I meant, let’s imagine the machine predicted B and is wrong (because I take A+B). I would call that scenario „I have free will - no determinism.“ Then I will have 1.000.000.000 „only“. That’s a good result.
Except that's not the worst case. If the machine predicted you would pick A&B, then B contains nothing, so if you then only picked B (i.e. the machine's prediction was wrong), then you get zero. THAT'S the worst case. The question doesn't assume the machine's predictions are correct.
The key to success in crafting is to make things people already want, but nobody else is making. Browse through your inner circle or target audience and read comments. A lot of people want to spend money, they just want to buy a product they relate to or something that helps them express who they are.
Just one example of this: plushies. They're not new, they're already everywhere, but niche cartoon character and video game character plushies still sell well because it's a new design being implemented on something people already like. There will always be a new cartoon or game coming out and therefore a way to capitalize on it.
You can also apply this tactic to many kinds of items: clothing, accessories, phone/tablet skins etc.
I find it a lot more like old forums, and there is a loooooot less ragebait (post about Matt Walsh and his piss fetish, Tim pool and his homoerotic fascism, etc).
It’s very refreshing and I find myself spending less time on here (searching for interesting content) but more time engaging (instead of lurking)
I like that I can block entire communities. Never gonna see those weird people that obsess over certain public figures, positively or negatively, again 😍
But that’s the thing, on R no matter what you blocked they still pop up in other feeds…so many “news”, meme etc. featuing those shits and here…nada. My thoughts are most of thier shit is bot driven, so here it wont get traction (yet) and if they do its easily avoided!
Mastodon is not a social network, which is where I think John and Dare start from. It’s a set of communities which may, or may not, choose to connect to each other. Those relationships are based on shared values and trust: my instance connects to yours because I trust you to moderate effectively, not allow spam, or whatever other ground rules we can agree on. Some communities choose to apply this loosely, and some more strictly (some communities, for example, won’t federate with others who don’t have the same expectations around moderation for everyone they federate with).
ka = the potential prize in box B; i.e. "k times larger than a"
p = the odds of a false positive. That is, the odds that you pick box B only and it got nothing, because dumb machine assumed that you’d pick A too.
n = the odds of a false negative. That is, the odds that you pick A+B and you get the prize in B, because the machine thought that you wouldn’t pick A.
So the output table for all your choices would be:
pick nothing: 0
pick A: a
pick B: (1-p)ka
pick A+B: a + nka
Alternative 4 supersedes 1 and 2, so the only real choice is between 3 (pick B) or 4 (pick A+B).
You should pick A+B if a + nka > (1-p)ka. This is a bit messy, so let’s say that the odds of a false positive are the same as the odds of a false negative; that is, n=p. So we can simplify the inequation into
a + nka > (1-n)ka // subbing “p” with "n"
1 + nk > (1-n)k // divided everything by a
1 + nk - (1-n)k > 0 // changed sides of a term
1 + 2nk -k > 0 // some cleaning
n > (k-1)/2k // isolating the junk constant
In OP’s example, k=1000, so n > (1000-1)/(2*1000) → n > 999/2000 → n > 49.95%.
So you should always pick B. And additionally, pick A if the odds that the machine is wrong are higher than 49.95%; otherwise just B.
Note that 49.95% is really close to 50% (a coin toss), so we’re actually dealing with a machine that can actually predict the future somewhat reliably, n should be way lower, so you’re probably better off picking B and ignoring A.
No Lemmy ettique missing as there wasn't enough of a community to form anything. I had no issue with the smaller size and all the usual posters I'd see and chat with have dispersed with the larger array of content.
But now you don't get people signing up, talking about the lack of content and disappearing. Or servers set up in hope and shut down - eope.xyz caw.ai Jeremmy.ml or ones that ragequit fapsi.be. And of course wolfballs.
Even if most go back to reddit it will still be an improved space with the servers and communities that remain I think.
But now you don’t get people signing up, talking about the lack of content and disappearing. Or servers set up in hope and shut down - eope.xyz caw.ai Jeremmy.ml or ones that ragequit fapsi.be. And of course wolfballs.
Someone give me a history lesson. A lot has happened already apparently.
The lack of “Lemmy etiquette” is basically the whole point of the project. There is no general rule. There are places for shitposting, there are places for serious discussion. The civility fetishists get their corner, the people who enjoy replying to bigots with pigpoopballs.jpg get their corner. There is a niche for everybody - and if there isn’t - you can start one without being completely isolated from the rest of the network (at least, initially).
