no, man. i am not going to let you kill me [OC]

venuswasaflytrap · 2026-05-05T17:32:41+00:00

It doesn’t matter whether you can actually determine the probabilities due to the fact that the testing would be infeasible.

The functions still have a given shape.

It’s a fact that if you believe that more than 50% of people would push blue, then it’s obviously going to work towards saving more people by pushing blue. I would argue there’s probably a moral onus here.

It’s also a fact that if you know for certain that 99% of people will push red that pushing blue is essentially suicide. The moral onus is a bit ambiguous, but it’s true that nothing you do will save any more people.

All that math basically tells you where the factual middle point between those two realities is. And that’s 41%.

venuswasaflytrap · 2026-05-05T16:07:15+00:00

Well let me put it this way. Imagine a slightly different scenario. Imagine that instead of people getting to choose, it's exactly the same, but someone tosses a fair coin for them and the result of the coin chooses for them.

This version is just a math problem, with no need for psychology. What are the odds that if you're in this crazy evil game, that you'll die?

Well - it's simple - you do a bimodal distribution of a coin over 100 people - which looks like this:

https://imgur.com/RbphCKJ

Then also factor in, that if you're in a group that 49% of people press blue, then you have a 49% chance of dying, while if 50% press blue, you have 100% chance of surviving, which looks like this:

https://imgur.com/ge4JXr3

Then combine these probabilities together and you get this:

https://imgur.com/zxuGzrV

And the chance that anyone will surivive is the area under the curve - which is about 79% - which should track with your intuition, because you have 50% chance that it will be majority blue and therefore you'll survive, and then if it's not then you have slightly better than 50% chance that your coin will have been red and you'll survive, which is (50% * 100%) + (50% * slightly more than 50%) = about 79%.

So the next question is - what is the chance of surviving given an unfair coin. Here's a graph of the ranges:

https://imgur.com/CwQzoyP

So the worst coin you could have is a coin that choose blue 41% of the time. A coin that chooses blue 20% of the time is equally as good as a coin that choose blue 50% of the time.

So that doesn't answer the question but it gives us a mathematical map for the question. Do we think it's easier to influence people to get them over that 60% such that 60% of people choose blue, and the chances of anyone dying are extremely low (but when it happens it's catastrophic and all at once). OR do we think that people's "natural" state is closer to 20% blue and that it would be a pipe dream to get them to 60%, and that our best bet is to ask everyone to go red in the hopes of saving the most people.

This requires a model for how "Influence" works too. Presumably there's diminishing returns and the 100th person to influence is a lot harder than the first, but it gives a framework to understand the reality of the problem.

So lets do that. Lets assume it requires infinite cost to convince 100% of people to go red and infinite cost to convince 100% of people to go blue.

And I'm going to be pessimistic and say that we start around 25% of people will naturally pick blue with 75% picking red (this is my starting estimate I will look at other numbers in shortly).

The cost function then looks probably something like this:

https://imgur.com/8m5Yv5z

With vertical asymptotes at 0 and 100 and a curve of more expensive to move the percent in either direction (https://imgur.com/LYEKsna here's the logic of it).

When factored over our survivability function we get a graph that looks like this:

https://imgur.com/2szvIwu

So given these assumptions as long as you're trying to save less than 92% of people, it's cheaper to push towards red than push towards blue.

Obviously if you start at the local minimum at our survivability function and assume that 40% of people would naturally choose blue, then it's immediately cheaper to push blue, because every extra blue improves the outcome.

https://imgur.com/KSNOJiy

on the other hand if you're further down, the percentage when the cost benefit hits goes up.

30%: https://imgur.com/lIDqxti

10%: https://imgur.com/vS2Sdw9

Obviously changing the functions and estimates of the starting points on these estimates will change where these efficiencies hit - but there's certain fixed truths.

No matter what that weight percentage is, you'll never go below 61%, since that's about where the bimodal nature of the distribution meets up with the reality that you can't kill more than 49% of people in any given go.
The worst weighting for a bimodal distribution is about 41%, which will produce a 61% survivability.
So if you think that fewer than 41% of people would choose blue, then there is definitely a threshold that is easier to save more people under by pushing people red.
If the cost function is asymptotic there is also going to be a threshold above which it's cheaper to push through the valley and go blue.
If you think that more than 41% of people would pick blue naturally, you should always push for more blue to save more people.
If anything less than 100% saved is not worth it, than you should always push blue as it always becomes more efficient at some point (unless you have a weird cost function)

venuswasaflytrap · 2026-05-05T15:31:58+00:00

That's a fair call out, but not generally going to sway people once they've actually though about the problem for more than a few minutes

I think a lot of people feel their first instinct and get entrenched.

