MathWizard's profile

MathWizard Good things are good 21d ago

Is $200k the limit on the amount that Keith's insurance would cover? If not then Keith is entirely in the right here, and the bankruptcy judge should not have required the limit of 200k in the first place. There's no reason the amount should have been relevant for this ruling except if it would be dis-chargeable via the bankruptcy.

If it is the insurance limit then the best outcome would be the $1.6 M being the official amount awarded and the $1.4 M being retroactively discharged by the bankruptcy.

It's unfortunate that the laws aren't smart enough to do the obvious thing.

2

Context

MathWizard Good things are good 21d ago

I generally think time limits are bad in games, with a few exceptions. The fundamental problem is that it's a threat. It's a threat that, if you do poorly, you're going to have to restart the entire game from scratch. Like a final boss that, if it kills you, deletes your save file (though less volatile). I don't want to get 90% of the way through a 20 hour game only to have to start over from scratch. I rarely play games a second time unless they are exceptionally good, I'm not replaying the entirety of your game over again just because I wasn't quite good enough the first time.

The main exception I have to this is if there's meta-progression, like in Roguelites, or like Dead Rising. If you've got a 1-2 hour turn around, and I unlock new stuff every time, and the entire game is built around randomized content so it's not just the same thing again, then we're good. Or like in Dead Rising if I get stronger and it's basically a new game plus where I can solve all the problems that happened the first time around there's wayyy less risk of failing the second time around, I can take that. What I don't want is the game to tell me that the last 20 hours of play time were pointless and none of it counts for anything.

That said, I didn't have to replay Pikmin 1, because I didn't fail. If the time limit is generous enough then the majority of players don't run afoul of it. The threat looms in the background, but isn't implemented. If it's set just right then it creates stakes and pressure: the player has to act strategically and not mess up and get their party slaughtered too many times or it'll take too long to repopulate, so it feels more important to perform well. But if it's too generous then players don't feel this pressure and the time limit might as well not even exist. But Pikmin 2 was able to have a lot more content in part because of the lack of a time limit: you can keep playing the game after you "beat" it and go explore and get every last piece of treasure because there's nothing stopping you from continuing to play.

I have not yet played Pikmin 3 or 4, so I can't comment on it there, though I intend to eventually. I anticipate that the time limit in 3 will either be obnoxious if its strict, or superfluous if it's easy. There's very rarely middle ground.

6

Context

MathWizard Good things are good 23d ago

That never held water. All people, regardless of their sex or sexual orientation, can marry someone of the opposite sex of any sexual orientation. Gay men are just as free and equally allowed to marry a woman as any straight man. If the gay man doesn't want to marry a woman, that's his choice, but he's legally allowed to.

And pretty much all of the equality under the law anti-discrimination stuff has carveouts for compelling state interests. Like, say, bearing and raising children and ensuring the survival of the species.

Telling gay people that it's illegal to have sex with each other would be one thing: the state intervening in a place where it has little compelling interest or jurisdiction (an argument could be made about preventing the spread of STDs, but it's weak, and promiscuous straight people do that too). But marriage, at least from a legal perspective, is a privilege the state recognizes for people to incentivize the formation of healthy and stable families, which gay people do not do. Arguing it's "equal protection under the law" is like arguing that childless people should get the same tax deductions and/or welfare aid as people with seven children because otherwise you're discriminating against the childless.

10

Context

MathWizard Good things are good 25d ago

Treating people kindly and with love and trust is always the solution to any is-ought problem in any culture I've been to because it absolves yourself of the guilt of having acted unkindly or unlovingly and if someone interprets it incorrectly it is not because your underlying intentions were wrong.

This is only true if you tautologically define the term "kindly and with love and trust" to contain all of the complexities and nuances of the broader "is-ought".

Is it kind, loving, and trustful to lock your house or your car? Well, it's kind to the people inside the house, less kind to the thieves that want your stuff.

Is it kind, loving, and trustful to guard your wallet from pickpockets in a crime-ridden area and stop one if you catch them mid-theft?

Is it kind, loving, and trustful to punish someone for a crime? You can argue that it's kind to the victim, but unkind to the perpetrator being punished. Or you can make a complicated argument about how it's ultimately "kind and loving" to the perpetrator because the punishment will help them learn the error of their ways and become a better person which will ultimately be for their own good.

