LifeAfterTech

311 posts

LifeAfterTech

LifeAfterTech

@ALifeAfterTech

One man's journey from tech industry to modern luddite.

Inscrit le Haziran 2023
17 Abonnements11 Abonnés
LifeAfterTech
LifeAfterTech@ALifeAfterTech·
@ckjd @DellAnnaLuca That's a different scenario. You wouldn't know you're last. You don't know if more blue votes are needed or it its impossible. But even if you did know you were last but didn't know the current vote, voting blue is still the correct moral choice.
English
1
0
0
4
ckjd
ckjd@ckjd·
@ALifeAfterTech @DellAnnaLuca Imagine you are the very last person to press. There is Blue, a 1-in-8-billion chance you can affect the outcome and a real chance of death; or Red, a 100% chance your child will still have a parent to look after them.
English
1
0
0
5
Luca Dellanna
Luca Dellanna@DellAnnaLuca·
Red voters advise their kids (and others) to vote red, so they’re saved for sure. Blue voters advise their kids (and others) to vote blue, thereby gambling with their lives. But somehow red voters would be those caring less about their kids and others in general? The idea that blue is the moral choice hinges on the unwarranted assumption that blue wins with certainty.
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?

English
109
10
322
9.4K
LifeAfterTech
LifeAfterTech@ALifeAfterTech·
@bloodstreamrunz Except that don't to the online disinhibition effect we know that people are more empathetic offline than on. So more people are likely to select blue in the real world.
English
0
0
3
68
catarina.
catarina.@bloodstreamrunz·
there is absolutely no chance that blue would get more than 15% in a real scenario, the odds of it winning 50%+1 of the vote are ridiculously minuscule. voting blue isn't even a gamble, it's plain suicide, blue is a death cult of suicidal idiots
Sam || Crafting Vegeto@CraftingVegeto

Okay, so after thinking about this red blue button dilemma for hours, here is where I landed lol At first glance, the correct pragmatic answer is obviously red. You survive no matter what. That part is still 100 percent true. Red is the logical self preservation move. You do not die no matter what the others do. But once you think deeper, you realize that blue actually has a strong moral and collective argument. Blue only needs "just" over 50 percent to save literally everyone, while red basically needs 100 percent for no one to die. So blue is the gamble that gives humanity the best shot at universal survival with the lowest bar. At the same time, tons of people are emotional as hell, not logical or pragmatic, and sadly a lot are straight up virtue signaling kings. That means there is a real chance we end up in that dangerous 40 to 49 percent blue zone where billions die and society collapses anyway. Even the survivors probably would not survive long after that. Good job everyone. So yeah, red is the logical self preservation move, and blue is the more morally correct gamble to try and save everyone. Both sides have a solid point. Having that said... Everyone on Twitter furiously shitting on the other side is an idiot. Blues calling reds selfish monsters are idiots. Reds who cannot even see the collective blue argument are idiots too. But here is the most important part imho. All of this is bullshit. This is just a Twitter thought experiment where everything is easy and fake. If this was real life, an actual button in front of you, and pressing the wrong one means you actually die, everything changes. Heart rate at 180, adrenaline spiking, shitting your pants. I firmly believe there is near 0 percent chance blue gets over 50 percent in a real scenario, which I am not saying is a good thing. All the virtue signaling idiots on the internet would secretly press red in a heartbeat. Sure, some actual idealists who care about the collective more than pure survival would still press blue, and sadly they would die. In a real terrifying dystopian situation like that, red is the only solution, and it sucks.

