J Lin

@RealTalkWithMJ1 Agree that no one should be talking about JT not being 100%. Cs have not played well last 6 quarters, Sixers have, and Mazulla refuses to make adjustments. But the appendix, man? Like for real?

I’m ain’t trying to hear a peep about Jayson Tatum not being 100%. Joel Embiid is playing without an appendix and Celtics fan were boasting about winning all series. Sixers in 7.

@BriskittyThe3rd @Atlasdawn157106 @lostinganglia @nuttycom If threshold for blue win is 99.99%, is pressing red still murder? If blue won’t win is convincing someone to vote blue murder? Shouldn’t we consider what others are likely to do? Yes, saving everyone is optimal, but if you can’t, shouldn’t we maximize red votes/lives saved?

@Atlasdawn157106 @lostinganglia @nuttycom Everyone will not press red, so pressing red is always murder. You are the one refusing to accept the consequences of your choice.

Can anyone ELI5 how the red/blue button game is any different from this one? You can either press the red button, or abstain. If more than 50% of the population press the red button, anyone who didn't dies.

@supergeekmike So if I tell you that the continued use of the internet and Twitter by millions could theoretically result in people dying (pick any theory, energy consumption, Musk, etc.), you are a murderer if you continue to use the internet/Twitter, no matter how small your contribution?

No. If you go Red, you are responsible for any deaths caused by Red, especially since you were told that this result could kill people. It doesn’t matter if you thought those deaths were unlikely, or you weren’t the deciding vote. You’re still voting for murder. Deal with it.

@Submetallic @TheRickPatton So yes, it’s a collective action problem (we *should* be looking out for all kids, not just our own), but it’s understandable for parents to be selfish / prioritize their kids. As a dad, my vote has almost 0 chance of deciding if my son lives, it could decide if he loses his dad.

@TheRickPatton If everyone had this mindset that what they did didn't matter we would still be living in caves.

I am genuinely conflicted about the blue button/red button. I asked my family member who has two kids and she said the blue option seems better if everyone was just asked to pick and she didn't know how her kids would vote. I have two kids and I don't know how they would vote, I instinctively vote blue. If I had a choice I would probably tell my kids to push the red button so they survive but it would be insane if I just pushed blue and I told them to push red. I also asked my personal trainer (man) today and he said he would push blue to help others out as he thinks some of his family members would also pick blue. I also have another mom friend (one child) and she thinks there's something mentally wrong with red button pushers. Basically all my male friends online would push red and they are saying I am not understanding people in other countries. I grew up in a very high trust community where I walked to my friends house and just opened the door and walked in because people didn't even lock their doors. I still live in a high trust society but maybe it's creating a type of blindness in me and what I would expect out of others. I don't want to accept the extremely negative consequences of 40% of the high-trust or western world dropping dead though, so I would still be motivated to pick blue. I think as a coordination problem we could still get more than 50% of people to pick blue so nobody has to die. It's easier to get majority blue than getting 95%+ of the people to pick red.

@hyeiccino @minjigongjunim1 But if you’re pretty sure you can’t get to 50% blue or 100% red (which, given blue is winning by small margins in no-stakes online polls, seems likely), shouldn’t decision calculus shift from how to maximize chance of saving everyone to minimizing deaths / blue votes if red wins?

@minjigongjunim1 the question is not whether dying or not, its whether k'ing people or not + its literally easier to achieve 51% than a complete 100% which is impossible. ENDDD

notice how more than 51% of people voted blue

@Akuro316 @Hroth @selfmaxxer You’re just describing a collective action problem. *Should* people vote even if an individual vote is unlikely to dictate outcomes? Absolutely. Is any parent going to vote (even for policies that could save their kids life) if the price of the vote is a 50% chance they die? No.

@jlin11z @Hroth @selfmaxxer In a real election if no one’s individual vote matters, everyone should stay home right? No. It’s not about the decider or not because if side A wins by 10 votes you can’t tell me no one’s vote matters, if those 10 didnt matter then they could stay home and the result be the same

If the question was framed like this, which is the actual truth, even the twitter poll results would starkly differ. The blue retards can't see beyond the wording and look at it for what it is. ''Muh press bloo everyone surviv!''. If you don't see how retarded team blue is yet, there is no hope for you.

@theramblingfool Don’t disagree, but think 1 is severely underrated by blues. If blue is winning by small margins in online polls, reasonable to think blue likely loses with real world consequences. If so, decision calculus shouldn’t be how to save everyone, but how to minimize blue vote deaths.

2 and 4 betray the fact that you're not a very good person. 3 and 5 betray the fact that you're not very intelligent. 1 is the only defensible argument for red. I think it's ultimately wrong, but we can have an intelligent conversation from here.

Every Pro-red argument: (1) Cynicism: "It's impossible for blue to win. Don't be suicidal." (2) Narcissism: "There is no downside to pressing red." (3) Changing the hypo: "Babies don't count. That'd be stupid! So there's a blender..." (4) Psychopathy: "Blue pressers deserve to die." (5) General poor analytic reasoning: "If everyone just pressed red!"

@gfodor @MonicaBaumann This is why, for a parent, red should be obvious. There is almost no chance your vote determines whether your child lives or dies no matter what they pick. But it has a very real chance of determining whether your child is orphaned.

@MonicaBaumann What if their parents voted blue and blue loses?

The funniest thing about the “vote blue to save the children who randomly voted blue” position is that I have seen zero of its promoters consider the children who randomly voted red.

