Notices by mist (ai@cawfee.club), page 3
-
mist (ai@cawfee.club)'s status on Saturday, 21-Oct-2023 14:59:13 JST 
mist
@kilostere
cc @ceo_of_monoeye_dating -
mist (ai@cawfee.club)'s status on Tuesday, 17-Oct-2023 20:35:18 JST
mist
Fedimath Episode 2: How to Survive Fediblock
There are 100 instances located at points 1, 2, ..., 100 on the political spectrum (the real number line).
There are N users who move from instance to instance. There are no alt accounts: each user uses exactly one instance at each moment in time. Users may move from their current instance to any politically adjacent one. (This means that, starting at instance 5, they can move to 4 or 6.)
Eliza Fox wishes to destroy the fediverse, while Jeff Cliff wishes to protect it. At the start, Jeff chooses the starting distribution of users. Then there are 99 turns, each of which has three phases:
- First, Eliza chooses an instance to Fediblock, destroying it completely.
- Second, Jeff moves each user of the now-destroyed instance to any politically adjacent instance which has not been destroyed. (If no such instance exists, then those users are executed.)
- Third, Jeff may move all users however much he wants (including the users that were already moved in the second phase), as long as they do not enter (or jump over) a destroyed instance.
At the end of the 99 turns, 99 instances have been destroyed, so there is only 1 instance remaining.
(For convenience, let us say that users can be split into fractions without harming them in any way.)
Your task: Explain how Jeff can save the lives of N/50 users. Furthermore, explain how Eliza can prevent him from saving more than N/50 lives.
---
Example: Suppose there are 4 instances and 40 users. First, Jeff will choose the starting distribution of users, and then Eliza and Jeff will take 3 turns.
Jeff chooses to distribute the users evenly, so the user count is (10, 10, 10, 10).
During the first turn, Eliza destroys instance 2, and Jeff moves 4 of those users to the left and 6 of them to the right. The user count is now (14, _, 16, 10). Jeff moves 3 users from instance 3 to instance 4. The user count is now (14, _, 13, 13). Note that Jeff cannot move any users from instance 1 to instance 3 or 4, because they would have to cross through instance 2, which no longer exists.
During the second turn, Eliza destroys instance 1. Since those 14 users have nowhere to go, they are executed. The user count is now (_, _, 13, 13). Jeff moves 2 users from instance 4 to instance 3. The user count is now (_, _, 15, 11).
During the third turn, Eliza destroys instance 3, and Jeff is forced to move all 15 of those users to the right. The user count is now (_, _, _, 26). Jeff has saved 26 out of 40 lives.
---
Extra credit: Let us make the model more realistic by requiring that, during the second phase of each turn, all users of the now-destroyed instance *must* move to the right. (Again, if this is not possible, then those users are executed.) How many lives can Jeff save in that case? (I don't know the answer.)
---
See Fedimath Episode 1 here: https://cawfee.club/notice/AW5NEadIHCuYtgWRt2
cc @MercurialBlack @scenesbycolleen @ceo_of_monoeye_dating @roboneko @jeffcliff @hidden -
mist (ai@cawfee.club)'s status on Tuesday, 17-Oct-2023 20:35:16 JST
mist
@hidden @MercurialBlack @ceo_of_monoeye_dating @jeffcliff @roboneko @scenesbycolleen
I just played through it. One of the best interactive math explanations I've seen, *despite* its quadruple-vaxxed tone. I actually learned something new because I *incorrectly* guessed that "always cheat" would win because they can exploit "always cooperate."
It slightly annoys me that they changed all the standard terminology. The game itself is known as the "prisoner's dilemma." The "copycat" strategy is usually called "tit for tat," and "copykitten" is "tit for two tats." I find the phrase "tit for tat" to be funnier too.
Here's a funny bit of lore about the prisoner's dilemma tournament which the book is based on. It was a real public tournament which anybody could enter their own bot into. Lots of professors submitted incredibly sophisticated strategies, and they were all BTFO by the humble "copycat" which was the winner.
There's a little-known way to gank prisoner's dilemma tournaments. What you do is submit one "main" bot and hundreds of "feeder" bots. Your bots start each round by executing a secret "handshake" move sequence; if they recognize each other as both being your bot, then the "feeder" will purposely let the "main" bot exploit it. If the opponent is not recognized as one of your own bots, then your bot will just play "copycat." As long as you can enter enough "feeder" bots into the tournament, your "main" bot will be guaranteed to win. The implication for cult behavior is clear.
Lastly, there's an error in one of the explanations (see pic). None of the games considered in this slideshow are "zero-sum." Zero sum would mean that the payoffs in every case are exactly opposite: if you get +X, then I get -X. Since the "cooperate" case gives positive payout to both players, this game is not zero sum. -
mist (ai@cawfee.club)'s status on Thursday, 12-Oct-2023 04:17:17 JST
mist
@coolboymew 30 billion SpongeBobs wouldn't be able to soak up how wet your mom gets for me :blobsunglasses: -
mist (ai@cawfee.club)'s status on Wednesday, 11-Oct-2023 09:10:03 JST
mist
@ceo_of_monoeye_dating @crunklord420 Wait, holy fuck. Anyone who watched his stream and did the exact opposite of everything he did would be filthy rich now. This guy is an incredible source of alpha -
mist (ai@cawfee.club)'s status on Thursday, 21-Sep-2023 22:57:31 JST
mist
@kaia @dym skill issue 😔 -
mist (ai@cawfee.club)'s status on Monday, 18-Sep-2023 23:25:43 JST
mist
@Wormwood gotta soap(land) it up baby 😎 -
mist (ai@cawfee.club)'s status on Saturday, 16-Sep-2023 02:15:12 JST
mist
@parker @LukeAlmighty @matrix
classic galactihomo behavior :blobweary: -
mist (ai@cawfee.club)'s status on Thursday, 14-Sep-2023 11:56:35 JST
mist
@cinerion
wait is mercurial defedded from your instance?? 🥀
cc @MercurialBlack -
mist (ai@cawfee.club)'s status on Thursday, 14-Sep-2023 11:56:33 JST
mist
@cinerion @MercurialBlack
get well soon merc('s instance) 🤒 -
mist (ai@cawfee.club)'s status on Saturday, 09-Sep-2023 22:35:05 JST
mist
@ceo_of_monoeye_dating @mekkaokereke @c_9
> 2. Allow users to disengage from threads, exit a conversation they don't consent to, not just block users/instances. Not sure how this would work tho.
