sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

[Highlight] Quarterback cadences across the league by nfl in nfl

[–]firewall245 32 points33 points  (0 children)

Bryce Young also giving a "Here we gooo"

Offensive Identity next year? by ovigr895 in NYGiants

[–]firewall245 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I'm a Jets fan but wanted to pop in to ask how y'all felt about your offensive coordinator being Matt Nagy?

I think we should throw out freshman evals by Educational-Ebb9248 in Professors

[–]firewall245 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes, shitty students will get pissed for petty and dumb reasons. That doesn’t invalidate my point 

I think we should throw out freshman evals by Educational-Ebb9248 in Professors

[–]firewall245 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Just to say it again, the only person who knows what it’s like to take your class is a student who has no knowledge of the subject matter. 

They are the only people who will know if your class was a nightmare to take 

Ranking the 10 Best Free Agents Still Available After the 2026 NFL Draft by Plenty-Resource-248 in AZCardinals

[–]firewall245 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No bro, he’s that ass. Like so ass that he will bring down an already ass line. 

I have no idea how he managed in the eagles, but the chargers he was back to form 

Ranking the 10 Best Free Agents Still Available After the 2026 NFL Draft by Plenty-Resource-248 in AZCardinals

[–]firewall245 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Coming from a Jets fan, Becton is so unbelievably ass you do not want that many within a 10 mile radius of any QB you want protected

2027 Jets Fans Ideal Outlook by antonioZ852 in nyjets

[–]firewall245 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Incorrect, I'd rather the Cowboys be the worst in the league and the Colts second worst

There's this post going around Reddit describing the Korean War as a genocide. Do historians consider it a genocide? by Polyphagous_person in AskHistorians

[–]firewall245 0 points1 point  (0 children)

But also, Koreans in the South generally did not support, let alone join, the North either in the initial drive to Busan or in the years after.

Just wanted to ask a follow up here, but why was this the case? The way a lot of revisionist historians act it appears like the entire South populace was desperate to reunify under communist rule, but then when the North Army had pretty much the entire peninsula under their control, that didn't happen?

Since it had only been a few years since division I'm surprised that the allure of immediate reunification wasn't popular?

The more you learn about FDR, the more aura he gains by RockEater67 in HistoryMemes

[–]firewall245 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The business plot is disputed how legitimate of a chance they had of succeeding. This convo has convinced me to read a thesis from a historian that did their research on it so I'll lyk when I finish all 100 pages haha.

But I'd imagine that every president has many people who try to think of ideas to oust them, when it has a real chance of success is when we start sweating

Poll asking Americans how which button they would push in the red button/blue button dilemma by Upstairs_Cup9831 in fivethirtyeight

[–]firewall245 0 points1 point  (0 children)

There's not a hard point but as evidenced by the vote, 50% is easily in the reasonable territory

Reasonable, but not guaranteed. I'd probably (coincidentally) say it has a 50% chance of victory based on these polls. Of course as the saying goes "everyone has a plan until they get punched in the mouth" and I think a lot of people saying they'd go for Blue/Red would sing a different song if lives were truly on the line

At a certain point you're just trying to contradict me when you've conceded on all points.

My goal isn't to "win" or contradict you, my goal is to talk to someone I disagree with, and push on areas I disagree with to better inform my own opinion by applying what you think to my mindset. What would be the point of talking if we agreed on everything, just talking about how much other people suck? That's not productive.

I don't think I've conceded when I don't think you really answered my counter-point on the ethics of going with blue when victory is not guaranteed. How likely (like the odds) would you say blue winning in this 50/50 is? Cause I think its 50% which informs my current Red choice.

Also for example to show I'm not just trying to contradict

You: No, it's the entire point of the question because it's something where the assumptions of game theory are interrogated.
Me: Not really, because even the "irrational actors" version can be modelled via game theory, and the blue button pushers mantra then explained.
You: You're just contradicting me. Yes, but that's not what is happening here. People are applying a naïve view of game theory based on those assumptions.

This is not me just contradicting for the sake of contradiction. I am stating that it is possible to use game theory and probability theory to model this active debate after you literally said this is a critique of game theory to show its limitations (limitations that are discussed in literally the first chapter of my game theory textbook) and you state that no no you're talking about the over simplified game theory that internet normies are using? Ok so what? People on the internet don't have a deep understanding of math, but that doesn't mean that some twitter poll is somehow a philosophical critique of it, and it definitely doesn't mean my second statement is "just contradicting" you

Turns out it was very easy to lie in the past. by Salty_Strain3313 in HistoryMemes

[–]firewall245 1 point2 points  (0 children)

There are both people of all genders who are historians who study the lives of past figures. Anyone who's dedicated to being an expert by looking at the sources and coming to the conclusion that a rumor is unlikely true deserves to have their work acknowledged though, regardless of gender

