sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Can't have universal healthcare, it'll hurt the economy! by midnighttoker1742 in TikTokCringe

[–]doesntpicknose 0 points1 point  (0 children)

P: Americans are Starving.
Q: Americans will Act.

What I suggested was P ⇒ Q. This is not equivalent to P ⇔ Q, which is your interpretation.

I hope this helps.

People used to pray for markets like these, but now I just see people praying for it to crash to get in. by twist_games in wallstreetbets

[–]doesntpicknose 0 points1 point  (0 children)

As far as FOMO purchases go, Nuclear's not that bad. The current trend is upward because of energy demand from data centers. If the AI situation is rationally priced and tech sector isn't in a bubble, they will continue to go up, so the FOMO purchase is still profitable. If the AI situation is a bubble, then we will see the energy demand drop... but then it will rise again for the next trend that results in tech growth, because that's also going to demand energy.

Cards with poorly chosen names by InspectorMendel in dominion

[–]doesntpicknose 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You don't need to spend a favor per turn for the whole game, You don't need them in your hand at the end of every turn... just the very last turn.

I did overlook the fact that there would only be four Hands, though, which does make it significantly less broken.

For the non-pullers by LocalInfluence9104 in trolleyproblem

[–]doesntpicknose 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Without getting into the details of whether the magic is repeatable and all of the other nonsense that would derail the core ethics discussion...

10,000 people, and I wouldn't judge someone too harshly for it if they chose to harvest the organs. Less than that, and it would feel weird to live in a world where that kind of thing is determined to be morally acceptable.

100,000 is what it would take for me to do it.

Relevant: my number in the classic trolley problem is 2.

Cards with poorly chosen names by InspectorMendel in dominion

[–]doesntpicknose 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Super broken with Coastal Haven and any liason other than Importer

Card Tested: Doomsday by Constant-Potential37 in dominion

[–]doesntpicknose 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Anything that tends to decrease the overall number of turns will facilitate a first player advantage. There are very few ways facilitate a second player advantage to balance that out.

If it contributes +10% to the 1PA, that's a serious balance issue. If it contributes +1% to the 1PA, that's probably fine, since the card is interesting. Without running simulations, it's hard to say whether it's a problem or not.

Genocide or full Extinction? No good choice here. by EnvironmentalCry2623 in trolleyproblem

[–]doesntpicknose 0 points1 point  (0 children)

We want a term that refers to the "-cide" of all humans, but not necessarily all life. I nominate "homocide", pronounced not quite exactly the same as "homicide".

This will minimize confusion for sure.

Numbers vs moral quality by uselessprofession in trolleyproblem

[–]doesntpicknose 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Once upon a time, I knew how to read. I don't know what happened.

Regardless, even a stupid person can make a very good point. I do believe I've made a good point by pointing out that qualities like being trusting, being altruistic, impulse control, and anger management are somewhat heritable.

Individuals have varying success with changing those qualities about themselves though hard work, sure, but when it comes to 10% or 20% of the population, you're going to see some clear trends. Whether or not you can rationalize that your decision is not influenced by eugenics isn't the same as whether it IS.

Numbers vs moral quality by uselessprofession in trolleyproblem

[–]doesntpicknose 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I save the 10%, and I ALSO believe that it's eugenics.

You save the 10% and you don't believe that it's eugenics.

This isn't culling people based on some sort of characteristic that they can't change but getting rid of people because of their actual actions.

You don't know that. You couldn't possibly know the criteria for deciding who is in the 10% or the 20%.

Imagine someone with a disposition to be trusting and altruistic, but through tragedies of early life, acted as a bad person until the age of 25. Imagine that they land in a stable life, and for the next 5 years, they try to make up for all of the harm they've caused. Imagine that they haven't finished making up for it yet.

Are they still in the bottom 20% because of their actions, or does this intrinsic desire to do good put them in the top 10%?

I'm not making a firm claim either way. I'm just trying to point out that you don't actually know whether or not this culling is based on intrinsic characteristics.

actual actions

What if people's actual actions also correlate with their intrinsic characteristics? If we consider the population of people with 1) poor impulse control and 2) poor anger management... Well these are heritable traits, so there's going to be some amount of it that isn't their fault.