Waitaminute. Mastocucks can’t mute threads?? -
mist (ai@cawfee.club)'s status on Saturday, 09-Sep-2023 10:22:18 JST
mist
@coolboymew
the keys to happiness in a capitalist society:
Bondage
Discipline
Submission
Motivation -
mist (ai@cawfee.club)'s status on Wednesday, 23-Aug-2023 20:16:55 JST
mist
@Elliptica @ceo_of_monoeye_dating @roboneko @mushroom_soup @Inginsub @cassidyclown @Kirino I am totally ignorant of the topic, but here are some thoughts:
Isn't a wormhole supposed to be kind of like a black hole? Or rather a black hole could be one end of a wormhole? Naively I think that your momentum changes as you fall into a black hole. So there would be no reason why going through a portal should conserve momentum (in the "external world's" frame).
It seems to make sense to say that "something is in the hole" (in the event horizon?) but not that "the hole is in something" because a thing lives in spacetime while the hole is a distortion of spacetime. Whereas a portal lives "in" a portal wall.
Even in a special relativity setting, if you jump into a portal, it seems unclear when the other portal should spit you out. In a different reference frame, wouldn't you appear to emerge from one portal before you step into the other? I wonder if you could create clones of one of the portals by passing it into the other portal while in some moving reference frame. (spoiler alert - isn't this like the plot of Primer?)
Going along with your portal-powered ship, I was thinking about using a portal to do free work like this: take a strong rod, and move one end of the portal halfway across the rod. That half of the rod emerges out of the other end. Now tilt the first end of the portal back and forth. The other half of the rod starts to swing back and forth. If a portal can move "for free" (just like how the trolley doesn't feel the 'impact' of the tied guys), then we can do work by having the rod push on something with resistance. -
mist (ai@cawfee.club)'s status on Monday, 21-Aug-2023 01:09:47 JST
mist
@lain venerable and venerealpilled comment -
mist (ai@cawfee.club)'s status on Wednesday, 02-Aug-2023 01:12:45 JST
mist
@kf01 @graf -
mist (ai@cawfee.club)'s status on Monday, 31-Jul-2023 14:03:42 JST
mist
@renai @ovinu it's never been more ryover than this -
mist (ai@cawfee.club)'s status on Saturday, 29-Jul-2023 00:53:55 JST
mist
@ceo_of_monoeye_dating @teknomunk Google’s bright primary-colored branding and logo triggers a subconscious association with lollipops. This conditioning is reinforced by the Chrome icon’s circular shape and spiral design. Even the name itself is a phallic reference: has it ever ocurred to you what metal is used to make polished knobs? -
mist (ai@cawfee.club)'s status on Thursday, 27-Jul-2023 06:56:13 JST
mist
@cinerion I agree, and this made me reconsider my dislike of "squatter's rights."
As I understand it, "squatters rights" are motivated by the idea that someone should not be able to just own land and do nothing with it. If someone else comes along and uses the land for a long time, without being disturbed, then the formal landowner can't just kick them out.
I've seen the horror stories of some family coming home after a long while only to find squatters living in their house who they can't evict.
And yet, I agree with you. People shouldn't be able to make money by just sitting on domains that they own but do nothing with. I feel like land is a valid investment but domain names (and NFTs) aren't, idk why. -
mist (ai@cawfee.club)'s status on Thursday, 27-Jul-2023 06:56:12 JST
mist
@ceo_of_monoeye_dating @cinerion I totally get why it's bad for society that someone can buy land and do nothing with it. It's a kind of rent seeking, and I hate rent seeking. But I also believe that, if you own something, you should be allowed to do (or not do) whatever you want with it.
One solution could be that private individuals cannot own land permanently, only lease it from the state. I believe this is China's current system, with typical land leases having durations of 20 to 70 years.
Another topic I feel conflicted on is when the government tries to force someone to sell their land in order to build an airport or railroad. I believe that, if you own something, you shouldn't be forced to sell it. On the other hand, building public infrastructure is usually good for society, and is the person who is being forced to sell really being harmed if the state pays them a multiple of the market value of their property?
Who gets to decide whether a parcel of land is being used "productively"? Should squatters be allowed to stay if they are only helping themselves and not their community? -
mist (ai@cawfee.club)'s status on Thursday, 27-Jul-2023 06:56:10 JST
mist
@cinerion @ceo_of_monoeye_dating @mischievoustomato Squatter's rights would not be a question in the first place if it were impossible for one person to ever travel far enough to reach another person's property.
All ０７６萌ＳＮＳ content and data are available under the