Benjamin Davies’s avatar

Benjamin Davies

@davies​·​Joined Oct 2025​·​Ideas
Log in or sign up to follow Benjamin or post on their wall.

A life aimed at infinity 🦉 🐚 🕯️ 🚀

New Check out Benjamin Davies’s adoptable and rejectable ideas.
  Benjamin Davies commented on idea #4164.

Vitamin B
Consists of eight water-soluble vitamins described below (these cannot be stored in the body)

#4164​·​Benjamin DaviesOP, 6 months ago

B5: Pantothenic Acid
Functions:
- Needed to metabolise protein, fats, and carbohydrates
Sources: milk, cheese, yoghurt, eggs, beef, oysters, shrimp, beef liver, beef kidney

  Benjamin Davies commented on idea #4164.

Vitamin B
Consists of eight water-soluble vitamins described below (these cannot be stored in the body)

#4164​·​Benjamin DaviesOP, 6 months ago

B3: Niacinamide
Functions:
- Helps with skin conditions
- Inhibits oxidation of fat in the tissues
Sources: beef, beef liver

  Benjamin Davies commented on idea #4164.

Vitamin B
Consists of eight water-soluble vitamins described below (these cannot be stored in the body)

#4164​·​Benjamin DaviesOP, 6 months ago

B2: Riboflavin
Functions:
- Needed for fat, ketone, protein, and carbohydrate metabolism
Sources: cheese, eggs, beef liver, beef kidney

  Benjamin Davies revised idea #4162.

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.

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. Sources described are for the diet I have designed for myself, and are not exhaustive.

  Benjamin Davies commented on idea #4164.

Vitamin B
Consists of eight water-soluble vitamins described below (these cannot be stored in the body)

#4164​·​Benjamin DaviesOP, 6 months ago

B1: Thiamine
Functions:
- Helps break down sugar and amino acids
- Needed to form the neurotransmitters acetylcholine and GABA
Sources: potatoes, coffee, eggs, beef liver

  Benjamin Davies commented on idea #4162.

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.

#4162​·​Benjamin DaviesOP, 6 months ago

Vitamin B
Consists of eight water-soluble vitamins described below (these cannot be stored in the body)

  Benjamin Davies commented on idea #4162.

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.

#4162​·​Benjamin DaviesOP, 6 months ago

Vitamin A
Functions:
- Growth and development
- Immune function
- Healthy skin
- Vision
- Cholesterol conversion into pregnenolone
Sources: milk, cheese, eggs, beef liver

  Benjamin Davies posted idea #4162.

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.

  Benjamin Davies started a discussion titled ‘Nutrition’.
  Benjamin Davies addressed criticism #4160.

But 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?

#4160​·​Dennis Hackethal, 6 months ago

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.

  Benjamin Davies revised criticism #4157.

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.

  Benjamin Davies addressed criticism #4153.

It 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?

#4153​·​Erik Orrje, 6 months ago

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.

  Benjamin Davies revised criticism #4154.

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.

  Benjamin Davies criticized idea #4151.

I 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.

#4151​·​Dennis Hackethal, 6 months ago

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.

  Benjamin Davies commented on idea #4145.

Wiener 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?

#4145​·​Dennis Hackethal, 6 months ago

Yes I think so.

  Benjamin Davies commented on idea #4141.

Apparently, 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?

#4141​·​Dennis Hackethal, 6 months ago

Funny you bring this up the day gold makes its biggest single-day USD move in history 👀

  Benjamin Davies commented on idea #4141.

Apparently, 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?

#4141​·​Dennis Hackethal, 6 months ago

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

  Benjamin Davies commented on idea #4141.

Apparently, 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?

#4141​·​Dennis Hackethal, 6 months ago
  Benjamin Davies revised idea #4063. The revision addresses ideas #4065, #4064, and #4134.

Moved branch to a better place due to #4134


Drugs are a net negative for society.

Drugs are a net negative for society.
(This branch of the conversation has been moved to #4137)

  Benjamin Davies addressed criticism #4137.

Drugs are a net negative for society.

#4137​·​Benjamin DaviesOP, 6 months ago

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.

  Benjamin Davies criticized idea #4058.

All 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.

#4058​·​Benjamin DaviesOP, 6 months ago

Drugs are a net negative for society.

  Benjamin Davies revised criticism #4104.

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.

  Benjamin Davies addressed criticism #2892.

The 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.

#2892​·​Dennis HackethalOP, 9 months ago

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.

  Benjamin Davies commented on criticism #4102.

Posting 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.


  1. ‘Acknowledged’ vs ‘unacknowledged’ may be better terminology here, to avoid overlap with the current notion of pending criticisms.)

#4102​·​Dennis HackethalOP, 6 months ago

I like the acknowledged/unacknowledged idea.

  Benjamin Davies criticized idea #4043.

How 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?

#4043​·​Tyler MillsOP, 6 months ago

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.