agoIt is important to buy assets for significantly less than you think they are worth. The cheaper you buy something, the more margin you have for things to go worse than anticipated.
According to Austrian economics, all value is subjective. How can we then know what an asset is intrinsically worth?
I was careful to say "It is important to buy assets for significantly less than you think they are worth". Value is certainly subjective (in the sense that things are valued differently by different people).
As for methods of valuation, there are many out there, each with their pros and cons. Discounted cashflow (DCF) valuations are my preferred method as they directly address the purpose of investing: giving up value today in exchange for more value in the future. The key problem with this is that the future is inherently unpredictable, so building a DCF involves educated guesswork and is imprecise.
The flaws in valuation methods are why we should try to buy assets at steep discounts to our valuations of them, in case we are wrong.
Thinking in terms of gold is less arbitrary than thinking in dollars because gold is anchored in physical reality, whereas the dollar is anchored in political decree. When you choose to measure your wealth in a unit just because you want to trade for it later, you are prioritising the convenience of a transaction over the integrity of the measurement.
Measurement requires a constant. If you measure a table with a rubber band, the "length" of the table changes depending on how hard you pull the band. The US dollar is that rubber band. Its supply and value are subject to the whims of central bankers, interest rate policies, and the shifting needs of government deficit spending. Gold, however, is a physical element with a high stock-to-flow ratio. Its total supply grows at a very slow, predictable rate that no person can speed up by decree. Measuring in gold allows you to see the real change in an asset's value, independent of the currency’s volatility.
Gold's value is anchored by the arbitrage of mining. If the value of gold rises significantly, it becomes profitable to mine more, which eventually brings the value back into equilibrium with the cost of production. This creates a feedback loop rooted in physics and labor. The dollar has no such anchor; the cost to "produce" a trillion dollars is the same as the cost to produce one dollar: a few keystrokes. Using a unit that costs nothing to create to measure things that require real work is an arbitrary standard.
Thinking in terms of gold is less arbitrary than thinking in dollars because gold is anchored in physical reality, whereas the dollar is anchored in political decree. When you choose to measure your wealth in a unit just because you want to trade for it later, you are prioritising the convenience of a transaction over the integrity of the measurement.
Measurement requires a constant. If you measure a table with a rubber band, the "length" of the table changes depending on how hard you pull the band. The US dollar is that rubber band. Its supply and value are subject to the whims of central bankers, interest rate policies, and the shifting needs of government deficit spending. Gold, however, is a physical element with a high stock-to-flow ratio. Its total supply grows at a very slow, predictable rate that no person can speed up by decree. Measuring in gold allows you to see the real change in an asset's value, independent of the currency’s volatility.
Gold's value is anchored by the arbitrage of mining. If the value of gold rises significantly, it becomes profitable to mine more, which eventually brings the value back into equilibrium with the cost of production. This creates a feedback loop rooted in physics, economics and labour. The dollar has no such anchor; the cost to "produce" a trillion dollars is the same as the cost to produce one dollar: a few keystrokes. Using a unit that costs nothing to create to measure things that require real work is an arbitrary standard.
#4151·Dennis Hackethal, about 1 month agoI think it would be arbitrary to measure the value in any unit that you aren’t hoping to trade your asset for.
For example, if you eventually want to get gold in exchange for your asset, measure the number of ounces your asset is worth and sell at an opportune time.
If you want to get dollars, measure your asset in dollars. Etc.
Thinking in terms of gold is less arbitrary than thinking in dollars because gold is anchored in physical reality, whereas the dollar is anchored in political decree. When you choose to measure your wealth in a unit just because you want to trade for it later, you are prioritising the convenience of a transaction over the integrity of the measurement.
Measurement requires a constant. If you measure a table with a rubber band, the "length" of the table changes depending on how hard you pull the band. The US dollar is that rubber band. Its supply and value are subject to the whims of central bankers, interest rate policies, and the shifting needs of government deficit spending. Gold, however, is a physical element with a high stock-to-flow ratio. Its total supply grows at a very slow, predictable rate that no person can speed up by decree. Measuring in gold allows you to see the real change in an asset's value, independent of the currency’s volatility.
Gold's value is anchored by the arbitrage of mining. If the value of gold rises significantly, it becomes profitable to mine more, which eventually brings the value back into equilibrium with the cost of production. This creates a feedback loop rooted in physics and labor. The dollar has no such anchor; the cost to "produce" a trillion dollars is the same as the cost to produce one dollar: a few keystrokes. Using a unit that costs nothing to create to measure things that require real work is an arbitrary standard.
#4145·Dennis Hackethal, about 1 month agoWiener says the dollar can go up or down in value (usually down; prices usually rise).
He suggests that, due to this volatility, measuring the value of something in dollars is like measuring the width of a physical object using a rubber band. He implies that this measurement is unreliable and arbitrary because you can ‘stretch’ it just like a rubber band.
He concludes that we should measure the value of something in ounces of gold instead.
Am I understanding Wiener correctly?
Yes I think so.
