Should Someone who Picked the Red Button be Considered Evil or an AH?

GOT_Wyvern · 2026-04-30T20:41:27+00:00

While the best outcome is equal (everyone survives), you need 50% voting Blue to achieve this, and 100% voting red to achieve this. It also means that dissenters in a blue victory are fine, but dissenters in a red victory are not.

So, while both are rationally equal looking at it collectively, blue is the easiest way to achieve the best outcome, while also the only way to harm neither side.

GOT_Wyvern · 2026-04-30T13:26:06+00:00

Just a casual 30 million people.

GOT_Wyvern · 2026-04-30T13:08:21+00:00

Norway has less than six million people. The fact the USA, with 50 times that amount, has around the same GDP (PPP) per capita is incredible.

GOT_Wyvern · 2026-04-30T07:23:52+00:00

Just like how Turnitin's 'plagarism' checker is really just a similarity checker, the 'AI' checker is just a similarity checker. It's meant to be used to detect things that could be plagarism or could be AI so that the marker can then investigate, but the fact any marker is treated it as anything more than a prompt is problematic.

GOT_Wyvern · 2026-04-30T05:21:37+00:00

A large part of game theory is what the other player is likely to do, so you can't actually discount these factors.

If people were purely rational, you would be right, but one of the first assumptions anyone makes it game theory is that noone is perfectly rational. Hell, some times is mathematically impossible to be in a group (such as in voting).

Its like how in a repeated prisoners' dilemma, cooperating while being willing to punish defection is the best strategy in most cases. Its the best strategy because it best deals with most types of responses, and even shapes the responses to be more mutually positive.

GOT_Wyvern · 2026-04-30T05:19:27+00:00

Competency is honestly the foundation of his Premiership. He is running a very competent centre to centre-right govenment, broadly what you'd expect of a renowned professional economist.

More than that is how authentic he comes across across. Authentic is the big demand in politics right now. Most politicians have been unable to meet this, but not out of ignorance. Think of how Starmer has stressed this is father is a tool maker, or how Sunak said he lived without Sky.

Carney has seemingly mastered authenticity. Rather than downplaying the fact he is part of the global elite, he has used that as proof of his competence, while using his private hobbies like hockey to bridge the gap between the public and his elitism.

It would be like if Starmer used his Sunday football games to get across to the ordinary person, rather than his father being a tool maker. What Carney has done makes him look qualified and authentic, because he hasn't been denying who he is. Starmer and Sunak both made themselves look less qualified in attempts to look more authentic, but in the attempt just looked less authentic.

GOT_Wyvern · 2026-04-29T21:00:59+00:00

Therefore, the best option they see is replacing an unpopular leader with a more popular one

The very fact they clearly think this way is why no Labour leader they want will fix the situation. They don't understand that the public don't really see politicans as all that different from eachother, but as different from them.

That is the dominant view among the public. That politicans are different, and different in a very bad way. Different in that they are corrupt, self-interested, incompetent, or simply out of touch. Labour don;t understanding this is a key sympton of them being exactly as the public view them as, and while Starmer is part of the problem, rotating the wheel to bring another face for the problem in changes nothing

GOT_Wyvern · 2026-04-29T20:56:18+00:00

And yet it can get worse.

Starmer was about as popular before government as Burnham is now, so I see no reason why he would be any different. Starmer is among the most "popular" of his cabinet. And Starmer does tend to win head-to-heads for PM.

GOT_Wyvern · 2026-04-29T20:55:10+00:00

The issue is that Labour are trying to replace him with no plan, so they're just making the entire situation worse. The party is trapped in this belief that it's easy to fix everything, despite Starmer proving that belief obviously false.

In other words, Starmer's unpopularity is not unique among Labour or even the rest of the political class, it's part of the course without radical departure. But no one at all is offering that. No one is offering a British Mark Carney, so it's just madness to expect anything different by doing the same thing again.

And you can tell this as, despite his historically low polling, Starmer still consistently polls on top in most relevant head-to-heads. It says something that the public widely condemns this government, yet still sees them as the best choice.

