[krackers]

I also did err by making a blanket statement "no one price matches for protein bars", so GP was right to call it out.

I do understand and see that there are cases in which one's time preference could be such that it is sensible or necessary to price-match at that granularity even when buying a single unit. However even then there's still other constraints such as cost of transportation & reputation of vendor.

Even today you can often find protein bars or name-brand supplements on Amazon for a slightly lower price (including shipping) than supermarkets, but that comes with the risk of adulterated, expired, or tampered products that not everyone will accept for the sake of slightly lower prices.

[threethirtytwo]

>I also did err by making a blanket statement "no one price matches for protein bars", so GP was right to call it out.

This was clearly an error. GP is right to call it out, but not right to characterize it as nuts. It's obvious what you meant.

[jahsome]

It's not that "nuts" to take the literal meaning of people's own words. Calling it "obvious" someone meant something rather than what they actually typed with their own fingers is pretty nuts though. It might be common for folks to misspeak (mistype), but that by no stretch of the imagination makes their actual meaning obvious. It's quite literally the opposite...

[threethirtytwo]

So you’re saying I’m nuts? Do you go to peoples faces and say that?

You’re not nuts. But you are trying to twist the logic to justify your own situation. The correct word to characterize this is “manipulative”.

Clearly, no one is nuts on this thread but some people are just dicks.

It’s completely normal for people to not be literal, and to also mistakenly say something.

[jahsome]

I didn't say you are nuts, I said your statement is. The distinction should be "obvious" no?

Here's a hint though: normal is a myth.

[jacobr1]

Normal isn't a myth. The mistake people make is taking the mode as normal, or worse mistaking their own experience as normal. But humans generally do tend to have a range of common behaviors that a significant percentage of people fit into. And you probably can even predict it to a reasonable degree, if you have some other metadata to correlate which sub-group they might correspond to.

Normal in the sense of "you can model a distribution of human behavioral processes or outcomes" that encompasses, say, 95% of humans in a given culture or geography is very much a thing you can do. And I'd go as far as to say a large chunk of the mental bandwidth of the average person is running those simulation models just to operate in a multi-human-agent world.

(If you want to say we observe bimodal or other multi-peaked distributions in practices rather than "normal" ones, I will strongly agree, but that usually isn't the objection when people say "normal is a myth")

[jahsome]

Fair enough, perhaps I could have said "normal is relative"

A behavior may be typical, or common maybe, but I think "normal" evokes certain connotations when describing human behavior.