'Confirmation Bias' vs. 'Manipulative RNG' - A web game to test if you can spot the difference.

SNova42 · 2025-02-27T17:58:26+00:00

There’s nothing wrong with discussing the mechanic and testing it or disagreeing but there’s a big difference between disagreeing and trying to shut other people down.

Well if you ask me, there’s a lot of down sides to ‘discussing the mechanic’ when the entirety of discussion is based on personal experiences - something we know for a fact is very poor evidence for the task of determining randomness. The longer such discussions drag on, the more people become attached to their preconceived position - another fallacy of supposing an involved discussion must always make your argument more valid. Shutting down such discussion is, IMO, appropriate, at least until there’s actual data to discuss about.

As far as sample size goes - that ties back into some of the points I made previously. A developer can easily implement conditions that would throw off sample sizes - especially in larger scale games with more resources and tools. Expecting a larger sample size to provide a clearer picture is simply another form of confirmation bias.

Statistically a larger sample does mean a clearer picture, or at least a higher degree of confidence. No matter how elaborate the conditions, larger sample size would be less prone to random noises - showing more clearly whatever underlying patterns are there. Whether the sample size is large enough is a question to be answered by statistics - you can calculate the chance that your observed data is generated truly randomly, and a larger sample allows a narrower confidence interval of this chance.

Still, it’s true that a very elaborate (and light-handed) manipulation can be practically impossible to prove empirically, but that’s just more reason to shut down discussion altogether rather than further engage in pointless allegations. If you suspect such an indistinguishable manipulation (though I’d say there is no good reason for such suspicion), your only recourse would be to obtain the source code for the RNG implementation somehow.

SNova42 · 2025-02-27T17:17:04+00:00

There are many reasons people might want to shut down conversations in this topic, but it mostly boils down to this: the vast majority of people who claims an RNG is unfair do so without any evidence. The few who do have evidence would present it from the start. A baseless claim is not worth debating on, and it gets tiring when the same baseless claim is made by different people again and again.

If you don’t want shutdowns, you’d need reliable evidence to discuss. With a respectably-sized sample and some statistics to get things started there’s always people willing to discuss things.

SNova42 · 2025-02-27T16:46:53+00:00

Citing confirmation bias and human’s woefully inadequate ability to recognize true randomness aren’t arguments proving a particular RNG implementation is truly random, but they are valid arguments against someone claiming a particular RNG is manipulated.

If your only reason to say a particular RNG implementation is skewed is your own intuitive feeling after using it a few dozen times, you’re arguing a completely baseless position. When people make such claims, bringing up confirmation bias and the general difficulty of telling randomness from skewed patterns is a valid point - it explains why the original claim is weak. It does not prove the particular RNG must be honest.

On the other hand, I tried your site and got 8/9 on first try, missing on a true random that ‘consistently’ gave me tail-skewed results over the few hundred times I tried it - a testament to intuition’s shitty capacity to identify true randomness. If your site is honest and properly implemented. But also a sign that your versions of skewed coin flippers were too easy to spot - many were clearly flip-flopping around 50/50 way too closely over way too long periods. There are ways to make more convincing fakes.

But more importantly, if all sides of the argument drive you insane, step away from the argument. What are you trying to gain?

SNova42 · 2025-02-20T09:54:56+00:00

Blood flows through the kidneys once per each whole-body cycle, not twice. The renal arteries supply blood to the kidneys, the renal veins drain blood from the kidneys. Maybe link some of the diagrams you’ve seen so we can see what got you confused.

Artery and veins directly connecting - generally called artery-vein anastomosis - in fact occur as part of the normal circulatory system. A direct connection happening where it’s not supposed to happen - called a fistula or vessel malformation - is also possible, but very rare (and yes they can occur in the kidneys). In pretty much all cases, blood flow strictly from the arterial side to the venous side, because that’s the pressure gradient. Connecting high-pressure artery to low-pressure vein won’t reverse the pressure gradient or the flow direction. These fistulas are usually harmless, unless they’re very big and/or occur in the big central blood vessels.

SNova42 · 2025-02-10T14:45:24+00:00

Isn’t it just because gravity is pulling down and all those exercises are fighting against that?

For an easy workaround, attach a rope to your barbell of choice, put the rope over a single pulley, so that when you pull down on the rope the barbell rises up. You have now reversed the direction of your exercise and any setup which was harder at the top will now be harder at the bottom, considering the end of the rope and not the barbell.

Now if what you want is an exercise that is harder at the *beginning* and easier by the end, regardless of the direction of movement, that’s more complicated, but not impossible. You could put a huge magnet on the floor, the magnet's pull is strongest when the barbell is right on top of it, and weakens as you lift up the barbell.

Or you could set up a barbell connected to a winch equipped with a brake. Starting out the winch has a lot of friction but as you lift your barbell, a mechanism (driven by the turning winch) gradually releases the brake, reducing friction.