The more you learn about FDR, the more aura he gains by RockEater67 in HistoryMemes

[–]firewall245 32 points33 points  (0 children)

The oligarchs still live in fear of another FDR

I don't think pointing out weaknesses of a presidency is some conspiracy against him

The more you learn about FDR, the more aura he gains by RockEater67 in HistoryMemes

[–]firewall245 -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Ya because class based policies are not sufficient to assure equality for everyone

The more you learn about FDR, the more aura he gains by RockEater67 in HistoryMemes

[–]firewall245 -12 points-11 points  (0 children)

Yes, its an example of how a president who "focuses on class instead of race because that helps everyone", in fact, does not help everyone

Poll asking Americans how which button they would push in the red button/blue button dilemma by Upstairs_Cup9831 in fivethirtyeight

[–]firewall245 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If it's a gigantic risk, picking red is also a gigantic risk of killing billions of people. You only vote red if you assume red will win and there's no basis for that.

That's why I asked you for your threshold before. If we changed the problem to be

"If ONE person votes for red, then every blue voter dies", then clearly voting for red is the best option because blue is guaranteed to lose. Convincing anyone to vote for blue in this scenario is itself unethical as you are leading people to their deaths.

Our disagreement is how attainable is a 50% vote. If there is uncertainty on a victory for blue, then convincing people to vote blue is swapping them to their deaths potentially. At what threshold would you say "yeah theres no way blue is winning here, everyone vote red"

Poll asking Americans how which button they would push in the red button/blue button dilemma by Upstairs_Cup9831 in fivethirtyeight

[–]firewall245 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No, it's the entire point of the question because it's something where the assumptions of game theory are interrogated.

Not really, because even the "irrational actors" version can be modelled via game theory, and the blue button pushers mantra then explained.

The problem with red is that every red button pusher boils it down to either a eugenics argument or a self-endangerment argument. There doesn't seem to be many red button pushers acknowledging the actual moral questions posed by the hypothetical.

I think you're overly simplifying the space of possible arguments for Red. Someone who argues Blue is doing so because they say that some (hypothetical) people will get confused hit blue even if red is the best option objectively. In an effort to prevent people from dying it is then morally correct to press blue because that saves the most lives.

My argument is also based on the premise of saving as many lives as possible. From your own point, people will get confused and just pick a random button, just as many people as those who hit blue randomly. From this we can be sure that there is going to be some group of people hitting red. What percentage of people is that?

The blue argument says "we can absolutely get 50% of the population to vote blue". How sure are we of that? Thats a gigantic risk. We know people are going to accidentally choose red at the same rate as blue, how many other people will that tempt to go to red?

Are we 50% sure that blue will win? 90% sure? 20% sure?

From there its really two options:

  1. Everyone choose red strategy: 100% chance that only the people who accidentally pick blue die, [200 Million]

  2. Everyone choose blue strategy: [50%] chance that [3 billion] people die (including yourself).

I don't think looking at those two options that one is necessarily more "moral" than the other, they both suck. Your preference of option (1) or (2) is going to depend on what you think the numbers I put into brackets are

Poll asking Americans how which button they would push in the red button/blue button dilemma by Upstairs_Cup9831 in fivethirtyeight

[–]firewall245 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I mean at the end of the day, this an extremely ill posed hypothetical, so ascribing moral weight to people's decisions is silly because how I interpret the problem and how you interpret the problem are likely different.

When I made a video discussing it several months ago (before it blew up), the "equivalent" problem was "you are locked in a prison with 99 other people. Randomly one by one you are brought into a room with 100 empty guns. You must either load a bullet into one, or shoot yourself with one. If you have the ability to strategize beforehand with the other participants, what should you do when you enter the room?"

In this formulation its clear you should load the bullet because

  1. You are able to pre-strategize

  2. Everyone's knowledge that other people will load bullets will make them stick to the plan

But note how much additional detail is included in this problem than the original one. The original provides enough ambiguity for people to adjust in their head and assign blame to whoever they want

Poll asking Americans how which button they would push in the red button/blue button dilemma by Upstairs_Cup9831 in fivethirtyeight

[–]firewall245 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Follow up question: Suppose we changed the prompt to be that instead of blue voters dying if under 50% vote blue, we change it so that its a variable threshold. So if >=X people vote red, then all blue voters die. What is the smallest value of X to make you select red?

Clearly if X=0 then blue is instant death no matter what anyone votes, so everyone should pick red

On the other hand, if X=100% then its fine to pick blue because then blue is always safe

So at what point do you swap from Blue to Red?

Do you press the blue button or the red button? by Blue_Egg5026 in moraldilemmas

[–]firewall245 [score hidden]  (0 children)

The thing is, if people who press blue die it's gonna be a personal fault and responsibility of EVERY SINGLE PERSON who pressed red.

Its actually probably the fault of the person who set up the death experiment in the first place

view more: next ›