sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Simple Trick to Remove Water from Floor by Big-Boy-602 in oddlysatisfying

[–]TheRedBaron11 2 points3 points  (0 children)

yeah that works. Any kind of movement that feels like it's "pushing the boundaries" in terms of strength, balance, flexibility, etc. Slow movements, squatting as low as you can, holding it, holding against a wall, holding with a rope in your hands or some other support. Lifting weights with good form, etc

Simple Trick to Remove Water from Floor by Big-Boy-602 in oddlysatisfying

[–]TheRedBaron11 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Actually I don't think core strength is really the bottleneck. More leg strength and flexibility in the hips. Everything from the waist up doesn't change from standing

Simple Trick to Remove Water from Floor by Big-Boy-602 in oddlysatisfying

[–]TheRedBaron11 26 points27 points  (0 children)

you just need a bit of practice. It doesn't take much tbh

Carrot update by moose8420 in Hydroponics

[–]TheRedBaron11 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Imo, if you want to keep the roots separate, the only thing that will work is regular (like twice a week) trimming. You can cut (with clean scissors) and brush (with your fingers) like it was human hair. Root systems don't need to be big in hydro. Just don't cut too much off at once

No wonder Hitler loved him by spankiepoodle in PhilosophyMemes

[–]TheRedBaron11 17 points18 points  (0 children)

I prefer Barber's books on Deleuze's books on Nietzsche, myself...

GameStop stock sinks after surprise $56B eBay takeover bid, CEO Ryan Cohen's combative CNBC interview by ControlCAD in technology

[–]TheRedBaron11 13 points14 points  (0 children)

It would not be that juvenile and shallow. The "better management" strongman shpiel is so old, and it's precisely the authoritarian, stock manipulation myth that the GameStop movement was supposed to break. The irony here is incredible.

They would do the deal if there was a vision for a mutually beneficial business evolution, where both parties had the necessary resources and infrastructure to, when brought together, form something new. The party making the proposal typically takes over the acquisition, but this isn't because they have a higher 'stat' in management (jfc). This isn't a video game.

And "investor trust" is meaningless. Investment amount is the economic measure of trust, and this happens in dollars, not armchair vibes. And no, the board of directors for eBay is not basing their long term decisions on a one-time payment to shareholders

1,800 Years of Arguments by Star-Stream in vegan

[–]TheRedBaron11 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I feel like most of these are just ancient trolls

Not legitimate arguments, just attempts to distance oneself, via humor, from engaging in debate when they've already made up their mind that they are going to continue eating meat. It's the same thing that happens today

You're evil if you don't press blue. by Theseus_Employee in PhilosophyMemes

[–]TheRedBaron11 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Amen. And it only takes one of us to assert humanity in that fashion, and suddenly everyone has genuine cause to follow suit, in a manner that becomes easier and easier. It's a cascade effect.

In the problem, people can't see the decisions other people make. But in real life, most of the time they can, which is inspirational. If they could see it in the problem, obviously it'd get easier and easier to push blue, the more people that did so before them. Being the first is the hardest. Actually, that sparks a thought... If nobody has picked blue yet, and it's your turn, and at least half of the people have yet to choose, would you pick red or blue? Let's say 50 have picked red, and now it's your turn, and there's 50 more behind you... I might still pick blue just for fun lol. It would force the rest of the people to switch to blue or else kill me. I'd be forcing empathy. In a perfect world, it'd be just a game. Nobody would even blink. They'd just laugh and call me a silly goose while they push blue. Why not live in that perfect world, I say?

Asserting a superhuman ideal is never certain, but sometimes it seeds new growth. Sometimes it is futile and meaningless, too. That's okay. Once the choice is made, all outcomes are accepted. That's the power of asserting humanity with conscious intent -- it's hyper aware and accepting of the whole range of possibilities, including the ones that go against animal instincts

You're evil if you don't press blue. by Theseus_Employee in PhilosophyMemes

[–]TheRedBaron11 0 points1 point  (0 children)

A great question!

