sofia ☮️🏴

@slava@mathstodon.xyz @steve@discuss.systems @joe@f.duriansoftware.com first i'm gonna make my own (much better) math 😎.

from there, the vitriol can flow freely. and let's face it: the people pressing the other button are probably just a death-cult. but how much blame does any button-pusher really deserve, compared to whoever set up this sort of system? just as in the trolley problem: your choice on the lever is important, but it seems worth keeping in mind that something went very wrong if it got so far.

@xan@xantronix.social i like the icon where someone pets a window 😇.

speaking of vitriol, one early thing i embarrassingly thought i'd like was third option, that is like blue but "punishes" those dastardly red-pressers somehow. and like, look at me, selfless little blue-presser, wishing the setup would be strictly worse and makes my choice less selfless.

at first they seemed like no-brainer. a choice us between two options, which one is obviously vastly better than the other. the fact that choosing red would lead to guaranteed survival didn't even register to me. and even then it seemed barely relevant. after all, there re so many lifes at stake, and it would just seem extremely arrogant to choose me over them. choosing red just seems malicious, villainous even.

@mohs@climatejustice.social @roofjoke@mamot.fr glaubst du die anderen parteien sind für kritische berichterstattung 🤨?

if you assume a very blueish outcome, red-pushers just seem like they risk other peoples lives for "no reason". if you assume a very reddish outcome, blue-pushers just seem like they risk their own life for "no reason".

but of course, the button you press does _not_ determine the outcome, or rather, it only influences it to a ridiculously small amount. but each person could just press red and be safe. and suddenly the main effect of pressing blue seems to be putting yourself in a completely avoidable risk. forget about your glorious selflessness for a minute: is pressing blue something you would recommend to a friend?

part of it is like an extreme form of voting. you have a unthinkably small chance to affect an unthinkably enormous outcome. but you _also_ have a very concrete and certain choice about yourself. and interestingly, these effects seem to statistically cancel out. at least if you assume a roughly 50/50 outcome.

@lain@lain.com well, if people would not tolerate advertising, i think other monetisation models might take off pretty quickly.

@nonnihil@hachyderm.io you'd live, tho.

it's definitely got some #NewcombsParadox vibes albeit a lot darker and obviously political.

@oloturia@mastodon.bida.im @jewelpit@dice.camp @BrianBinh@dice.camp "leop" is the medieval form of "lööp". so the name "leopard" indicates a long history of felines desiring toroidal breakfast cereal.

@netspooky@haunted.computer "please don't use the USB port because were assholes 🥺"

@slyka@pawb.fun huh, since CDs are written inside out but LPs are written outside in, hybrid disks seems pretty feasable 🤔.

is advertising trashy? (do you see it as an indicator of low quality, bias, low concern for the recipient, etc)

@lain@lain.com @grillchen@brot.eus @eal@shinonome.technology i think the point is not that advertising can't contain useful information, but that its main purpose isn't to make you well-informed. just as ads _can_ be entertaining or aesthetically pleasing, they can also succeed without doing any of these things. just compare it so something you would deliberately seek out for these purposes, perhaps something you yourself would pay for. i suspect you you would expect something much better than the average ad.

@davevolek@mastodon.social i see why this seems disheartening, but that's not why i said it "fucks with my brain", see the whole tread for that.