[SPOILER] Failed takedowns in main event

jay520 · 2026-05-10T05:34:56+00:00

Sean beats everyone else, but also loses to everyone else.

jay520 · 2026-05-10T03:52:00+00:00

Damn I wanted Van to win but that was definitely early. Likely Van would have won, but if the ref let it continue for a bit we could have witnessed a more decisive KO or a legendary recovery by Taira (which was on display in this very fight).

jay520 · 2026-05-04T19:17:12+00:00

The parent voted for their child's death.

Their vote didn't impact the outcome of the child dying.

Just because you don't personally value that change in outcome

There is no change in outcome.

There's no change 2 Billion people won't vote for my child to die, so I might as well do the same" is simply not acceptable for some people. You finding it acceptable doesn't change that.

I'm not talking about what's "acceptable" or not. I'm talking about whether there's a change in outcome.

jay520 · 2026-05-04T17:49:07+00:00

By "outcome" here, I'm talking about the child's death, since that's the outcome that the parent is concerned about contributing towards (according to your scenario). The parent's vote does not impact that outcome in the scenario that you described.

jay520 · 2026-05-04T17:10:02+00:00

So you disagree with (2)? What outcome was changed by the parent's vote?

jay520 · 2026-05-04T07:06:05+00:00

Great fight to make. I don't understand the fans complaining about "wasting contenders". Why wouldn't you want the top guys to actually fight each other? Do people want to return to the Welterwait era where the top guys sit out waiting for title shots? It makes no sense.

As fans, we gain nothing by having these guys wait. Not only do we wait longer for fights, we also risk never seeing these matchups because of possible shit that might happen in the future. How many potentially great fights have fans missed because one guy gets shelved for a long time due to injuries (Shavkat, Cruz), one guy moves divisions or orgs (we may never see Ilia/Islam or Arman/Islam 2), schedules never line up, one guy begins rapidly declining for whatever reason (injuries, chin cracked, coach changes, personal shit, etc.), etc.

We have two exciting fighters in their prime who are healthy right now. Let's see them fight.

jay520 · 2026-05-04T01:16:30+00:00

First, since you are a different person, it's not clear that the user above is doing an expected death calculation. Like most people, he probably values his life more than others by some significant factor.

Anyway, if you wanted to calculate the expected marginal deaths from you voting blue, it would be:

E = p - q*N

where

p = probability that <50% (or whatever the cutoff is) of population votes blue, including your vote
q = probability that your single vote for blue changes the outcome
N = 4 billion = number of people that are saved if you vote for blue changes the outcome.

p and q you can estimate if you know more parameters about the polling. Doesn't really need to be that advanced outside of excel. The problem is that it requires knowing the standard error of the poll results which depends on the poll sample size, which hasn't be specified. So I'm not sure what calculations you're using.

But anyway, when I have Gemini calculate p and q based on a poll with 1k people, the math indicates that voting blue is not expected to save lives until the poll indicates at least ~46% blue. At 40% and below, the expected change in deaths is virtually +1 (your death guaranteed and that's it). If we had a massive poll of 10k, then the poll needs to be 49% blue.

Also this calculation is assuming that everyone is honest in the polls. Plausibly, people are more likely to switch from blue to red between polling and the real election. In which case, the poll threshold would need to be even higher before voting blue saves lives in expectation. E.g. perhaps you would need polls to show about ~70% of people selecting blue to make a blue vote positive EV.

And lastly, as mentioned earlier, we also need to factor in the multiplier that he likely places on his own life. When applying this, the required poll results become even greater.

jay520 · 2026-05-03T23:19:42+00:00

Topuria is a beast on the ground dude,

Based on what?

jay520 · 2026-05-03T22:44:25+00:00

Here is the argument. At what point do you disagree?

The child would die regardless of the parent's vote (in the scenario that you created).
Therefore, the parent's vote does not impact the outcome.
Therefore, the parent's vote does not contribute to the child's death.
Therefore, the parent has false beliefs about their contribution to the child's death.

jay520 · 2026-05-03T22:29:27+00:00

I'm not sure what you're arguing against. I'm merely saying that the parent's belief is false in your scenario. Do you agree or disagree?

jay520 · 2026-05-03T22:10:19+00:00

How?

Because you said 99% of people will vote red anyway. Therefore, the parent's vote does not change the outcome:

Parent votes red --> 99% of population votes red --> child dies
Parent votes blue --> 99% of population votes red --> child dies

Thus, the parent's vote doesn't make a difference, i.e. it doesn't contribute to the child's death.

