IQ (moved subtopic)
^^Hey Luciom, can you remind me again how smart JD Vance is? Above, same, or below the average MAGA chode?
I have no problem with schools using affirmative action to help people like Vance with humble backgrounds.... but maybe not in law school where these idiots start becoming dangerous. And they got to find smarter people then Vance or the whole thing just looks ridiculous and all you're doing is de-valuing your own department.
I honestly think you have me confused with someone else. I have never been an advocate of staying home unless you affirmatively like one of your choices. You have the choice you have, and it is naive to think that you are going to disrupt the machine by not voting. Nor have I ever been an advocate of shunning compromise or practical solutions in favor of blind adherence to principles.
It's true that I don't want to disenfranchise people with whom I disagree. It's true that I would not part
It was you. Are you saying that you would give someone a ride to the polls if their car broke down and you knew that he was the vote that made you lose the election (to, let's say, Trump)? As to your comment about the tortuous and the non tortuous dictators, if I have the chance to visit those in the midst of being tortured is it OK to tell them that their excruciating pain came about because Roccoco was willing to let them endure it so he could feel good about not voting for the slightly bad dictator? (Actually I think if push came to shove you would vote, unlike you know who).
https://web.archive.org/web/201605281017...
Sklansky getting owned by religionists is pretty funny, even if he is in the top 0.01% of his lot as far as smarts go.
The challenge didn't apply to Ken Jennings. It applied only to people who thought a belief in Jesus guaranteed heaven and non belief guaranteed hell.
Repeated games utilitarianism is very different from single choice utilitarianism and anyway it is all about how you write assumptions for future behavior and the little value numbers attached to events, you can justify literally anything with utilitarianism (including human extinction being a moral positive) which is why it is morally horrific to be an unrestrained utilitarian.
I agree with that. I have actually written that principles should carry weight on the scale that utilitarians use. Sort of the same thing that the dentist guy said except coming from the other direction. But I don't think that the possibility of future bad stuff should stop you from cutting off a random child's finger to save the planet, especially since every single parent in the world except you, would vote for that EVEN IF they knew it would be their own child.
You've had about half a dozen posts in the last two days alluding to hidden messages, posters you won't name, etc. etc. Can you stop talking in riddles?.
In all but one case the hidden messages were simply inside jokes that a particular poster might realize would apply to something they wrote in the past. The one exception was conveyed to one poster who I trust in a private message and it will remain hidden.
What posts are you referring to? I honestly don't understand what you are talking about.
Are you saying that you would give someone a ride to the polls if their car broke down and you knew that he was the vote that made you lose the election (to, let's say, Trump)?
Of course not. Making a personal decision not to give an individual person a ride to a poll is far different than pushing for legal (or illegal) disenfranchisement of a large swathe of people. Also, are you citing the bolded as an example of disenfranchisement? If so, you are relying on a highly idiosyncratic definition of disenfranchisement. Or maybe it is just a poor example (how dare you!).
As to your comment about the tortuous and the non tortuous dictators, if I have the chance to visit those in the midst of being tortured is it OK to tell them that their excruciating pain came about because Roccoco was willing to let them endure it so he could feel good about not voting for the slightly bad dictator? (Actually I think if push came to shove you would vote, unlike you know who).
I am not entirely following this dictator example, but in every major election scenario that I have encountered in the real world, I have chosen to vote, even when I didn't particularly like either candidate. Could you come up with some weird edge scenario where I would choose to be part of an insurgent group rather than bother voting? Sure. But that hardly makes me unusual.
As an aside, the word you are looking for is "torturous," not "tortuous." They are not synonyms.
Yeah you're gonna have to draw me a diagram or something, I have a vague notion of what you're trying to say about the probabilities but if I understand it correctly I don't think it works.
Your argument needs to fail when applied to the case of "odds of stopping on number N given M flips" because in this case, the numbers are not equiprobable. I think your argument predicts that they are equiprobable in this case also.
Don't get what you are saying. Do you agree that the odds the two adjacent slats are last are both 1/37? And that the people who are having trouble with their intuition are thinking that starting further from 00 somehow gives them a different probability? And that if the probability is not 1/37 for those slats it would make sense that it be more or less than 1/37 but not both. (That last sentence is not proved but would be amazing if not true.) And if the probabilities are different from 1/37 all in the same direction, they wouldn't add up to 100% so they all must be equal?
