First place only has to be better than Second place in order to be First Place. Sound Obvious? First Place doesn't need to know that they have the absolute fastest possible 100 meter dash, they only need a 100 meter dash that is faster than everyone else. That's why I said the following:In the real world, it's about being effective, and that means being better than the other guy.
But if you are not sure that you have the absolute fastest possible 100 meter dash then there is always a possibility that someone else will figure out the way to get it and your win is just temporary achievement. What used to be the record for 100 m dash at one point of time can't ensure even a third place in the modern sport. Your thoughts on this?First Place doesn't need to know that they have the absolute fastest possible 100 meter dash, they only need a 100 meter dash that is faster than everyone else.
First place is first place. Do you think someone like Bill Gates is going to question whether or not his decisions were the right ones because someone in 2314 might be worth more money than he is now? We can stretch this out to ridiculous proportions, but it won't change my initial point. You can talk about local vs global maxima all day long, that sort of stuff only really matters to a mathematician. In the real world, we judge our achievements in relation to those around us, not to idealized perfection. Is Gordon Ramsay a great chef because he's perfect and no one can ever be as good, or better than him, or is he a great chef because he's arguably better than everyone else?