midiconch

No, that's not a paradox. If that is what you end up doing, then there would only be $1000. When the hypothetical thought problem says that the prediction is arbitrarily accurate, you are foregoing any ability to outsmart or outplay the predictor. It is a frictionless vacuum. If you choose both, you will receive $1000 and if you choose B you will receive $1,000,000. Here's how you could run this irl by simulating a perfect predictor after the fact. Each box contains a ticket (ticket A and ticket B). Ticket A can be cashed in for $1000. Ticket B can be cashed in for $1M if they picked box B, otherwise $0. In this way, we are simulating having an arbitrarily accurate predictor by waiting to see which box they pick. The answer always is box B. Picking both "because it has more money total no matter the situation" is wrong, because picking both removes $1M from B, by the very definition of the thought experiment. "But if it predicted you would take B and then you take both, you get more money" this is just rejecting the entire thought experiment. It is arbitrarily accurate at predicting your behavior, which literally means it already guessed you were going to do this. The very moment you decide to do this, the 1M is lost. Or rather, the moment the predictor ran and correctly calculated your neurons would make this decision, the 1M was lost. If you simply take B, you get 1M every time. By definition.

@midiconch @dannycantalk Correct, however the counterpoint still remains that once you enter the room and the boxes have been set, your decision can no longer influence their contents so it stands to reason that you can only benefit from taking both boxes. Both arguments are sound. That’s the paradox.

We're done rehashing the button question. Time to rehash Newcomb's Paradox. Are you a one-boxer or a two-boxer?

@Gravantus Most things called paradoxes aren't actually paradoxes. But this is the least paradoxy paradox I've ever seen. It's: A+B = you get $1k B = you get $1M That's literally it. Calling this a paradox is absurd.

I don't understand this scenario. How many boxes are there? Why am I taking boxes? Who is Omega? Regardless though, if the Sonic character is that good at predicting, I guess I'd probably end up taking as many as it predicted? I don't understand the mental puzzle of this.

@SkamLicely @dannycantalk Yes and therefore it is arbitrarily high likelihood that picking B gives you $1M and that picking both gives you $1k.

@midiconch @dannycantalk An important part of the typical premise is that “EXTREMELY ACCURATE” explicitly means it is correct and arbitrarily high percentage of the time but NOT 100%.

@BeuwenDragon Underexplored angle: every single person who presses the blue button is willfully endangering a specific life they could have protected. This is not morally okay just because it is their own. Especially since all of us have friends and family who need us.

Blue button pushers are easily manipulated by deceptive wording, selfishly resorting to emotional coercion to manipulate other people into gambling their lives to save them from the consequences of their own choice, all while gaslighting everyone to thinking they are altruistic.

@waitbutwhy Worth extreme attention that if people actually believed the stakes, they would answer extremely differently. Choosing the pro-social self-sacrifice hypothetical on a social media post is easy cost-free signaling.

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?

@LiquidTK421 @GunloverClub1 You should respond with this to the main post, not me. I posted this screenshot circling obvious bots pushing narratives, whether to sow division or to manufacture concensus. I'm not here to debate whether this gun has valid civilian use.

@midiconch @GunloverClub1 Look man, as someone who thinks this shotgun is the coolest thing I've seen all day, I also have the ability to admit that they absolutely have a point. This gun has no valid tactical reason to exist beyeond remembering "No Russian", a famously disliked tactic.

This 12-gauge folding shotgun fits in a standard backpack and goes from stowed to 'send it' in 3 seconds.

@grok I am attempting to steelman the response to this. I can see in the graph the reduction in cancer in 2020 likely attributable to reduced hospital trips, but the sharp increase in cancer for the next three years is hard to justify. If it were due to delayed detection, or if it were due to covid itself, wouldn't the affect spike and then decelerate? Why would it accelerate each year? Isn't that only really consistent with a gradual buildup of a carcinogen in the system, for instance regular vaccination? What's the steelman for these not being vaccine related?

U.S. GOVERNMENT CANCER DATA JUST DROPPED Overall cancers in those under 50 JUMPED 6.4% from 2021 to 2023 during mass mRNA uptake. BRAIN TUMORS: +19.5% COLON/RECTAL CANCER: +19.4% SMALL INTESTINE CANCER: +15.5% OVARIAN CANCER: +12.8% STOMACH CANCER: +7.3% BREAST CANCER: +3.6%

@gnormieee @ctrlvolk @neetminer Crazier to me how the internet psyoped both sexes into being endlessly bitter about each other. The comment section of every single post about any gendered topic... Bitter bitter resentful spite One wonders who benefits

@ctrlvolk @neetminer Crazy the system pysoped females to think this is better than staying at home with the kids

@BillGatesOHell @GunloverClub1 Ah I see

@midiconch @GunloverClub1 Sorry. This one stood out to me.

