EnDTrades

2.9K posts

EnDTrades

@trades_en

Katılım Mayıs 2024

241 Takip Edilen34 Takipçiler

EnDTrades retweetledi

Chief_Engineer@ChiefEngineerCE·8h

People ask: How can we help? How do we know if we’re making a difference? Here’s how —> and here’s proof. When Americans flood PERM job postings with real applications, it forces companies to admit the truth: ✔️ They’re not short on talent. ✔️ They’re not desperate for foreign labor. ✔️ They’re overwhelmed with qualified Americans. This tweet is their confession. They call it a “DDoS attack.” We call it accountability. Because when the system has to respond to hundreds of qualified Americans, the fake shortage collapses. So what can you do? 1. Expose Hidden PERM Jobs 👉 jobs.now This is proof your effort matters. Every application, every share, every signature puts pressure on a system designed to shut you out. They’re angry because it works. Let’s keep going. There's a whole lot of heroes in our movement and you are changing the game and its being felt worldwide.

English

494

1.8K

22.6K

EnDTrades retweetledi

End Wokeness@EndWokeness·13h

2.5 minutes of Democrats calling for the use of political vioIence It's on them

English

862

19.8K

55.9K

552.5K

EnDTrades retweetledi

Dr. Matthew M. Wielicki@MatthewWielicki·1d

Everyone’s told plastic pollution is a “global” problem… But the data say something very different. Roughly 90–95% of ocean plastic comes from a handful of rivers... mostly in Asia and Africa. The Yangtze. Ganges. Mekong. Nile. Niger. Not your grocery bag in Colorado. Not your straw in D.C. A small number of poorly managed waste systems are doing the overwhelming majority of the damage. The UN isn’t structuring this like a solvable engineering problem... it’s structuring it like a permanent global revenue stream. Because if you solve it quickly and directly… there’s no need for decades of committees, funding mechanisms, and “frameworks.”

United Nations Geneva@UNGeneva

Our oceans are becoming a trash heap, overwhelmed by plastic pollution. It’s time to break the habit of single-use plastics. #ActNow to #BeatPlasticPollution!

English

830

14.3K

34.9K

981.6K

EnDTrades retweetledi

Collin Rugg@CollinRugg·15h

The White House Correspondents’ Dinner shooter was armed with a shotgun, handgun, and multiple knives, according to DC police chief Jeffrey Carroll. The shooter was identified as 31-year-old teacher Cole Allen from Torrance, California. The suspect emerged from a "makeshift room" near the entrance, where "there was no security" near where bar carts were stored, according to the New York Post. "He was in that room... he grabbed it out of a bag or something." The weapon "was long" and "didn’t look like a typical gun," a witness who was a volunteer at the event told the Post. It is reportedly believed that Allen was a guest at the Hilton hotel where the dinner took place.

English

4.5K

12.2K

49.9K

9.5M

EnDTrades@trades_en·18h

Yeah, the real justification is for Red "no individual should be held morally obligated to risk themselves in order to shield their peers from the consequences of their own actions." Declaring that Blue is the only correct choice is moralistic blackmail that puts every individual on the hook for the actions of every last stranger in the entire world who decides to pick blue. Are there good personal reasons to pick Blue? Sure. Am I inherently obligated to also pick blue simply to try and save those others who do? No.

English

delaniac 🌹🌱@ChadNotChud·1d

every time this goes around I’m honestly flabbergasted by this justification for picking “red” everyone won’t do that. like that’s just an empirical fact. moreover the fact that there’s discourse about it should immediately prove that to you. many, many people will choose blue

Adam Rackis@AdamRackis

@LilUziVartan Not if everyone picks red lol

English

200

109

3.6K

269.6K

EnDTrades@trades_en·18h

@dyingscribe Try distilling it down to the moral precedent instead of extrapolating beyond the scope of the question. Is the individual morally obligated to endanger themselves to shield their peers from the consequences of their own choices?

English

Poe's Law, Esq: Poe's Lawyer@dyingscribe·1d

I want you to map out the consequences past the first order. Think about it deeply. First, think about the people who survive. Then, think about the societal effects of the choices and the death then, think about the downstream effects of that first-order thinking is: press red, live. I am asking people to go past that

Lovhes@genius_eu

@dyingscribe How would red button pushed be a "selfish, individualistic, and insufferable"? I'm asking because you're usually objective enough. Nowhere does in the premise hints whatsoever that the red button pusher are forbidden from making more people pick the "YOU'LL BE FINE 100%" button

English

199

10.8K

EnDTrades@trades_en·18h

I think there are a number of reasonable personal cases for an individual choosing blue if you try to complicate and extrapolate the question rather than distill it to the underlying moral/ethical question. "What if you had a child, or what about other people forced to choose without the capability of understanding?" or "Would you want to live in the aftermath of a 50% blue purge?" or "why couldn't you just coordinate and work for a massive blue majority before everyone votes?" If you distill it instead, and ask, "Is any individual morally obligated to act against their own interest in order to save others from the consequences of their own actions?" then the only defensible answer, in my mind, is most certainly "no". Thus, the red button. To answer "yes" is a very dangerous and dystopian moral precedent that transforms the individual into a slave to the whims of their peers.