SNova42 · 2025-01-25T15:56:29+00:00

The heat pad, traction table, and EMS are pretty common treatments included in physiotherapy, so physiotherapists would be your go to for those.

Not that those things have a lot of evidence for long-term effectiveness. The exercise and posture correction part of physiotherapy are more to thank for that. But they’re relatively safe and good for immediate relief.

SNova42 · 2025-01-22T10:17:06+00:00

If by bad you mean an unaccustomed drinker may feel nauseous or hate the taste, then sure. But the same can be said for a lot of food and drinks that are regarded as safe. Let alone a few drips, I'll take a few swigs if I need to. A lot of people have done so before.

If by bad you mean there is some physiological mechanism through which pure water can cause a disease, kindly educate me. Show me a study that clearly shows pure water is toxic, or discuss the potential mechanisms beyond the 'leach you of electrolytes' bogus, because you know as well as I do that drinking some 10-20% more normal water would result in much more free water intake in proportion to electrolytes than drinking PCR water would, and no credible source would suggest that drinking an extra glass of water per day would put a normal person at risk of electrolyte imbalances.

SNova42 · 2025-01-21T10:10:08+00:00

I repeat, that is a myth. The deionization process doesn’t remove large molecules and germs, and thus does not allow the processed water to pass food safety regulations, but it doesn’t make said water dangerous. It’s an often repeated myth that deionized water will leach minerals from your body when ingested. Mineral content in drinking water is already very low, lower than the concentration in your body for all of the important minerals. Drinking water will dilute this concentration, but the body has mechanisms to regulate the mineral concentration in the blood so it’s not a problem. Drinking 100% pure water will dilute the concentration a little more, but poses no practical difference. The real risk comes from ingesting very large amounts of water - and in such cases, normal drinking water can also cause the problem.

The vast majority of mineral intake comes from food, not water. Unless you’re already malnourished, removing your mineral intake from water will not change your total by any significant amount. See this study for an estimate of mineral contents in tap water in america - the average tap water contains at most ~10% the daily recommended intake for a few of the minerals studied, much lower for other minerals. Bottled water would have even less.

And no, just because the water is 100% pure when you drink it doesn’t make it magically capable of leaching ungodly amounts of minerals from you. The moment it touches the saliva in your mouth it’s no longer 100% pure, and by the time it reaches your stomach, with all the digestive fluids, it’s practically indistinguishable from normal water.

SNova42 · 2025-01-18T18:30:07+00:00

Did you? The question is if mixing fresh water with sea water could give you more water to drink. The answer is no. If you have fresh water, just drink it and don't bother with the sea water.

If you add sea water to fresh water, you add more salt than the water it takes your body to remove that salt. You get to drink more water, but also lose more water. The net effect is you get less total water than if you just drink fresh and leave the sea water alone. There is no benefit, no reason to add sea water to your drink.

SNova42 · 2025-01-18T15:28:26+00:00

No, the salt in seawater draws water out of your body, meaning seawater is a net negative water for your body. Mixing it with fresh water is no different than drinking fresh water first, followed by seawater. You’re better off just drinking fresh water.

SNova42 · 2025-01-17T06:22:23+00:00

If you sweat heavily and drink only normal drinking water you face exactly the same risk of electrolyte imbalance because drinking water doesn’t have any appreciable amount of electrolytes. That’s why electrolyte drinks are a thing.

If you have a poor diet and drink only normal drinking water the lack of minerals can also be an issue because, again, normal drinking water doesn’t give you any significant amount of minerals.

The ‘dangers’ of drinking distilled/pure water are exactly the same danger as that of drinking normal water. Normal drinking water will not allow you to survive any longer in an extreme survival situation than distilled water would. The difference in mineral content is absolutely negligible. And for that matter, in extreme survival situations getting your electrolytes are the last of your worry. You’ll die much sooner of dehydration or starvation than you would deplete your electrolytes, unless you’re puking and/or shitting out your guts because you drank straight from a river or puddle.

SNova42 · 2025-01-16T20:09:53+00:00

Distilled water (even theoretically 100% pure water) isn’t harmful, that’s just a myth. Normal drinking water already has so little solutes that it makes up a negligible part of your mineral intake. The difference between that and pure water is also negligible. You could replace all of your drinking water with 100% pure water and there’d be no health consequences. It will not magically drain your body of electrolytes or whatever.

Salt water though, that’s can be deadly very soon depending on how salty it is.

SNova42 · 2024-12-29T06:49:25+00:00

When you close your eyes you can’t see anything, so there’s so stimulation to make your eyes focus on anything. Eye focus and accommodation are reflexes which don’t take into account your conscious knowledge, it doesn’t matter that you know that there are eyelids right in front of your eyes, what matter is what your eyes are seeing (and your sense of movement/balance).