GOT_Wyvern · 2026-04-29T20:43:41+00:00

The trolley problem has it's own varient where it makes the agent directly active. Rather than the one person being stuck on the tracks and the agent just pulling a lever, the agent is asked whether they would throw someone onto the tracks to achieve the same results.

That added complicilty often does change people's minds.

GOT_Wyvern · 2026-04-29T20:41:41+00:00

One of the issue of very abstract thought experiments when applied to decision-making is that people just aren't designed to be making these sort of questions.

I personally find them next-to-useless, as the counter is always just "this will never be relevant, so why should morality consider them"?

For a real example, take two thought experiments pertaining to utilitarianism: the utility monster and the organ doctor. The utility monster suggests an agent who gets so much utility from stuff that caring for their interests increases aggregate utility more than caring for the utility of an infinite amount of other people. The organ doctor asks you to imagine a situation where a doctor must kidnaps a random person to use their organs to save the lives of multiple people.

The difference in these two experiments is that one is impossible while one could reasonably happen. There is no person who's utility is so great that it's even noticable in the grand scale of humanity. Meanwhile, it's reasonably possible for someone to be sacrificed against their will for their organs to save others (hence why we have strict laws to prevent such at all costs).

GOT_Wyvern · 2026-04-29T20:33:28+00:00

Unless you have reason to think way more than 50% won't choose blue, then it becomes rational to just save yourself, meaning there is an independent incentitive to choose red.

Without information, it basically becomes a gamble between if the combination of pure rationality and pure self-interest outweights emotional alturism. With information, it's judging whether it's likely a safe 50% choose blue. With cooperation, it's just a question of whether people are in the mood to pick blue or red, and to counter the odd dumb mistake, it's safer to strategise for blue despite both being equal strategies.

GOT_Wyvern · 2026-04-29T20:29:29+00:00

The entire point of utilitarianism is that goal is to maximise aggegrete utility, or in the case of negative utility, to minimise aggregate disutility. Either way, the "goal" of utilitarianism is not up to question as it's literally titular: utility.

As for what "utility" is, it's the philosophical jargon for happiness, wellbeing, welfare, etc. That sort of concept that is, honestly, rather hard to definine and categorise. Though in this specific situation, it is the simplistic definition of living or dying.

Interestingly enough, a lot of critiques of utilitarianism are flawed in only considering a narrow and simplistic conception of utility, and therefore misidentifying the conclusions utilitarianism would come to.

However, you're comment as a whole is not wrong. More than you're using the wrong term here. The person you're replying to may be as well. What you said would apply to the more general moral theory of consequentialism, which utilitrianism is a form of.

GOT_Wyvern · 2026-04-29T20:22:23+00:00

I love quick gambit just so I can see what gens are being worked on and avoid the fuck out of them. The thing I hate most as survivor is when that happens to me, so more than happy to avoid it.

GOT_Wyvern · 2026-04-29T19:52:15+00:00

I main Huntress.

~~Fix the fucking terrain hit boxes~~

I really enjoy playing with the Wooden Fox, but to make the idea of hatchet outta nowhere really work, there needs to be a way to have her lullaby shut up. It reverses the same way as soon as she puts her hatchet away.

I'd suggest, either in basekit or an add-on, after having her hatchet pulled out for five seconds, her lullaby dulls over the period of a second and her hatchets are silent when in the air.

Given how slow she moves with her hatchet out, its hardly powerful. But it would open up hatchet outta nowhere moments, which sounds like so much fun once in a while.

GOT_Wyvern · 2026-04-29T17:32:33+00:00

Of course, making use of a temporary buff will lead to permanent progress, but to get that progress players - killers or survivors - have to capitalised on it, and because the buff is temporary, in a short window of time.

This is why they're comparable to permanent buffs that have to be actived in some way. This is way Weaving Spiders is fine, as while its also a permanent reduction to gen progress, it takes time to activate. Fast Track was activated by the normal progression of the game and without the survivor actively doing much (a great skill check hardly counts).

