User Controls
Posts by Meikai
-
2021-11-15 at 9:38 PM UTC in Reviving this communityWe're all like 30 now and there's no influx of fresh young blood anymore. We've all grown out of our wilder youths. I've probably stayed more true to my degenerate younger self than others, and even I don't shoplift or do drugs all that often anymore. Be the change you wanna see in the world. Get arrested for stealing anal lube at your local sex shop or something, then post about it here.
-
2021-11-15 at 9:12 PM UTC in 9/11My favorite band's first album debuted on 9/11. Look up them up! They're called "The Dancing Israelis", and they're pretty good.
-
2021-11-15 at 8:34 PM UTC in Closing Arguments today in Rittenhouse trial.KYLE WAS YIELDING AN AR 14 HE DESERVES TO ROT
HAVE OCK
MAY HEMP -
2021-11-15 at 6:27 PM UTC in Kyle Rittenhouse: Am I missing something?
-
2021-11-15 at 4:55 PM UTC in Closing Arguments today in Rittenhouse trial.
-
2021-11-15 at 1:59 PM UTC in World to hit temperature tipping point 10 years faster than forecast
-
2021-11-14 at 8:07 PM UTC in Newcomb's Paradox Thread
Originally posted by Nigger Nintendo Nobody disregarded half the thought experiment, it's just not relevant to what you decide when you in the 2nd half.
You're disregarding the likely outcome and picking the strategy which optimizes for all outcomes, despite the fact that the strategy you chose will have the likely outcome of $1000. It's like being a tinfoil hat wearing paranoid schizo prepper - you are barely functional in the likely outcome (that society persists) but well optimized for the unlikely outcome (SHTF). One boxing is just how healthy effective people live their day to day lives, not optimizing at all for outcomes which are unlikely and flourishing in the likely outcome.
People like you should have to wear a sign that says you optimize for the least likely case. -
2021-11-14 at 5:18 PM UTC in Newcomb's Paradox Thread
Originally posted by Nigger Nintendo No because you are still asserting some kind of retrocausality rather than understanding that Omega cannot change its prediction after the boxes are already set up. There's no strategy involved, you are only making the choice between $1000 less than whatever you got in Box B.
No you are retard and can't wrap your head around the fact that the prediction was already made before your decision and can't change now.
No you are a monkey retard and cannot understand that Omega's prediction in the past has nothing to do with your choice at the moment whatsoever.
Originally posted by Meikai There are 2 strategies, which result in 4 outcomes based on the predictor's decisions and yours. 2 of those outcomes are likely, 2 unlikely. Of the 2 that are likely, one nets $1000000 and one nets $1000. Simply choose the strategy for the outcome that is both likely and nets the most.
Thank you for coming to my TED talk.
You cannot assert that all outcomes (again, in the game theory sense) are equally likely without flat out disregarding half of the thought experiment. That is all. -
2021-11-14 at 4:49 PM UTC in Kyle Rittenhouse: Am I missing something?
Originally posted by ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ There's lots of other so-called white supremacist active shooters killing multiple people
Quoted for posterity. Glad you can admit there's a white supremacist mass murderer problem in America, and that they all use guns. Maybe they shouldn't have access to those guns huh.
Originally posted by ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ none of those get any media attention at all, so why are we cherry picking this particular one?
Don't worry, the Arbery trial is ongoing and will begin to get the same amount of coverage once Rittenhouse is justly jailed for being a white supremacist domestic terrorist. The men who murdered Arbery should get the chair btw. -
2021-11-14 at 3:33 PM UTC in Kyle Rittenhouse: Am I missing something?
-
2021-11-14 at 7:39 AM UTC in Demented media goes crazy with bullshit after Based Chad Biden calls a negro a negro.tfw your dementia speech impediment makes the controversial out-of-context soundbites for your political opposition, no editing required
-
2021-11-14 at 7:18 AM UTC in Political centrism is the only reasonable position
Originally posted by vindicktive vinny all great empires ended, collapsed, and prolapsed with a woman at the helm.
this is a fact.
Counterpoint, Byzantium/the Eastern Roman Empire flourished as a result of Theodora's influence. Famously that influence was the one thing that prevented a fall of Constantinople to rioters. The Hagia Sophia wouldn't exist without her. -
2021-11-14 at 6:53 AM UTC in Newcomb's Paradox Thread
-
2021-11-14 at 6:41 AM UTC in Newcomb's Paradox ThreadThere are 2 strategies, which result in 4 outcomes based the predictor's decisions and yours. 2 of those outcomes are likely, 2 unlikely. Of the 2 that are likely, one nets $1000000 and one nets $1000. Simply choose the strategy for the outcome that is both likely and nets the most.
Thank you for coming to my TED talk. -
2021-11-14 at 5:54 AM UTC in Newcomb's Paradox Thread
Originally posted by Nigger Nintendo You're the one misapplying the term. Your "strategy" has no impact on what is in the box, you just get $100 less.
The choices we make are literally "strategies" in the game theory sense, and if we're arguing about definitions now we should just stop. You should especially stop though, since it's definitely the correct application of the term and so help me god if you make me go look up the definition to slap you upside the head with it. Do it yourself, for me.
Originally posted by Nigger Nintendo It's not more likely to be empty or full regardless of what you choose at that point.
For this to be true, the predictor could not be reliable. Since the predictor is reliable, and we know that the predictor is likely to have predicted our answer, we know that B is more likely to contain a million dollars in the case where you choose B (because this would likely have been predicted). This does not imply that choosing B will magically fill B with money, just that if you have chosen B it's likely to have been filled the whole time (as Omega is likely to have predicted you would choose only B).
This is part of the thought experiment that you just completely ignore because you are blindsided by midwit meaningless and misguided concerns about retrocausality. You treat the reliable predictor as random number generator - the status of B as a complete crapshoot - when the thought experiment itself is telling you that no, this is not a complete crapshoot. -
2021-11-14 at 5:17 AM UTC in the author of this post has returned from nothingness
-
2021-11-14 at 4:09 AM UTC in Newcomb's Paradox Thread
-
2021-11-14 at 3:57 AM UTC in Newcomb's Paradox Thread
-
2021-11-14 at 3:05 AM UTC in Newcomb's Paradox Thread
Originally posted by Nigger Nintendo There's no strategy, it doesn't matter what you pick except leaving $1000 on the table. B is already either full or empty.
Why can't you grasp this?
Strategy in the game theory sense, dalit. There are two strategies: two boxing and one boxing. B is already either empty or full, but we have information about whether or not it is likely to be full if a given strategy is chosen. Pretending otherwise is asinine, this is a fundamental part of the problem.
Why can't you grasp this? -
2021-11-14 at 2:12 AM UTC in A humble suggestion.Tweaking Bull.