English
27
3
122
3K
LifeAfterTech
LifeAfterTech@ALifeAfterTech·
@mojitoblooms @Misandrist2000 Correct, but they have to stay together and not blow up their familly. And if the man blew up the family the women would be provided for for life.
English
0
0
0
27
Mojito
Mojito@mojitoblooms·
@ALifeAfterTech @Misandrist2000 No fault divorce did not remove any of this because it has never existed. People have always been and are still able to make family health plans etc.
English
1
0
3
31
LifeAfterTech
LifeAfterTech@ALifeAfterTech·
@KrispiLargo2 @Misandrist2000 It's exactly what was said you just don't want to believe it. You've been sold a bill of goods. Convinced life is better now. 10 times as many women need welfare today than prior to no fault. Go back before that and women were nearly universally provided for.
English
1
0
0
28
LifeAfterTech
LifeAfterTech@ALifeAfterTech·
@Maeve0330 @HandyGingerGal 1 is the correct answer. People where just taught in correctly that a number next to parenthesis is synonymous with multiply.
English
0
0
0
6
Ginger
Ginger@HandyGingerGal·
I'm starting to think that maybe the CERN split included people who learned different rules for the order of operations, from a dimension where the "in the order that they appear" rule doesn't exist.
Ginger tweet media
English
38
1
39
3.6K
LifeAfterTech
LifeAfterTech@ALifeAfterTech·
@CollinBrown85 @HandyGingerGal Parenthesis does not mean multiple. Never has. Parenthesis means expand, and you don't clear the parenthesis until you expand. 8 ÷ 2(2 + 2) 8 ÷ (2 x 2 + 2 x 2) 8 ÷ (4 + 4) 8 ÷ 8 Replace the inner 2s with x and y and you'll see why this matters.
English
0
0
0
2
Collin Brown 💯
Collin Brown 💯@CollinBrown85·
@HandyGingerGal I was always taught you do parentheses first. You get (4). And then work whatever is outside the paranthasees. In this case, it's a simple 8÷2=4. 4(4) = 16. The parentheses mean multiply.
English
4
0
14
403
LifeAfterTech
LifeAfterTech@ALifeAfterTech·
@PattersonSonny @DellAnnaLuca Morality is not based on being the deciding vote. Imagine the vote is simple kill 50% vs kill no one. It doesn't mater who actually wins, voting to kill people caries the same moral weight.
English
0
0
1
6
Sònny Păttərsòn
Sònny Păttərsòn@PattersonSonny·
Every vote has a 1 in 112,100 chance (the probability of 8 billion coin flips coming to an exact tie) of being a deciding vote that determines the outcome. That is the only viable meaning of "saving everyone". So pressing red actually has a zero chance of "saving everyone", a 1 in 112,000 chance of triggering the death of all blue pushers, and a 100% chance of saving oneself.
English
1
0
0
9
uncatherio
uncatherio@uncatherio·
I keep finding it surprising that people do not understand that choosing red has a side effect: it increases the number of people that must choose blue.
English
119
6
749
22K
LifeAfterTech
LifeAfterTech@ALifeAfterTech·
@realDarkElation @uncatherio I hope you never have a loved one with depression. Yes, us blue button pushers would try to save the lives of the suicidal.
English
1
0
0
19
Dark Elation
Dark Elation@realDarkElation·
@uncatherio That implies that as a red choice I care about your choice to kill yourself. Who am I to judge your decisions?
English
1
0
0
196
LifeAfterTech
LifeAfterTech@ALifeAfterTech·
@DellAnnaLuca Yes. It's the deontologically moral choice to try to save everyone if it is possible to save everyone. Pressing red only has less than 1 in 8 billion chance of saving everyone.
English
2
0
0
16
Luca Dellanna
Luca Dellanna@DellAnnaLuca·
@ALifeAfterTech Even if you tell them to vote blue, there’s a chance blue loses. Is it a chance you want to take?
English
3
0
5
239
LifeAfterTech
LifeAfterTech@ALifeAfterTech·
@hell_line0 Statistically single mothers harm their children at higher rates than single fathers. So should we presume fathers get custody?
English
0
0
1
99
Maryam
Maryam@hell_line0·