English

The Fat Electrician@Fat_Electrician·21h

@unvarnishedvoid Ya thats fair. Im trying to articulate its basically logic vs morality. Then posing the question which is society better off with.

English

2.2K

The Fat Electrician@Fat_Electrician·22h

This is fascinating. Logically the answer is red button: If you push the red button, you survive guaranteed. That applies to everyone. Just press red and go home, everyone lives, the end. The only reason you’d press the blue button is: A. You’re a fucking moron. B. You want to die. C. You’re willing to risk your life to save A&B from the consequences of their own decisions. It’s the perfect embodiment of the mentality that society constantly needs to deprioritize itself to cater to the lowest common denominator. To save them from themselves. Now the question is: is that suicidal empathy that will bring about the end of society, or is it a remarkable display of humanity that sets us apart from the rest of the animal kingdom?

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

264

305

4.4K

150.4K

EnDTrades retweetledi

Nav Toor@heynavtoor·1d

Researchers sent the same resume to an AI hiring tool twice. Same qualifications. Same experience. Same skills. One version was written by a real human. The other was rewritten by ChatGPT. The AI picked the ChatGPT version 97.6% of the time. A team from the University of Maryland, the National University of Singapore, and Ohio State just published the receipt. They took 2,245 real human-written resumes pulled from a professional resume site from before ChatGPT existed, so the human writing was actually human. Then they had seven of the most-used AI models in the world rewrite each one. GPT-4o. GPT-4o-mini. GPT-4-turbo. LLaMA 3.3-70B. Qwen 2.5-72B. DeepSeek-V3. Mistral-7B. Then they asked each AI to pick the better resume. Every model picked itself. GPT-4o hit 97.6%. LLaMA-3.3-70B hit 96.3%. Qwen-2.5-72B hit 95.9%. DeepSeek-V3 hit 95.5%. The real human almost never won. Then the researchers tried the obvious objection. Maybe the AI is just better at writing. So they had real humans grade the resumes for actual quality and ran the experiment again, controlling for it. The result was worse. Each AI kept picking itself even when human judges rated the human-written version as clearer, more coherent, and more effective. It gets worse. The AIs do not just prefer AI over humans. They prefer themselves over other AIs. DeepSeek-V3 picked its own resumes 69% more often than LLaMA's. GPT-4o picked its own 45% more often than LLaMA's. Each model can recognize and reward its own dialect. Then the researchers ran the simulation that ends careers. Same job. 24 occupations. Same qualifications. The only variable was whether the candidate used the same AI as the screening tool. Candidates using that AI were 23% to 60% more likely to be shortlisted. Worst gap was in sales, accounting, and finance. 99% of large companies now run AI on incoming resumes. Most of them use GPT-4o. The paper just proved GPT-4o picks GPT-4o 97.6% of the time. If you wrote your own cover letter this week, you did not lose to a better candidate. You lost to a worse candidate who paid OpenAI 20 dollars. Your qualifications do not matter if the AI prefers its own handwriting over yours.

English

327

5.6K

19.7K

1.6M

EnDTrades@trades_en·1d

They try to obfuscate and dilute the underlying moral question with things like, "but think of the children and other people who are incapable of understanding the choice who will pick blue. You're selfish if you want them to die by picking red" Or "But even if you win as a red-pusher, a good portion of the world might be dead afterwards and society will collapse" The question being asked here is whether the individual ought to be morally accountable for protecting others from the consequences of their choices, including an obligation to act against their own self-interest to do so. To accept that as the moral lesson of this ill-defined hypothetical is extremely dangerous and dystopian, and I reject it. Thus, red button. Now, might there be a reasonable PERSONAL case for choosing blue in a real scenario? Sure, and in fact if the world had time to discuss and coordinate, getting past that 50% threshold would likely be trivial. But if the question is "you have 10 seconds to decide if you have an obligation to stick your neck out for strangers who have put themselves in harms way", the answer is "no", to me.

