I haven’t played the game, and I’m not a game theoris, but think your argument is symmetric and that seems worng? If Alice had drawn LFF, the same argument would tell her to pass FF. I think you need an additional axiom that liberals prefer liberal policies be passed, liberal chancellors will always pick liberal policies when possible, and that the game is zero sum. But maybe that was too obvious to bother stating.
depressurize
Karma: 81
It may seem creepy to some, but I didn’t read it that way. It’s a fairly common and old phrase (the wiktionary entry is over 10 years old) and to me it doesn’t have any sexualizing connotations, or other connotations I’d associate with being creepy. I’ll grant you that it’s vulgar, but do you see it as any creepier than any other vulgar phrase?
I agree that finding a group that accepts you is awesome. But I think that it’s very valuable to improve your social skills with the default group. An issue I had (and have observed others having) is that, by spending time online, I would get used to making jokes and comments and references that online-people understand and appreciate. Then, I would do the same thing in real life and it wouldn’t work. And people would talk about things that I didn’t understand, like sports and popular artists, and I would feel left out. (Sports was the worst for me, because I grew up without cable so I had no way to keep up with sports even if I wanted to.)
I would guess this happened to OP as well. I think for most people that this happens to, it’s not some unchangable quality they have, but just something that happens when to people who spend too much time in one social group and then abruptly move to an entirely different social group. (Someone who spends all their time with, idk, mormon lawyers, and then goes to hang out with blue-collar workers in brazil, will probably have the same experience,)
I’m not saying that this replaces the need for finding a real-life group of people like yourself. Just that being able to fit into the default group when you need to is valuable and probably achievable with some effort.
I just checked on my phone right now, and if you browse to En, the default Android Chrome browser both does not show you the
https[...]The behavior is slightly different for
httpsites. In that case, it shows an alert sign in the URL bar. In my opinion, that’s actually a better way to do it than expecting users to notice the missings. In this case it’s still easily overlooked and your other attacks stand, especially vandalizing the page just before you pull off the stunt.
There was a recent post titled “Spaced Repetition Systems Have Gotten Way Better”: https://domenic.me/fsrs/
It mentions this:
But what’s less widely known is that a quiet revolution has greatly improved spaced repetition systems over the last couple of years, making them significantly more efficient and less frustrating to use. The magic ingredient is a new scheduling algorithm known as FSRS, by Jarrett Ye.
I was skeptical, but I tried getting into spaced repetition again and I can say that the FSRS algorithm feels just magical. I often find that I’m just barely able to recall the other side of the card, which is exactly the goal of spaced repetition software. And in general, it doesn’t feel like it wastes my time nearly as much as older scheduling algorithms did.
An anvil problem reminds me of a cotrap in a petri net context. A petri net is a kind of diagram that looks like a graph, with little tokens moving around between nodes of the graph according to certain rules. A cotrap is a graph node that, once a token leaves that node, it can never renter. (There are also traps, which are nodes that tokens can’t leave once they enter.) My analogy: “having at least one anvil” is a cotrap, because once you leave that state, you can’t get back into it. So if you’re looking for a new term, cotrap is what I would suggest.
Thanks, this is a beautiful explanation
For math I’d like to submit this series: “A hard problem in elementary geometry” by fields medalist
Timothy Gowers. It’s a 6 part series where each part is about an hour long, of him trying to solve this easy-seeming-but-actually-very-difficult problem.
“It’s the only thing that satisfies my compulsion” is a good reason to do something IMO. Certainly not useless for you (even if it would be for most people), assuming it actually is the best thing you could be doing with your time that satisfies your compulsion. I definitely relate though, I find it very difficult to prevent myself from writing.
what are the actual criteria you’re using to evaluate them right now?
What I’m trying to get at is “how much does this hobby make my life better outside of me finding it fun”. I think the two that come most to my mind are whether the hobby causes you to make friends and whether it keeps you in good shape, but those are pretty surface-level and obvious. There are lots of other ways a hobby can be helpful (e.g. it can advance your career, it can fulfill a desire in you to help others, it can make you money). But those all seem like saying “good books are ones with a relatable main character and narrative tension”, they will help filter out many bad (and a few good ones) but they’re to simplistic and general to be much help in finding a truly great one. Many great books are great because they did something unique no one else did, and probably many great ways to spend your time are great because they have some unique massive advantage that’s difficult to find anywhere else.
The way I think of it, is that constructivist logic allows “proof of negation” via contradiction which is often conflated with “proof by contradiction”. So if you want to prove ¬P, it’s enough to assume P and then derive a contradiction. And if you want to prove ¬¬P, it’s enough to assume ¬P and then derive a contradiction. But if you want to prove P, it’s not enough to assume ¬P and then derive a contradiction. This makes sense I think—if you assume ¬P and then derive a contradiction, you get ¬¬P, but in constructivist logic there’s no way to go directly from ¬¬P to P.
Proof of negation (allowed): Prove ¬P by assuming P and deriving a contradiction
Proof by contradiction (not allowed): Prove P by assuming ¬P and deriving a contradiction
I was pretty into the more “alternative” side of sleep science for a while. And obviously I’m not a sleep scientist and some things are alternative for a reason. (So basically don’t take me to be more confident than I am.) But there is such a thing as “Upper Airway Resistance Syndrome”. This is like a “lite” version of sleep apnea where a reduction in your breathing speed does not cause a significant drop in your oxygen level, but still wakes you up slightly. The issue is that not all sleep studies have the ability to measure whether you were woken up slightly.
The american academy of sleep medicine, whose name is so official-sounding they must be reliable, “recommends” that sleep laps define hypopneas as
breathing_drop AND (oxygen_drop OR brain_arousal). That is the “recommended” rule. But they also have an acceptable rule, which isbreathing_drop AND oxygen_drop. You can see that any time the acceptable rule would score an event as a hypopnea, so would the recommended rule, but the reverse is not true. So sleep centers using the acceptable rule will underreport events relative to the recommendations of the AASD. (I have simplified it somewhat, but you can read their exact definitions here on their website)The vast majority of sleep centers score hypopneas using the acceptable rule, and therefore underreport. And I don’t think we should expect this to underreport by a constant factor. I could imagine some people have exclusively
breathing_drop AND brain_arousalevents that will be completely unreported under the acceptable rule. Like, to me it makes sense that if your brain arouses right away when a hypopnea begins, it might prevent your airway from collapsing and prevent your oxygen from ever dropping, but still your sleep is slightly interrupted. Because of your family history, I would consider whether this is a possibility.