I'm not saying generally acting with kindness, love, and trust is wrong. They're good guidelines when to look to when trying to ground your decisions, but those words alone do not automatically solve all of the potential ethical dilemmas and tradeoffs inherent to the complexity of the real world.

3

Context

MathWizard Good things are good 27d ago

How easy is it to smuggle a nuke, and how long would it remain viable once smuggled?

My impression of nuclear prevention and watchfulness is that it takes a lot of science and infrastructure to refine uranium into a usable state for weapons, and you can't really build all of that stuff without a lot of commotion that foreign powers will notice.

But lots of nations already have all of that infrastructure, and the country wanting nukes only needs the end product. If country A without nukes allied with country B with nukes, would country B be able to use their own infrastructure to do most of the work and then secretly pass them enough weapons grade uranium and/or assembled nuclear warheads to stick into missiles that everyone else thinks are non-nuclear? And then several years later when it became relevant they announce "Tada! We have nukes!"

Or would this be immediately caught while happening and result in massive international penalties for countries A and or B?

9

Context

MathWizard Good things are good 27d ago

The ideal temperature for human comfort is around 20C, which is why people set their thermostats around there. Anyone setting their thermostats to anything meaningfully distant from ~20C is doing it to save money. If you're outdoors, you maybe want a bit more if it's windy, or a bit less if it's sunny or you're doing a lot of physical activity, but you want the sum of all effects to average you back so your individual subjective feeling is around 20C.

Whatever combination of sunny/cloudy/rainy gets you closer to 20C is the ideal weather for your region.

0

Context

MathWizard Good things are good 29d ago

On an economic level, I agree. This is a very very hard problem. In the case of orphans, you can resolve it by sending them to foster families or other forms of government housing instead of just handing a check to reward every kid that runs away from home. The state still pays lots of money, but the kids don't directly benefit because they get substitute parents instead of just money. But you can't really do that with single parents. You can't realistically assist single mothers with state-funded foster-fathers who come and act as the missing parent for the kid. Because she's an adult and has rights, there's a lot less coercion and control that you can't use to force compliance in the same way you can with a runaway teen (and if you tried it would turn out horribly dystopian). So we're kind of stuck handing out checks and trying to make them exactly the right size: not too small or the kids suffer poverty and neglect, not too large or the mothers have more kids and avoid marriage.

On a social level, there is so much more we could be doing to incentivize marriage. Stay at home mothers used to get respect and praise for their parenting. Single mothers used to be shamed and looked down on. Now we do the opposite. People respond to economic incentives, but they also respond to social ones too. Even if money incentivizes more single mothers, turning the dial on the social pressures in the opposite direction could help mitigate this.

4

Context

MathWizard Good things are good 29d ago

Do you believe that it's actually truly subjective? As in, it's okay for someone to kill someone else as long as they don't consider the victim to be a person? There's absolutely nothing wrong with people slaughtering "non-persons" as long as the non-person is sincerely believed by the slaughterers, and if people go around doing that you will have no complaints?

Or do you perhaps have a more nuanced and less genocidal belief about personhood grounded by something beyond mere subjectivity?

4

Context

MathWizard Good things are good 30d ago

Framing things in terms of "pro-single-mother" vs "anti-single-mother" makes about as much sense as being "pro-orphan" or "anti-orphan". You can believe that a situation is bad to be in and therefore want to help people who happen to be in that situation AND try to prevent people from falling into that situation AND not Goodhart the numbers by killing them.

DO: Help kids with no parents with money and support structures (without actively incentivizing the status)

DO: Try to prevent people from becoming orphans.

DON'T: Reduce the number of orphans by killing them

Really, a child of a single parent is just a half-orphan. Therefore

DO: Help single parent families with money and support structures (without actively incentivizing the status)

DO: Try to prevent people from becoming single-parents.

DON'T: Reduce the number of single-parents by killing them (or the children)

All of this follows trivially from the quality of life the child can expect, on average, in each state:

Full family > Single Parent Family > Orphan > Death

Whether you want more or fewer single parent families then depends on which direction you're coming from. Trying to pin people down into "pro" or "anti" single parents only makes sense if these were terminal ends rather than proxies for quality of life.