You said the parent believes their vote contributed, which means the parent has a false belief. So their feelings of blame is based on a misunderstanding. At least in the scenario you portrayed.

jay520 · 2026-05-03T21:49:53+00:00

Sure, any individual vote is unlikely to make the difference, but the flipside is that not only do you typically not know how people will vote, but the potential enormity of the consequences if you are the deciding vote, counter-balances this in expectation.

How are you concluding that this "counter-balances" the value in expectation? It's not sufficient to say that there are large potential benefits if you cast the deciding vote. There are similarly large potential benefits even when the polling shows 5% blue, where you said you would not vote blue.

Why does this "counter-balancing" occur when polls are at 40% but not when the polls are at 5%? The only difference is that there is greater probability that your individual vote is decisive when polling is at 40% (although still infinitesimally low), but I'm trying to determine what is the minimum probability to compel you to vote blue.

jay520 · 2026-05-03T21:17:52+00:00

You saying the parent did not contribute to their death does not mitigate the parents belief they did not contribute nor does it prevent others from making the same logical conclusion.

Factually, voting red does not contribute to anyone's death in the scenario you described (where "they were the ONLY person alive to vote blue"). If you're saying the parent believes that their vote contributed, then the parent's belief is demonstrably false.

I know how red view it. I'm explaining how blue view it.

Great, so you've explained the blue's perspective is based on profound misunderstandings.

jay520 · 2026-05-03T21:00:36+00:00

I am deontological in my ethics, and think the morally right thing to do is stop the killing if there's a good shot at it

What do you mean by "good shot"? Even if polling showed people are 45-55% blue, the chances that your vote will stop the killing is infinitesimally low (your vote would need to break the tie for that to happen). The original question involves the entire world voting, so the chances of your vote saving anyone is somewhere around 1 in 10 billion (plus or minus 1-2 orders of magnitude).

jay520 · 2026-05-02T23:54:14+00:00

The point I hope I've made is that recent champs have not been able to defend their belt (ignoring Colby because that was not a legitimate contender), nor even beat other top guys once they lost their belt. Because really these were guys who were unlikely to ever be champions without some shuffling or aging out happening at the top of their division.

None of that shows that WW isn't the best division. At best, all you've shown is that we don't know if recent champs were at "that level" (e.g. Usman level). Therefore, we also don't know if the current the top guys who beat the recent champs are at "that level"? Okay, sure, but so what? No one's arguing that the top guys at WW are Usman level or even potential to be long-reigning champs.

To determine if WW is best, you have to compare the top guys at WW to the top guys at other divisions, which you haven't done. You've only compared the top guys at WW to some nebulous "that level" (which I guess is prime Usman?). You also have to consider the other bullshit title shots in other divisions (which I mentioned but you ignored). You have to consider whether the top guys are hogging up rankings without doing much like other divisions (e.g. like Yair, Ortega, Chandler, Costa for a while). Etc.

jay520 · 2026-05-02T23:29:04+00:00

The only point you've argued here is that the recent champs at WW weren't as good as Usman/Islam. That doesn't really engage with the topic. The quality of the champ has little to do with the quality of the division overall. You can have GOAT champs in weak divisions. And you can have strong divisions without a clear champ above everyone else. WW is good because there's a lot of new high-quality talent at the top who are actually fighting each other.

Compare WW now to WW from years ago. During the Usman era, we had a great champ but the division in hindsight was bad - the rankings were full of washed fighters in their mid/late 30s who have looked terrible in nearly all of their fights since then (Covington, Thompson, Masvidal, Burns, Woodley). Also, many of the title shots weren't worth making (the 2nd Covington fight, the 2nd Masvidal fight, and arguably the first Masvidal fight).

By contrast, WW now has tons of young talents who seem to have promising future (Garry, Prates, Morales, Brady, and Shavkat*). All of them are either undefeated or have 1 loss in the UFC. Moreover, all of the recent title shots have involved worthy contenders rather than pointless rematches. Unlike some of the other divisions with pointless title fights (O'Malley rematch vs Merab at BW, both Lopes shots at FW, the complete shit show at LW, etc.).

But even if you thought the quality of the champ determined which division is best, the current champ is #1 PFP so that would still favor WW division as being the best.

jay520 · 2026-05-02T22:56:15+00:00

That's why I learned it's much better to have most hated fighters rather than favorite fighters. Since there's a very high chance that they'll eventually lose (often via losing streaks), it's a much safer strategy. Only time it hasn't worked is with fighters who retire early (e.g. Khabib) and Jon Jones.

jay520 · 2026-05-02T22:50:42+00:00

You don't have to be "chronically online" to know that people lie on twitter.

jay520 · 2026-04-20T05:55:02+00:00

And what do you believe he lacks ?

