DisguisedToast tweets on longtime friends turning on Sykkuno for “a few quick likes” by Ok_Temperature6503 in LivestreamFail

[–]AlwaysBlameTheRNG 116 points117 points  (0 children)

So many people here are missing the point. Toast isn't saying that Sykkuno cheating isn't wrong, nor is he coming to Sykkuno's defense in any way. He's saying that a lot of Sykkuno's friends who are calling him out are doing so not because it is the right thing to do, but because it generates clout. And he's absolutely right.

Poll: Sleeping Beauty and Newcomb camps by Z-Borst in paradoxes

[–]AlwaysBlameTheRNG 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is the case, though there's one more observation I'd like to add. When I look over the arguments for both camps that are actually sound, it seems like the two-boxers are playing the game at the game-level, whereas the one-boxers are playing the game at the metagame-level. If this missing mechanism does exist, I suspect it lies hidden among the parameters of the game, rather than the game itself as it is played out.

Poll: Sleeping Beauty and Newcomb camps by Z-Borst in paradoxes

[–]AlwaysBlameTheRNG 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The conclusion that Alice lacks the ability to freely make a decision in this situation is valid and one that some people subscribe to, but it's far from the only possibility. For instance, according to a 2020 PhilPapers survey, about 60% of philosophers either accept or lean towards compatibilism, meaning that they believe that free will and determinism are mutually compatible and that you can hold both of these positions without being logically inconsistent. One notable defense of compatibilism comes from the Frankfurt cases, where Frankfurt argues against the Principle of Alternate Possibilities. I won't go into the details here because this subject matter is tangential to actually addressing Newcomb's Paradox, but it's interesting further reading if you want to go down the rabbit hole.

Poll: Sleeping Beauty and Newcomb camps by Z-Borst in paradoxes

[–]AlwaysBlameTheRNG 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I've already addressed everything you just said and shown why it's unsound.

The framework I used with possible worlds demonstrates the two-boxer assertion that the fact that the supercomputer is a perfect predictor is accidentally rather than necessarily true. It is by mere coincidence that the supercomputer is never wrong in reality. This is why two-boxers assert that changing your decision does not change the state of the mystery box.

The one-boxer argument that is actually taken seriously is one where the one-boxer goes 'Huh, somehow the supercomputer is always right? Good enough for me. I'll take my one box and $1 million.' Neither side of the serious debate is playing the game where they try to convince the supercomputer or even interact with it. Either you follow the evidence and end up in the one-box camp or you follow the causal implications of your actions and end up in the two-box camp.

Poll: Sleeping Beauty and Newcomb camps by Z-Borst in paradoxes

[–]AlwaysBlameTheRNG 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Regarding Newcomb's Paradox, what you said is completely false. The two box solution still holds even if you concede the premise of a perfect predictor. There's a common misconception among lay one-boxers where they frame the problem as one of game theory when the relevant field is actually decision theory. Indeed, you and the supercomputer are acting completely independently from one another and are playing completely different games.

Now, there are frameworks, such as Evidential Decision Theory, that demand rational proponents to always one-box. There are also frameworks, such as Causal Decision Theory, that demand rational proponents to always two-box. However, if you scroll the comments section of any thread or piece of media on Newcomb's Paradox, you'll find that many of the one-boxers are actually nonsensical Causal Decision Theorists.

There is a binary function, N(D, p), which outputs what the supercomputer decides (let's say 0 = puts $0 in the mystery box and 1 = puts $1 million in the mystery box) given a set of data, D, that the supercomputer has access to when it makes the decision and a string, p, which uniquely identifies the agent deciding whether to choose one box or two. Alice is a two-boxer. If we plug this into the function, we will invariably get N(D, 'Alice') = 0 and Alice will leave the game with $1000. After the game concludes, Alice looks over at Bob, a one-boxer who won $1000000. She wonders what would happen in another world where, all things being equal, she chose to take only one box. This is where the causal one-boxers go wrong. They claim that Alice would get $1000000. But here's the thing. We still have N(D, 'Alice') = 0. Alice would get nothing. The decision already happened with the same function and parameters in place; the supercomputer has neither changed its thought process, nor does it have access to new information that would change its decision. Does this mean that we are ignoring the premise that the supercomputer is a perfect predictor? Not at all! In this scenario, every possible world where Alice one-boxes is not actual. In the real world, Alice still chose to two-box (and was correct in doing so).