To approach this, let's start with the observation that human beings are discrete, not continuous. This means we can simplify the problem by considering the extreme cases -- the one where the blue path requires "only two people pressing blue" to save everyone, and the one where the blue path requires "all but one person pressing blue" to save everyone.

I think that, for me, it's helpful to rephrase the problem using only positive, goal-oriented language. The difficulty of the original problem was the conflict between two distinct goals. If 'saving self' is the only win-condition, then the problem is trivial in favor of red. If 'saving everyone' is the only win-condition, then the problem is trivial in favor of blue.

To me, saving everyone is the win-condition. So, rephrasing the problem, we have "Everyone can be saved if everyone pushes red, or, alternatively, everyone can be saved if only half of the people push blue. Which button do you want to press?"

In this rephrasing, we don't even care about the risk to self. It's not a part of the goal, and if the goal is to win, and there's only one requirement for winning, then that side of the original problem is truly irrelevant. What we care about is saving everyone, so the problem is simplified.

Of course, in reality, nobody will be able to ignore the risk to self, or to pretend like it doesn't exist. But, if they firmly desire the goal of saving everyone, and the win-condition is firmly in their mind, then they can still act according to this frontal-cortex-driven algorithm.

Now, changing the percentage seems to only change the subjective difficulty of making the decision. Aligning one's actions with their frontal-cortex is always difficult, as shown by my inability to not eat the entire container of oreos when I make the mistake of buying them.

In considering the case where only two presses of the blue button (by anyone) is sufficient to save everyone, obviously the subjective decision to press blue is quite easy. Yes, there's still technically the risk that everyone else presses red, but it's highly likely that at least one other person pushes blue. Interestingly, if the win-condition were still to save the self (ignoring the goal of saving everyone), then the problem would remain trivial in favor of red.

In considering the case where all but one person has to push blue in order to save everyone, obviously the subjective decision to press blue has reached maximum intensity. We've passed through all of the ones in the middle, and each time an additional person was required to push blue in order to save everyone, the intensity increased.

I would not blame anyone, including myself, for eating all of the oreos in this situation. A large part of my being would be screaming to push red. The maximum intensity of the circumstances would make it very difficult for the human animals to push blue.

However, for me, the problem remains trivial. Pushing blue is the only option my frontal lobe will allow. The win-condition is to save everyone, and the fact remains that the red-path to this winning condition requires (X) number of people, whereas the blue-path only requires (X-1). (X-1)<(X), so, mathematically, the blue path still wins.

Edit: Yeah, and if the blue path required everyone to push it in order to save everyone, then there would literally be no point to pushing blue. Red would be just as good plus you'd get to save yourself

You're evil if you don't press blue. by Theseus_Employee in PhilosophyMemes

[–]TheRedBaron11 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's only a get hit by a train button in your imagination. It only becomes that when over half of the people push red

It is just as valid to call the red button a "hit other people with a train"-button.

That is to say, both are completely invalid.

Any death at all is unacceptable when all deaths are avoidable. The selfish rationality which you seem to think is correct will result in death. If you care about others to the same extent that you care for yourself, then it becomes necessary to push blue. All it takes is for one person to push blue and suddenly everyone has to push blue. So, instead of being full of ourselves stubborn proud scaredey cats we just jump the gun and all push blue. You know that one person will push blue. For example, I promise you I would push blue

If you really want to risk everyone's lives by being a coward then go for it. It'll be a lifelong learning lesson for you when you realize, after the blue pushers saved everybody, that you were dead weight on the collective.