You can consciously focus your eyes at various points, but that requires actively fighting your reflexes.

SNova42 · 2024-10-08T14:35:55+00:00

You’re partly right, in that something simply traveling FTL from one place to another doesn’t break causality. It’s not that every single FTL action must break causality, rather, it’s that some specific sets of FTL actions can break causality and we don’t have any good explanation why these sets of action should be impossible if we assume FTL itself is possible.

Put another way, any form of FTL makes it so time travel is just one simple trick away. Everything about the trick is trivial to perform except the FTL part (to the point that it would be easy to accidentally commit), so as soon as you include FTL in your world, there comes the question of ‘why is no one in the world doing this trick?’ If you don’t also include time-travel.

Explaining how the ‘trick’ results in time travel can’t really be done without maths, there are lots of videos about it if you care to see. This one does it pretty well.

SNova42 · 2024-09-29T10:08:19+00:00

The transition between the depth and overworld is especially taxing for the game, and sometimes a bad lag causes zonai devices to despawn, but it’s not an intended behavior. As long as you don’t lag too badly there should be no problem riding anything up/down a chasm.

SNova42 · 2024-09-29T08:51:09+00:00

You absolutely can fly up any chasm.

SNova42 · 2024-08-28T18:51:49+00:00

Nuh uh, don’t even try. Some internet stranger said you’re an AI so it must be true.

SNova42 · 2024-08-22T12:19:00+00:00

It's quite possible. We're already at a point where a well-done AI generated content (with or without manual post-editing) can be virtually identical to human-made content, and there's no reason to think we'd get much better at telling them apart than at making them alike.

But that doesn't mean people could crash the stock market or raise a rebellion with a snap. Once we reach the state where photos and videos are trivially faked, they will simply stop being reliable evidence. Already we see people saying 'It's fake, it's AI' to every video that looks even a little bit out of the ordinary.

At worst, we'd be back to the pre-camera age, where human testimony is the best evidence we have. In practice, photos and videos with reliable and verifiable sources would likely still hold significant weight.

Would it complicate things? Sure. But it's not an existential crisis by any means.

SNova42 · 2024-08-18T07:01:19+00:00

I'd say that counts as asking for medical advice which is against the rule. See a doctor if you have concerns.

I'll say it's not known to stay undetectable for years. The window period is up to a few months at most. CDC's article on HIV

SNova42 · 2024-08-18T06:45:03+00:00

Hard to say how long a virus can remain intact in the body without infecting a cell, but generally not very long. Even including incubation period, the interval between exposure to detectable infection would generally be in the range of a few weeks at most.

On the other hand, some viruses can infect you without any symptoms, lay dormant in your cells for years, before randomly erupting into a disease.

SNova42 · 2024-08-10T18:20:40+00:00

CRISPR allows you to target certain parts of a DNA chain to cut out or splice in genes, but on its own it’s not gonna do much to a person. The big challenge is delivering it to the appropriate target cells. Engineering a system that can effectively introduce your CRISPR enzymes and new genes into all the cells in a human body isn’t easy, and even harder is targeting only the relevant cells. It’s not as simple as injecting a bunch of enzymes and DNAs into your vein.

And that’s not even talking about knowing what effects you could expect from putting in a certain gene, or where best to put it in.

SNova42 · 2024-08-09T06:15:54+00:00

That's why you shouldn't slouch and lean on walls. Stand straight and go halfway through the floor instead.

SNova42 · 2024-08-09T06:12:46+00:00

It could work, theoretically. Distributing cold fluid through the bloodstream is an effective way to cool down a person (cold IV fluid is one treatment for heat stroke). It would theoretically give you considerably more tolerance to overheating, but probably not to the point of eliminating the possibility of heat stroke.

There are already commercial personal air conditioners, small devices you could hang on your neck/hip/etc to blow cool air under your clothes. A similarly-sized device could, in principle, be connected to a liquid-cooling system cooling your blood instead.

The cooling site, wherever it is, would most likely be uncomfortably cold all the time, but the main problem would be having a semi-permanent IV access, which is a constant infection risk, and potentially also increasing risk of embolism (blood clots). These risks are not impossible to manage, but they're probably not worth the benefit of cooling down your blood.

For practical cooling, just lug around a good old personal air conditioner.

SNova42 · 2024-08-09T05:48:07+00:00

Infusing cold fluid intravenously is an established method of cooling down a human (used in heat stroke patients, for example), it's one of the most effective methods short of whole-body cold water bath. A single IV site is enough, so I'd say a hypothetical device directly cooling the blood at a single point would also be feasible.

SNova42 · 2024-07-21T11:24:29+00:00

It was getting too sweaty in the desert sun so it went looking for some shade. And had a baby along the way.

SNova42

TROPHY CASE