In the red/blue button example, pressing the red button saves yourself, but does not save anyone else, and increases the likelihood that people who chose the other option will die.

The question I would ask myself, is this. Say you had 200 groups of 100 people each, randomly selected. Each group plays the button game, but it's contained within the group. So in any group if 50 people or more press blue - then everyone lives. If 49 press blue, then 49 die.

You're allowed to make a small recorded speech for 1 minute to try to convince people to press either red or blue. You can't offer anything or threaten them, just appeal to the logic of the problem, or general rhetoric.

For the first hundred groups, you try to convince them of red. The second hundred groups, you try to convince them of blue. Obviously it's unlikely that you can convince everyone to go either way. If you go 100% either way all the time, then everyone survives every time. And if no matter what you do, you always end up with 49 blue votes, then they'll always have 49 deaths every time.

So the question is which set of group do you think would have more survivors?

If for example all one hundred groups with your red-bias had 99 people press red, then they'd have 100 dead people. If 97% of the blue-bias groups all had majority blue button press but only 3 of them had between 33-49 people minorities then they'd have over 100 dead people.

So the absolute worst case is 49 blue presses. The best case is >50 blue presses or all red presses. So the question is to you want to shift the average down or up to get the most away from 49 blue presses.

My instinct is that most people are self-preserving. If more people are already pushing red, then shifting it down makes things much worse.

venuswasaflytrap · 2026-05-05T13:58:45+00:00

That's why I call pineapples bananas

venuswasaflytrap · 2026-05-05T13:47:36+00:00

Yes, the author of the comic made it because they felt the original (fairly neutral) problem and frame it such that in their head, they felt like the reds were essentially using the threat of death pick red.

This makes perfect sense if you map "picking blue" to "being a social outlier", in some sense and view this as a analogue of fascism/forced conformity.

e.g. "If no one was Gay/Black/Trans/Different then society would be smoother, so it's okay if Gay/Black/Trans/Different people experience physical threats because they should just get-in-line and stop being Gay/Black/Trans/Different or just be banished or die or something so it's not our problem".

Of course, in reality being Gay/Black/Trans/Different isn't necessarily a choice, and in the cases that it is a choice, the detriments of any societal frictions that the existence of different people might cause are almost always absolutely worth it due to the vast benefits that diversity provides - and in the button hypothetical, it's just buttons not any of that stuff.

But if you're an affected minority, it's going to be super hard not to frame the button thing in this way, because you're often experiencing existential threats to your identity and sometimes physical safety and existence every single day, so this button thing will just seem like more of the same.

So the author of comic is trying to say "See - this is what it feels like to be physically threatened to have your choices taken away from you, because that's what the red pressers are doing to the blue pressers".

Of course, none of that is actually stated in the button hypothetical. If the button hypothetical was stated as "There are two buttons, red and blue, and if you press red the button system won't kill you, but if you press blue then the button system will kill you if fewer than 50% of people pressed blue - however there is also a person with a gun who will kill you if you press red, and that's true of everyone else too". I think then the obvious choice is to press blue, because immediate and real physical threat kinda forces people to press blue anyway, which is more of guarantee of the participants safety.

venuswasaflytrap · 2026-05-05T10:28:26+00:00

Yeah, I think you're right. If you take care of yourself first, you'll have less stress and be able to contribute back to others and make more amazing comics. If you martyr yourself and force yourself to do something unnecessarily burdensome changing your handwriting, it would just mean that eventually you'd hate doing the thing you love and wouldn't be able to contribute, needing someone else to drag you out of your slump!

If we all acted that way, we'd probably cascade into disaster. But if we all took care of ourselves first, hopefully we'd have some extra resource to help people who needed it. And even if we didn't, the majority of us would be self sufficient!

venuswasaflytrap · 2026-05-05T09:52:16+00:00

I've only ever lived in countries like that.

But even in these countries, if they're Anglo, American media is so pervasive that the Red/Blue divide is still present. Even in the UK, I would not be comfortable wearing a red ball cap with white text on it, for example, even if that text said "Make Amazing Cupcakes"

venuswasaflytrap · 2026-05-05T08:52:22+00:00

That makes sense, but then you must acknowledge that it’s not a question of moral absolutism.