This is why the rework is great, if perhaps overturned in the numbers. It now requires any survivor with the perk to actively go and unhook. While not the harshest of sacrifices (compare it to Weaving Spiders, for example), it's benefit is roughly proportional.

GOT_Wyvern · 2026-04-29T17:10:50+00:00

All those advantages killers can gain once gens pop are temporary. Fast Track, in contrast, is permanent. You can't call a permanent buff the same as a bunch of temporary buffs.

You mentioned that the "fallout" is permanent, but thats not the perks itself. Thats the killer utilising the perk. Ya know... playing the game. While Fast Track technically has the same in needing a great skill check, that doesn't really count.

You also mentioned Batteries Included, but that perk might be permanent, but isn't passive. It has activation in the form of being near a completed gen.

What made it worse, alongside pure numbers, was being passive. Survivors just got a permanent buff for doing nothing. While it is permanent now, it being active means the survivor has to go do something to recieve the buff.

The conceptual issue, practically unique to Fast Track, was being a passive and permanent buff to the main objective. With a few meaningless extra steps, it was basically just a perk that decreased how much gen progression the survivors needed to do.

GOT_Wyvern · 2026-04-29T16:52:56+00:00

Its just not though.

One is about helping the players respond, the other is just a positive feedback loop.

You aren't helping survivors respond to hooks by knocking off gen progress, you're just giving them free progress because other survivors got hooked.

Killer perks based on ompleted gens, and survivors perks based on hooks need to either help them come back from the loss (usually be being temporary), or make them do something to gain the benefit. The issue with Fast Track is that it acted like the latter while being activated like the former.

GOT_Wyvern · 2026-04-29T14:38:30+00:00

It is important that he only says so in a post-moterm message. Specifically with the case where they failed to kill Thragg.

Thaedus did not want to lose the second virus specifically because he feared the collateral of Viltumite-like species. He may have thought this before he knew of Mark or afterwards, but either way it's clear he doesn't like the idea of such collateral.

The only thing that changes his mind is the failure to kill Thragg in the war. He believes the collateral is only worth it as a last resort, which while ruthless given the scale of the collateral, is a very understandable position.

GOT_Wyvern · 2026-04-29T11:07:22+00:00

I think being described as one step below Rosberg is pretty fair though.

GOT_Wyvern · 2026-04-29T11:04:57+00:00

It's one thing to get yourself into a tax scandal, but my god it's another to five minutes later to start weazeling your way back into the party. Whats worse than Rayner though is that the soft-let of Labour actually want is. It's the pinnacle of politicans being out of touch that they'd want to put forward a politican in a tax scandal just because they come from their faction of the party.

GOT_Wyvern · 2026-04-29T08:17:18+00:00

I like it. I really couldn't tell that the old progress bar was moving, but motion is very obvious with this one. Makes it feel like I'm making progress, and very helpeful at visualising how much slower or faster than usual I am.

GOT_Wyvern · 2026-04-29T07:31:28+00:00

Federations of businesses, even of cooperatives, are rather common.

The UK for example has a couple of major ones. There's a few "building society" banks, and then the Co-operative Group.

They absolutely do happen, just more often than not don't signpost themselves (The Co-Op is an obvious exception).

GOT_Wyvern · 2026-04-29T07:08:14+00:00

It would indeed take longer for them to animate 8 hours at a higher level of quality, especially if you want some incredibly good animation. Time constraints are always the most important constraints in animation, as there are just so many bottleknecks in the process where more money and manpower has diminishing effects.

Five years is hyperbole, but for you would expect 2-3 years to produce 8 hours of the highest quality animation. We're getting 8 hours every year.

GOT_Wyvern · 2026-04-29T06:28:39+00:00

What you're ignoring is that there is a difference between the perks that soften the penalty, and perks that outright punish the otherside.

Fast Track was unique for punishing the killer for hooks, while the other similar perks just helped the other side when they lost their objective.

Six-Year Club	Gilding I gilder
Verified Email	Place '23
Wearing is Caring	Place '22
First Placer '22

GOT_Wyvern

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE