If dying were an infinite loss to you, you’d never drive an extra mile just to save money on buying something (let alone all the other small risks you take).
The only time actually estimating cost comes into play is when the risk change is small enough to be close to the noise level. For example, deciding whether to pay more for a safer car, because the improved collision survival odds increase your life expectancy by 1 day (I made up the number, not sure what the real value is).
Not to me, to the author of the question. This is the contradiction I am pointing out: a failure to put a value on the 50% chance of death in Question C.
If dying were an infinite loss to you, you’d never drive an extra mile just to save money on buying something (let alone all the other small risks you take).
I think this answers your comment:
He said avoiding a 33% chance of death is worth more money than he has, which doesn’t necessarily imply that the amount is infinite.
Not to me, to the author of the question. This is the contradiction I am pointing out: a failure to put a value on the 50% chance of death in Question C.