Skip Navigation

InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)F
Posts
7
Comments
392
Joined
3 yr. ago

  • Do you actually feel conviction behind the claims and arguments, or is it more performative?

    Yes. I think what happens in many difficult topics is people know how they feel but have never really thought through the detail. And because of that they backfill with black and white thinking that I think is bad for several reasons.

    I) often even though I agree on the central issue, the black and white thinking contains overreactions that I disagree with that in themselves cause other problems. So I see value in developing an emotional black and white view into a nuanced dark grey / off-white view.

    ii) black and white thinking leaves us ill equipped to understand others or find compromises

    iii) although we all do it, relying on strong emotional convictions is fine for day to day life but leaves us out of practice articulating exactly why we think things should be a certain way and therefore vulnerable to articulate bad actors

    I would never take a contrary view just to be annoying. And I generally only do it on moral issues, not matters of strong consensus that would veer into conspiracy. (E.g. practising reciting the evidence for why we understand the Holocaust is real is a useful historical skill but not the kind of thing I'm talking about)

  • In my experience it doesn't matter how accessible the language becomes, most people find the precision required to make machines behave in a desirable way is exhausting or alien to them.

    This isn't any kind of failing though. I've come to see how organising modern businesses (with processes, regulations, standard etc) is a kind of "programming". And there are many who are good at that (designing human processes to automate goals) where I completely flounder, even with the help of the 'right' training, books, coaching etc

  • I enjoy 'free' debate where I can be the devil's advocate for unpopular opinions. Talk like this is more or less banned on Reddit. Lemmy is a much freer. I think the are sensible boundaries on certain topics where debate must not turn into advocacy. This takes nuance and good sense though. Completely dead on Reddit, still alive here. So carry on..

  • and never asked for, like "AI".

    I think, unfortunately, quite a lot of people have poor taste and don't mind obvious AI slop, even enjoy it.

  • There are certain materials such as CSAM that people are not totally immune to. Most people will always find it repugnant, a minority will always be drawn to it. But there is a portion in the middle who do not ever think of it only because they are not exposed to it. Unrestrained sharing of it normalises it and the behaviours that come with it. There are some parallels with addictive drugs. Constraints on free speech are akin to banning cigarette advertising or making heroin illegal. Yes, in principle, everyone should be able to manage themselves well enough that anyone can take whatever they want. In reality, we democratically decide society is just healthier for everyone if certain things have constraints.

  • Thanks. Yes, I'm managing to absorb it now.

    Though the hardest part is getting an intuition about why the "algorithm 1" "algorithm 2" thinking happens at all when they's a group of 100 people and everyone can see at least 99 blue eyed people. I get the induction, but why does anyone think 'well algorithm 1 people would leave first night' when there obviously can't be anyone in this group. The only immediate question on everyone's mind is "are there 99 blue eyed people (what I see) or 100 (me included)?"

  • Brilliant, thanks :)

  •  
        
    SPENGLER
    I have a radical idea... The door swings both ways. We could reverse the particle flow through the gate...
    
    RAY
    How? 
    
    SPENGLER
    ... we'll resize a table in Word 
    
    VENKMAN
    Excuse me, Egon.  You said resizing a table was bad...
    
    RAY
    [with realisation]
    ... resize the table...
    
    VENKMAN 
    You're going to endanger us.  You're going to endanger our client; the nice lady who paid us in advance before she turned into a dog
    
    SPENGLER 
    Not necessarily.  There's definitely a very slim chance we'll survive..
    
    WINSTON
    ...
    
    RAY
    ...
    
    VENKMAN
    I love this plan! I'm excited to be a part of it!  Let's do it! 
    
      

  •  
        
    GOZER
    The choice is made. The Traveller has come.
    
    VENKMAN
    We didn't choose anything?!!  I didn't think of an image, did you?
    
    SPENGLER
    No.
    
    WINSTON
    My mind's a total void!
    
    [They all look at Ray]
    
    RAY
    I couldn't help it! It just popped in
    there!
    
    VENKMAN
    What? What just popped in there?
    
    
      
  • Spoiler >!test!<

    Edit: nope

  • Same way it expands to two: When there are three blue eyes, then each of them guesses they might have brown or something and there could be only two blue on the island, in which case as described those two would have left on the second night.

    I don't think that's right.

    Let's try it out:

    Basic case: 1 brown, 1 blue. Day 1. Guru says I see someone with blue eyes, blue eye person immediately leaves. End

    Next: 2 brown, 2 blue.Day 1; Guru speaks. It doesn't help anyone immediately because everyone can see a blue eyed person, so no one leaves first night.Day 2; The next night, everyone knows this, that everyone else can see a blue eyed person. Which tells the blue eyed people that their eyes are not brown. (They now know no-one is looking at all brown eyes). So the 2 blue eyed people who now realise their eyes aren't brown leave that night on day 2. The end

    Next case: 3 brown, 3 blue (I'm arbitrarily making brown = blue, I don't think it actually matters).Day 1, guru speaks, no-one leaves.Day 2 everyone now knows no-one is looking at all brown. So if anyone could see only 1 other person with blue eyes at this point, they would conclude they themselves have blue. I suppose if you were one of the three blue eyed people you wouldn't know if the other blue eyed people were looking at 1 blue or more. No-one leaves that night.Day 3 I suppose now everyone can conclude that no-one was looking at only 1 blue, everyone can see at least two blue. So if the other blue eyed people can see 2 blues that means you must have blue eyes. So all blue eyed people leave Day 3?

    Hmm. Maybe I've talked my way round to it. Maybe this keeps going on, each day without departure eliminating anyone seeing that many blue eyes until you get to 100.

    It just seems so utterly counterintuitive that everyone sits there for 99 nights unable to conclude anything?

  • Still doesn't work on Boost unfortunately. Known issue...

  • "failed to install due to unknown error" :(

    Do you feel like posting the riddles here?

  • I can't see how this expands from your last case of 2 blue eyes to any more blue eyes?

    When there are two blue eyed people (and you can see one of them) then the guru saying they see a blue eyed person has value because you can wait and see what the only person with blue eyes does. If they do nothing it's because the gurus statement hasn't added anything to them (they already see someone with blue eyes). And this in turn tells you something about what they must see - namely that you have blue eyes.

    But how does this work when there are 3 people with blue eyes?

    There isn't anyone who might see no blue eyes. And you know this, because you see at least 2 sets of blue eyes. When no-one leaves on day 1 it's because they're still not sure, because there's no circumstance where the gurus statement helped anyone determine anything. So nothing happening on day 1 doesn't add any useful info to day 2.

    So the gurus statement doesn't seem to set anything in motion?

  • Some android apps don't honour spoiler tags (Boost) :( Feel free to link to your answer somewhere instead of spoiler tagging it if you feel extra nice :)

  • I'm picturing someone lying in a tube while they weld it shut lol..

  • Interesting. But surely they must have had a plan to recover the station if crew were all incapacitated? With it now being near end of life it doesn't matter as much, but early on when billions had been invested? They surely wouldn't have canned the station in event of a catastrophic air leak?

  • somewhat more prominent than average canine teeth

    this is definitely a "thing"

  • I think also because it's become impossible for a major game to be someone's passion project. They're designed by committee out of necessity. The level of organising required creates processes and structure and stultifyies individual flair.

    Gamers are responsible for this too. The amount of moaning and pouting if things aren't perfect...