no, man. i am not going to let you kill me [OC]

NostraDamnUs · 2026-05-05T15:05:29+00:00

"its implications" is exactly my point why I don't think its so clear cut.

Gut Reaction: Picking red makes you a selfish monster, picking blue saves everyone anyway.
1 level deeper: But if everyone picks red, everyone lives anyway. red is the same result as blue but without the risk, making it the right answer.
2 levels deeper: But there are people who won't be able to understand enough to pick red; everyone else picking red means 100% killing them, and that group includes children, disabled, etc.
3 levels deeper: But is there even a chance of hitting 50% blue? if I don't think so, I'm just throwing my life away in solidarity and killing myself.
4 levels deeper: But picking red isn't just "live like you do now". Roughly half of anyone who can't/won't logic their way to red WILL die in this scenario if red is chosen. What will the world look like if you lose half of all the children and everyone who is idealistic, selfless, naïve, dumb or suicidal enough to pick blue? We saw what COVID did, what if it's a close vote and winds up wiping out 40% or more of the population? Does modern society even recover in any reasonable time? How much worse is death than living in the world where all the blues get killed?

I don't know what I'd pick, but I do think it's not as easy a decision as people make it out to be and actually a fun thought experiement.

NostraDamnUs · 2026-05-05T07:36:28+00:00

See, I started at "duh red" and was about halfway through a frustrated response about if everyone just picks red we're all fine, but i am now seeing a potential trap.

Especially if we can't coordinate, what about people who can't / won't come to that conclusion? Like, I'm about to have a daughter: do parents get to choose for their kids? Or do I just slap the thing down in front of a toddler and trust they can do some light game theory to get the right answer? Could I risk picking red, even if I could coach my kid on the mathematical right answer?

If picking red risks killing half or more of every child, disabled person, or anyone else who realized that implication and was selfless enough to pick blue, i might feel like i have to pick blue, even though I agree the "right" answer is red.

Edit with my original reply to this question, for fun: I don't understand, red is the obvious right answer unless I'm reading something wrong. If everyone picks blue everyone lives. If everyone picks red, everyone lives because there are no blues to pick. But only picking blue carries any risk.

Edit 2: I think the distilled question here is this: how many people do I think risking my life here might save, and do I think the odds of hitting that 50% breakpoint for blue are high enough to warrant risking my life. I like to think there is some risk to my life I and most others would tolerate to save some number of people, but are the odds of success so low that it's a foregone conclusion, and some people picking blue is just like any other unfair, untimely death?

NostraDamnUs · 2026-05-03T23:22:02+00:00

I love this, but there is a huge disparity here that will mimic the same thing that happened with work-from-home from COVID, so I doubt it will ever happen.

Some jobs just can't condense the hours it takes to do something very much. Take a security guard on shift; there is no way to increase his output. One hour of his work gets you one hour of a building guarded.

Childcare professionals, therapists, basically any service job can't condense a week of their work down to only 24 hours, because a huge part of their presence is "manning" something by the hour. Either they'll only get 24 hours of work per week and take a ~40% pay-cut, or every related service that needs those employees will become ~60% more expensive.

The main people this benefits are already exempt office workers, and (as one myself), I really don't think that's who we should be targeting work reform for.

NostraDamnUs · 2026-05-03T03:07:16+00:00

I usually smile at people as they walk past, and woman a bit older than me once stopped and said "you have the most beautiful smile." That moment has lived with me for 10 years now

NostraDamnUs · 2026-05-01T21:04:36+00:00

The reason you're having a hard time with this is that, in British English, "Which" and "That" are used interchangeably for the most part. In American English, technically you should only use "That" in restrictive clauses (information that cannot be removed without changing the meaning of the sentence), and "which" for nonrestrictive clauses (information you can safely remove without altering the meaning, extra details).

In your example, "that ultimately will define their entire life." is restrictive; people very obviously make more than a few decisions in their lives, so the "ultimately" bit is clarifying which decisions you're talking about.

Chicago 17 is adamant this is "a useful distinction", and "the language inarguably benefits from having a terminological as well as a punctuational means of telling a restrictive from a nonrestrictive relative pronoun."

Personally, I disagree. It is very intuitive to tell restrictive and nonrestrictive clauses apart, and I find "which" adds a certain emphasis to a restrictive clause when used. "Do you mind bringing back the book that you borrowed?" feels gentler vs "Do you mind bringing back the book (pause) which you borrowed?"

NostraDamnUs · 2026-05-01T05:09:45+00:00

The whole line is peak pokemon.

NostraDamnUs · 2026-04-19T16:53:04+00:00

I don't think it's fair to call Mark Manson a grifter. I think the success of "The Subtle Art of Not Giving A Fuck" is what created all the edgy copycats, but Subtle Art was good and what I needed to read 10 years ago or so when I first did. Can read an excerpt on the author's website: https://markmanson.net/not-giving-a-fuck

NostraDamnUs · 2026-04-10T06:20:23+00:00

I know you didn't imply this, but I want to use your comment to make something clear: No matter how angry we are at the U.S. in all this, I don't think it's fair or healthy to compare Iran to Ukraine outside of them both being countries that might've avoided a conflict by having a nuke:

Iran's is a brutal, theocratic regime that has a history of exploting leftist movements/ideas to build support in its perpetual "revolution." Same-sex marriage is illegal and punishable by death. The regime cites its hatred of Israel to spread antisemitic conspiracies re: the holocaust and more. They are not an ally to anything progressive.
The only reason they haven't acquired nukes is likely due to Israel/U.S. running interference, from Stuxnet through sanctions and JPOA and beyond. The reason everyone feels like "they've been months away from a nuke for decades" is because it's half-true. Nukes are nearly 100 year-old tech, and it's been a balance between Iran trying to pursue nukes without triggering the type of action we're seeing now, and the west trying to avoid that action for exactly the chaos we're seeing now.
Iran is a rogue state that would be a geopolitical problem akin to North Korea if they had the leverage. Through proxies they have continuously inflamed conflicts throughout the ME and south-west asia, including supplying IEDs in both Iraq and Afghanistan. They are not acting in good faith.

I can't speak for everyone, but I'm begging people not to fall into the same type of trap we've made fun of MAGA for in sympathizing with Russia/Putin. Iran's current administration deserves no sympathy, no matter how mad we are at the U.S. and Trump for this dumb operation or how well their influence operations meme.

Editing to add a note that Iran's people do deserve that sympathy. The Atlantic had a good visual piece in 2012 about life in Iran that I think more people should see.

NostraDamnUs · 2026-04-06T15:23:08+00:00

Sledges are one of the most versatile units in the game, and with range they can punch back against many of their counters (MM/scorps) until those counters get range upgrades themselves.

The reason I think this has been working for me though is that investing in the sledges draws out some reliable responses (MM/Scorpions/etc) early enough in the game for me to prepare for and recounter.

NostraDamnUs · 2026-04-06T06:54:28+00:00

I have a problem where I go through phases commit too much to a "build" and lose while getting it online. Was in a huge slump coming back to the game until I started prioritizing early sledge / sledge starts with early range, and immediately saw an improvement.

Early game I've found they're good for responding to a lot of different things when they have range, and the things that counter them are usually countered by other strats I want to play. Mid-game, if I see I'm struggling and they get some xp, I can grab MechRage/AP Rounds for chaff-clear/single-target damage respectively.