Bruno J. Escobedo

154 posts

Bruno J. Escobedo

Bruno J. Escobedo

@escobedev

Hello! I'm Bruno Escobedo, a passionate human with interests in software development, cybersecurity, physics, mathematics, psychology, philosophy and politics.

Se unió Haziran 2024
154 Siguiendo4 Seguidores
Bruno J. Escobedo
Bruno J. Escobedo@escobedev·
@LicenseProApp @currydtx Saying “are you mental” doesn’t make it more logical. It just means you think protecting your own circle is the only valid priority. Not everyone agrees with that. This is basically: protect my family at all costs vs avoid harm to all families if possible. Both are understandable
English
0
0
0
4
Bruno J. Escobedo
Bruno J. Escobedo@escobedev·
@LicenseProApp @currydtx You’re assuming responsibility to your kids overrides everything else. But others see responsibility more broadly not just “my kids,” but “everyone’s lives.” That’s a value difference, not insanity. Remember it’s not me against others, everyone include you and your family too
English
1
0
0
5
Bruno J. Escobedo
Bruno J. Escobedo@escobedev·
@LicenseProApp @currydtx But that doesn’t only apply to you, everyone else in that scenario can also have families depending on them. So it doesn’t resolve the dilemma, it just amplifies both sides. Now it’s not just “me vs others,” it’s “my family vs other families.” 👏
English
1
0
0
14
License Pro
License Pro@LicenseProApp·
@escobedev @currydtx You assume self preservation doesnt impact others. When you have a family and they depend on you then you'll realize how crazy of an idea it is to seperate yourself from others like they are disconnected when they are not.
English
1
0
0
18
Bruno J. Escobedo
Bruno J. Escobedo@escobedev·
@tonkertom If blue is “virtue signaling,” then red is “fear signaling.” Both have emotional drivers, the difference is what you prioritize. So the dilemma stays the same, virtue vs fear even if both are fakers.
English
0
0
0
13
Bruno J. Escobedo
Bruno J. Escobedo@escobedev·
@LicenseProApp @currydtx By your own definition, “good judgment” depends on the objective you’re optimizing for. If the goal is only self preservation -> red fits. If the goal includes others -> blue can fit. So calling one side “objectively stupid” skips that step entirely. You’re just biased!
English
1
0
0
13
License Pro
License Pro@LicenseProApp·
It appears the problem is you dont operate with objective reality and are drifting into subjective reality which is delusional and circular. I am defining stupid as anyone that objectively qualifies by the definition of the word stupid. "someone or something lacking intelligence, common sense, or good judgment. It refers to being slow to learn, foolish, or acting in a careless, unreasonable manner" its not a disagrees with me it's a person exhibiting the traits of stupidity is stupid. You view someone as stupid as being a subjective judgement not an objective fact for whatever reason
English
1
0
0
24
Bruno J. Escobedo
Bruno J. Escobedo@escobedev·
@LicenseProApp @currydtx So it’s not “turn off power vs touch a wire.” It’s “assume everyone flips the switch vs act in a way that allows a no death outcome if enough people cooperate.” That you can’t comprehend this goal it’s your own problem. Blues have no trouble comprehending red basic mentality
English
0
0
0
4
License Pro
License Pro@LicenseProApp·
Any goal which takes on needless risk is stupid. For example if an electrician had the option to either turn the power off or risk touching a live wire and he could live if he touched enough people would, it would be idiotic to not turn the power off. Its not virtuous to expect a bunch of people to touch him and spread the electricity around when the smart choice is just turn the fucking power off and dont put others in danger.
English
3
0
0
19
Bruno J. Escobedo
Bruno J. Escobedo@escobedev·
@LicenseProApp @currydtx Your electrician example assumes one person can guarantee a safe outcome by flipping a switch. In this dilemma, no single person can guarantee that outcome because others are making independent choices.
English
0
0
1
6
License Pro
License Pro@LicenseProApp·
Its a lot more realistic then playing Russian roulette with 51%. No one will ever know the vote and these results show what a 5% margin of success for blue with zero stakes besides online clout and virtue signaling. If there was blood in the streets thats a lot of risk for no reason and people would say they choose blue but choose the obvious red in much higher numbers.
English
1
0
0
14
Bruno J. Escobedo
Bruno J. Escobedo@escobedev·
@LicenseProApp @currydtx Even under your framing, the risk only exists if enough people go red. So saying “it’s their fault” ignores that the outcome depends on everyone’s choices, not just theirs. Calling it “suicidal” doesn’t make it irrational it just shows you don’t accept any goal beyond risk-free.
English
1
0
0
11
License Pro
License Pro@LicenseProApp·
@escobedev @currydtx If they are not suicidal they will choose red. If they are suicidal and choose blue and desire to be contrarian then thats the risk they choose. If they die thats their fault for being reckless and assuming we'll some idiot will choose blue and today that idiot is me.
English
1
0
0
31
Bruno J. Escobedo
Bruno J. Escobedo@escobedev·
@LicenseProApp @currydtx You just want to force everyone into 1 unique posible escenario which is more idiotic. You’re going to convince no one that red would ever get a chance of 100% voters.
English
1
0
0
13
License Pro
License Pro@LicenseProApp·
@escobedev @currydtx Literally if everyone does it everyone avoids the risk. Its nonsensical to assume we'll some idiot will press blue instead of the no risk option therefore I will be that idiot that is contrarian and play Russian roulette
English
2
0
0
25
Bruno J. Escobedo
Bruno J. Escobedo@escobedev·
@FirstofLeo @Nickname_BT If it’s down to insults, I’ll take that as you not having an argument left. Inmature play only remarks how underdeveloped your prefrontal cortex is.
English
1
0
0
14
Bruno J. Escobedo
Bruno J. Escobedo@escobedev·
@FirstofLeo @Nickname_BT And I’m not arguing against a position you didn’t hold you’re the one insisting against the blues, which only works if you assume red goal is the only valid one. If your point is just that you’d choose red, that’s fine. I’m just desagreeing on your current view of blues.
English
1
0
0
14
Pepintor
Pepintor@FirstofLeo·
@escobedev @Nickname_BT you are arguing against positions i never claimed to hold. And you were the one that said reds were incapable of empathy. I think im wasting my time
English
1
0
0
28
Recat
Recat@EisenseeleRod·
@escobedev @TheWookieDavid @nautica_mori @Prazkat No me interesan las encuestas, me importa más el problema de fondo. El mundo está lleno de leyendas de teclado y heroes de sillon. Con planteos moralistas para problemas que se crean para si mismos.
Español
2
0
0
31
🐾🚔 Prazkat Reviews 🇲🇽
🐾🚔 Prazkat Reviews 🇲🇽@Prazkat·
Estoy entendiendo mal la teoría de juegos aquí? Porque no veo literalmente ningún incentivo para apretar el botón azul. Si azul gana vive, pero si pierde muere. Si rojo gana vive, y si pierde también vive. Rojo nunca está en riesgo. Presionas rojo.
Tim Urban@waitbutwhy

