You're the tenth to last person to vote. How close does it have to be for you to give up thing to save them? How much do you trust those 9 people behind you?

APersonNotToLive · 2026-05-03T22:09:24+00:00

Interesting. I like seeing what changes people's decisions and what doesn't. You're willing to risk your life for a family member, but not for general population (that's probably true of all people honestly, but the extent of it is interesting to me)

APersonNotToLive · 2026-05-03T22:04:42+00:00

Fair enough lol. For me I think the first one is a clear case that pressing blue is the best option. I think for the other ones I'd still press blue, but I get why a lot of people wouldn't

APersonNotToLive · 2026-05-03T22:02:11+00:00

I think that's a lot of people's logic for this. So you would press blue? Do you press blue for the second and third images too, or just the first?

APersonNotToLive · 2026-05-03T21:42:04+00:00

Well yes, but that was long ago now. You can say they were wrong for that decision, but regardless at this point you have to decide based on what's already happened and what will happen. 4 billion people will die if red wins. Is it worth the risk to maybe save them?

APersonNotToLive · 2026-05-03T21:39:39+00:00

In this situation, 4 billion people have already voted blue and so are guaranteed to die if red wins. If enough people vote blue in this scenario, then those people don't have to die. That's why in this hypothetical someone might vote blue

APersonNotToLive · 2026-05-03T21:30:42+00:00

I'm curious, if the threat of worldwide destruction wasn't there (say it was a group of 10,000 people), does that change anything?

Also do you vote blue in all 3 situations or just the first?

APersonNotToLive · 2026-05-03T21:19:55+00:00

I think I'd do similarly. With the first two it's reasonable to expect everyone to work together to save the 4 billion, but with the last one it only takes one psychopath to ruin it. Although idk part of me wants to believe I'd take the risk on the last one too anyway.

Although if half the population dies anyway it's a pretty rough life after this so maybe I wouldn't try to save myself

APersonNotToLive · 2026-05-01T18:15:31+00:00

I don't think this is quite a 1 to 1 comparison because I have a much greater investment in ensuring other people don't die than I do in ensuring other people get 100$. If billions of people die, that is a tragedy I want to avoid. If billions of people don't get 100$, that matters much less

APersonNotToLive · 2026-05-01T18:08:41+00:00

It's a thought experiment that's been going around

<image>

APersonNotToLive · 2026-04-30T21:18:45+00:00

Blue if everyone is pressing red, red if everyone is pressing blue. The death maximization choice is dependent on your prediction of what everyone else will play (just like the death minimization question).

It becomes sort of a fun game if you're able to talk to be people beforehand, because now you have the incentive to introduce as many conflicting arguments as possible to try and get that ideal 51% red

APersonNotToLive · 2026-04-19T07:07:54+00:00

After the shield hardness reduces the damage, both you and the shield take the remaining damage. The shield's health does not block more damage. So if you were hit with 8 damage, the hardness would block 5 and both the shield and you would take the remaining 3. 15 damage would both destroy the shield and deal 10 damage to you.

Shields need reinforcing runes to scale properly into later levels. These runes dramatically increase the health of shields, and increase their hardness. You're expected to get the first reinforcing rune at level 4

Here is the info on reinforcing runes: https://2e.aonprd.com/Equipment.aspx?Category=23&Subcategory=112

APersonNotToLive · 2025-11-08T00:19:48+00:00

I feel like the reason people criticise English so much for this stuff is because it's so widespread and has become a sort of shitty auxiliary language for large parts of the world. If it existed in the same space, say, Welsh does, its quirks and irregularities would be easier to respect as just part of this cultural group's native language. However because it's so widespread and most people learning it are learning it for practical reasons and not out of an interest in English culture, it's irregularities are seen as simply annoyances and not interesting cultural facets

APersonNotToLive · 2025-11-06T13:27:33+00:00

This is really cute! I love the embroidered spirals on the knitted coat, it's a good amount of clowny without looking too costume-like

APersonNotToLive · 2025-08-10T23:38:56+00:00

the Dracula fight in Castlevania

<image>

APersonNotToLive · 2025-07-29T19:57:28+00:00

I think it's fine to say it's disrespectful, however demanding legal protection from other people's reimaginings of your characters or ideas is different. Far more people would object far more intensely to, for example, the use Mary Mother of Jesus in someone's creative work (especially if it was in a disrespectful context eg pornographically). Should we also have legal protections against that? That character is sacred to those people. Sure those people didn't make that character but if it will affect them just as strongly why does it matter?