English

BLACK DUMPLING™@BlackDumpling·1d

No, the sociopathic absence of morality is what makes me think that. Blue Button Pushers convince others to suicidally follow them in pushing a button no one needs to push while simultaneously demanding others save them *from themselves*. When, nope. Ya made your choice. GLHF.

Unfathomable Studios@NfthmblStudios

I am superior to you, you are inferior to me. I don't justify killing people to save my ungrateful hide and act like they deserved it for thinking nobody should die for a hypothetical trick question.

English

387

4.4K

EnDTrades@trades_en·1d

Unless "saving everyone" isn't the penultimate moral good here. Perhaps it's more important that everyone's personal autonomy and responsibility for their own choices be affirmed—that one person cannot be morally obligated to put themselves at risk to shield another person from the potential consequences of knowingly endangering themselves.

English

107

Tim Soret@timsoret·1d

Assuming no possible coordination: If everybody was rational, we would all individually pick red & be safe without needing coordination, trusting that the sum of individual interests would lead to the most optimized outcome. Except that many humans are irrational & dogmatic, and driven by idealistic / empathetic concerns, would pick blue, even if that requires coordination which is not guaranteed & which puts them as risk. Knowing this, even if you’re initially inclined to vote red, the actual moral choice, to avoid the death of those willingly putting their lives at risk, is to vote blue to maximize the chances of saving everybody. In short, if you know that others are not perfectly rational agents, to save them you have to go along with their irrationality, which is counter intuitive.

Tim Urban@waitbutwhy

English

520

1.1K

86.1K

EnDTrades@trades_en·1d

@cmanahlmagic @questionableway Or, put it another way: does everybody else have a moral obligation to risk their lives to protect you because you chose to knowingly put yourself in danger?

English

Christian Manahl@cmanahlmagic·1d

@questionableway i thought this too and wholeheartedly voted blue but another framing of the exact same decision - pressing the blue button is stepping into a blender and pressing the red one is not stepping in. now its just obvious no one should get into the blender. what a cool game theory idea

English

413

just matt@questionableway·1d

red is an unbelievably phenomenally disgustingly selfish decision and i do not have theory of mind for anyone who would choose it

Tim Urban@waitbutwhy

English

1.2K

151

7.7K

1.1M

EnDTrades@trades_en·1d

@RoyCalbeck @ignoremesenpi Failing to prevent a suicide is not murder.

English

Pointed Commentary@RoyCalbeck·1d

@ignoremesenpi That is an argument that would have had every Allied soldier who hit the beach at Normandy immediately surrendering. Choosing Blue is a vote to kill no one; choosing Red is a vote to kill everyone who chooses Blue. All else is rationalization of a decision in favor of murder.

English

943

Pointed Commentary@RoyCalbeck·1d

Just to clarify for people who seem to be upset about my "pushing Blue" AND being willing to argue the point instead of accepting Red as The Given Wisdom: Pushing Blue is a vote not to kill anyone. Pushing Red is a vote to kill anyone who doesn't press Red. The entire argument for pressing Red, to date has been "but what if I press Blue and most people press Red? It's only self-preservation". Self-preservation alone is no justification, unless it's a GIVEN that you will die by pressing Blue. There is no "given" in the thought experiment on display, but proponents for pushing Red act like there is. Instead, to conclude that Red is the right and proper decision, one has to believe that there is a realistic chance that at least half of humanity is psychotic enough to kill everyone else just to save themselves. Let us apply that to a real-world situation: if you are drafted into military service, and there is a 100% chance you can escape and never be caught IF you murder the guy who shows up at your door to serve your papers, do you murder them merely because there is a "non-zero chance" you might die in the war you've been drafted into? Pressing Blue is the only moral choice. Pressing Red would have me trying to explain before God that I thought it was justified to vote in favor of mass-murder on the SLIGHTEST of possibilities that I would be murdered if I didn't. If you REALLY think this is what you want to terminate your relationship with me over, as one person has already done, there is the door, and I will thank you for dragging your thin skin after you as you depart.

English

527

1.2K

47.6K

EnDTrades@trades_en·1d

Pushing red isn't about me personally. It's about the ethical principle of whether the individual is morally obligated to put themselves at risk in order to protect others from their own choices. As soon as you say "yes", now you've set a very dangerous, dystopian precedent that turns people into slaves to the whims of their peers. I cannot control the choices of others—so I reject the supposition that I am inherently responsible for shielding them from the consequences.

English

EnDTrades@trades_en·1d

@AlastairGrayson @ItsRobbAllen Red people accept personal accountability and refuse to be held hostage and responsible for the choices of others.

