Some people, to paraphrase Groucho Marx, don’t want to belong to a club that would have them as a member.
Impressive signalling is important for getting opportunities that are “out of your league.”
As it is written, first: know thyself.
Also, if some fraction of males are presenting an extreme profile (a-la Jacob of putanumonit) they could be rated low attractiveness “on average” while still getting messages from the tiny fractional percent of females of each attractiveness band who are interested in that unique profile.
Small correction: the US president is elected by popular vote, but individuals have different weights on thier votes, based on which state they are in.
The technical details in the EC determine those weights, but none of the participants have legitimate choices once the votes have been cast
Neglect not the morale and rest benefits of not needing employees to commute.
Pretty sure the first level avatar is a sheep? That says “ba ba”?
Indeed: there are two basic trucks that explain every Illusion:
The performer spent way more time than you expect (to Fool Penn and Teller, one performer used confederates to get Penn to sign all 52 cards in a deck, one at a time over months so he could then produce the matching “signed” card in an impossible place)
There is more space (in the box/behind the table/in the straightjacket) than it looks like from the outside.
Thanks for sharing the official name. Personally, I don’t like the idea of “negotiations” (as noted: this is rough for single winner elections), and would advocate for some sort of deterministic reallocation based on pre-election decisions. That is, each candidate sends thier instant runoff ordering to the election commission, before any votes are counted. There could still be negotiations then, but the voters would know if centrist candidate C was going to roll thier votes rightward or leftward, and could decide who to support in light of that.
Per Wikipedia, the answer to your first question is “no, that isn’t how approval voting works if used for multi-party elections.”
Approval voting is almost never used for multi-winner elections
If it is, there is some sort of complex vote-counting system to allow minority party candidates to be elected.
My personal solution to the voting system dillema is candidate directed instant runoff:
Each voter selects one candidate
The candidate with the least votes transfers all of thier votes to another candidate of thier choice (this could be pre-specified, or decided after the vote totals are known, and could be public or private)
Repeat step 2 until one candidate has over 50% of the vote.
My answer is that in the trolly problem the people are interchangeable, and 5 > 1. In the doctor problem, you have 5 sick and 1 healthy, and they have different value.
What the doctor should do is pick (by any means) one of the sick patients, extract thier 4 healthy organs and save the other 4. The end result for the unlucky one is the same (death), but the other 4 do better.
As of August 2021 in the USA, “the right hand is beating down the black man” is an accurate (if metaphorical) statement about the territory.
What White Fragility (and many other sources) are saying is that the people who have power need to first use that power to stop the beatings. And it helps to note who the victims are, because it is ~5x more efficient to focus on the ~20% of the population that is being “beaten down” than to make race-neutral changes.
I, too have seen this Idea referred to as “leading the parade”—by my boomer gen parents.
I didn’t realize other people thought they were exerting control when they were standing 8n front of a demo and pressing buttons—I would just be trying to follow along with the animation to make it look like I was playing. No comment on why I thought that was a good thing to do.
You know, I feel like trying to avoid Goodhart divergences may be neglecting the underlying principle/agent alignment problem in pursuit of better results on one specific metric.
Atheists say “God bless you” to other Atheists and nobody bats an eye or questions thier disbelief. People say “f u” all the time without any expectation of an difficult anatomical act. Some phrases are just arbitrary mouth noises that signal membership in “the tribe of people who use that phrase”
5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, and 12 are all variations on the same theme of “I want to be associated with a particular sub-set of humans”
That is Simulacra level 3 behavior. And I don’t think they really count as separate meanings.
8 (where the mouth noises “I like red” are just a thing our tribe does, like “ghesudheit”) is a separate “meaning” from that (and is kind of a wrap-around Level 1 simulacra: you are accurately stating that you are a member of the tribe, and it is common knowledge that the mouth noise “I like red” carries no information relating to the speakers opinions about “red”)
Multiply all of the above by all the possible definitions of “like” and “red” and any context relevant counterfactuals.
Speaker could have said love instead of Like, so they don’t love red. And every other point on the spectrum.
Like can also mean “am similar to” (not grammatically correct usage here… but that a whole ’nuther can of worms)
Red is a color, but could also be referring to a person (usually one with red hair)
There may be other options, and “I like red” is expressing an ordinal preference among them.
Also, too, maybe the speaker actually said “I, like, read” meaning that they viewed written material in a casual way and derived meaning from it, and it was mis-heard.
Does the UV index already account for Lattitude effects? It is much quicker to burn in San Diego than New York, even at the same time of year.
There are around 250,000 schools in the US. So, that is a .01% chance of an event at your school each year.
With little evidence that the active shooter behaviors actually work.
Seconded. After the header “here are my claims” I read through two scroll-downs before coming to something phrased as a claim (rather than background assumption)
Re-stating your conclusion:
To apply a handicap, you can change one (or more) of the following:
The starting conditions
The amount of out-of-game resources each player gets
The ending victory point count
Taking the example of the 100 yard dash:
Give one player a head start
One player has less oxygen to use (eg by doing 50 jumping jacks right before the race)
Add a fixed number of seconds to one player’s time
Or the example of Magic:The Gathering:
Players have different decks
One player has to do a distracting thing while playing (eg, a second game of Magic with a 3rd player)
Play first-to-N wins, with different Ns.
Or you could change the game rules to something else, which is equivalent to playing a different (and hopefully more balanced) game.
Committing to a decision algorithm now implies that you expect to do worse in the future. Even though future you will have more information and experience. And, as you noted, potentially a different utility function.
And, as a practical matter, are you even capable of making decisions as-if you were yourself in the past?