“Divorce rates dropped after the 50 : 50 custody bill was passed!” Right. Because women aren’t leaving their abusive husbands and risking those kids going into the custody of their abusive fathers. If he’s an abusive husband, he’s an abusive father. This is what the data supports. 50 : 50 custody laws don’t prevent divorce; they keep women and kids trapped.
English
47
72
424
9.7K
LifeAfterTech
LifeAfterTech@ALifeAfterTech·
@The_Rebel_Lemon @JamesTate121 The only just tax is land value tax. That is legitimately compensating society for the exclusive use of land beyond your need for subsistence. I also support tarrifs. Neither require force as they can be opted out of. This is how I would actually fund protective services.
English
1
0
1
4
Rebel Lemon
Rebel Lemon@The_Rebel_Lemon·
@ALifeAfterTech @JamesTate121 I mean aren't there a lot of countries that have a duel system that work just fine? Granted I also don't think taxes are a bad thing so I will be honest there
English
1
0
0
4
James Tate
James Tate@JamesTate121·
Housing should be a human right.
James Tate tweet media
English
109
244
1.1K
7.4K
LifeAfterTech
LifeAfterTech@ALifeAfterTech·
@The_Rebel_Lemon @JamesTate121 I think where we differ is on the use of force. If we created a universal health insurance that one could opt in and out of, and allowed for competitive non-universal health options, there would be no neef for the threat of force.
English
1
0
0
4
Rebel Lemon
Rebel Lemon@The_Rebel_Lemon·
@ALifeAfterTech @JamesTate121 Yea I can agree with you on that, implementing tax funded programs aren't the problem, to me, the problem is bad implementation and a lack of continued improvement or continued improved efficiency Every country can improve, they just need to put in the work and research to do so
English
1
0
0
4
LifeAfterTech
LifeAfterTech@ALifeAfterTech·
@The_Rebel_Lemon @JamesTate121 I don't think I am the exception. I think most people would and do help provide for others. Even more so before the culture of narcissism. Make the universal insurance voluntary and let's see what happens. I'm willing to pay a little more so emergency service exists for all.
English
1
0
0
7
Rebel Lemon
Rebel Lemon@The_Rebel_Lemon·
@ALifeAfterTech @JamesTate121 Universal Healthcare is basically just paying for insurance you might never use the difference is private vs public Why not use taxes to improve the QOL of everyone, especially since some people can afford more but refuse to contribute more You're the exception who would help
English
1
0
0
5
LifeAfterTech
LifeAfterTech@ALifeAfterTech·
@MarkChangizi You are missing from the original is that everyone must take one of two actions and it is done in private. So I your scenario you have to picture a child alone in a room with your suicide button and decide if you think they will push it or not.
English
0
0
2
710
Mark Changizi
Mark Changizi@MarkChangizi·
— The Suicide Button — No need for a Red button at all. Just have a single (Blue) button labeled, “Press me to commit suicide by midnight.” And then in fine print it says, “Guaranteed to work unless more than 50% of humans end up pressing their button.” Are you suggesting it’s now selfish to not press the button? Because that’s exactly the Red button answer in the equivalent Res/Blue button case.
English
99
56
1.2K
37.8K
LifeAfterTech
LifeAfterTech@ALifeAfterTech·
@The_Rebel_Lemon @JamesTate121 The topic is whether housing is a right. It is not, and neither is the protection of a military. My stance on this is pretty consistent. I would voluntarily pay for the defense of the county, including those that can't contribute, no force necessary.
English
1
0
0
5
Rebel Lemon
Rebel Lemon@The_Rebel_Lemon·
@ALifeAfterTech @JamesTate121 Military is also paid for taxes and they get a lot of benefits that a normal civilian doesn't get so unless you want to pay for that yourself or where only the rich have private militaries then tax based services should be used to help the average person
English
1
0
0
6
Rebel Lemon
Rebel Lemon@The_Rebel_Lemon·
@ALifeAfterTech @JamesTate121 Taxes can be used to pay for services, not a very American way of doing things but it has worked to varies degrees in different countries
English
1
0
0
6