Daniel Fredriksen 🇺🇲

-> Anarchy is the natural state of things. -> Under anarchy, people have natural rights they are free to exercise. -> Anarchy is vulnerable to "overthrow" by collective (government) use of force (power). The government that utilizes power most effectively will displace the anarchy, regardless of how righteous the ideology of the other governments are. (Righteousness is not a necessary condition of power). This is binary (but situation dependent) - a government either does or does not have enough power to enforce the rules. -> The displacement of the anarchy is inevitable because there exists collectives / governments with ideologies that support the use of force to displace anarchy. -> Therefore, for the government with the most righteous ideology to displace the anarchy, it also needs to be the most powerful government. -> Corollary: if you believe libertarianism (the preservation of natural rights) is the most righteous ideology, then it is also OK to believe that a libertarian government can possess the most power and use that power to displace external anarchy and protect against external threats, with the goal of preserving internal anarchy (natural rights) for the citizens of that government. The disputes within libertarianism are usually not about the purpose of government, it is about how government can effectively achieve the above. Libertarians can truly range between pure anarchist and neocon. I believe that the libertarian party can attract more people if it focused official messaging on the importance of preserving natural rights and the benefits of that, while leaving the "how" for internal debate. @beinlibertarian @LPNational

@KristoffLen @VUsuxballs @Villgecrazylady Why would anyone like that be allowed near the president 🤣

It's the meta-deception that's the problem. He's not "reading" people per se to get his info. He's mainly using a bunch of high tech tricks (phone spyware, note pads that send data to his phone, etc.) and then saying he's just good at reading people. Watch the documentary for more info.

Imagine being clairvoyant but only for worthless shit like predicting baby names not anything important like… you know… A SHOOTER GEARING UP DOWN THE HALL!!

@Villgecrazylady 🤣🤣🥰

@ChShersh The comments here are perfect ammunition for the red/blue debate

Could someone explain why Anthropic lists their salary for 10 years and not just annually like everyone else? This is misleading and gives an impression they can pay so much per year.

@VitthalG17 @ChShersh

@ChShersh is this engagment bait or something?? it literally says per year

@driftingwendigo @Aella_Girl The words "permanently banned from Glosso" are in red and probably should be in a neutral color

@Aella_Girl One thing I will point out is that you kind of bait and switched us here (potentially). One the one hand you stated results aren't public on the other we get a public achievement indicating that we've voted. So if blue gets <50%.... all the red button pushers will all be outed.

You said you were skeptical cause hypothetical is different when something is actually on the line. I decided to test

@robertsdionne @gfodor You wake up in the future. You find a note that the red blue button game has been iterating an unknown number of times, each time everyone knows the result, but some of you are randomly flung into an iteration...

@gfodor The real game is indefinitely iterated button game.

Because this question gets to the core of human nature, it’s unlikely to be close. Either Hobbes or Rousseau is right. As such, my blue vote is maximally irrelevant. Red.

@MN_Vikings_Pete @gfodor You clearly haven't seen the waters of Tonle Sap

@gfodor Nah, dawg, one poop isn't going affect a reservoir or the ocean, which is more than sufficient to handle waste of that amount. Zero chance that my decision impacts the overall health of the system, so why would I avoid making the selfish decision?

@Enjoyabwltradr @HealthRanger It's one of the horsemen of the apocalypse

@HealthRanger Idc about the slider I see Jesus (from afar) or the angel of death(up close) riding some sort of animal

This looks like nothing more than a slider that fades another image in. I don't see anyone showing that the Butler image is somehow "embedded" in the original image. This looks like people freaking out over a great big nothing, because they don't know how Photoshop works. It's just someone who overlayed the Butler image on top of the original image, and then is fading it in and out. That's all. No time travel required.

@ProblemGirl_13 I wonder how many people will lose fingers attempting this

Don't do this stupid shit. Just pull the toilet. A wax ring is less than $10. A whole new piece of linoleum is a lot more expensive than $10.