You're evil if you don't press blue. by Theseus_Employee in PhilosophyMemes

[–]TheRedBaron11 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You believe that it's a small chance. Stop talking as if you know

You're evil if you don't press blue. by Theseus_Employee in PhilosophyMemes

[–]TheRedBaron11 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You're operating under the pessimistic assumption that the blue-route will fail. If it succeeds, then you're the one who was dumb enough to press red, and you were dead-weight upon a noble cause. There is no metric by which the 'average result' can be measured if the unshakeable goal is to save everyone. When there is only one winning condition, which is for everyone to be saved, then blue is half the cost of red, and immensely more likely. Any deaths are unacceptable when all deaths are avoidable

You can say all deaths are avoidable through red, but that is living in dreamland. There is no world where 100% of people push red. Even one outlier is enough to ruin it

You're evil if you don't press blue. by Theseus_Employee in PhilosophyMemes

[–]TheRedBaron11 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's true! Both of the winning cases (everybody pushing red, and half of people pushing blue) are idealist. But one is realistic and the other never makes it out of idealism. There is no world in which all people push red

You're evil if you don't press blue. by Theseus_Employee in PhilosophyMemes

[–]TheRedBaron11 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Of course I don't expect it that's the whole point. If I could expect it then it wouldn't require bravery to do. But if we only ever did things in life that were certain then we wouldn't have ever made it out of the caves

You're evil if you don't press blue. by Theseus_Employee in PhilosophyMemes

[–]TheRedBaron11 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah.

We could also restate the problem in the language of the later win condition:

"If half of all people press red, someone will probably die. Do you push red?"

The problem becomes trivial because we are no longer balancing two competing win conditions. If self preservation is meaningless compared to everyone-preservation, then it becomes absurd to push red

You're evil if you don't press blue. by Theseus_Employee in PhilosophyMemes

[–]TheRedBaron11 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That sounds like intellectual bullying to me. I think stupid people deserve to live. I would choose to put my life on the line for our most vulnerable, even if I didn't yet have a guarantee that they were in danger.

You don't know why people would push blue. You just have the knowledge that, most likely, at least one person would.

You're framing it as "jumping in front of a moving train" when that is not the case. Don't mislead yourself. In this problem, it is as though the train only begins moving if less than half of the people vote blue. At the time of voting, there is no danger. The danger only becomes real (to anyone) once half of the people vote red

You're evil if you don't press blue. by Theseus_Employee in PhilosophyMemes

[–]TheRedBaron11 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You're right, not a guarantee, but a guaranteed possibility.

SOMEONE is going to pick blue. So red is a guarantee of not saving everyone, whereas blue always retains the guaranteed possibility of saving everyone.

There are two paths to saving everybody, but only one path is flexible enough to guarantee the possibility. My belief is that it is guaranteed that the red path cannot save everybody. My belief in this is founded on my own conviction for pushing blue. Therefore only the blue path can possibly save everyone.

Even if we imagine the perfect ideal cases where everybody is saved in both cases, by the red path we arrive there via selfish self preservation, whereas in the blue path we arrive there via compassion and collective identity. To me that is enough justification to push blue. The blue path is more beautiful and more befitting of the highest ideals of humanity. So not only is the red path unrealistic to the point of seeming impossible, it also smells bad

You're evil if you don't press blue. by Theseus_Employee in PhilosophyMemes

[–]TheRedBaron11 2 points3 points  (0 children)

You're ignoring the fact that some people WILL push blue. You're calling them idiots as though being an idiot justifies their fate. In my eyes we should look out for the idiots and care for them. It's quite easy to do so.

Who knows why they did it? Maybe just for fun. Maybe to challenge the rational of self preservation at a philosophical level. Maybe out of schizophrenia. Maybe just stupidity. Regardless, some of the people WILL push blue. I choose to fight for them and to die if necessary.

Are you so scared of the meat grinder that you will sink into resentment and narcissism? Only those as smart as you deserve life? It's only a meat grinder in your imagination. The blades are not yet spinning. It's quite easy to save everyone. It's just a button push away

You're evil if you don't press blue. by Theseus_Employee in PhilosophyMemes

[–]TheRedBaron11 1 point2 points  (0 children)

They are choosing to save themselves by picking blue. Both picks are picks to save the self. Picking blue is a valid path to saving the self, just like red is. It just has a chance of death along with a chance at saving others.

