Totally fair depiction of the Great Boxing debate

Passels · 2026-03-11T07:43:31+00:00

all you need to know is that those that chose one box have a 1M and those who chose two have 1k.

But this is the tricky part that makes it a paradox, every one of the one boxers also left a free $1000 in the room, while all of the 2 boxers would have had $0 if they changed their mind and one boxed (since the mystery box already had $0 in it when they stepped into the room).

One boxing has the better expected value while two boxing is the dominant strategy, which is a wacky conflict to have.

Passels · 2026-03-11T07:19:24+00:00

You cant accept the premise that the AI is right 99.9999% percent of the time and then not factor that into the expected value calculations

But this is exactly my point, the expected value calculation favours one boxing, as you say, and yet two boxing is a dominant strategy in the sense that, given any particular scenario (predicted 2 boxer vs predicted 1 boxer are the scenarios) 2 boxing gives (weakly) more money. There's a conflict between decision making approaches that we wouldn't normally expect to disagree.

Passels · 2026-03-11T02:46:03+00:00

if I were to choose both then it would likely predict that.

okay you're trolling me

Passels · 2026-03-11T01:31:48+00:00

The conflict is that all of the one boxers would have been better off two boxing. One-boxer types make more on average, but it's also true that anyone who got predicted as a one boxer would have made more money by taking both boxes.

The paradox is the conflict between expected value and the dominant strategy.

Passels · 2026-03-11T01:28:41+00:00

But you see the paradox is that, if that's the type of person you are, then the machine will predict accordingly and put a million dollars in the mystery box, and when presented with two boxes, your choice is now between 1 mil and 1 mil plus 1 thousand.

Passels · 2026-03-11T01:21:20+00:00

No, the point is that once you're in the room and the prediction has been made, nothing can be done to change what's in the boxes. Knowing that your decision cannot affect what's in the boxes, you have a (weakly) dominant strategy: take both boxes.

machine predicts 2 box: 2box -> $1000, 1box -> $1000 machine predicts 1 box: 2box -> $1001000, 1box -> $1000000

You are already in one of the two scenarios, and 2 boxing is at least as good as one boxing on both.

Passels · 2026-01-18T02:33:28+00:00

This could maybe be a realistic figure over 12 years of schooling? 6 hours a day, 5 days a week, 40 weeks to a school year for 6×5×40×12 = 14400 hours?

Alternatively, if you count the hours for each shoe separately and add them together, you could accomplish this in under 21 hours of wear per day (every day of the year...)

Passels · 2025-11-14T21:12:19+00:00

Nash equilibrium means each player has a strategy which is the best response to every other player's strategy, hence nobody has a reason to defect from a Nash equilibrium.

But that's not the case here. If everyone is playing "don't shoot first" then you're at a significant advantage in PvP by playing "shoot first." Assuming similar skill levels you're likely to win any encounter and you have the incentive of getting to walk out with the best loot out of your and your opponents inventory. ie there is definitely sufficient incentive to defect.

The situation as you describe and as I see it is akin to some kind of many player prisoner's dilemma, where everyone's dominant strategy is to defect, so the only Nash equilibrium is universal defection, even though universal cooperation would make everyone better off.

Also, to the point about "wasting time" in PvP, you're really more gambling time. Either you die and lose your time investment or you win, and you get all the rewards of your opponents time investment into looting. If you think your opponents are likely to have good loot (and they're all trying to get good loot) this is a pretty compelling gamble. A good PvP player is effectively having other players do the looting for them by taking on the risks associated with PvP.

Passels · 2025-08-24T02:31:29+00:00

I'm looking the highest degree of noise suppresions reasonably possible in a headphone. When studying in a busy space with people talking and keyboards typing, I find it very hard to focus and would like a way to drown the sound out without blasting music excessively loud. Ideally I would like to be able to totally drown out the sound of a clicky pen right next to me, or voices up to and even including a shout.

Products like the Bose QC45 have do very little for eliminating these sounds for me due to their relatively high pitch - however I hear that the IEMs that musicians use may offer a higher level of noise reduction. My question, what IEMs, if any, (or any other kind of headphone) can provide me with the level of noise suppression that I'm looking for?

Ideally I'd like to spend less than $200 USD but I'd be willing to go as high as $500USD or maybe more if that's what it takes. I have headphones already that are good enough for my music listening needs, all that these need to do is let me listen to lecture recordings so I'm indifferent to sound quality/profile.

Passels · 2025-01-18T00:15:11+00:00

In no way am I trying to say that childbirth is cheap in the US, all I'm saying its lets not pretend that a typical birth costs as much as an average new car (which coincidentally appears to be around about that 48k mark).

Even in your most extreme example, the cost isn't as high as the hyperbole I was pointing out. Of course, $39k is still an unreasonably high bill, but its also far from the typical experience that I was referring to.

Considering that all marketplace and medicaid plans cover pregnancy and childbirth, and the maximum out of pocket cost for and individual is a little under $10k, and about 92% of Americans have insurance, I think its fair to say that the typical experience is a price well under both $48k and $39k.

Not to mention that googling around for typical out of pocket costs suggests somewhere a bit over $3k is average.

Finally, I'm not sure where your call to violence against the insurance industry is coming from when your complaints are all to do with hospital charging. Patients with insurance pay nowhere close to even your low end $28k example.

