That's fair, and I have a workaround now with nitter.
For now, URL rewriting seems to do the trick: replacing twitter.com with nitter.net allows me to view. It's slow, though, and I have no idea whether nitter is safe or whether it will be able to handle the traffic.
Twitter no longer allows accessing tweets without logging in. If it's not too much effort, can you include the text of a tweet (like you've already done for some)? Twitter links are now effectively dead for me.
Duplicate IDs are hard to come by. However, you might be able to have multiple different forms of ID (such as an ID card and a passport).
Shoes might be the one item that you can't do this for, but maybe I'm wrong.
Pre-covid, I bought a pair of shoes. But I am averse to throwing items away before they are properly "dead" (or until they really require effort), so shoes that still have some soles on them (and fit comfortably rather than the tight fit of new shoes) would still be used.
Because there were lockdowns and the like, I wore my shoes a lot less. I went out a lot less. My grocery store is rather close to my house. The new shoes spent two years in their shoe box.
Lockdowns were lifted and I started spending more time outdoors again. Within a month, my old shoes were deemed "properly dead", and I switched to the new shoes. But within two weeks, the leather on them started flaking off.
Maybe I bought poor quality shoes. Or maybe I didn't store my new shoes well. But I've got the feeling that shoes don't keep as well as most other clothing does, and that you won't get the full lifetime out of an old-new pair.
So the fact that Alice can't be viewed as having any coherent relative value for apples and oranges, corresponds to her ending up with qualitatively less of some category of fruit (without any corresponding gains elsewhere).
It's possible that the fruit has negative value, and that the behavior aims to reduce the total negative value.
The situations:
8a1o, 0a3o, 2a2o, 5a1o.
If apples are minus two and oranges are minus seven then all trades are rational. 8a1o is valued at -23, 0a3o is valued at -21, 2a2o is valued at -18, 5a1o is valued at -17.
Japanese has formality as verb conjugations - http://www.japaneseverbconjugator.com/VerbDetails.asp?txtVerb=%E8%A1%8C%E3%81%8F - iku 行く as "will go (plain)" and ikimasu 行きます as "will go (polite)". Translators try to preserve this, but I personally find translating that to be kinda hard. "I'll go" and "I will go" is the best I can do off the top of my head (watashi wa iku/watashi wa ikimasu - and as a more realistic example, kaisha ni iku/kaisha ni ikimasu - I'll go to the office/I will go to the office - "watashi/I" being left out because Japanese is contextual).
Ethereum is working on proof of stake, which boils down to "I believe that this future is what really happened, and to guarantee so, here's $1000 that you may destroy if it's not true."
https://github.com/ethereum/wiki/wiki/Proof-of-Stake-FAQ
Key quote for me:
"in PoW, we are working directly with the laws of physics. In PoS, we are able to design the protocol in such a way that it has the precise properties that we want - in short, we can optimize the laws of physics in our favor. The "hidden trapdoor" that gives us (3) is the change in the security model, specifically the introduction of weak subjectivity."
Hmm, true.
I'm not sure you understood my other point, though - using the statistics for the ssc survey might contain a bias because see reasons above.
I see reasoning or rationalizing from fictional evidence here. You're looking at a story created by some human to serve some purpose (my guess: some vague gesturing at religion & answering the question of why-can-there-be-evil-in-this-world-if-god-is-perfectly-good), and you're surprised that something in that story happens the way it does.
The story doesn't work for the purpose that I think it's made for if that choice wasn't made. You can't say "and that perfect world, is the one we're living in" because then you'll be met with so many counter points (why war, why disease, why death...) that you'll drown in them.
There are examples you can use, but this is not one of them. This one is fake. Manufactured by humans. For instance, this "these ancient forests could hold the secret to the next vaccine" argument? Yeah, it doesn't fit here, but it has the right idea, maybe? The idea that, if you don't exert control over something and leave it to its own devices, then it might produce something that you yourself wouldn't think of / that you couldn't make yourself? Or the part where you just give an artist a patronage and no direction, because you think they'll do better without your input.
Maybe my suggestion is too blue. But I do think that using the "god allowed freedom and as such we got humans and that's an example of why you might not want to control everything" is assigning too much agency to this god character.