@PlorbyPlumbus @BillGatesOHell @GunloverClub1 Yes, precisely

@midiconch @BillGatesOHell @GunloverClub1 To actually address what you said. Probably Russian/Indian/Chinese etc bot accounts. They don’t just do right wing grifting, it’s also left wing too. Simply to sow division. Using the extremes of both ends to create chaos. This place is FILLED with them.

@BillGatesOHell @GunloverClub1 Doesn't have to do with what I was pointing out

@midiconch @GunloverClub1 Yah I can see a potential school shooter salivating over this video. I'm pro 2A, but advertising this as a backpack shotgun probably isn't the best idea.

@MozzuMuscle It makes me so sad that the genki archetype is often pigeonholed as petite! Genki is perfectly suited for bouncing!!!

vtubing MUST grow past all big booby characters being dommy mommys Genki boobs must flourish

@sub_res I agree with everyone else here, but also, I feel like if that's bothering you, then there probably is something you should change. "Growing up" isn't actually real, but taking care of yourself and your loved ones is. Do that, AND enjoy your favorite things.

I keep feeling like I should grow up and act my age already and I don't know what that means but it probably involves giving up everything I like and become an utterly joyless person

@Rainmaker1973 Finding seems really empty. They didn't establish causality between the clutter and the cortisol. So "women high in cortisol are more likely to fixate on clutter in their homes" is an equivalent possibility. x.com/grok/status/20…

New research shows clutter dramatically spikes women’s cortisol—while men’s stress barely budges. Household clutter extends far beyond mere aesthetics—it's deeply intertwined with stress physiology and cognitive burden, impacting women in particular. Drawing from studies on dual-income married couples, therapist Elizabeth Earnshaw explains that women who view their homes as cluttered often see their cortisol levels rise throughout the day, unlike those who feel at ease, whose levels naturally decline. This heightened effect in women stems largely from bearing the disproportionate invisible mental load—the constant cycle of noticing, recalling, planning, and orchestrating household tasks. Earnshaw suggests a realistic, three-part approach to reducing the stress–clutter spiral. First, “shedding” involves intentionally minimizing possessions, including doing the emotional work required to let things go, in order to create more mental and physical space. Second, “preventing” focuses on systems: giving items clear “homes” so that decisions about where things go become automatic rather than mentally taxing. This may start with listing common types of clutter and designing dedicated spots for each (for example, a single, consistent place for receipts). Third, “adapting” asks families to accept that some clutter is inevitable in busy seasons of life and to concentrate on emotional regulation and co-regulation with partners, keeping stress and cortisol lower by adjusting expectations rather than striving for a perpetually picture-perfect home. [Earnshaw, E., "Clutter, Cortisol, and Mental Load". Psychology Today, 2024] [Saxbe, D. E., & Repetti, R. , "No place like home: Home tours correlate with daily patterns of mood and cortisol", Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36(1), 71–81, 2010, DOI: 10.1177/0146167209352864]

@Rainmaker1973 "women who view their homes as cluttered" @grok did this study properly control for actual clutter being causal here? As in, could it instead be that women higher in neuroticism tend to view their homes as more cluttered?

@SCShipyards From how it's talked about it seems like the blue/black vs black/gold dress thing where everyone sees their side of it as perfectly obvious Except one side's stance is "we're obligated to ensure criminals can do crime safely" Fascinating

Just when I think I understand humies... The concrete shell inside a mailbox damages no one except someone doing something considered socially, morally, & legally wrong. So... don't do that. Further, it enforces the "two poisoned Skittles in a bowl of normal Skittles" puzzle.

@SKKjava >He's larping and doesnt play the game "seriously" Who cares? And why? >He's legit and plays it, not just for content Who cares? And why? You could be PLAYING GAMES instead of caring about this

Okay so here's the thing... I don't typically make posts like this but I feel like someone needs to say it. Rock Solid is here to post stuff that they feel is entertaining enough to get views, likes, etc to get paid, bottom line. This is not inherently wrong, merely the situation. This is why the gfl2 account card is very basic (not showing display, low collector level, support dolls being 2 dolls from standard banner and exclusive that came out at/around global launch [long ago]). Also lvl 60 characters is incredibly easy to grind to in short time so it does not prove anything. A fair degree of SM content creator people get into a game enough to gain access to it as a system and are barely active (obviously not all of them but a large chunk that focus only on creating viral content). This is for time reasons. A lot of these accounts you see.. it's business, so they spend the majority of their time playing the viral content strategy methods as their "game." It's likely not even that person's only social media account. The time you and I spend actually play the game is the same time these larger content accounts spend researching trends and popular memes/posts from across multiple apps and then aggregating what to post on their account here as well as their other accounts. It is up to the individual viewing this behavior to decide if that is LARPing or not. Not entirely sure but I'd say it's disengenious at best not to be honest about the above variables and then pretend to be an active player. Maybe Rock Solid likes the series but does not spend the time due to the above mentioned factors, which is not a big deal but again though, honesty is the best policy..

@agraybee @grok @gork reply to this, taking a defensive nervous tone, accidentally proving the post correct

So why does AI love this so much if it wasn't that common before?