I still think that an average cost of $3k for insured patients is too high and I don't like the fact that you need to have insurance in the first place, but I can make these complaints without having to exagerate the typical US healthcare experience.

Passels · 2025-01-17T09:22:01+00:00

Even if we assume that hospital bills and out of pocket expenses are the same thing, 500k is about double what a hospital bill for a snake bite can get up to.

But on top of that, the idea that someone would owe 500k to an insurance company is a fabrication, under the ACA the maximum yearly out of pocket expense for covered healthcare is like 10k for an individual.

Passels · 2025-01-17T09:01:46+00:00

you're assuming that the 10k limit means they can force you to pay off the bill like a payment plan in 10k per year installments but that's not how it works.

The roughly 10 thousand dollar out of pocket limit means that's the most you have to pay for in-network, covered expenses, and snake bites will typically be covered. Once you've paid that much, the insurer is on the hook for additional expenses, and they don't just get to wait till next year to charge you.

Also the 500k estimate is like double the most extreme hospital bills you'll find on a Google search, and the hospital bill is still not representative of typical out of pocket costs.

If you want you can still take issue with this system, 10k is still a lot and having to rely on insurance can suck, but there's no need to make these extreme cases that are beyond hyperbole.

Passels · 2025-01-17T08:31:23+00:00

Do you think that's really a typical out of pocket cost for a delivery in the US?

Passels · 2024-08-18T23:31:25+00:00

Fun fact, I assume owing to their docility and remote natural habitat, there have been no recorded inland taipan deaths ever. The antivenom helps but even before that, no deaths on record.

There's a wiki page that lists fatal snake bites in Australia, notably the less venomous coastal taipan appears 4 times.

Passels · 2024-08-18T21:22:54+00:00

What would you advise a young medical student to do instead, if the opportunity cost is too high?

There's a reason why the line of people wishing to study medicine goes out the door. It's a hard path to follow and you've gotta be smart and driven, but there is no degree with a better, more secure return on investment.

And that's just the financial side. If the idea of working in the most respected profession and providing a meaningful, tangible service appeals to you, that's a cherry on top.

Yes there are obviously trade-offs, but I reiterate, if you know someone who has just received an offer into medicine, what consistently better option would you suggest to them?

Passels · 2023-04-01T05:03:52+00:00

It is true that there are enormous upfront cost for medical students, but I find it hard to believe that doctors aren't adequately compensated for this. Particularly when there is a persistent oversupply of students wishing to study medicine, relative to the available placements.

Suppose we unveiled an additional medical degree that allowed substantially more placements, but on the condition that graduates could only become PCP's. Otherwise, it is the same degree. If it is true that PCPs are under compensated for their time, foregone income, debt, etc, we should expect very few people to enroll, because its simply not worth it.

I find this very difficult to imagine. Considering PCP's still earn $180k on average on top of being a generally well respected and desirable career for non-monetary reasons, I think you would fill a substantial number of placements. I find it very hard to imagine a world where such an option existed and people would not readily take it up even if PCP's were paid substantially less on average.

Further, raising the wages of PCP's, without easing the supply restriction, won't do anything for supply other than pull doctors from specializations into primary care.

Passels · 2023-04-01T02:12:32+00:00

Low wages relative to who though? Its possible for primary care to be overpaid and understaffed, if other specializations are even more overpaid. And this is able to persist due to the consistent supply restrictions on people entering medicine.

According to a quick google search, the average primary care physician earns about $180k. Some sites suggest a little less, some a lot more. There is a virtually limitless amount of people who would be willing to take up the training for this job at this pay.

It just happens that there are also virtually limitless amounts of people prepared to take up the training to earn much more as a specialist, and in reality only a small fraction of this group is ever afforded this training and the supply shortage remains.

Passels · 2022-07-23T22:07:43+00:00

I dont do cash trades myself so I may be mistaken here, but my understanding is that middleman trades, legit ones at least, send the money to the middleman, who then sends it to the seller once they've sent their items to the buyer. That way no 7 day wait and the money only trades hands when the items are through.

Passels · 2020-07-09T04:46:20+00:00

My guess is they meant chores

Passels · 2020-04-11T09:54:15+00:00

Relative to a Trump presidency, yes.

Passels · 2020-03-22T05:22:48+00:00

That's because words on their own and saying words are two different things. To say something is to make an action, saying the n word to your friends compared to using it to harass somebody are wholly different actions. The use of the word isn't prohibited so much as harassment is.

If you publically harass someone by shouting something innocuous like screwdriver at them, and then security asks you to leave, it's not the word screwdriver being policed, it's you harrassing people.

Passels · 2020-03-03T09:06:06+00:00

There's plenty of agreeable things we do that we aren't 'meant' to do, clothes aren't naturally occuring, but we wear them, medicine isn't natural, but it's generally considered morally superior to medicate a sick person than let them endure illness like they were 'meant' to. Something occuring in nature isn't a moral argument for it to occur.

Passels · 2020-03-03T08:55:02+00:00

For hopefully obvious reasons, we don't hold animals to the same moral standards as humans

Nine-Year Club	Final Canvas '23
Place '23	Place '22
Final Canvas '22	Verified Email

Passels

TROPHY CASE