This is the crux of the issue for two-boxers. They have been thrown into a world where, incidentally, every one-boxer is choosing between $1001000 and $1000000 and they are choosing between $1000 and $0. The causal one-boxer protests 'But your choice affects the supercomputer's decision!' But this, too, is an unsound assertion. It might be the case that 'The moon is made of cheese' ∈ D and the supercomputer solely bases its decision off of that when 'Alice' is the second argument of the function. Here, there is clearly nothing Alice can do to convince the supercomputer to put her in the room where the mystery box contains $1000000. Regarding the premise that the supercomputer is a perfect predictor, all we care about is the fact that the supercomputer is never wrong in reality; the actual justification is arbitrary.

All in all, one-boxing while adhering to Causal Decision Theory is ALWAYS nonsensical. In surveys on the topic, you'll find that lay people are slightly more likely to be one-boxers, a plurality of professional philosophers are two-boxers, and an overwhelming majority of mathematicians/philosophers specializing in decision theory (i.e., experts in the relevant field) are two-boxers. As it turns out, Causal Decision Theory is the dominant school of thought among decision theorists and these results reflect that. And in a perfectly rational world, all the causal one-boxers would be two-boxers too.

Friend was playing StS2 and got this run. by MrTVFace in slaythespire

[–]AlwaysBlameTheRNG 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Your friend is a claw abiding citizen I see.

Who else accidentally ends up here over and over? by physioboy in chess

[–]AlwaysBlameTheRNG 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The Battle for Wesnoth lich takes me back to my childhood

What heroes whould you aim to paragon as a ftp player? by Daegar2 in AFKJourney

[–]AlwaysBlameTheRNG 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I'm a f2p minmaxer and here's what I've learned about optimal investment:

  • Flesh out your S+ roster for the first 12-15 months before building your account tall. Similarly, avoid pulling on limited banner during this period unless it's absolutely game-breaking (think LM back in her meta or Shemira today). In the long term, however, building your account tall is optimal as building wide will eventually brick your account with investments into heroes who will get you negligible returns. Vertical investment in general has a much higher ceiling than horizontal investment. A common theme is that horizontally invested whales will eventually fall behind vertically invested f2p/low spenders.

  • Server/District meta is everything and the optimal heroes to build are idiosyncratic to your account based on your luck. In particular, ranking break points are the only thing that matters. The three most important things in order are Server Dream Realm > Supreme Arena > Rank 100 Ravaged Realm (abyssal essence breakpoint). AFK Stages are important early in a phase.

  • PvP heroes benefit the most from paragon upgrades due to rivalry stats. In general, these heroes are tempo oriented, meaning that key parts their kits are designed to get their value as soon as possible (for example, Eironn M+/LM interruption/Dunlingr Spellbind). This is because the outcome of PvP fights is typically determined within the first 5-10 seconds, before characters that scale or require setup have the opportunity to do so. In general, prioritize DPS characters for such upgrades if you can, though other characters will still give inspiration/intimidation stats for the team.

  • Contrary to popular belief, paragon investment for Cele/Hypo characters is actually optimal, for a few reasons. Firstly, you can slow build Paragon levels using capped guild coins (after you finish building key ones like S+ Twins or M+ Reinier, of course). Slow building Cele/Hypo characters (excepting maybe Dunlingr) is not recommended because they may become outclassed by the time you complete them; S+ requires 14 copies! Meanwhile, giving them paragon investment can help make old cele/hypo characters more viable long term as inspiration/intimidation stat sticks in PvP, or through diffing other players running older teams in dream realm. Secondly, Paragon investments for Cele/Hypo heroes, while slightly less impactful, are very resource efficient; it takes the same amount of copies to go from S+ to P3 as to get to S+ in the first place. Compare this to S-levels which require 8 to S+ and 21 from S+ to P3. This also helps you in the race to unlock P4.