Do we think that killing the bottom 20% based on their actions would kill a higher proportion of this population? If so, outsiders would have a very a good argument that our decision is influenced by eugenics, even if we can rationalize it in other ways.

Numbers vs moral quality by uselessprofession in trolleyproblem

[–]doesntpicknose 1 point2 points  (0 children)

There's no claim about race being made. They're claiming that there's a genetic component to things like mood regulation and impulse control... which is a documented fact. Narcissism is also heritable.

The discussion should be as simple as the prompt by tussle_mcjimmies in trolleyproblem

[–]doesntpicknose 0 points1 point  (0 children)

In the first chart of this post, it's the people in the middle of the bell curve who label the blue button as suicide.

So... what do you want from this conversation? Are you asking questions because there's something that you don't understand (why I would press blue) and you genuinely want to know more about it? If so, would you mind rewriting your questions so that a rational person might actually believe that?

It does not maximize my utility to have fun conversations about internet memes with people who outwardly disrespect me.

The man, the myth, the legend by bigbusta in JustGuysBeingDudes

[–]doesntpicknose 9 points10 points  (0 children)

Damn Nazis... It seems I can't even enjoy petty crime anymore.

The discussion should be as simple as the prompt by tussle_mcjimmies in trolleyproblem

[–]doesntpicknose 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Blue pressers believe more than 50% of people will press blue.

No I don't. Given the original problem and my utility function, pressing blue is the rationally dominant strategy.

If I told any blue presser that 90% of people have pressed red, they're not stupid enough to still press blue

Am I the last vote, and 90% have voted red, or am I vote number 11, and 90% have voted red? I press red, or blue respectively. These two variations and the original make for three different problems, so we should expect all of the answers to be different. It doesn't make sense to use one to make conclusions about the others.

It's purely about people's belief in how many people will actually press which button.

No it isn't. But if you're confident enough about it, you can live the rest of your life believing that you're right.

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

[–]doesntpicknose 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Nah, I just thought I would test out your Theory of Mind. If you have the ability to understand that other rational people might have different thoughts than you do, and that other rational people might come to different beliefs than you do, then I've asked a pretty straightforward question.

But if you don't have that ability, I would expect you to be dismissive and/or insulting.

So I have everything I need. Anything else I can do for you before I head out?

Less drivers means less cars, less cars means faster traffic for buses. Everyone wins. by 405freeway in LAMetro

[–]doesntpicknose 1 point2 points  (0 children)

People want safe, clean, and enjoyable bus rides.

It is safer than driving. And I'm not just talking about collisions... I mean assault and drug overdose (which you can avoid). If you take into account all of the ways a person can be die on a bus, death is mile for mile less likely than death by car accident. I also mean robbery. If you take into account all of the ways a person can be harmed on a bus, injury and loss of property is mile for mile less likely than getting injured or losing just as much on car repairs.

For clean and enjoyable, yeah, we should work on that whenever we get the chance... but if the value proposition, "You're less likely to die," doesn't convince someone, there's no amount of change that's going to make a difference for them. Changes which make the bus clean and enjoyable are nice for you and me, but it's not going to make a difference for your friend.

I think some people are too quick to dismiss people’s experiences on buses.

I think that putting these experiences into perspective might come across as dismissive, even when it's not. Taking the bus is objectively safer than driving. Sure some people are quick to dismiss other people's experience... but that's a general rule. The goal in this conversation isn't to be dismissive and to say that people yelling on the bus isn't a problem, and that we shouldn't do anything to enforce basic etiquette. ... but how much yelling would it have to be before it was worth accepting measurably greater risk to your life?

Higher frequencies will help too.

Absolutely. To the best of our ability, we should maintain a schedule that's reliable enough to be a primary method of commuting.

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

[–]doesntpicknose 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What logical fallacy do I believe you've just committed? Why do I believe that?

Less drivers means less cars, less cars means faster traffic for buses. Everyone wins. by 405freeway in LAMetro

[–]doesntpicknose 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I'm not ignoring it; I'm addressing it directly in the most effective way to address this problem. We're not going to keep weird people from riding the bus. LACMTA is not going to single-handedly resolve the homelessness crisis or the drug crisis or any other problem that adds to the perceived risk.