@oqayowoqwq But that probably shouldn’t be the only goal. It’s the optimal outcome, but the suboptimal outcomes aren’t created equal (eg, 1% blue vs 49% blue). With real consequences, it’s fair to think blue is likely to lose (only has ~55% in polls), in which case more red = more survive.

If the goal is for everyone to survive you'd need 100% votes for red (Impossible) or just >50% votes for blue (pretty easy)

@Akuro316 @Hroth @selfmaxxer That makes zero sense. It absolutely matters if you are the decider. You’re not accepting your kid should die, you’re accepting that whether you kid dies is not in your hands, but those of 8 billion strangers. What is in your hands is if your kids grows up without a parent.

@jlin11z @Hroth @selfmaxxer Hold on if you know your sons fav color is blue and you choose red whether you are the decider doesn’t matter you are readily accepting the fact that your son should die. The fact is it is absolutely selfish to choose red. What’s worse than losing a parent, dying.

@TheTrueGigadad @DoctorQuince But the sub-optimal outcomes aren’t all the same. If blue loses, there is a big difference between 49% blue and 1% blue. In a real world setting, with actual consequences, pretty reasonable to think blue won’t win (only 55% in twitter polls). If so, more red = more survive.

@DoctorQuince Optimal outcome is 100% survival. Is it easier to get 100% red votes or 51% blue votes?

The only reason anyone can die is because they chose blue, yet they act like it's red's fault they chose it

@cinnamontoastk But the alternatives to saving everyone aren’t binary, so why are we only focused on that outcome? 49% blue kills 49% of people, 1% blue only kills 1% of people. In real life, it’s reasonable to think blue is unlikely to win, which would mean more red = more lives saved.

This red button/blue button discourse is wild. 100% red saves everyone no consequence 51% of blue saves everyone no consequence 51% red kills all of blue but they frame it like its blues fault they had to kill them even though red is the only choice that causes anyone to die.

@Akuro316 @Hroth @selfmaxxer Actually think being a parent makes red the obvious choice. De minimus chance you are the deciding blue vote that determines lifes/death for your kid. Very real chance your kid picks red, red wins, and they lose a parent (or both).

@Hroth @selfmaxxer It’s worse if you are a parent to choose red and being a reason for your child’s death

@shunnedmorlock @Kurisu__52 But why is the priority maximizing the chance that no one dies? Let’s say those are both low probabilities (say .00001% for red and 1% for blue). Blue is far more likely to save everyone, but we should probably also consider how many more lives red saves if we don’t save all.

@Kurisu__52 Because my first priority is to ensure no one dies. There are two paths to achieve this. Either 100% of the population votes red, or 50%+1 votes blue. Which do you think would be easier to coordinate?

If 100% of people vote blue, no one dies. If 100% of people vote red, no one dies. This is true. If 51% of people vote blue, no one dies. If 51% of people vote red, 49% of people die. If our goal is to minimize death, it is far easier to get 51% to act in concert than 100%.

@Datchia1 Yes, if the *only* desirable outcome is everyone lives, blue is the choice. But I think everyone would agree that if red wins, the fewer blue the better. Decision calculus is not just what is most likely to result in everyone living.

Blue is the only way everyone is safe if they get majority Majority red ensures death for blue - we COULD say “if everyone picked red there will be no issue” but we all know that’s not going to happen You can’t expect a 100:0 ratio, the people picking blue don’t want to be responsible for others deaths

@hashyboyz @JtotheAY Do you actually live this way though? The chance that your individual vote saves billions is minuscule. You could also have a chance of potential saving billions by donating all of your money to green tech, space exploration, etc. Do you?

@JtotheAY you’re proving my point, it’s the selfish option because you don’t even consider that you’re willing to sacrifice everyone who chose to save you, potentially billions of people, for yourself. i couldn’t do that, i would risk my life to save potentially billions anyday

picking red is not the intelligent option, you will never get a 100% pick on either side. but you just need majority to pick blue. genuinely don’t get the argument for red outside of selfishness and that’s fine be selfish but don’t act like it’s the intelligent answer

@PLotPodcast That was PFT/Florio, not Russini. Deny the tin foil hat accusations all you want, but you’re literally out here connecting non-existent dots.

Russini reported that Brown has a degenerative knee that scared off of the Rams. Yet, the Pats still really want to get Brown. The Eagles wouldn’t want that to get out. Who else would know that information?

@joepezz_ Media illiteracy is rampant in the Eagles fan base. If that were her goal, why would she report it instead of just giving Vrabel, and only Vrabel, a heads up?

Did she leak this before the deal was signed with Carolina so the Patriots could swoop in and offer more money??😭😭😭

@JoeKlosepy @Savageboston If you really think it’ll be close to the Waddle trade, it shouldn’t be a 1st + 3rd in 2027. Waddle went for pick 30 and pick 94 in this years’ atrocious draft. That’s closer to a 2027 2nd + 4th than a 2027 1st and 3rd.

@Savageboston Dude: it’s a first it going to look similar to the Waddle trade. The pressure is on NE. They didn’t draft a WR and the Vrabel stuff is hanging over that org. Howie can also ask the league in to Vrabel and tampering regarding AJ

Also on the AJ Brown future trade to the Patriots, I still do not believe the Patriots will be sending the Eagles a 1st round pick in 2027. A 2nd in 2027 + something else, maybe even a 2028 pick, a 3-4.

@Savageboston Value seems like it should be 2027 2nd plus a 3rd or 4th (as you describe), but wondering if given Shefty’s recent reporting, we see a 2028 1st with a pick coming back instead.