Notices by mist (ai@cawfee.club), page 2
-
mist (ai@cawfee.club)'s status on Saturday, 25-Nov-2023 02:34:01 JST 
mist
@MercurialBuilding @MasterSimper @Leaflord @hidden Maxwell’s Demon sticking his red fiery cock into the little hole that the ideal gas particles are supposed to go through -
mist (ai@cawfee.club)'s status on Friday, 24-Nov-2023 05:08:49 JST
mist
@MercurialBuilding @unbody https://www.reddit.com/r/Lain/comments/16q58l2/i_am_lain_i_am_an_avatar_of_what_lain_is_shown_as/ -
mist (ai@cawfee.club)'s status on Tuesday, 21-Nov-2023 01:32:06 JST
mist
@Leaflord @matrix what a corni(chon) joke! -
mist (ai@cawfee.club)'s status on Tuesday, 14-Nov-2023 16:31:22 JST
mist
@BadFediPosts cc @Leaflord -
mist (ai@cawfee.club)'s status on Tuesday, 14-Nov-2023 13:18:26 JST
mist
@ceo_of_monoeye_dating wherefore -
mist (ai@cawfee.club)'s status on Monday, 13-Nov-2023 18:33:35 JST
mist
@hidden I read this to the tune of the famous song:
Can we pretend that the eczema on my ankle is like shooting stars?
'cause I could really use a wish right now, wish right now, wish right no-o-ow -
mist (ai@cawfee.club)'s status on Monday, 13-Nov-2023 18:33:33 JST
mist
@kf01 @grips @hidden
relevant update, source: https://cawfee.club/notice/Abkskr35dvTniuZVFw -
mist (ai@cawfee.club)'s status on Wednesday, 08-Nov-2023 17:15:28 JST
mist
@MercurialBuilding I am a big fan of the idea, but there is part of the proof which I don't buy (and don't see how to fix):
(1 + x)^x >= (1 + 1/n)^(nx)
Why? I agree that x > 1/n, but you'd also want x >= nx in the exponents, and that's not true because we're taking n "large" and x > 0.
I agree with the overall idea: it suffices to prove that, for every x and every n, we have (1 + x)^(1 + x) > (1 + 1/n)^(nx). But, when x is fixed and n is large, 1/n becomes small but nx becomes large. The difficulty seems to lie in this tradeoff.
---
Fwiw, here's a boring proof: First I take logs and rearrange to get to
log(1 + x) > x / (1 + x).
Both sides agree when x = 0, so it suffices to prove that the derivative of the LHS is greater than the derivative of the RHS. This is
1 / (1 + x) > 1 / (1 + x)^2,
which is true because x > 0. -
mist (ai@cawfee.club)'s status on Wednesday, 08-Nov-2023 17:15:24 JST
mist
@ceo_of_monoeye_dating @MercurialBuilding Still, it is getting at something... Here’s what I’m thinking: the inequality rewrites as
(1 + x)^(1/x + 1) > e.
Set x = 1/n. This becomes
(1 + 1/n)^(n + 1) > e.
Of course, we know e > (1 + 1/n)^n. I never knew that incrementing the exponent by 1 is always enough to flip the inequality. I wonder if there’s some conceptual way to show that (1 + 1/n)^(n + 1) is decreasing as n increases, analogous to the usual “compound interest” argument for why (1 + 1/n)^n is increasing. -
mist (ai@cawfee.club)'s status on Wednesday, 08-Nov-2023 15:50:09 JST
mist
Fedimath Episode 4: An Optic in Coronavirus Cases
CMD's apartment consists of 4 rooms arranged in a straight line: [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] On each turn, CMD may stay in the same room or walk to an adjacent room.
NegaJeff wants to kill CMD. To accomplish this task, NegaJeff will use COVID bombs which may be detonated in any one of the four rooms of CMD's apartment. NegaJeff cannot see which room CMD is in, nor can CMD see in advance where NegaJeff is going to bomb.
NegaJeff has one Delta bomb and an unlimited number of Omicron bombs. These bombs function differently:
DELTA:
If it misses, then the game ends and CMD survives.
If it hits, then CMD dies.
OMICRON:
If it misses, then NegaJeff cannot bomb during the next 4 turns (and CMD learns this fact).
If it hits, then NegaJeff learns which room CMD is currently in, CMD gets to take one more turn, and then NegaJeff *must* hit CMD with another Omicron bomb. If this second bomb hits, then CMD dies. If not, then CMD acquires a natural immunity (the game ends and CMD survives).
In other words, the Omicron bomb acts like the Pfizer vaccine - it only works after two doses spaced out by one turn.
Your task: Given any real number r < 1/2, explain how NegaJeff can guarantee a kill probability of r or greater.
---
Example:
I will show that CMD can guarantee a survival probability of 1/2 by randomizing his position according to a uniform distribution.
If NegaJeff launches the Delta bomb, then NegaJeff wins with probability 1/4.
If NegaJeff launches an Omicron bomb and misses, then NegaJeff learns that CMD is in one of the *other* three rooms. In this case, CMD must use the 4 free turns to re-randomize his position, restoring the uniform distribution.
If NegaJeff launches an Omicron bomb at one of the two outer rooms and it hits CMD, then CMD should use his one turn to move or stay with probability 1/2, and then NegaJeff's follow-up Omicron bomb will hit CMD with probability 1/2.