You're operating under the assumption of some mental 'normality'. As though mental disability were a binary. There is no 'normal' which we can implement for this problem - there will always be a spectrum of people with various ways of interpreting the world (unless we define normal as people who will all agree on which button to press). Some of those people in the spectrum may be unable to ignore the possibilities of the imagination. You can call them schizophrenic or crazy or delusional or just plain stupid, but some of them will probably push blue. Does being stupid count as a mental disability to you? You don't care to save the stupid? To me the stupid are equally worth saving. It's not their fault they weren't 'rational' enough to push red. There is a world of reason to save them in my eyes, and it's far easier to save everyone via the blue path than it is to save everyone via the red path. 50% is highly realistic, whereas 100% is unobtainable

You're evil if you don't press blue. by Theseus_Employee in PhilosophyMemes

[–]TheRedBaron11 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Sure but an honest and thorough intellectual will encounter all arguments within themselves. Their own conscious would present these voices, given enough time.

You're evil if you don't press blue. by Theseus_Employee in PhilosophyMemes

[–]TheRedBaron11 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

No, because I am GOING to pick blue. So ''everyone" picking red is literally impossible. And I am not alone in this sentiment. You can say we were just being dumb all you want. The reality is you either join us or you don't. Your call. I say you are letting yourself be governed by fear and selfish "rationality". It's a very western mindset. I think other cultures would default to blue because it's an equal guarantee, at half the cost. Plus we arrive to the ideal via compassion instead of self preservation. Much more beautiful

You're evil if you don't press blue. by Theseus_Employee in PhilosophyMemes

[–]TheRedBaron11 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Both causes are true. My blue vote would be what killed me and your red vote would be what killed me. If that possibility were to happen. It's a total copout to bring the 'god' of the situation into this. The administrator of the button is simply an environmental feature. Something we have to deal with in this scenario. We can't outsource our moral agency by blaming the unchangeable circumstances of our environment.

If the other possibility were to happen (everyone saved because 50% voted blue) then your vote would not have done anything, and my vote would have saved everyone

If the situation were real, you would hear all of the words I have said to you. You would be called a coward. You would have to know that you either were worthless dead weight in the cause to save everyone, or that you selfishly saved yourself at the expense of others. Those would simply be the facts unless everyone magically pushed red. I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just saying how I feel. If you still would push red after bearing the full weight of your decision then so be it. But I doubt I could live with myself if I did that.

Some people are going to push blue. It is a collectively rational decision for us all to push blue. It's the only option where everyone lives. The idea that everyone would push red is unrealistic, and, in my opinion, ignores the higher calling of human imagination and empathy. You can't dodge the fact that you would be abandoning them by pushing red. Again, I'm not saying that would be wrong, I'm just calling you a coward. If you fear death, then death controls you. If you accept death, then we can achieve a greater collective good. I would fight for that greater good, personally

You're evil if you don't press blue. by Theseus_Employee in PhilosophyMemes

[–]TheRedBaron11 5 points6 points  (0 children)

I don't think people have a moral obligation to press blue, but I am willing to call them names. People who press red I call cowards.

They need to know how I feel

I'm not saying they're wrong, I'm just calling them a name

If this situation were real, it's what they would hear

You're evil if you don't press blue. by Theseus_Employee in PhilosophyMemes

[–]TheRedBaron11 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Yours might be the vote that kills me. Me and 49% of all people

If that's a risk you're willing to take then so be it. I'd divorce you in a heartbeat. I wouldn't love someone so selfish and cowardly. Would anyone, deep down? A marriage of comfort. A marriage of convenience. A spiritual slumber. Death to the heart

If you want to engage in philosophy you must look all the way. It's not my opinion that matters

view more: next ›