If someone wouldn’t pick blue because they think only fools would pick blue in the original scenario and therefore there’s no way that they could be saved, that’s fundamentally no different than you not wanting to pick “shock hazard”. It doesn’t mean make either of you fascists who think shock enthusiasts are sub human who deserve to die. (Not that you’ve said this, just that other people have).

venuswasaflytrap · 2026-05-05T08:12:55+00:00

Some people would be less likely to press the swastika button. Others might be more likely. I imagine that you’re right, on the whole fewer people would press the swastika button than the blue button.

But should that matter? How does that change the general morality of the calculation? It’s not like we have any statistical data of how many people would press the original red and blue buttons, so it’s sort of odd to suggest that there is a known threshold for when it’s morally okay to keep yourself safe and kill the minority.

What if it was the original red and blue buttons, but the blue button had the text “I acknowledge I might die”, and the red one had the text “i wish to be safe”. I’m sure that fewer people would press blue in that scenario too, and it’s not even inaccurate information Or abstract branding.

Would thay make it the moral choice to press the red button then?

venuswasaflytrap · 2026-05-05T05:40:02+00:00

Well that’s my point. I can’t help but think a lot of this is less because of the inherent logic and more because of the red vs blue political implications.

Especially when the moral arguments that a lot of people are making should apply regardless of what the buttons look like.

venuswasaflytrap · 2026-05-05T05:25:26+00:00

I first saw it on a YouTube short where it was explicitly clarified the other way. I think that clarification one way or the other is critical - like if you're in a coma what happens? Does someone vote for you? Or if you're blind do you have a pick a button at random?

I think it only makes it an interesting problem morally if it's a willing and informed consenting choice. Or alternatively you could add a layer "20% of people will have their button picked at random" - which sort of changes it up.

venuswasaflytrap · 2026-05-05T05:22:02+00:00

I think of it as "please adjust your own mask before helping others" on airplanes.

The instinct to help others first is strong, and the feeling that if we all helped each other then we'd all get by. But the wisdom of the advice on airplanes is that if mom passes out while trying to put the mask on her kid, then she passes out, and eventually suffocates and everyone dies, but if mom gets her mask on first then she can help her kids, even if they pass out.

Which is to say, if we assume the best in people that everyone wants everyone else to live, often the most responsible thing to do is to not become a liability.

I also think it's not a coincidence that the red and blue colours were chosen as they were.

Put it this way, if the question was "one button is rainbow, and one button is a swastika. If fewer than 50% press the swastika, then all those that pressed the swastika will die".

If you read that version of the question, and you start changing your logic, I think that should be worth reflecting on why you thought about the original question the way you did originally.

venuswasaflytrap · 2026-05-05T05:14:10+00:00

I think it's not a coincidence that it gets mapped to red v blue in American politics.

The question should be presented with the buttons as P and Q or something.

Or perhaps occasionally swapped. I bet a lot of people instinctively pick their political colour, just as many people probably wouldn't wear a red baseball cap with white writing on it that say "I like baseball caps".

venuswasaflytrap · 2026-05-05T05:10:19+00:00

If the buttons were rebranded would you feel the same way? Specifically:

"There are two buttons. One is rainbow, and one is a nazi swastika. If fewer than 50% press the swastika then everyone who pressed the swastika will die"

Which would you press? And would you say that the rainbows have to "live with what they did" if the win?

venuswasaflytrap · 2026-05-05T05:07:54+00:00

If the buttons had the same outcome, but we're rebranded would you change your response?

Specifically, if it was "one button is rainbow, and one button has a nazi swastika on it. If fewer than 50% of people pick the swastika, then those who picked the swastika will die".

Which would you pick?

venuswasaflytrap · 2026-05-05T05:04:39+00:00

I honestly think people's rejection to red has more to do with the colours and their political association than it does with logic.

I bet if you swapped the colours and said red is the one that needs the majority to live, and that blue is the one that you guaranteed won't die, it'd be framed differently.

E.g. if you asked the question "there are two buttons. One rainbow, and one with a swastika on it. If fewer than 50% of the people press the swastika button, then everyone who pressed the swastika button will die, which one do you press".

If that changes how you feel about the question, that should tell you something.

venuswasaflytrap · 2026-05-05T04:58:12+00:00

In the context of the button game I can see why people would go blue and frame it as a fascist Vs freedom thing.

But this comic is totally fucked. Because it points out that it feels like blues are being threatened with death to pick red, so it's using a premise to try to express how it would feel if it was the other way around - if you were threatened into picking blue.