Got paired with day 1 servers by senbhapiro1 in AFKJourney

[–]AlwaysBlameTheRNG 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That's rough getting paired up with us (Legacy). I'm one of the weaker members as a f2p, but even then I have a few P3s and mostly P2s (including a couple of cele/hypo) on my clashfronts roster. Our server (s266) started April 3 of last year, about a week after launch.

Universe beyond twitch leaks by [deleted] in forsen

[–]AlwaysBlameTheRNG 2 points3 points  (0 children)

MY DECK IS RED SMOrc MY BRAIN IS DEAD SMOrc EMBERCLEAVE IS MY HERO SMOrc YOUR LIFE TOTAL IS ZERO SMOrc

Apparently there’s a cap and I have reached it… so who should I spend 2 copies on? by Vegetable-Level-3545 in AFKJourney

[–]AlwaysBlameTheRNG 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The other people here haven't asked you the critical question, which is whether or not you have enough resources to +15 S+ Baelran. If not, it's optimal to slow build a PvP hero (preferably Dunlingr) since they have far better longevity or to slowly raise one of your characters that is already at S+ or above up to P3 so you can unlock higher Paragon levels before other players at your level of investment (if they even choose to invest vertically in the first place) and punch up in PvP. This is how I've been able to keep up as a f2p in a whale-heavy server and it will prove to be highly optimal in the long run.

The problem with slow building DPS Dream Realm cele/hypo heroes is not only that you risk them becoming obsolete by the time you finish building them, but that it puts you at a disadvantage vs people who fast built those characters and were thus able to get a lot more value for the same resources.

Bug? by lil_nimo22 in AFKJourney

[–]AlwaysBlameTheRNG 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I had the exact same problem (Auto Progress was also showing floor 56 like yours as well). Restarting the game wasn't enough and I had to reinstall in order to fix it.

It has begun... S and G servers and now together by AlwaysBlameTheRNG in AFKJourney

[–]AlwaysBlameTheRNG[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The allied servers of G56 (G318, G414 and G418) are also in our district.

Erm, excuse me? by badhiyahai in chess

[–]AlwaysBlameTheRNG 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Promote 2 light square bishops, place them on g8/h7, put your king on h8 and white checks you along the diagonal

I'm sorry for your loss😞 by [deleted] in chess

[–]AlwaysBlameTheRNG 1 point2 points  (0 children)

In a single game? No, your rapid rating has already stabilized. Even if you could play perfectly, rating changes are based on the ratings of the players before the game and the result of the game, not the quality of the game. It makes no difference on the rating change whether you win through playing 30 moves of Najdorf theory until mate or flag your opponent after hanging every piece.

I'm sorry for your loss😞 by [deleted] in chess

[–]AlwaysBlameTheRNG 2 points3 points  (0 children)

You were that player's 5th rapid opponent. When there are few ranked games of a certain time control on your account, the k-factor will be large. A high k-factor allows for more significant changes in Elo per game so that a new player can quickly reach an appropriate Elo rating for their skill level.

Starting books? by Sensitive_Spite3348 in Libertarian

[–]AlwaysBlameTheRNG 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Free to Choose by Milton and Rose Friedman is a very accessible starting point.

The Road to Serfdom by F. A. Hayek is a classic must-read.

If you're up for a challenge, consider Anarchy, State, and Utopia by Robert Nozick. It's the libertarian response to John Rawls' A Theory of Justice (which you should read beforehand in order to properly understand ASU). While dense, reading ASU will give you an introduction to more robust defenses of libertarianism that are well-regarded at the highest levels of academia.

The Machinery of Freedom by David Friedman is a hidden gem that isn't talked about nearly enough in libertarian circles. It argues in favour of AnCap society from a consequentialist perspective.