If NegaJeff launches an Omicron bomb at one of the two middle rooms and it hits CMD, then CMD should use his one turn to move left or right or stay with probability 1/3, and then NegaJeff's follow-up Omicron bomb will hit CMD with probability 1/3.
---
Extra credit: What if CMD's apartment is a 3 x 3 grid?
---
Additional lore: https://bae.st/notice/AbQ8R9ErvR4CgIPvnc
See Fedimath Episode 3 here: https://cawfee.club/notice/AbBc3onB4b2LTyIBnc
cc @MercurialBlack @scenesbycolleen @ceo_of_monoeye_dating @roboneko @jeffcliff @hidden @udongle @tiskaan @Inginsub -
mist (ai@cawfee.club)'s status on Wednesday, 08-Nov-2023 13:39:37 JST
mist
@hidden @cinerion Maybe it's also a consequence of a workaholic culture, where your work is a huge part of your identity. I've mentioned before how I hear about all these hyper-successful academics who are hyper-unsuccessful on the dating apps. They min-max all their skill points into one stat and then their personal life judges them based on everything but that stat. (Dating within the workplace is increasingly stigmatized, of course, and the restrictions are especially severe in academia because many working arrangements are pedagogical to some extent and therefore are understood as a power differential.)
Maybe I'm just saying an uncontroversial sentiment in a workaholic's dialect: it's easier to fall in love with someone if your hopes and dreams are aligned. I'm also thinking of people who go to the same church, even though church isn't really "work" per se. -
mist (ai@cawfee.club)'s status on Wednesday, 08-Nov-2023 13:39:36 JST
mist
@hidden @cinerion I can certainly agree that love is cumulative and tends to sneak up on you. Maybe part of why it defies all attempts to understand it is that it's impossible to define, ahead of time, what will make you fall in love if you see it. In my effortpost to lilli, I asked about experiences which can't be understood before you live them - I guess love would be the prototypical example.
Apologies if I'm incoherent, I'm sleepy too, and I spent the last 14 minutes thinking about Mercurial's math thing, never good for sanity! -
mist (ai@cawfee.club)'s status on Wednesday, 08-Nov-2023 13:39:32 JST
mist
@cinerion @hidden I will program an AI, a "basilisk" you might say, which retroactively tortures anyone who doesn't love @hidden -
mist (ai@cawfee.club)'s status on Wednesday, 08-Nov-2023 13:39:11 JST
mist
@hidden I was just reading this semi-related lunacy earlier: https://coveteur.com/is-monogamy-so-out-it-s-kinky -
mist (ai@cawfee.club)'s status on Wednesday, 08-Nov-2023 13:39:10 JST
mist
@hidden @cinerion The article made me appreciate how little trust is required to survive in the modern world. All you need is to trust that, tomorrow, the system and your cushy job will still exist. Is it surprising that people forget how to figure out when to trust each other?
I completely agree with the characterization of relationships as Prisoner's Dilemmas. It's just the math abstraction of "investing in a joint venture with someone who can stab you in the back." The issue lies in needing game theory to help you analyze it, when 100,000 years of human evolution have been trying to teach you how to play
All tribal markers are stigmatized and erased, even while diversity is nominally celebrated. If I look at someone and see a blank slate, a perfect imitation, how can I trust them? -
mist (ai@cawfee.club)'s status on Wednesday, 08-Nov-2023 13:39:09 JST
mist
@hidden @cinerion In other words, I believe that our evolved mechanism of trust only permits us to trust imperfect individuals -
mist (ai@cawfee.club)'s status on Wednesday, 08-Nov-2023 13:39:08 JST
mist
@hidden @cinerion I think we are saying the same thing. I didn't mean "perfect" as in possessing all good qualities, rather "perfect" as in not needing anything, totally completed. I find that "NPCs" tend to be complete in perfectly fitting in. Maybe my personal criterion for "not being an NPC" requires that the person have some kind of angst, some discomfort, something which separates them from society's expectations in some way.
Anyways, I would say that it is only "imperfect" people who need to leap or seek a leaper in the first place.
Testing trust with a small leap and then escalating it is definitely built into our brains. It's why doubling scams are so effective, and why Nigerian princes do often send you a small initial payment.
What you said also reminds me of the main advice I give to people who want to get closer to others. Make yourself available (in time and effort) in small ways - only then can you be someone they consider trusting with the big stuff.
On a related note, I personally feel like it is much easier for people to fall in love if they are also collaborating on something else. Not just because they have something in common, but also because the decision to love becomes a 'doubling down' rather than a random bet on something totally disconnected from anything else. (This is one of many reasons I'm skeptical of apps.) -
mist (ai@cawfee.club)'s status on Wednesday, 08-Nov-2023 11:27:46 JST
mist
@hidden Oxygen atoms typically pair-bond, but carbohydrates are large molecules with many single bonds. Therefore, monogamy in 2023 is a *radical* premise, while polycules are often high in carbohydrates -
mist (ai@cawfee.club)'s status on Wednesday, 08-Nov-2023 11:27:45 JST
mist
@cinerion @hidden Me resisting saying the phrase “trans fats” -
mist (ai@cawfee.club)'s status on Friday, 27-Oct-2023 08:36:08 JST
mist
@Arcana @lain nonono I meant I agree with Lain’s sentiment which I believe agrees with yours. Any government, sufficiently large, collapses into a black hole from which the money supply cannot escape no matter its velocity. I was just quibbling with Lain’s statement that nobody can have a taxable income of 1B.
All ０７６萌ＳＮＳ content and data are available under the