#4141·Dennis Hackethal, about 1 month agoApparently, stocks have fallen since the dot-com bubble when measured in gold instead of dollars: https://x.com/elerianm/status/1976237139185574170
Some comments suggest measuring stocks in gold is arbitrary, others say this development is simply due to inflation.
Are they right or is this development a deeper sign that the economy is in trouble?
Funny you bring this up the day gold makes its biggest single-day USD move in history 👀
#4141·Dennis Hackethal, about 1 month agoApparently, stocks have fallen since the dot-com bubble when measured in gold instead of dollars: https://x.com/elerianm/status/1976237139185574170
Some comments suggest measuring stocks in gold is arbitrary, others say this development is simply due to inflation.
Are they right or is this development a deeper sign that the economy is in trouble?
Measuring the stock market in fiat is more arbitrary than measuring it in gold.
A short video relating to that:
https://youtu.be/AGNvdN1Lw9A?si=b5vO7kx_pTRgEgrZ
#4141·Dennis Hackethal, about 1 month agoApparently, stocks have fallen since the dot-com bubble when measured in gold instead of dollars: https://x.com/elerianm/status/1976237139185574170
Some comments suggest measuring stocks in gold is arbitrary, others say this development is simply due to inflation.
Are they right or is this development a deeper sign that the economy is in trouble?
Some added colour:
https://x.com/philippilk/status/2016089604588290348?s=46
The purpose of the law isn’t to minimise negatives and maximise positives. The purpose of the law is to uphold the rights of people.
#4058·Benjamin DaviesOP, about 1 month agoAll drugs should be legal because people have a right to do what they want, as long as it isn’t violating the rights of others.
Drugs are a net negative for society.
Doesn’t need to be arbitrary emojis, it could just be a handful that you choose, each being a different flavour of acknowledgement.
Thumbs up,
Thinking emoji,
Mind-blown emoji,
Etc.
Doesn’t need to be arbitrary emojis, it could just be a handful that you choose, each being a different flavour of acknowledgement.
Thumbs up,
Thinking emoji,
Mind-blown emoji,
Etc.
Edit: X spaces are an example of a limited set of emojis working well.
#2892·Dennis HackethalOP, 4 months agoThe purpose of the reaction would be to record a kind of agreement or acknowledgment.
That way, Veritula could show ‘pending’ criticisms to users, say – ‘pending’ in the sense that they haven’t responded to those criticisms. So in addition to revising or counter-criticizing, they get a chance to accept a criticism without it remaining in a ‘pending’ state.Posting arbitrary emojis doesn’t achieve that purpose.
Doesn’t need to be arbitrary emojis, it could just be a handful that you choose, each being a different flavour of acknowledgement.
Thumbs up,
Thinking emoji,
Mind-blown emoji,
Etc.
#4102·Dennis HackethalOP, about 1 month agoPosting arbitrary emojis doesn’t achieve that purpose.
Maybe it does. Any kind of reaction is a response that turns a criticism from ‘pending’1 to not ‘pending’ anymore.
‘Acknowledged’ vs ‘unacknowledged’ may be better terminology here, to avoid overlap with the current notion of pending criticisms.)
I like the acknowledged/unacknowledged idea.
#4043·Tyler MillsOP, about 1 month agoHow many times need something be replicated before the term 'replicator' should apply? If it's a matter of reliability, what defines reliable? Is "replicator-ness" on a continuum?
You could think up a design for a self-replicating machine and then build it. Assuming you made no critical mistakes, you have made a self-replicator that hasn’t self-replicated yet.
It is considered a replicator based on what it can do, rather than on what it has done.
#2114·Dennis HackethalOP, 5 months ago[Veritula] does not tell you what to think – it teaches you how to think.
If Veritula shows me whether an idea is problematic or not, and then expects me to adopt or reject the idea accordingly, how is that not telling me what to think?
Advocacy is not the same as telling people what to think.
#3049·Dennis HackethalOP revised 4 months agoHow Does Veritula Work?
Veritula (Latin for ‘a bit of truth’) can help you live a life guided exclusively by reason.
To reason, within any well-defined epistemology, means to follow and apply that epistemology. Unreason, or whim, is an undue departure from it. Epistemology is the study of knowledge – basically, the study of what helps knowledge grow, what hinders its growth, and related questions.
Veritula follows, and helps you apply, Karl Popper’s epistemology, Critical Rationalism. It’s a continuation of the Athenian tradition of criticism and the only known epistemology without major flaws.1
Critical Rationalism says that ideas are assumed true until refuted. This approach leaves us free to make bold guesses and use the full arsenal at our disposal to criticize these guesses in order to solve problems, correct errors, and seek truth. It’s a creative and critical approach. Critical Rationalism is a fallibilist philosophy: there is no criterion of truth to determine with certainty whether some idea is true or false. We all make mistakes, and by an effort, we can correct them to get a little closer to the truth. Rejecting all forms of mysticism and the supernatural, Veritula recognizes that progress is both possible and desirable, and that rational means are the only way to make progress.
Veritula is a programmatic implementation of Popper’s epistemology.