@thejesterhead9 @xenocosmography You can swap the colors if their political affiliations are triggering you

@xenocosmography C+ I think you got a better one in ya Go workshop it for a few days then get back to me

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, large numbers of blue button pressers will rape and kill both red button pressers and blue button pressers quite indiscriminately. Still, red button pressers will definitely be punished for their selfishness and narrow tribalism. Which button would you press?

@thejesterhead9 @xenocosmography The better one is: If you press red nothing happens EXCEPT if 100% of the people press red. If 100% of the people press red, everyone dies. If < 70% press blue, only blue dies. If 70% or more press blue, everyone wins.

if you went back in time one hour you would appear roughly 100,000km from earth maybe we solved space travel too?

If there was a government dispensing advice, the morally correct advice would be to press the red button. If you were convincing others to press a button, the morally correct position would be the red button. But if you choose to press the blue button, you've harmed nobody and maybe saved everyone.

"If everyone would just..." The fact that the red button pickers are even making their case online to try build consensus (and convince their moms to pick red) demonstrates total blue victory. True red pickers wouldn't care.

@Esoteric_Though @Daniel86Cycles If someone tries to convince someone to vote blue, they are endangering lives. It's not the same as voting blue though

@Daniel86Cycles The original question said if you push red, nothing happens, just go home. That's it. The only people endangering life are the blue people and the other people they convince to vote blue, choosing to risk their lives and the lives of others just to see if it works.

Okay: In this case, the red button is simply replaced with "Don't do that". This is NOT what the original question said. The original question required the active participation of the red button pushers. The equivalent scenario would have the red team **turning on the blender**.

@PetrucioBR @Daniel86Cycles It is a different game because Bayesian priors factor into what you believe others will do, and their decision could impact the outcome if there is someone you value saving in the blue groul

@Daniel86Cycles The blender game is an IQ test. If you fail the test, you think it's a different game that needs a different answer.

@Daniel86Cycles Obviously you cant know how full each room is until you pass through the one way door

@Daniel86Cycles The equivalent scenario would be: There are two rooms, each with a pressure plate on the floor. If less than 50% of the people stand in room 2, the ceiling will collapse and crush them. Room 1 or room 2?

@francip @bitcloud Since it's 1941 rules, you would have to use the rules of whatever country you wish to enlist in to determine if those people could enlist

@bitcloud Do babies and old ladies with dementia get to enlist to fight as well?

It's December 1941. Everyone in the world has to make a private decision to be a coward or enlist to fight Hitler. If more than 50% of people enlist, everyone survives. If less than 50% of people enlist, Hitler wins and only cowards survive. Which button would you press?

@HugeriskCapital @stevehou It can be reduced to a game theory problem, they are just using the wrong model

@stevehou Sounds like you're reducing this to a game theory problem, where you're assuming the value function is only [chance of self life] but assuming that strips away all of the complexity of the problem. There's no "dominating strategy" here

Strictly dominated option won the poll. Red strictly dominates blue bc if fewer than 50% chose blue, those that chose red survive anyway but those that chose blue would die. If you presumed voters are “rational” as in they thought this through, you’d conclude altruism. In reality, this is “bounded rationality” as most people likely didn’t think through the implications and chose the feel good option without knowing they had taken on hypothetical lethal risks.

Anything more than 50% is a very risky gamble, in my mind. Let's say you model the button push problem as a random 50/50 plus some bias in one direction. If you think that the world is overwhelmingly religious, has something to gamble their life for, then that bias will be blue. So its natural to think blue will win in a 50/50 scenario. Then if you have children that might vote and there is a chance that they could vote blue, if you weigh the probability that you can save them versus them ending up without -both- parents, the probability is high in favor of rescue. Those odds diminish dramatically the higher the threshold for the blue vote.

button question but we're changing the cut off percentage: which is closest to the minimum value where you would switch from blue to red (ie. '__% must push blue for everyone to survive')?