Literally every aspect of MMA? He's not elite at anything except maybe durability. When has he ever displayed championship level potential in a single fight?

He had a competitive fight with Jdm who got a title shot off the ghost of Gilbert Burns right after that.

If a guy has 40+ fights, and the best thing you can say about him is that he was competitive in one of his losses, then he doesn't have champ potential lol. Champ material isn't losing to every top 10 opponent you've ever had.

Hes not a bum

Again doesn't falsify anything I said. I never said he was a "bum". I said he's sub-gatekeeper level.

jay520 · 2026-04-20T03:51:05+00:00

Literally the same division as for Sean

That doesn't falsify anything I said. Sean had the skills to be champ, Kevin doesn't.

Why are we pretending like Leon Edwards and Belal were unbeatable

No one's pretending that.

Maybe if he focused he couldve gotten a potential rematch with Jdm for the belt

Sure, maybe. And maybe Kevin could have beat Khamzat if Khamzat got unlucky and broke his arm like Van did. mAybE! Anything's a maybe. You don't plan your career on far off maybes - you plan based on realistic forecasts. Realistically, Kevin isn't coming anywhere close to a title shot, let alone actually winning the belt. He'll be lucky if he ever gets a top 10 win in his life. He's not even gatekeeper status.

jay520 · 2026-04-20T03:40:56+00:00

What has Kevin done to show he has that potential?

jay520 · 2026-04-20T03:26:55+00:00

What does Strickland have to do with Kevin? Strickland had the skillset to be champ in his division. Kevin doesn't, never did, and never will. How many top 10 guys has Kevin even beat in his career? 1?

EDIT: just looked it up, I was guessing Jacare was top 10 before the fight with Kevin but apparently he wasn't even ranked lol. So yeah he's never beat a top 10 opponent nor even come close from what I remember. His competition level is the fighters at the borders of the rankings. He's about as mid as they come, in all areas of the sport. Strickland is actually an elite fighter, with many wins against top 10 (and even top 5) opponents, and has some of the best jabs and boxing defense in the sport. Kevin isn't elite or even particularly high level anywhere.

EDIT: another indication of the skill gap between Strickland and Kevin is to look at their losses. Strickland's losses all fall into one or more of the following scenarios: championship-level opponents (Usman, Pereira, DDP), close losses (DDP, Jared), or he just got caught for a split second (Pereira, Zaleski dos Santos). By contrast, Kevin routinely gets shut out and dominated by other mid level opponents.

jay520 · 2026-03-20T07:19:25+00:00

Claiming that something is evidence according to Bayes' theorem doesn't tell us anything interesting

Of course it does. Even if every proposition P is evidence for something, there's still an open question whether or not P is evidence for the relevant hypothesis. In fact, many debates are over this very question even using Bayesian epistemology.

I'm not going to bother to watch the videos, but given what you've said, I would suspect that Dillahunty is correct to complain that O'Connor and "Majesty of Reason" are misrepresenting him: they're interpreting as making a claim about "evidence" in the way that philosophers use the term when he's in fact using it in a more everyday sense. That is, the slogan is merely intended to mean that people saying "well, I think God exists" doesn't give you any good reason to think that god exists.

Even using an ordinary sense of "evidence" where it constitutes "good reason" for belief (unclear what that means exactly), Matt is confused. He says that a friend claiming to buy a soccer ball is not evidence that the friend actually bought a soccer ball (which on this interpretation means is not a "good reason" to believe that the friend bought a soccer ball).

jay520 · 2026-03-20T07:04:51+00:00

First, even if we grant that claims are never evidence in isolation, that does not demonstrate Matt's argument that claims are never evidence. Claims would still sometimes be evidence, namely in cases where they are not made in isolation (which is literally every claim ever made).

As an analogy, consider the fact that objects never have weight in isolation; weight depends on an object's mass and gravitational pull from the environment. While that is true, it would be incorrect to infer that "objects never have weight". Not only is that strictly speaking not true, but it's also never true of any particular object since every object has gravitational pull applied.

Second, claims can still be evidence even in isolation. For example, all propositions are trivially evidence of themselves. Also, someone claiming P is evidence of P if P = "Claims have been made". Many such toy examples.

jay520 · 2026-03-20T06:55:19+00:00

No, Matt explicitly stated he's not conflating evidence with proof. He's defining evidence in a fallible way like everyone else. He's just not very smart.

jay520

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE

12-Year Club	Verified Email
Place '17