Veritula provides an objective, partly automated way to tentatively determine whether a given idea is problematic. It does not tell you what to think – it teaches you how to think.
Consider an idea
I:plaintextISince it has no criticisms, we tentatively consider
Iunproblematic. It is rational to adopt it and act in accordance with it. Conversely, it would be irrational to reject it, consider it problematic, or act counter to it. (See #2281 for more details on rational decision-making.)Next, someone submits a criticism
C1:plaintextI|C1The idea
Iis now considered problematic so long as criticismC1is not addressed. How do you address it? You can reviseIso thatC1doesn’t apply anymore, which restores the previous state with just the standaloneI(now calledI2to indicate the revision):plaintextReviseI ------------> I2|C1To track changes, Veritula offers beautiful diffing and version control for ideas.
If you cannot think of a way to revise
I, you can counter-criticizeC1, thereby neutralizing it with a new criticism,C2:plaintextI|C1|C2Now,
Iis considered unproblematic again, sinceC1is problematic and thus can’t be a decisive criticism anymore.If you can think of neither a revision of
Inor counter-criticism toC1, your only option is to accept thatIhas been (tentatively) defeated. You should therefore abandon it, which means: stop acting in accordance with it, considering it to be unproblematic, etc.Since there can be many criticisms (which are also just ideas) and deeply nested counter-criticisms, the result is a tree structure. For example, as a discussion progresses, one of its trees might look like this:
plaintextI/ | \C11 C12 C13/ \ \C21 C22 C23/ \C31 C32In this tree,
Iis considered problematic. AlthoughC11has been neutralized byC21andC22,C12still needs to be addressed. In addition,C23would have neutralizedC13, butC31andC32makeC23problematic, soC13makesIproblematic as well.You don’t need to keep track of these relationships manually. Veritula marks ideas accordingly, automatically.
Because decision-making is a special case of, ie follows the same logic as, truth-seeking, you can use such trees for decision-making, too. Veritula implements unanimous consent as defined by Taking Children Seriously, a parenting philosophy that builds on Popper’s epistemology. When you’re planning your next move but can’t decide on a city, say, Veritula helps you criticize your ideas and make a rational decision – meaning a decision you’ll be happy with. Again, it’s rational to act in accordance with ideas that have no pending criticisms.
All ideas, including criticisms, should be formulated as concisely as possible, and separate ideas should be submitted separately, even if they’re related. Otherwise, you run the risk of receiving ‘bulk’ criticisms, where a single criticism seems to apply to more content than it actually does.
Again, criticisms are also just ideas, so the same is true for criticisms. Submitting each criticism separately has the benefit of requiring the proponent of an idea to address each criticism individually, not in bulk. If he fails to address even a single criticism, the idea remains problematic and should be rejected.
The more you discuss a given topic, the deeper and wider the tree grows. Some criticisms can apply to multiple ideas in the tree, but that needs to be made explicit by submitting them repeatedly.
Comments that aren’t criticisms – eg follow-up questions or otherwise neutral comments – are considered ancillary ideas. Unlike criticisms, ancillary ideas do not invert their respective parents’ statuses. They are neutral.
One of the main benefits of Veritula is that the status of any idea in a discussion can be seen at a glance. If you are new to a much-discussed topic, adopt the displayed status of the ideas involved: if they are marked problematic, reject them; if they are not, adopt them.
Therefore, Veritula acts as a dictionary for ideas.
One of the problems of our age is that people have same discussions over and over again. Part of the reason is widespread irrationality, expressed in the unwillingness to change one’s mind; another is that it’s simply difficult to remember or know what’s true and what isn’t. Discussion trees can get complex, so people shouldn’t blindly trust their judgment of whether some idea is true or problematic, whether nested criticisms have been neutralized or not. Going off of memory is too error prone.
Veritula solves this problem: it makes discussion trees explicit so you don’t have to remember each idea and its relation to other ideas. Veritula therefore also enables you to hold irrational people accountable: if an idea has pending criticisms, the rational approach is to either abandon it or to save it by revising it or addressing all pending criticisms.
Many people don’t like to concede an argument. But with Veritula, no concessions are necessary. The site just shows you who’s right.
Using Veritula, we may discover a bit of truth.
Popperian epistemology has some flaws, like verisimilitude, but Veritula doesn’t implement those.
Because decision-making is a special case of, ie follows the same logic as, truth-seeking, you can use such trees for decision-making, too.
This sentence is difficult to follow. Could it be made simpler or broken up?
#2528·Dennis Hackethal, 4 months agoIt’s an understandable concern. I subscribe more to the insight from BoI chapter 10. Open societies inadvertently give their enemies more access than closed ones, but they also gain so much more knowledge and strength because of their openness that they can deal with their enemies better than if they were closed.
(I went back and forth on whether to label this as a criticism. I decided to do so but I want to be clear that it doesn’t mean I’m trying to tell you how to live your life.)
Is there a reason the analogy follows from open vs closed societies, to open vs closed people? A society is not a person.
Those who advocate making most/all drugs illegal tend to think alcohol should remain legal, despite alcohol having many of the same problems as drugs.