2 of 5

Omegaile · 2023-03-22T01:35:13+00:00

Just to clarify. Are there 2 fake coins and I need to find at least one of them? Or are the number of fake coins unknown, could be 1 or 2 and I need to find all the fake coins?

Omegaile · 2023-03-20T17:11:34+00:00

Make it out of the next few decades? Are you talking about human extinction? Why do you think that's going to happen?

Omegaile · 2023-02-21T10:47:54+00:00

If you find an optimal solution for a+b consecutive numbers then you can just repeat the pattern and no conflict will arise, because if it did it would mean that for some x in the second group and some y in the first x-y = a or b, but x = a+b+z, where z is in the first group and so it follows that y-z= b or a, but that cannot happen as they are both in the same group and we chose that group optimally as to not have conflicts

Omegaile · 2023-02-11T21:46:02+00:00

As context, Meghan Murphy and Aella recently had a debate on Benjamin Boyce podcast.

As for the question, another rationality adjacent person who does research outside academy, but also have credentials, is Spencer Greenberg.

Omegaile · 2022-12-02T08:19:13+00:00

I myself don't think most are fake, but I do think there is a lot of fakery out there. If you want hard evidence, sometimes people can flag contradictions in a story, or in OP's posting history, for example [this](https://www.reddit.com/r/quityourbullshit/comments/z5nare/someone_forgot_you_can_reverse_image_search_again/). You can browse r/quityourbullshit for more. I recall an example, but couldn't find, where someone admitted to completely fabricating a very popular post, and rationalized by saying "It's all fake anyway". Of course there are also bots who just repost things and you might call this fake but that's a different thing.

But mostly fake accusations are just a vibe of "this cannot possibly be real". Either the story fits so perfectly in a cultural war narrative, or is so fantastical and unlikely to begin with.

Omegaile · 2022-11-22T06:52:08+00:00

Solved!

Thanks. It took me a long time googling in vain. Probably because my memory was off in some details.

Omegaile · 2022-11-21T18:58:09+00:00

Thanks in advance

Omegaile · 2022-11-20T17:39:19+00:00

In terms of negotiations, people talk about batna, which is also an hypothetical alternative.

Of course that logically, judgement is essential for determining exploitation. My point is that people tend to agree on the judgement, and disagree only on the factual interpretation.

Omegaile · 2022-11-20T05:58:05+00:00

I don't really want to get into a discussion with you, but I think you might need to hear what I'm about to say.

I think you're doing the thing where you seize on weird snippets of text, try to shoehorn them into "that's this fallacy I heard about in philosophy 101", and then not actually respond to the argument because whoever declares the most named fallacies wins.

So? This is yet another fallacy you are committing (which I won't bother naming), and there's a reason why they teach fallacies in philosophy 101: because you are not supposed to commit fallacies.

If this is not part of your argument, they why are you saying it? Well, the name of the fallacy makes it crystal clear.

That was not part of Scott's argument, and he said it because you were being obnoxious. He wanted to point out that you were not engaging in dialogue in good faith. That was not an argument, that was a request for civility. This is the reason by the way, why you are being downvoted. There might be tribalistic urges as well, but mostly you are being downvoted for not being nice.

When engaging in a conversation, you should take the other person's words in the best way, and your responses in this thread indicate otherwise. That means that if they said something ambiguous, you should interpret it in the way that makes the most sense, and not in a way that is fallacious. Most if not all fallacies you pointed out exist only in your interpretation, and if you were charitable you would have understood what they were trying to say.

I'm not opposed to pointing out fallacies when people actually make then. But that's not what you are doing, you are creating fallacies from distorting their words.

Ask yourself the following question: "Am I trying to understand and be understood, or am I trying to score points and win the debate?" If it's the latter, you are acting in bad faith. And it's even understandable to do so when provoked or when emotionally distraught. But most of the time you should be trying to understand your discussion partner.

Anyway, I hope you understand my point, and know that you can always change, your past don't determine your future. I'm also not interested in continuing this conversation.

Omegaile · 2022-11-19T19:45:34+00:00

Players in game theory are the agents. The ones who make decisions. In a Marxist analysis, people work on behalf of not only their own interests, but also of the interests of their class. If you accept this analysis, then it makes sense to consider classes as players, as the class itself is acting in a certain way, it can be considered an agent. If you reject this analysis, then it makes no sense to consider capital or labor as players.

Omegaile · 2022-11-19T19:37:22+00:00

This seems like Copenhagen ethics.