Don't get what you are saying. Do you agree that the odds the two adjacent slats are last are both 1/37? And that the people who are having trouble with their intuition are thinking that starting further from 00 somehow gives them a different probability? And that if the probability is not 1/37 for those slats it would make sense that it be more or less than 1/37 but not both. (That last sentence is not proved but would be amazing if not true.) And if the probabilities are different from 1/37 al
No, I don't agree with the first statement - I don't see from the logic you posted how you arrive at 1/37 for slats 1 and 37, sorry.
What I mean is if we take your logic (and it's entirely possible that I have misunderstood it) and apply it to the following problem: "If we flip the coin 50 times, what are the chances we stop on slat 1? What about slat 18?" then this logic dictates that both 1 and 18 have a 1/37 probability, but this is the wrong answer. If this is the case, the logic must be wrong.
(for the purposes of all these posts, I am just assuming the wheel starts at 0 and ends on 37, numbered clockwise)
I honestly think you have me confused with someone else. I have never been an advocate of staying home unless you affirmatively like one of your choices. You have the choice you have, and it is naive to think that you are going to disrupt the machine by not voting. Nor have I ever been an advocate of shunning compromise or practical solutions in favor of blind adherence to principles.
It's true that I don't want to disenfranchise people with whom I disagree. It's true that I would not part
not a low bar, an utilitarian would torture kids if it increases "aggregate utility" in his model with no flinching
What posts are you referring to? I honestly don't understand what you are talking about.
Of course not. Making a personal decision not to give an individual person a ride to a poll is far different than pushing for legal (or illegal) disenfranchisement of a large swathe of people.
I am not entirely following this dictator example, but in every major election scenario that I have encountered in the real world, I have chosen to vote, even when I didn't particularly like either candidate. Could you
You must have forgotten your post similar to the dictator example. In the help a motorist example I am assuming that not doing it is BECAUSE you knew he would vote you out and you otherwise would have helped him out. If so it means that you are not opposed to artificial means to win an election and once you say that then your only reason to accept some and not other artificial means is because of meta reasons. So I will leave you with this:
If Trump appears to win and you somehow had the ability to push a button where you COMPLETELY SECRETLY nullified enough Tump votes to reverse things, would you?
If Trump appears to win and you somehow had the ability to push a button where you COMPLETELY SECRETLY nullified enough Tump votes to reverse things, would you?
Damn, why is it gotta be secret? I push the button and shout about it from the rooftoops. **** Trumpers. Why the **** does everyone need to play fair when they try to win through any underhanded and illegal/violent means possible? I'd go back in time and kill Hitler, too.
I agree with that. I have actually written that principles should carry weight on the scale that utilitarians use. Sort of the same thing that the dentist guy said except coming from the other direction. But I don't think that the possibility of future bad stuff should stop you from cutting off a random child's finger to save the planet, especially since every single parent in the world except you, would vote for that EVEN IF they knew it would be their own child.
you are not accounting for the fact that in real life your model, or the model pushed by the people you believe are good at modeling, can be wrong both for good faith errors, but more oftenly because they have other agenda (which could just mean they are utilitarians as well but with different value weighting than you ).
which btw was actually the case for COVID management, the most clear cut utilitarian example we had in decades.
then there are different evaluations in multiverse models or in case of appearance of omnipotent beings putting you through riddles, ie "what if being utilitarians is actually failing at the moral test in front of us" and so on. unprovable ofc but remember that in some sense all future events are equally a priori unprovable.
No, I don't agree with the first statement - I don't from the logic you posted how you arrive at 1/37 for slats 1 and 37, sorry.
What I mean is if we take your logic (and it's entirely possible that I have misunderstood it) and apply it to the following problem: "If we flip the coin 50 times, what are the chances we stop on slat 1? What about slat 18?" then this logic dictates that both 1 and 18 have a 1/37 probability, but this is the wrong answer. If this is the case, the logic must be wrong.
(f
You do agree that if I have $2 and you have $35 and we play an even money game for a dollar a flip until one of us goes broke, my chances of winning is 2/37? For the lucky adjacent slat, that is exactly the position it is in regarding its chances to be the last slat painted.
You do agree that if I have $2 and you have $35 and we play an even money game for a dollar a flip until one of us goes broke, my chances of winning is 2/37?