Everyone in the world has to take a private vote by pressing a red or blue button. If more than 50% of people press the blue button, everyone survives. If less than 50% of people press the blue button, only people who pressed the red button survive. Which button would you press?

Español
617
80
2.7K
293.7K
Bruno J. Escobedo
Bruno J. Escobedo@escobedev·
@EisenseeleRod @TheWookieDavid @nautica_mori @Prazkat Criticar “héroes de sillón” desde X también es ser héroe de sillón. Nadie aquí está salvando a nadie en la vida real, estamos discutiendo PRINCIPIOS. Y el principio es simple: ¿priorizas solo tu seguridad o también la de los demás?
Español
0
0
0
9
Bruno J. Escobedo
Bruno J. Escobedo@escobedev·
@LicenseProApp @currydtx This whole debate comes down to one thing: You think avoiding personal risk is the highest good. Others think preventing harm to everyone matters more, even with risk. That’s not intelligence vs stupidity, it’s two different ethical priorities.
English
1
0
0
18
License Pro
License Pro@LicenseProApp·
No the blue make a dilemma because they essentially choose to play Russian roulette when they didnt even have to begin with. If the option was go home or swallow poison but the catch is if 51% choose to swallow poison with you then you get the antidote. Thats a huge gamble and these polls are showing what a 5% margin which in a real life scenario would likely vanish. You swallowed poison for the dumbest people that volunteered to cause they assumed most people wont just not swallow poison.
English
2
0
0
23
Bruno J. Escobedo
Bruno J. Escobedo@escobedev·
@LicenseProApp @currydtx Your analogy is off. In your version, risk exists by default. In the actual dilemma, risk only exists if people choose red. Blue is trying to create a world where no one dies. Red is choosing guaranteed personal safety even if others die. Those aren’t the same starting conditions
English
0
0
0
6
Bruno J. Escobedo
Bruno J. Escobedo@escobedev·
@EisenseeleRod @TheWookieDavid @nautica_mori @Prazkat A los rojos no les va a pasar nada si los azules ganan, porq les importa tanto los azules? Azul gana en todas las encuestas y lloran. Por que lloran? Si todos se salvan? Que quieren? Matar? Les importa más ganar que la dinámica en sí. Ya no están siendo lógicos, solo inmaduros.
Español
1
0
0
12

Descubrir

@LicenseProApp @currydtx @tonkertom @FirstofLeo @Nickname_BT @elonmusk @BarackObama @taylorswift13