@Paradox if one algorithm bluffs, and you can see that the other algorithm is the same except that it executes some unnecessary computation whose output is not used, you still would trust it way less. (In the case of humans, you might trust Sam's sibling slightly less because Sam betrayed you).
- So, for two decision algorithms a₁, a₂, you could then try to create a metric M about how similar those two decision algorithms are.
@Paradox - This is easiest to see in cases where you have the (open-source) copies of two algorithms: If, for some specific inputs, one algorithm bluffs, then you *know for a fact* that with the same input the other copy will also bluff on the same input, so you trust the other copy not at all.
- But this extends to imperfect copies:
@Paradox - This is tricky to explain, but I'll try anyway.
- We sometimes reason about the "type of person" that someone is, and use that to make judgments about that person across time. This makes sense if humans implement decision procedures that are *algorithms* which are (mostly) deterministic. E.g., if someone bluffs, then you update your belief about "what kind of person they are": their decision algorithm tends to bluff.
Silence does not speak. Nature does not speak. Even God is silent, except perhaps in the voice that humans find in themselves in the presence of God's silence.
People will argue against this. They will insist that silence bears meaning, and they will tell you what it means. People will say that nature speaks constantly in terms perfectly compatible with contemporary conversations. People will even say that their words are the words of God.
They are all liars and you do not have to respect them
@Paradox if I bluff then all my exact copies are revealed to be also bluffing, and all decision procedures are more highly weighted as bluffing proportional to how similar they are to me
@Paradox bluffing is far worse than revenge, because by not following you reduce the ability of everyone ever to make contracts and commitments with teeth
@Paradox Lawfulness demands I always keep promises and threats, especially the ones made publicly
@nyx lawful girl
I love imagining the mathematical needs of whoever decided on the unicode math characters.
"Gosh, I'm just always needing notation for when two lines are sorta-but-not-completely perpendicular. I know! ⫡"
"What if something's not just bigger than or much bigger than but WAY FUCKING BIGGER THAN? Aha: ⫸"
"I'm doing so many specialized contour integrals and hate writing with words so much that I'm going to invent a specific symbol for line integration with rectangular path around a pole: ⨒"
"I don't know whether A is a subset of B or B is a subset of A, but at least one of those statements is true, so... A ⫓ B."
"Gosh, I have this element S of the Picard group of a symmetric monoidal category and I want to tensor M with the tensor-inverse of S but don't want to create notation for the tensor inverse. As such, consider M⨸S."
- List of things that have international days https://www.un.org/en/observances/list-days-weeks:
- Steelpans
- Philosophy
- Poetry
- Tourism resilience
- Friendship
- The moon
- The Fight against Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing
- No-Tobacco
- Bicycles (not *that* bicycle day!)
- Migratory birds
- Jazz
- Chagas disease
- Support of Victims of Torture
- Parliamentarism
- Kiswahili
I operate by Crocker's rules[1].