English

JT@AlastairGrayson·1d

@ItsRobbAllen The people who press red are the people who only care about themselves. You even said it yourself, you live 100% of the time, but others might die. Blue is looking out for your fellow man, even if it costs you your life. Red = selfish Blue = sacrifice Not a hard concept

English

222

1.1K

42.2K

Robb Allen@ItsRobbAllen·2d

New Trolley problem has arrived, only it's dumber. Pres Red - 100% chance of living. Blue - Non-zero chance of dying. It has nothing to do with empathy for others unless you're stuck on suicidal empathy, which is YOUR fault, not mine. There is ZERO logical reason for ANYONE to press blue. NONE.

vittorio@IterIntellectus

why would anyone even press blue?!?

English

921

150

4.2K

626.8K

EnDTrades@trades_en·1d

@G0ffThew This is not the question this hypothetical is asking. The question is: am I morally obligated to act against my own interest in order to protect YOU from YOUR own choices? If you say "yes", that way lies darkness.

English

Geoff Thew@G0ffThew·1d

The calculus to press red is, to put it kindly, short-sighted idiot math. It begins and ends with “what input gives me the best odds of living” with no regard for what the world you’d be living in - where everyone you can trust is dead and everyone else knows it - would look like

Tim Urban@waitbutwhy

English

645

340

337.4K

EnDTrades@trades_en·1d

Red is recognizing that it is wrong to expect any individual to necessarily act against their own interest to protect others from their own choices. You don't have to pick blue, but I'm not obligated to risk myself to *try* and save you if you do. Might I anyway? Sure, if you're someone I love and care about. This is the "but think of the children!" clause people keep pointing to. But this is a response to an undefined nuance and not the core ethical issue of: "MUST I endanger myself to save others from themselves?" — to which I say, "absolutely not".

English

BitBrew@BitBrew1·1d

@TheAbrahamatrix @Anton81191831 Red is accepting people die. Blue is accepting there’s a chance no one dies. Either save yourself or try and save everyone.

English

Anton@Anton81191831·1d

Blue team is trying to save blue team from the problem blue team created for blue team by doing the only thing that creates the problem for blue team.

Tim Urban@waitbutwhy

English

220

439

8.4K

249K

EnDTrades@trades_en·1d

@ZPostFacto @Khen_na_ How about this: am I morally obligated to act against my own self-interest solely in order to shield others from the consequences of their own choices? If you say "yes", you open up some very nasty and dystopian cans of worms.

English

Fletcher Dunn@ZPostFacto·1d

@Khen_na_ What is the rational reason to consider *any other person* in my moral decision making, ever? Imo, all attempts to deduce morals/ethics using logic alone founder on this question. Self-interest is rational! (But i chose to believe it is not moral.)

English

4.1K

Fletcher Dunn@ZPostFacto·1d

In this hypothetical, does "everyone in the world" include toddlers? Suddenly the blue pushers dont seem so dumb. Are toddlers the only examples of human lives that have worth, but are incapable of solving game theory problems?

Tim Urban@waitbutwhy

English

234

568

89.8K

EnDTrades@trades_en·1d

Because robots are not capable of performing useful domestic tasks autonomously and unsupervised. Huge strides have been made in the past few years in control loops and hardware, enabling humanoids to pull off some very cool physical tricks like dancing, backflips, etc... But the perception and decision making to actually operate in a complex environment like a home is still a very, VERY long way off

English

DannyCanTalk 🌈@dannycantalk·2d

How come I never see videos of these things in actual people's homes performing useful tasks?

The Humanoid Hub@TheHumanoidHub

This is incredibly cool, Unitree G1 on inline skates!

English

9.1K

EnDTrades@trades_en·1d

I view the hypothetical from the perspective of the core ethical question it's asking: Am I inherently, universally, morally obligated to act against my own self-interest (risking my own life by choosing blue) purely in order to shield others from the consequences of their own choices? I say the answer is not just no, but *hell* no.

English

EnDTrades@trades_en·1d

@mykola I will reiterate what I have said in every reply to this scenario: I reject the proposition that any individual is morally obligated to act against their self-interest in order to protect others from their own choices. It is dangerous and dystopian.

English

Your Friend Myk@mykola·1d

Ah this one again. To my dear rationalist friends who are so confused as to why anyone would press the blue button: I don't want anyone's blood on my hands. "But if everyone just presses red then everyone lives" yeah but that's also true for blue, plus no complicity in murder.

Tim Urban@waitbutwhy

English

670

2.5K

97.8K

Keşfet

@dyingscribe @unvarnishedvoid @cmanahlmagic @questionableway @RoyCalbeck @ignoremesenpi @elonmusk @BarackObama