21

Context

MathWizard Good things are good 30d ago

A good rule of thumb to predict a pro-life person's opinion on something is to mentally replace the fetus with a 1 week old (post birth) baby. Or, if you don't think babies should have rights either, maybe a two or three year old. That is the logical implication of believing fetuses are people.

Would you have sympathy for a mother who killed her 1 week old baby because her husband committed suicide? Would that sympathy extend far enough to excuse the act?

17

Context

MathWizard Good things are good 1mo ago

I see where you're coming from. On a gut level I immediately want to retort that punishment and forgiveness should be equally affected by your smallness and anonymity. If you're just one of many people such that your forgiveness barely matters, then your punishment barely matters too, especially since the external outcome of your forgiveness would be the cessation of your punishment/shaming.

But since it's also the case that

A: Punishments are applied in a decentralized way, with each person using their own individual criteria for what should receive shame

B: The impact of punishment via shame is nonlinear. Getting 20 death threats doesn't actually feel twice as bad as getting 10 death threats, so reducing the number of shamers by 50% doesn't actually help all that much.

Your point probably stands. Aella could repent and change her ways, and maybe 50% of people would forgive her and the shame would go down, but the other 50% would continue And also probably a bunch of sex-positive people would start shaming her and it might even end up worse. So then she's paid the massive social and lifestyle costs of repenting without actually solving the shame. Without a near-universally recognized authority who can forgive her and enforce other people's forgiveness (in deed, even if not in belief), she has no incentive to repent (beyond a genuine realization of being wrong and a self-sacrificing desire to do the right thing despite the costs).

Which in turn massively decreases the pro-social utility of shame. The point of punishments is to disincentivize the punished behavior, both on the part of the person being punished, and other people who witness them. But we've essentially lost half of that. If we make her miserable enough maybe we'll scare others away from following her example, but sometimes young people are stupid and do stuff before they realize the consequences. And anyone who does and then changes their mind is just stuck in a world where they can't be forgiven. Or more likely, doubles down on the side they're already on because they know they can't go back.

I don't know that we can do anything about that. But it still kind of sucks.

1

Context

MathWizard Good things are good 1mo ago

I broadly agree with you, with the caveat that I think there's a little more room for charity/empathy/forgiveness for people who are being harmful by accident rather than on purpose.

A murderer knows that what they are doing is wrong. They know that they are going to inflict a huge harm on others (both the direct victim and everyone who knows them), and they do it anyway. They are evil and they know this and they do it anyway because they are angry/selfish and care more about themselves than others. It's an issue of bad morality.

Aella believes that she is doing good. She has a distorted view of society/psychology in a way that makes her think that her lifestyle will make the average person more happy instead of less happy. She does what she does partly in order to make herself more popular and justify her lifestyle, but in part because she genuinely thinks it will make the world better. Now, likely some of this is cognitive dissonance: maybe somewhere deep down inside she knows its wrong but doesn't care, but I think the majority of the issue is a question of bad objectivity.

Now, from a consequentialist perspective Aella is probably worse and so, if necessary and in isolation, we would be willing to inflict a higher cost in order to stop her. But the norms of "have harsher punishments for people who hurt others on purpose than those who do it by accident" is useful in general, as is "have harsher punishments for people who hurt others in unambiguous ways than those who hurt others in ambiguous and indirect ways". This makes it easier for people to know what to expect and adjust their behavior ahead of time (decreasing the rates of bad behavior) instead of doing it anyway and then getting punished randomly and unexpectedly afterwards. It also decreases the ability of people to apply punishments to good behaviors by making convoluted arguments about indirect harms. It also gives more opportunities for forgiveness and redemption. There's a non-negligible chance that at some point Aella will observe more of the effects of her actions, realize her mistake, and then change and start genuinely helping people and undo the damage she's caused. Because her underlying motivation: wanting to help people, doesn't need to change, she just needs to reconcile it with the desire to be popular and slutty and realize they're opposed instead of synergistic. I suppose murderers can also change and become better people too, but it's a different kind of change and it's impossible to undo the harm they've already caused.

This is entirely consistent with the principle of "shame Aella and jail murderers" rather than the other way around. But the shame on Aella should be tempered by education and a hope that she herself learns from her mistakes instead of just having the shamers by maximally cruel to make her suffer and hate them and reject what they say.

3

Context