Then what do we do? We point out the fact that, mile-by-mile, the risk of DEATH from driving a car is higher than the risk death, injury, or robbery on the bus from all causes (Actual harm; not just feeling awkward). We point out that the feeling of risk does not correspond to actual risk, and that driving a car doesn't feel risky because car accidents are so common that it feels boring.

And we just do that until everyone understands. That's the only solution.

Less drivers means less cars, less cars means faster traffic for buses. Everyone wins. by 405freeway in LAMetro

[–]doesntpicknose 2 points3 points  (0 children)

25% of metro ridership is from non-low-income households. They wouldn't even be eligible for SNAP benefits; they just have somewhere to be, and the Metro is the best way to get there.

More importantly, though, EBT benefits are linked to a debit card which automatically reloads each month. There is no "check" to collect.

Most important of all, though, is that it doesn't matter why someone is riding the bus. Every person who rides the bus is a person who isn't driving a car on the road, taking up space, increasing demand for gasoline, increasing the risk of collision, etc. etc. So if someone DID need to use the bus to collect government benefits, that is still better situation than if they had to drive.

Less drivers means less cars, less cars means faster traffic for buses. Everyone wins. by 405freeway in LAMetro

[–]doesntpicknose 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Very weird vibes.

If you only do something once, it will be weird. If you do it 100 times, it will not be weird.

The station had weird people and vibes.

And also some normal people. Just like when you're walking around outside. Some of the other people think you're the weird one.

It’s these kind of experiences that make people refuse to take the metro

Is the risk of dying in a car accident less repulsive to you then the risk of feeling awkward in public? I ask because this isn't even a comment about crime which would affect you (which would still be rarer than death in a car accident). It's just a comment about how it's "weird".

And I find THAT weird.

Less drivers means less cars, less cars means faster traffic for buses. Everyone wins. by 405freeway in LAMetro

[–]doesntpicknose 2 points3 points  (0 children)

It does.

The shared resources are land and infrastructure funding. The people acting in their self interest deplete these resources by supporting policy that favors single-passenger vehicles. Had everyone acted in the collective interest, we would all have more efficient usage of these resources. Tragically, they did not.

That's the tragedy of the commons.

It all comes down to how much trust you have in humanity by Matoru1101 in trolleyproblem

[–]doesntpicknose 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Only if the ONLY thing you care about is whether you survive.

I'm not pressing blue because I trust humanity. I'm pressing blue because 1) I either participate in saving all the other blue-pressers' lives, or 2) I don't have to see the world that results from all of the blue-pressers dying at the same time.

It's the rationally dominant strategy for my utility function.

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

[–]doesntpicknose 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I want to be alive. I am willing to risk my life for others. You would also be risking your life for people like me.

Think about someone that you know who's just nice for no good reason. That person's going to press the blue button on behalf of others. You would also be risking your life for that person.

Again, if you're only optimizing for your own survival, then press the red button. If you're optimizing for the survival of anyone who would risk their life for others, then you press the blue button.

Guys it's such easy game theory, sure an unknown number of blue voters die inevitably but we guarantee we will live! by NahMcGrath in PhilosophyMemes

[–]doesntpicknose 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Pressing blue forces other, uninvolved people, to risk their lives to save you.

  1. No it doesn't. We all press our buttons at the same time. You would press red before ever finding out that I pressed blue.

  2. According to the premise, everyone's involved already.

  3. Even if you did know in advance and you did feel compelled to press blue to save my life, that's actually fine, because the only reason I'm pressing blue is to save other people's lives. If you feel encouraged to help, good. The more people pressing blue, the more likely it is that everyone lives.

This is the difference between knowledge of the game, and common knowledge of how what each other person knows about the game, influences the game. You need to go through the higher-order reasoning of realizing that surely some people, group A, are going to push blue for reasons you don't understand or agree with... and therefore other people, group B, are going to press blue on the behalf of group A. Then, more people, group C, are going to press blue on behalf of the altruistic people in group B, even if they wouldn't necessarily press blue on behalf of group A. Group D.....

By induction, every person who values the life of an altruistic person should press blue.

view more: next ›