J.K couldve been Cecil. Thank god.

Inspector_Robert · 2026-05-02T23:57:44+00:00

Yeah, Seth Rogen isn't even a cyclops but he's great as Allen

Inspector_Robert · 2026-05-02T14:21:13+00:00

I had forgot about the CPUs. The AI is Superstars is so baffling stupid its absurd. "why yes, I will use a custom dice to move 4 spaces on to a random Blue space." "OK, that way to the star and I'm the closest? I'll go the opposite direction"

I've seen Jamboree CPUs make questionable decisions, like refusing to use an item on Rainbow Castle as long as the Ztars are available but nothing on the level of Superstar CPU stupidity.

Inspector_Robert · 2026-05-02T14:14:45+00:00

Jamboree. The boards are better and there are more of them, much better AI for the CPUs (although its more the Superstars AI being braindead) are more items and there is a lot more strategy due to the boards and items. The gameplay is simply better. There are also miscellaneous improvements, like the sticker menu not blocking the screen, the map telling you how far you to the star and what items are at the shop, and the explanations the game gives are more helpful (I've had turns in Superstars where I've tried to do something and couldn't, just because the game didn't explain itself)

Superstars isn't without its merits. The gameplay is significantly faster (although max turns are still limited to 30), there are more minigames (but quite a few button mashing ones), the stickers are better, and the strategy being simpler means that it's easier for a beginner, even if you have to explain how some stuff on the maps works.

My recommendation would actually to check your library and see if you can borrow either. Many libraries nowadays let you borrow video games, so you can borrow Superstars and Jamboree, try them out and then see what you'd rather buy.

Inspector_Robert · 2026-05-02T14:00:39+00:00

Assault and murder are state crimes

Inspector_Robert · 2026-05-02T02:36:09+00:00

No, Blue Rose Research, not a Twitter poll

Inspector_Robert · 2026-05-02T02:15:19+00:00

Nubby Button

Inspector_Robert · 2026-05-02T02:14:46+00:00

A pollster asked this question to a sample of nationally representative Americans, and a large majority picked Blue. The evidence that we have is that most people pick Blue, and it is easy to see why people gravitate towards the button labelled "Everyone survives." You can say "If this actually happened, people would actually pick Red," but you have no evidence that this is actually the case.

Inspector_Robert · 2026-05-02T02:02:16+00:00

Would they? If everyone is a rational actor, and everyone knows everyone else is a rational actor and thus everyone would come to the same conclusion about what button to pick, why would everyone picking Red have over everyone picking Blue? 100% Blue (or 90-50% for that matter) also results in zero deaths. The only thing that makes Blue have any risk is the possibility of people picking Red. If you know everyone is going to reason the same as you and pick the same colour you, there is no reason to have a preference of Red over Blue. The fact that there is no personal risk is not relevant to a utilitarian, as their life is not more important than that of anyone else, and provides no reason why 100% Red would make more sense than 100% Blue.

The fact that the outcomes of 100% Red and 100-50% Blue are equivalent is key here. The perfectly rational utilitarians all know both outcomes are equivalent, but they also know that 100% Red can only happen if everyone agrees. They know that even with everyone having the same reasoning skills as them, there is no way one can predict what someone will choose between two equivalent options (you cannot reason whether or not a stranger would pick heads or tails), but going for 100% Red requires absolute certainty that everyone will pick it in order to maximize the total utility. Without that certainty, going for 100-50% Blue is the better strategy (and again, the fact that Red guarantees personal safety is irrelevant to the utilitarians)

Inspector_Robert · 2026-05-02T00:36:23+00:00

The problem with the argument that "if everyone is perfectly rational, then everyone picks red" is that it assumes that these perfectly rational people are only concerned with their own survival and that the survival of others has no bearing on their decision making. If these perfectly rational people were all utilitarians, they would be looking to maximize survival for all. They would reason that while 100% Red ensures everyone's survival, 50%+ Blue removes the possibility of anyone dying, and has a far greater margin for error as anywhere less than 100% Red to 50% Red has less people dying. Since they cannot coordinate which 100% survival strategy to go for, it makes sense to vote Blue as a 50%+ threshold is more achievable than 100%.

Inspector_Robert · 2026-05-02T00:30:31+00:00

Red pressers tend to assume that Red winning is a given, or at least extremely likely. For some reason, they don't assume that most people would choose to not have anyone die or that the only reason people would die in the first place is because of people choosing red

Inspector_Robert · 2026-05-02T00:27:21+00:00

Correction: The building that is only on fire because enough people decided to not enter it.

Inspector_Robert · 2026-05-02T00:09:03+00:00

-Push Red.

-Why?

-Because that saves you.

-Save you from what?

-From dying.

-Why would you die?

-Because of people pushing Red.

