The Box of Chocolates Thread (You never know what you're going to get!)

I actually like this sort of problem because you can work out what the answer must be like as a way of finding it.

Lol. Posting chess problems and checking the meme thread. Although the memes have really been going downhill.

I never really posted much in any of the actual politics threads there. Nor do I here, for that matter.

The walking back of the Nothing-Wrong-With-Biden! view of yesteryear has been spectacular there lol.

Eh? That's like me giving you 5 minutes to run a mile and you saying "what if I've only got 1 leg and a heavy rucksack and do it in 2?"

That's what I never got about these chess problems. You're just playing both sides, which doesn't seem to me to prove anything.

You are playing one side in such a way that the options for the other side are severely limited, and you win regardless of which option they take. That is what it means to have a forced mate in x moves - it means that with best play from the other side, they can delay a loss by at most x moves.

Same principle as why tic-tac-toe on a 3x3 board is a draw. The tic tac toe equivalent of a chess puzzle might be an empty board and the condition "player 1 to move and draw". The solution would essentially then be a description of perfect tic-tac-toe strategy for player 1. Conversely, the puzzle might be "can player 1 win with best play?" and the answer is "no", with the solution being a description of perfect tic-tac-toe strategy for player 2.

In games of perfect information there is always at least one pure strategy available which optimal (i.e. better than or equal to all other possible strategies). The goal of these puzzles is to identify the optimal strategy and/or identify whether it leads to a win, loss, or draw.

But then you have to play the other side perfectly. And if you were sure you knew how to play it perfectly, you're an expert and no point in you doing these problems at all.

I guess I just don't see the point. But I never studied chess, just enjoyed playing it sometimes when I was younger, against friends who were also intelligent and liked playing games but didn't read books about it or anything like that.

I think you're missing the point. In these puzzles, it's quite easy to find the perfect play for the defender to hold for a draw; much harder to find the play for the attacker to get the win. In other words, an 8 year old could hold out for a draw as black in this position against the vast majority of players, but it might take a grandmaster to find the win for white.

Have you never studied nor practiced anything in your life?

Finding the small number of best defensive moves in one specific problem doesn't by any means make you an expert. Often the best defensive lines are pretty clear and the hard part is refuting them.

Poker!

I guess chess didn't interest me enough to seriously study. Poker only did because I figured out that there was a lot of easy money in learning the basics. But then after that I became more interested in nuance and higher level strategy.

Even then it mostly interests me because it's not a game of perfect information and involves a lot of psychology. I'm not particularly interested in learning stop loss GTO moves which seems like these chess problems are the most similar to.

Another rudimentary politics question from me...

How is one supposed to parse truth from fiction from propaganda? The political sphere is enormous....seemingly smart people oppose eachother so tremendously that I can't for the life of me determine what is real and what is not.

I would say basic facts are quote unquote "easy" to determine as true. Like there are lots of fact checkers and the like and most mainstream media cites are, for the most part, factually accurate. What is much much harder is determining narratives. Said "smart people" aren't really disagreeing on underlying statements of facts, they just build up conflicting larger narratives that are built up of series of facts.

well thats a take. but I am gonna tend to not believe the people that brought us the Iraq War and the Gazan (plausible) genocide.

I just timed out preflop in a hand and came back to discover I'd have flopped a set... and been set-over-setted. Gotta be a good sign for the session.

100% it goes in on the flop and I lose half my stack in this hand. Dunno what on earth happened there with the 82 malarkey in MP either.

That's far froma rudimentary question.

Beyond simple matters of fact it's extremely difficult. Be skeptical and stick to ranges or suspended judgement as long as possible. We either have to become relatively expert or decide who we trust - those with real expertise* are best but only when it pertains to their expertise- 'personalities' are worst. Remember that on complex topics, most people including ourselves are basically idiots if we think we know better than the experts.

Also realise that we have to seriously think about things we want to udnerstand and that we all suffer from the problem of bias.

Determining expertise is relatively strightforward imo but some seem wrongly to think it might be some doctor on the internet, by politcal impointment etc etc. One big sign of expertise is that they very rarely give the simple answer people seem to desperately want and will olften commit the sin of not knowing. Simple answers to compelx issues are an indication of idiocy.

something something blockers

In many cases you simply won't be able to. On the flip-side, it's good to realize that.

A good thing to look for is if you agree or want to agree with almost every word written / uttered. That makes it more likely that the piece was written with your views in mind, and might be seeking to use that to push you one step further along some ideological axis or to make you less likely to be skeptical about certain conclusions.

Good post.

I would add that political theory, economics, international relations, philosophy, law and others are all fields of knowledge and you have to put in the work to understand them even loosely.

They are like poker/gambling in that many/most people think they can just know them automatically. Yet many people who speak on these fields as highly paid professionals from all POVs genuinely do not know very basic terminology and sound like 1/2 fish saying they lose cuz people don't respect their raises.

There are many resources online. Dry stuff like the stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. Entire college courses. Funner stuff on youtube or pods.

You could start with learning about major thinkers: Burke, Marx, Keynes, Locke, Mill, etc.

You could also just look up terms when you don't know a clear definition off the top of your head. Left wing, conservative, republic, capitalist, etc. Keep doing this till it sticks. Sounds obvious, but few do it.

You want sources that are striving to explain these things on their own terms for the sake of knowledge. Rather than sources that are trying to shape answers to fit their ideology. In other words, don't get an account of Marxism from an Ayn rand subreddit and don't get an account of Chicago economics from Bernie Bros.

Obv, you can have a view on abortion or prefer a candidate without learning this stuff. But the more you get into pols without developing this knowledge, the bigger a fool you'll become.

I would also.tell you to watch the entirety of a video and read the actual documents or listen to the actual tape of an audio recording.

For example:

1. Biden calling Zelinky Putin and Trump calling his Dr. Johnson not Jackson were public speaking errors blown out of proportion by the news stations.
2. The transcript of Trumps perfect phone call clearly shows he was extorting Zelinksky for a personal favor.
3. Trump’s Georgia phone call was clearly asking for an improper vote count.
4. Bidens debate performance was a train wreck.

It will be interesting to see what the net effect of this ruling against Google will be.

https://www.theverge.com/2024/8/5/24155520/judge-rules-on-us-doj-v-google-antitrust-search-suit

The Verge

Judge rules that Google ‘is a monopolist’ in US antitrust case

by Rococo k

It will be interesting to see what the net effect of this ruling against Google will be.

https://www.theverge.com/2024/8/5/24155520/judge-rules-on-us-doj-v-google-antitrust-search-suit

The Verge

Judge rules that Google ‘is a monopolist’ in US antitrust case

Yeah, it seems pretty huge, although I assume the effect will be delayed by an appeal.