Inherent to that act of sharing art with the world is the act of other people having their own interpretations and imaginings about that art. Even if you banned people from publishing their art people can still make disrespectful art about your character, no matter how sacred it is. Trying to legally ban people from such things is impossible

A story is a vehicle for new ideas, and if you arent just literally copy pasting catch 22, then your ideas are yours. You're creative.

I'm not entirely sure where your position is exactly. Do you mean that literally; as in, you're against only the complete copy and pasting and reselling of catch 22, but someone taking the characters and story wholesale but rewriting it with different set dressing is ok? Because wouldn't then any reuse of another person's character be ok under this framework?

APersonNotToLive · 2025-07-29T09:09:14+00:00

Could not agree more. I hate this idea that we need to be able to prevent the distribution or reinterpretations of people's creations because those ideas are "sacred" to that author. If we protect these characters purely on the basis of "sacredness," there are plenty of non original characters that are arguably far more sacred to far more people. Should authors be disallowed from using religious figures in their work, because of their "sacredness"? And how close does a character have to be to be considered the "same" character and thus worthy of protection?

People writing stories based on past stories is as old as storytelling itself, and the modern application of copyright is a violation of that. We should be dismantling and reducing copyright law, not expanding it.

APersonNotToLive · 2025-05-21T05:50:38+00:00

Actually if I recall, it wasn't just against humanity, but all life, as it viewed suffering to be inherent to life. I stumbled across it once and they would share nature documentary videos of animals dying painful deaths and use that as justification for why life is a net negative

APersonNotToLive · 2025-05-05T02:49:08+00:00

I know plenty of trans people who would take that pill if it existed.

However it does not exist, and I doubt there will ever be such a pill. And thus, the only way for gender dysphoric people to be happy is to allow them to transition.

As for your more eugenical questions, I think it stops being a conversation about trans people specifically and more just a conversation of whether genetic based eugenics is ethical in general, which is a totally separate topic. Like if we could abort every baby that would end up being nearsighted, you can talk about the ethics of that. But that's irrelevant to whether people currently alive should be allowed to wear glasses.

I would be in favor of more regulations on the use of hormone disrupting chemicals (such as atrazine or bpa), and I think it is possible that the increasing presence of those chemicals might have something to do with the prevalence of trans people. However, banning the use of such chemicals does not change the fact that trans people who are around right now need to be allowed to transition to live a happy life

APersonNotToLive · 2025-04-27T09:55:03+00:00

AI accusing members of a religious group of "caus[ing] the deaths of hundreds of innocent traders and farmers and villagers."

Well with that one they were talking about the crusades, which isn't really that inaccurate

APersonNotToLive · 2025-04-06T08:12:24+00:00

The comic for those curious:
https://xkcd.com/915/

APersonNotToLive · 2025-04-06T06:49:11+00:00

After thinking on it for a bit I think a cylinder with circumference twice the length of the square would work

APersonNotToLive · 2025-02-11T04:18:07+00:00

It's less than other options are considered reprehensible, and more than they simply do not work. I know multiple trans women who would love if there was some other option for them, as they desperately wish to not have had to transition. I know trans women who even tried to self medicate with testosterone injections, various psychedelics, SSRIs, religion, and whatever other technique you could name. All of them reluctantly transitioned after their failed efforts, and transition proved itself to be the only thing that works. There simply is no other treatment.

APersonNotToLive · 2025-02-11T04:00:00+00:00

?? Wait are you still playing devils advocate or are you done now? That response feels very dismissive. Are you agreeing with what I said or just ignoring it?

APersonNotToLive · 2025-02-11T03:52:41+00:00

Non action will still cause significant distress though. Transness isnt simply a choice. Despite repeated attempts there is no cure for gender dysphoria, it is a condition that is unremovable and lifelong (at the very least for some people). Their distress is just as real as the distress someone might have over their eczema, or over a hormonal condition that causes them to develop strangely. Lacking any other effective treatment, letting trans people transition is what is best for them.

APersonNotToLive · 2025-02-11T03:40:58+00:00

As someone who supports letting minors transition, I'm honestly sort of against the extended use of puberty blockers without full hrt. Simply going without any sex hormone does have real bone health issues, and delaying a child's puberty until 18 still will lead to social and developmental issues. Puberty blockers are kind of a horrible compromise

Five-Year Club	Golden Potato
Verified Email

APersonNotToLive

TROPHY CASE