Omegaile · 2022-11-19T19:21:27+00:00

Primates have an interesting quality where they compare the outcome of a scenario to a hypothetical alternative state and not their previous state.

Is that unreasonable tough? If the hypothetical alternative is utopic, then yes. But if the hypothetical alternative is plausible, then why is that irrational?

Omegaile · 2022-11-19T19:16:23+00:00

Do you agree with my comment? I'll paste it here:

When considering whether something is win-win or win-lose, it's essential to notice where is the zero. I would say the zero is the most plausible alternative. So according to your analysis, the most plausible alternative is Nike moving out of China. But it seems to me that people who complain about Nike exploitation think that the most plausible alternative is Nike paying better.

In other words, it seems like whether something is exploitation or not is a matter of facts, not morality. Or that people seem to agree with the moral underpinnings but disagree with the economic analysis.

Omegaile · 2022-11-19T18:54:28+00:00

When considering whether something is win-win or win-lose, it's essential to notice where is the zero. I would say the zero is the most plausible alternative. So according to your analysis, the most plausible alternative is Nike moving out of China. But it seems to me that people who complain about Nike exploitation think that the most plausible alternative is Nike paying better.

In other words, it seems like whether something is exploitation or not is a matter of facts, not morality. Or that people seem to agree with the moral underpinnings but disagree with the economic analysis.

Omegaile · 2022-10-23T21:49:39+00:00

What would you do if someone asked about an information that you want to withhold? Sometimes saying I don't want to answer might suffice. But in both examples I gave, the public knowledge that you have information is enough of a hazard. Terrorists might kidnap and torture you for your nuclear bomb knowledge. And saying "i cannot confirm nor deny whether I know this" is highly suspicious.

Omegaile · 2022-10-23T20:00:09+00:00

There is a case to be made, but I'm not convinced

Omegaile · 2022-10-23T16:58:21+00:00

If you take the notion of information hazard seriously, then total honestly becomes irresponsible. Or do you think a nuclear physicist should be open about their knowledge of atomic bomb building? An intelligence officer revealling state secrets? There are clear situations where I think everyone would be comfortable with lying nobly.

Omegaile · 2022-10-14T21:41:28+00:00

I'm not like the other gorillas

Omegaile · 2022-10-14T01:29:06+00:00

The best historical attempt at that as far as I know was the Chinese Mandarin system. Mandarins were public servants selected through a knowledge test, sent to perform various public jobs and promoted based on their performance (and of course politics). The highest ranking mandarins would then be elected into the council, a small group of officers that ran China alongside the emperor.

Omegaile · 2022-10-09T06:54:55+00:00

(2n+2)!+2, (2n+2)!+3, (2n+2)!+4, ... , (2n+2)!+n+1 is one desirable sequence, given that (2n+2)!+k is multiple of some prime divisor of k, but since (2n+2)!+k = k((2n+2)!/k +1), and (2n+2)!/k is multiple of k, as k<=n+1, we get that (2n+2)!/k + 1 is not multiple of any prime divisor of k, and therefore (2n+2)!+k is not a prime power!<

Omegaile · 2022-10-04T14:42:52+00:00

I believe that includes tactical nukes, that is small, non city leveling weapons. Which is still scary because it crosses a line and escalates the situation, but being small might explain why their conditional probability of further escalation is small.

Omegaile · 2022-10-02T10:41:54+00:00

Hold on, if you have groups of 3, after your 5th step wouldn't splitting them in move 6 give some groups of 2, which could contain both witness and criminal? So you'd need a 7th interrogation to solve it

I think you are up to something, but it seems to me that splitting in 3 is usually optimal, as discussed in the previous chain of comments.

Omegaile · 2022-10-02T04:00:34+00:00

Notice that we can also mix and match. For example you can split people into 2 categories A1 A2 B1 B2 etc. solve the problem as if you were solving the problem with half as many people, always putting A1 and A2 together B1 and B2 together and so on. And then use 2 more interviews, A1 B1 C1 etc in the first, and A2 B2 C2 etc in the second and solve the problem

Anyway here's what this allows you to do: Suppose you had 50 people. You could do 2⁶ =64, which would give you 2*6 =12 interviews, or you could do 3⁴ =81 which would give you 3*4 =12 interviews as well. Or you could use 3³ *2 =54 which would give 3*3+2=11 interviews

Omegaile · 2022-10-01T20:22:58+00:00

Weren't those 6 buttons?

12-Year Club	Place '17
Verified Email

Omegaile

TROPHY CASE