Ok, maybe this is the part I am missing. I don't know how to arrive at this answer. Is this a standard probability calculation?
Damn, why is it gotta be secret? I push the button and shout about it from the rooftoops. **** Trumpers. Why the **** does everyone need to play fair when they try to win through any underhanded and illegal/violent means possible? I'd go back in time and kill Hitler, too.
doing it without it being secret could mean you and your family (and anyone else you genuinely like) are tortured and killed by MAGA, I think that's why he proposed the secrecy.
I would have Hitler killed too but if I can choose it would happen in prison when he is taken in for the beer hall putsch.
and if I could I would construe it as an homosexual lover killing him while finding him having homosexual acts with another prisoner, in order to diminish his moral standing among his people at the time.
but keep in mind me and you don't have a "killing is always wrong" principle. most people don't.
some people do
Repeated games utilitarianism is very different from single choice utilitarianism and anyway it is all about how you write assumptions for future behavior and the little value numbers attached to events, you can justify literally anything with utilitarianism (including human extinction being a moral positive) which is why it is morally horrific to be an unrestrained utilitarian.
See "effective altruism" as well on the topic.
Within a fairly clear set of options and preferences and moral rules you
It's not single choice but even when it is, refusing to vote for the candidates (as oppossed to just not voting) has a significant political consequence.
it's usually vague, opaque and takes time so people are easily fooled but the usa has just had a seismic political event and people still argue DS's sweet sugary form of utilitariniasm. People being unwilling to vote for biden literally means they are getting a different candidate.
Yes DS can always come up with extreme hypothetical but they dont prove his point. It just means principles can run into greater principles or even break down completely.
People who worship some principle are makign a mistake imo but that's a different matter.
doing it without it being secret could mean you and your family (and anyone else you genuinely like) are tortured and killed by MAGA, I think that's why he proposed the secrecy.
I would have Hitler killed too but if I can choose it would happen in prison when he is taken in for the beer hall putsch.
and if I could I would construe it as an homosexual lover killing him while finding him having homosexual acts with another prisoner, in order to diminish his moral standing among his people at the tim
The word you're looking for is "stage", not "construe" FYI.
Ok, maybe this is the part I am missing. I don't know how to arrive at this answer. Is this a standard probability calculation?
man it's Uber normal winner take all hu equity calculation, think any mtt at the end, for the portion that goes to the first player.
think a sng hu between equally skilled people, your chance of winning at any time (remove button position which changes this a little) is your chips / total chips
man it's Uber normal winner take all hu equity calculation, think any matt at the end, for the portion that goes to the first player.
think a sng hu between equally skilled people, your chance of winning at any time (remove button position which changes this a little) is your chips / total chips
What? This is a random walk where we start at 2 and need to calculate our odds of getting to 37 before we get to 0. We're not doubling every time, we are taking one step at a time. If your point is that these situations are analogous then sure, but you need to show more work.
What? This is a random walk where we start at 2 and need to calculate our odds of getting to 37 before we get to 0. We're not doubling every time, we are taking one step at a time. If your point is that these situations are analogous then sure, but you need to show more work.
it's not different if we play for a portion of the stack or if we do all or nothing every time, that's the point.
if we play 200 chips vs 1000 at 1-2 blinds we aren't expected to be allin every hand are we? yet the guy with 200 would immediately get a 200/1200 chance to win assessment if equally skilled, it would be obvious for poker players.
and do you think that would change if the stake every hand was exactly one big blind? why?
Then you need to read this book, written several months ago.
https://www.amazon.com/Probability-Stati...
If you don't think it is pretty good I will send you $100.
it's not different if we play for a portion of the stack or if we do all or nothing every time, that's the point.
if we play 200 chips vs 1000 at 1-2 blinds we aren't expected to be allin every hand are we? yet the guy with 200 would immediately get a 200/1200 chance to win assessment if equally skilled, it would be obvious for poker players.
and do you think that would change if the stake every hand was exactly one big blind? why?
No, that's fair enough, it does make sense. I'd like to see a slightly more rigorous mathematical formulation just to understand it better though. I've always applied the HU equity calculation and it's intuitive, but I've never really thought about it in as much depth as I am now.
If I posed the problem as in the prior post, with a random walk and getting to X before hitting 0, suddenly the HU equity analogy becomes a lot less intuitive. For me, anyway. But that's why I'm all the way down there at 20.