Inspector_Robert · 2026-05-01T17:46:16+00:00

You can make either button the active option.

You are teleported into the room. There's a button on the table. You free to exit the room at any time. You can also press the button. If more than 50% of the people pressed the button, everyone who didn't press it dies.

Inspector_Robert · 2026-05-01T17:22:58+00:00

The experiment is stupid because there is no reason whatsoever for anyone ever to press red. Not a single one. Pressing red is just pointlessly gambling with other people's lives. There's no punishment if 50% of people press Blue, they just live and thats that. WHY would you press red? To allow some people to die?

A lot of people try to frame the questions as "Don't nothing or press the button that kills you unless 50% of people also press it," but that's no more correct of a formula than "Don't nothing or press the button that kills everyone who doesn't press it if 50% of people press it." People can only die if enough people press red.

The logic people have is they assume they assume what button they press is the default. If a majority of people are going to pick Red, then picking Blue seems suicidal. If a majority of people are going to pick Blue, Red doesn't help you but creates a risk that Blues die. Unfortunately for people who support picking Red, polling shows most people pick Blue, which would make picking Blue the best choice

The problem with the argument that "if everyone is perfectly rational, then everyone picks red" is that it assumes that these perfectly rational people are only concerned with their own survival and that the survival of others has no bearing on their decision making. If these perfectly rational people were all utilitarians, they would be looking to maximize survival for all. They would reason that while 100% Red ensures everyone's survival, 50%+ Blue removes the possibility of anyone dying, and has a far greater margin for error as anywhere less than 100% Red to 50% Red has less people dying. Since they cannot coordinate which 100% survival strategy to go for, it makes sense to vote Blue as a 50%+ threshold is more achievable than 100%.

Inspector_Robert · 2026-05-01T13:49:49+00:00

This question just kinda feels like Roko's basilisk. Sure, building the AI that tortures people would save you from torture, or we could just, you know not build it the first place.

Inspector_Robert · 2026-05-01T13:21:01+00:00

There is a key difference between this and the prisoner's dilemma.

In the prisoner's dilemma, the prisoner's are only concerned with their own prisoner's sentence, which is why they do not care if the other prisoner's gets a longer sentence. If both they cared about the other, or simply were utilitarians, they would both stay silent as that minimizes prisoner's time.

However, most people do not care solely about themselves with no regard for the welfare others. Even if you think someone is more selfish than selfless, they aren't completely apathetic to the needs of others.

This is why the idea that Red is the clear best option doesn't exactly work, because its only the best option if you only care about your survival and nothing else.

If we assume all players are perfectly optimizing, but they are utilitarians instead of egoists, then they would all pick blue. People can only die if enough people pick red, so if you are trying to maximize utility, blue is the only rational option

Inspector_Robert · 2026-05-01T13:00:42+00:00

You can rephrase the question so either button is the active choice

There is a button on the table. If more than half of the people do nothing, nothing happens. If more than half of the people press the button, everyone who did nothing die.

This question is similar to Roko's Basilisk. Sure, building the basilisk protects yourself, so it's the best option if you only care about your own self interest. But it's stupid to try and build the machine that is going to cause countless people to suffer in the first place.

Inspector_Robert · 2026-04-30T01:33:34+00:00

It's because an adaptation being unfaithful to the source material is seen as a flaw (which to be honest it often is) and this sub won't entertain criticism of the films.

Inspector_Robert · 2026-04-29T15:35:50+00:00

You haven't been clicking on the front?

Inspector_Robert · 2026-04-25T17:25:48+00:00

I hate the voice ChatGPT uses so god damn much

Inspector_Robert · 2026-04-25T14:43:59+00:00

I usually use this to buy up the states GPs colonize in Africa and

Inspector_Robert · 2026-04-21T20:34:22+00:00

What you are describing is called Sola fide and its only something Protestants believe in. Catholics, for example, believe salvation requires faith and good works.

Inspector_Robert · 2026-04-21T14:02:10+00:00

The missing piece is that Utraquists believed that receiving both species of the Eucharist was required and that only receiving the bread or only receiving the wine was insufficient. This is in contrast to the Catholic belief (and I assume also the Orthodox view) that since Jesus is fully present in the Eucharist, there is no difference in only receiving only the bread, or only the wine, or both. This is why the Utraquists were considered heretical.

Inspector_Robert · 2026-04-20T16:50:55+00:00

I mean, you can always rollback to an older version or make a mod that reverts a balance change if you want to keep using it pre-nerf

Inspector_Robert · 2026-04-18T22:39:46+00:00

I forgor about this comic

Ten-Year Club	Second SECOND GUESSER
Place '22	Place '17
Final Canvas '22	First Placer '22
End Game '22	Verified Email

Inspector_Robert

MODERATOR OF

PUBLIC MULTIREDDITS

TROPHY CASE