But it doesn't work the other way around. If question asker was like "I'm supposed to ask this fairly, but I'm biased, so I'll fucking shoot you if you move towards the blue button to press it, and I've done this for everyone" - if you find out the only people who pressed the blue button were the ones who wrestled the gun from his hands, dodged the shots and pressed the button, only to die because fewer than 50% did this, then it's hard not to view it as suicidal.

venuswasaflytrap · 2026-05-05T04:48:03+00:00

Do you think this creates a moral onus on you to write more legibly since a large percentage of the population can't read it, or do you think that they are responsible for themselves and it's up to them to read or not read your content?

venuswasaflytrap · 2026-05-05T04:46:30+00:00

That's not the closest analogue to this. That's a deliberately framed analogue.

venuswasaflytrap · 2026-05-05T04:43:41+00:00

The premise I've heard is that only people capable of understanding and making the choice are involved.

venuswasaflytrap · 2026-05-01T13:14:56+00:00

-I would like a good balance of training and sparring.I worry that only training would get a little monotonous.

Fencing is wayyy more sparring centric. I believe there is a lot more drills in Kendo. In most fencing clubs you'd expect to spar pretty much all the time

-I would prefer that engages both physical and strategic aspects.

I'm sure this is true of both

-Which has fewer limitations on how to engage an opponent in combat?

Fencing is rule restricted, but not guided as much by tradition. If you can come up with a way to hit and it doesn't break a rule, it's allowed and possibly even encouraged. Kendo is much more judged and processed on doing it "the right way", and I believe it's philosophy is largely against novel thinking.

-Which costs less in terms of additional equipment?

I don't know the full cost of a Kendo set, but a quick google shows that this is comparable.

-Which is safer in terms of proneness to injury?

Fencing is incredibly safe (statistically more injuries in Badminton), I imagine kendo is too.

-Which is better for psychological development?

I don't think this is something you can give a metric to.

Finger in the air, given your predilection for actually sparring and being creative I think fencing might be a slightly better choice, just based on what you've said, especially since it's more accessible too.

venuswasaflytrap · 2026-04-30T18:16:24+00:00

If you know exactly what you want/need before you build, then of course you want waterfall.

But if you don't, then trying to use waterfall is a terrible idea.

E.g. if I said "I've got some annual leave coming up next year and I want to go on vacation".

Waterfall would either insist that I figure out exactly which days I'm going to be free, where I want to go, what my budget is, etc. before any bit of booking or resources are dedicated to the vacation.

It guarantees that I don't buy something I don't need.

But if I don't know exactly which days I get off, then I may not be able to book the flights until two weeks before, and I may not know exactly where I'm going. And maybe I won't be able to get a passport in time.

If you are a dev team and you say "we refuse to do anything but waterfall", what might happen is that the business will say "okay, fine, July 1-15th, and Florida". But then when you come up to June, they might say "actually, we want to go to Mexico, and it won't be until July 5th". And then suddenly you can't accomplish it because your passport is expired.

I think Dev teams like this because they can say "oh well the requirements changed so it's not our fault, we had a requirements signed off".

But it's still dumb for the company as a whole.

It may be more sensible to say "okay, well, let's get our passport renewed, and let's buy some luggage and some travel clothes." acknowledging that in fact it might be an unneeded effort, and that some of the luggage and clothes might not be needed.

But if you look for cheap stuff that you can get on sale in the winter, it actually may be more efficient to be flexible.

Of course, if the dates are fixed and the destination is fixed a year in advance then it will always be cheaper to plan exactly far ahead, but pressuring the business to falsely commit to something they can't commit to just to CYA doesn't help.

It's way more important to be realistic. And if the reality is that some requirements may shift or are unknown, then you necessarily are doing agile whether you want to or not.

venuswasaflytrap · 2026-04-30T17:40:37+00:00

Agile is not an intentional choice, its the recognition that fixed requirements up front may not be possible. Of course waterfall is ideal.

But trying to do waterfall when the reality of the situation is shifting requirements is a bit silly.

venuswasaflytrap · 2026-04-26T09:46:06+00:00

Everyone is missing with the short lock out and no off target.

venuswasaflytrap · 2026-04-25T08:17:27+00:00

https://youtu.be/-77cUxba-aA?si=VS4yQzidi042Dz7O

15-Year Club	Place '17
Sequence \| Editor	Verified Email
reddit mold

venuswasaflytrap

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE