MartianNight
No bio...
User ID: 1244
MartianNight
5d ago
If you just drive away fast, they won't be able to follow you
Why not? All they need to do is drive equally fast behind you.
That's how it seems to work in practice too. Almost every time I read a newspaper story about a car chase it's something like: police noticed someone commit [small traffic violation], gave suspect the stop signal, instead of stopping suspect tried to make a break for it, police chased them, eventually, suspect lost control and crashed their car into a [tree/ditch/lamppost]; suspect was arrested with minor wounds, car is a total loss.
This seems like a pretty good alternative to shooting and killing the driver from the start. (If you don't kill them, you'd have to chase after them anyway.)
I understand it creates a greater risk to the general public (what if the fleeing suspect crashes head-on into another passenger car?) but that doesn't seem to be a super common outcome, and I don't think “if I don't shoot this guy he might end up causing a fatal accident” is sufficient justification to use lethal force from the start.
Just do what a lot of my city's residents do: don't have a license plate.
That only rules out the one option, plus it gives cops a cause to stop you on sight even if you did nothing else wrong. Again, imagine if you're driving drunk and you don't want to get caught, do you really think it's smart to remove your license plate? I think it just makes it much more likely that you'll be pulled over in the first place.
Not having a license plate is not a serious crime, so they're not allowed to chase you.
I understand the confusion but I never said I think police shouldn't chase criminals. Of course they should. I'm arguing they shouldn't shoot them dead if they try to flee, unless the situation explicitly warrants it (i.e., the suspect is known to pose a grave immediate threat to public safety), which is not true on average and was not true in this case.
MartianNight
5d ago
I agree police should be allowed to chase people who try to flee. I was addressing the false dichotomy between shooting drivers and allowing them to evade justice completely.
MartianNight
5d ago
Just because they don't block your car doesn't mean you got away scot-free. They can follow you, block roads, use spike strips or PIT maneuvers to make you lose control in a way that's unlikely to be lethal, and so on.
Even if (they let) you get away, they can use your license plate to find out where you live, and arrest you at home. In addition to whatever you were suspected of before, you're now guilty of evading the police too. If you commited traffic violations while fleeing, those wil be added too. If they chased you, your car is likely to get wrecked.
All in all, plenty of good reasons to comply if you're innocent or guilty of a relatively small offence only (e.g. DUI). In short, it's not trivially easy to evade arrest if the police is not generally allowed to shoot drivers of vehicles.
In order to maintain the logic of the thought experiment, I have to offer you the bet each time you wake up. If I only offered it on the first day, that would give away that it is the first day.
You can offer it every day, just use the result from the first day to settle the bet on Wednesday, just like the original question asks: what is the credence on the first day, not on all days. If my answer is deterministic it will be the same in all cases anyway. Or we could agree the deposit will be spread equally over all days: $10,000 per day if I'm awakened twice, $20,000 if I'm awakened once.
Of course you don't want this, because you need me to double my stake only if I lose to turn even odds in your favor. And the problematic part is that you then claim this says something about the outcome of the coin toss, rather than stakes of the bet.
The problem can be simplified into a simply $1 to $2 bet. Let's start with this:
You toss a fair coin. If it's heads, you pay me $1. If it's tails, I pay you $1. Except, you have an accomplice that whacks me on the head with a stick as soon as I pay $1, inducing memory loss brief enough that I remember the bet but forgot I already paid up, so that when I recover and notice the coin came up tails, I pay you $1 again. (The stick breaks on first use, so you can only do this once.)
This is the same as the Sleeping Beauty problem. It's rigged against me, not because the probability of the coin coming up tails is less than 50%, but because you've found a way to trick me into paying twice if I lose. In the split second after you flip the coin but before I notice which face is up, I have every reason to insist my credence is 50:50 heads:tails. This is true before and after my memory loss.
Now if you tell me ahead of time, that if I lose, I'll be whacked in the head and made to pay twice, I know that I'm really staking $2 to your $1. Then I propose we skip the head whacking altogether, and if I lose I'll just pay you the $2. Clearly this is exactly equivalent.
Now if you toss the coin, and ask me before revealing the outcome: what is your credence that the coin came up tails? I will still say: 50%, but if you want me to bet on it, you will have to raise your stake to equal mine.
MartianNight
1mo ago
Ah but in this construction, I have to pay my stake twice. That's not actually a 3:2 bet, but a 3:4 bet. I'm staking my $20,000 against your $15,000 after all.
Recall that the original formulation was:
When you are first awakened, to what degree ought you believe that the outcome of the coin toss is Heads?
If similarly, the bet only happens during the first awakening, then clearly it is in my favor to take the bet, since it's equally likely that the coin came up heads or tails.
If we're betting on every awakening, that means that if I lose on timeline B, I have to pay twice. So I'm not actually betting on 3:2 odds, but on 3:4 odds, which are clearly not in my favor if I believe the odds are 1:1, and I wouldn't take that bet.
I read up a bit on the older thread and I liked the analogy about putting balls in a bag. If the coin toss comes up head, then we put 1 red ball in the bag, if it comes up tail, we put 2 green balls in the bag. Clearly all the balls in the bag are either red or green.
If you ask me: “what is the probability that the balls in the bag are red?” I would say 50%.
If you ask me: “do you take a bet where I pay you $15 if the balls in the bag are red, and you pay me $10 if the balls in the bag are green?” I would take that bet since I know the odds are even and so the expected value is positive ($2.5).
If you ask me: “do you take a bet where I pay you $15 for each red ball in the bag, and you pay me $10 for each green ball in the bag?” I would not take that bet because I know that the probability of the balls being red/green are 1:1, but if they are green, there are 2 of them, so you'll pay me $15 in one case, and I pay you $20 in the other, which is a negative expected value (-$2.5).
So when first awakened Sleeping Beauty ought to believe that the coin came up heads with 50% probability. She also oughtn't take a bet that is resolved on every awakening, knowing that awakenings happen more frequently in timeline B. If she is guaranteed her bet is only resolved on the first awakening, she can take the bet.
MartianNight
1mo ago
If you ran this experiment on people who think the answer is 1/2 you could take their money.
I'll bite. Assume I believe the answer is 1/2, how would you take my money?
The answer for 95% of those decision theory puzzles/paradoxes is that the puzzle as stated is underspecified.
I disagree. In many cases the intended interpretation is clear, and people who give the wrong answer got the interpretation right but simply did the math wrong.
Specifically for the Monty Hall problem, most people who dispute the correct answer (switching doubles your winning chance) do not claim that the problem is underspecified, but give an answer (switching does not change your winning probability) that is not consistent with any reasonable interpretation of the problem.
Here's an article that covers everything I wanted to say about the topic. Behind Monty Hall's Doors: Puzzle, Debate and Answer?
"Suppose you're on a game show, and you're given the choice of three doors: Behind one door is a car; behind the others, goats. You pick a door, say No. 1, and the host, who knows what's behind the other doors, opens another door, say No. 3, which has a goat. He then says to you, 'Do you want to pick door No. 2?' Is it to your advantage to take the switch?"
This is the original formulation of the problem. It's true that it is ambiguous in that it doesn't specifically state whether the host would reveal a goat regardless of whether you picked right or wrong, as pointed out by Martin Gardner (whom I hold in high regard):
"The problem is not well-formed," Mr. Gardner said, "unless it makes clear that the host must always open an empty door and offer the switch. Otherwise, if the host is malevolent, he may open another door only when it's to his advantage to let the player switch, and the probability of being right by switching could be as low as zero." Mr. Gardner said the ambiguity could be eliminated if the host promised ahead of time to open another door and then offer a switch.
But that's not the criticism of most people who dispute the official answer. Those people usually say the answer is exactly 50/50:
Robert Sachs, a professor of mathematics at George Mason University in Fairfax, Va., expressed the prevailing view that there was no reason to switch doors.
"You blew it!" he wrote. "Let me explain: If one door is shown to be a loser, that information changes the probability of either remaining choice -- neither of which has any reason to be more likely -- to 1/2. As a professional mathematician, I'm very concerned with the general public's lack of mathematical skills. Please help by confessing your error and, in the future, being more careful."
I have a similar objection to your interpreation:
if he actually only picks a door when you have picked the winning door: don't
Okay, but if Monty only opens a door if you picked the winner, then obviously you shouldn't switch: your chance of winning would be 0% after switching, not 50%. That doesn't support the 50% answer at all!
You could at least somewhat reasonably assume an adverserial scenario where Monty may decide to reveal a goat or not, with the goal to maximally confuse you and minimize your chances of winning. But in that case, his optimal strategy isn't to reveal a goat only when you're about to win (which only confirms your choice was correct) but to never reveal a goat, regardless of your initial pick, in which case you cannot do better than sticking with your initial guess for an 1/3 chance of winning.
In short, there is no sensible interpretation of the problem where the correct answer is that switching or not doesn't matter. You can only reach the conclusion by getting the math wrong, not by finding a reasonable but unintended interpretation of the problem as stated.
(edit: removed a bit that I need to rethink)
MartianNight
2mo ago
OK, thanks for checking. A strange situation.
MartianNight
2mo ago
And your Play Store country is Germany? (You can check this under Settings > General > Account & Device > Country & Profiles.)
MartianNight
2mo ago
Are you sure? It shows up as unavailable in Switzerland.
Not getting thrown in jail for the numerous crimes you committed (either real ones, or the ones they will pin on you, like those sexual assault and felony fraud convictions)?
MartianNight
2mo ago
Even today, the money which influences politics is mostly spent by individual private individuals or by companies held privately
You say that but I was surprised to see that the list of donors to Donald Trump's new east wing ballroom includes most major tech companies: Amazon, Apple, Google, HP, Meta (Facebook), Microsoft.
These are all publicly held companies, and companies that I'd pegged as in the Democrat camp. Apparently that doesn't stop them from throwing some money Trump's way to stay on his good side.
spelling out how that is profitable at the stockholder's meeting is likely to get the CEO in legal trouble
The CEO won't have to spell it out at the stockholders meeting, because stockholders already understand how bribing the government benefits the company, and making that policy explicit can only harm the company, so they're not going to demand an explanation from the CEO. Tacit approval is clearly the best policy here.
MartianNight
3mo ago
As far as I can tell the Star Wars license expired already in 2023.
Obviously Zendaya is not ugly ugly, but judging by the standards for a 25 (?) year old Hollywood star, I consider her mediocre looking.
She's thin with a beautiful, symmetrical face.
She also has no curve to her body, her nose is too flat, her eyes are too small, her chin is too big, and she wears way too much makeup. Without makeup she looks like a cave(wo)man. She is neither cute nor handsome, and she tries too hard to hide it.
It doesn't help that she is a terrible actress who never impresses you with her performance, so she can't even grow on you despite her looks.
This is what she looks like when she actually tries to look good
Is this supposed to be a good look? Her smile looks fake, she's wearing way too much makeup, her top is ugly and her skirt is even more ugly, like literally what the fuck are those colors? They are all clashing (look at her nails and lipstick too, all different ugly shades of pink) and I'm not even into fashion? It's like she's trying to be ugly. Also I've never met a single man who thinks box braids are attractive on a woman.
Probably EU countries have their own individual laws on this. I know that outside the EU, in Switzerland, you are allowed to record in public, but not allowed to publish photos or videos of people without their consent at all.
(This is interpreted as recordings where a person is the focus of the image, so if you take a picture of your friend at tourist spot and there happen to be some random people visible in the background, that's still okay.)
That means live streaming in public is essentially illegal in Switzerland, as is the popular genre of Youtube influencers harassing people in public to get a rise out of them, including those obnoxious 1st amendment “auditors” that are intentionally annoying people.
MartianNight
6mo ago
Amadan, you are a fucking hypocrite and you're a disgrace of a mod. You constantly spread Zionist propaganda while pretending to be politically neutral.
You intentionally conflate anti-Zionism with antisemitism and deride criticism of Zionism as “Joo-posting”, an intrinsically dismissive term, as if the people who have some concerns about the genocide-in-all-but-name that is being perpetrated by Israel in the middle east are just cuckoo-bananas.
Again in this comment, you create a false dichotomy between “Jews and Jew-haters” as if you can be either in support of Israel, or you must hate the Jews, which is far from the truth. I have no issue whatsoever with the many Jews who live in my neighbourhood, nor with those Israelis who are content to remain within the internationally recognized borders of Israel. I do hate anyone who supports the illegal occupation of Palestinian lands, whether they are Jewish or not. I make no secret of this. Any attempt to conflate that opposition to Zionism to “hating Jews” is obviously disingeneous.
Even in this reply you stroke your own dick by waxing poetically about how you magnanimously tolerate the “Joo-posters” (a derisive term you invented to ridicule those who don't share your pro-Israel bias), as if banning people for disagreeing with you wouldn't violate half a dozen stated rules. Your tolerance of anti-Zionists is only commendable if this is an explicit Zionist space which is founded on the principle of promoting Israels divine right to annex Palestinian land and carpet bomb Palestinian civilians. If that's not a founding principle, you don't get brownie points for tolerating people who are calling out the state of Israel on its gross violation of international law.
I wouldn't be writing this reply if you were just another random Zionist voicing his dumb opinions. In that case, I would just flip the bozo bit on you and ignore your stupid takes from now on. But the fact that you're an actual moderator makes that impossible. I would think moderators should be extra committed to following the rules of the Motte, including being kind, charitable, not antagonistic, avoiding weakmen, not being egregiously obnoxious—all standards you fail here.
MartianNight
6mo ago
The project was pretty much under the radar until the ADL issued a statement last week. Now this might develop into a big story.
Ah yes, the organization that openly supports the establishment of a Jewish ethnostate on stolen land is deeply concerned about the theoretic possibility of “whites only enclaves” on privately purchased land in the US. I literally cannot imagine a group in America that has less of a leg to stand on to voice this concern than the Zionist hawks of the ADL.
MartianNight
8mo ago
Links to:
- The supreme court judgment (full judgment, press summary)
- Gender Recognition Act 2004
- Equality Act 2010
(Am I the only person who finds it maddening that in the year 2025 newspapers still don't bother to link to the easily-findable publications that they base their reporting on?)
On a more meta-level, this feels like legislation from the bench. From my understanding, the 2004 GRA updated the legal definition of "man" and "woman". The Equality Act was passed in 2010. Presumably, parliament was aware of changed definition when they passed the Equality Act. If they meant "biological woman", not "legal woman", they should have specified that.
I think that's a fair criticism, but I think there are at least three strong points arguing against your interpretation, which are also mentioned in the judgment:
-
The Equality Act 2010 was meant to replace the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 and Sex Discrimination Regulations 1999, which predate the Gender Recognition Act 2004 and obviously intended to use the biological definition. There is no evidence to suggest the lawmakers intended to change the definition of man and women.
-
The Gender Recognition Act creates a distinction between legal sex and biological sex; it does not abolish biological sex (how could it?). Interpreting the EA as referencing biological sex is not inconsistent with the GRA, especially since this is the most common interpretation. You could argue that if the EA wanted sex to be interpreted as legal sex, it should have defined this explicitly, and since it doesn't, it could be reasonably assumed to default to biological sex.
-
The EA only refers to “pregnant women” and never “pregnant men”. This implies the word "woman" refers to biological sex, because it would be unthinkable for a law to exclude biologically female legal men (trans men) from protection of discrimination on the basis of pregnancy.
I admit I'm biased because I oppose genderism in most of its forms, but I think the judgment is defensible.
MartianNight
9mo ago
I'm not sure if you needed an account for that, but at least that was optional, and you didn't miss much if you ignored it.
What was dumb about it was that Ubisoft couldn't even be arsed to keep their site up and running, making that part of the game technically unfinishable in recent years, if it wasn't for fans reverse-engineering the encryption algorithm (luckily, they used a symmetric algorithm instead of something harder to crack). And of course, the fan-maintained websites are still up and running: https://darkroom.bgemyth.net/, because apparently fans can do what billion dollar multinational companies cannot.
Let me highlight this part:
Arguably, Ubisoft has been fighting the good fight. I make fun of Ubislop titles, and their super generic, open world, casual action adventure mechanics. But they are still ostensibly offline big budget single player games.
I recently bought the remastered edition of Beyond Good and Evil, and the launcher doesn't allow me to play the game without creating a stupid Ubisoft account. Why the fuck would I need to create a Ubisoft account to play the single-player game I already bought and paid full price for? (Incidentally, I bought this game three times: once on PC, once the updated version on XBOX 360, and then again the remastered version.)
To be clear, this is a 100% offline exclusively single-player game with no online components whatsoever! There is absolutely no need for online accounts!
The only way to circumvent this asinine garbage was to put the console in offline mode, which is a hassle. And the only reason that works at all is that Microsoft put its foot down and didn't let hell-tier companies like Ubisoft block their games from running offline. Fucking Microsoft is the hero in this story! Let that sink in. MICROSOFT! I cannot emphasize this enough. How the hell do you fuck up so badly as a gaming company that a longtime gamer like me thanks Microsoft for not letting you ruin the gaming experience even worse for your paying customers?
This fucking shit make me hate Ubisoft with a fiery passion. A company that fucks its customers over this badly doesn't deserve to survive. I wish they went bankrupt yesterday, just to discourage this bullshit.
MartianNight
9mo ago
Sure, that's why I started my comment with “If I put on my conspiracy hat...” At the same time, it's naive to assume that an attack on the opposition couldn't possibly be politically motivated because there is some friendly fire.
MartianNight
9mo ago
If I put on my conspiracy hat, I would say that this is exactly what you would expect from a group that wants to get rid of certain politicians without making it look like their actions are politically motivated: throw a few of their allies under the bus too, to make it look like the actions are politically neutral, while knowing full well that the impact on your enemies is much more severe than on your allies.
This gives your actions the veneer of neutrality while still achieving your political aims.
MartianNight
9mo ago
This interpretation makes no sense in the context of the story, though. The evil queen is the second-most “fair” person in the entire kingdom, but decides to murder her innocent stepdaughter out of jealousy, which is pretty obviously not morally virtuous.
You cannot become a morally virtuous person by murdering all the innocent children who are more virtuous than you, except in the trivial sense that if you murder literally everyone else, you are “most virtuous” by default (which isn't what happens in the story). However, you can become the most physically attractive woman by murdering all the women who are more attractive than you.
So the story only makes sense if (at least the evil stepmother) thinks of “fair” as meaning “physically attractive”, not “morally virtuous”.
It's essentially the 1994 video game Quarantine, if anyone remembers that.
We probably agree then. I read your initial comment as saying that if “the police are not allowed to block you” then the only alternative to lethal force is letting people get away. I think you can have cops not standing in front of cars and still apprehend a suspect who tries to get away most of the time, which is preferable (to me) to having cops shoot drivers over minor offenses, even if it allows a minority of suspects to flee successfully.
More options
Context Copy link