The situation on Reddit was absurd. The “Reddiquette” rules were generally okay, but very open to subjective enforcement. I spent many years on Reddit. I browsed a lot of different communities on there. But if one person on a community I browse makes a post saying “look what this asshole is saying” on another community I browse, and I go there an make an insightful comment, I am now “brigading.” If somebody wants to politely debate whether trans people have a right to exist, or whether or not we should send the homeless to concentration camps, and I tell them to fuck themselves, I am being “uncivil.”
Communities need mods and admins who have their back, not mods who become cops for the admins who become cops for the board of directors who only care about increasing KPIs and profit. The coolest thing that can happen on the Fediverse is landing in a place where the admins will eat a block or two to defend the integrity of their communities. This is something which is simply impossible on Reddit.
I should've known it was the beginning of the end of my time on reddit when I commented "well if people are gonna start flying Russian flags on their trucks here in the USA I'll be keeping a baseball bat in the trunk of my car" shortly after the invasion of Ukraine began - specifically non-violent, and if they'd have been able to read my mind, the intent was so I could smash the windows out of their truck not actually beat the shit out of them, and I received a 3-day ban from the whole site for "advocating violence" or whatever the fuck it was called. I took a looooong break from reddit after that as I was honestly pretty disgusted an admin essentially supported Russia by banning me for my benign comment, but found myself there again.
Without RIF I'm definitely never going back.
Edit: I find it concerning that I posted this within the Lemmy.ml community and I'm seeing downvotes and people promoting false equivalencies in reply; I was told lemmy.ml supported Russia but I didn't believe it as I was shown no proof, and I hand-waved away that warning - now I'm concerned.
No, in my opinion that follows the rules, it's not inherently violent. I think the implication is gross, and would rightfully be downvoted, but it doesn't break any rules. It's a bit of a false equivalency though considering LGBTQ+ people weren't actively killing thousands of civilians, destroying homes, and raping thousands of women, like the Russian government was orchestrating at the time (and still is from my understanding, it's just not interesting enough for the fucked 24 hours news cycle any more).
Yeah I gotta say personally both sentences sound violent to me. They can absolutely be understood in both a violent and a window-smashing way, but the wording is so on the line that I too wouldn't want to see it in a community.
The meaning of what we say or write is not purely what is meant by the speaker/writer but also in large part what the audience or the person we speak to hears and understands. As the person saying something, we always have to be aware of how it may be understood or misunderstood. We all have different contexts, experiences and ways of communicating. All we can do is be as specific as possible to remove any uncertainty. Vague wording is how dog-whistling operates.
Maybe a better way of wording it would have been:
"if people start flying (...) flags on their cars in my country, they better watch out for their windows 'cause I'll be keeping a baseball bat in my car"
Gonna say that comment sounds very nationalistic and xenophobic to me. Would I ban you for it? No. But you’d definitely get a warning if I was the mod.
Unless you’re doing the same thing for anyone flying the US flag, that’s just standard hypocrisy.
I don’t think Lemmy supports Russia. It’s very anti-imperialism in general, which is a good thing! But, Americans advocating for violence exclusively against other imperialist symbols just smacks of double standards, ya know?
In my experience there is already such a wealth of professional and hobby products out there that it's impossible to break into the market. Find something you like and just do it as a hobby if you can recoup any of the cost selling what you make that's great but it shouldn't be the main focus. The worst thing that can happen to a hobby is it becoming a job.
If you already know you have the correct worldview, then just present the data to him that would lead someone to believe in your worldview. You can't be immune to ideology without having one of your own. Someone who drifts through life believing nothing will believe anything.
If I wanted to use logic, I'd say taking both A and B is the only way to have a guaranteed $1,000,000 outcome, because B only could get you money but also nothing.
But, if I choose B only, I'm sort of "forcing" the machine into that kind of prediction, right? I don't know about this experiment, but since your post says it's a paradox, I think that's how it works.
So my choice is B, the machine has predicted it and I get a nice $1,000,000,000.
I’d much rather take a sure million with a (slight?) chance of a bonus billion, versus an unknown chance at 0 or a billion. I could do plenty with a million that would significantly change my life for the better.
But I would probably do the opposite if A contained $1000 and B contained a potential million as in the original example. $1000 is a tolerable amount to risk missing out on.
asklemmy
Hot
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.