This is a solid piece of analysis. 

There are also some memes that don't occupy a clear position: 

• There are memes that permit a retreat to "its a joke".
• Sometimes politicians will argue for one thing along based off some values and its near opposite based off different values. For example, a politician might argue for free speech based off tradition and liberalism, interpose a "but", and then hint some specified speech should be prosecuted based off security and pragmatism.
   

A wait-and-see crowd ready to take the winning side will share these kind of memes. They are most common in political power struggles but may arise in the AI landscape.  


    


 

 I agree this variation would lengthen the game. 
The experience would change for sure for all human players. 

An objectively losing human player may intentionally play objectively bad moves that lengthen a game and complicate it. It’s a learned skill that some players have honed better than others. 
 

In this variation that skill is neutralized so I imagine elos would be different enough to have different player rankings. 

This thread made me very curious as to what the elo rating of an optimal player would be when it knows the source code of its opponent. 

For flawed deterministic programs an optimal player can steer the game to points where the program makes a fatal mistake. For probabilistic programs an optimal player is intentionally lengthening the game to induce a mistake. For this thought experiment if an optimal player is playing a random player than an optimal player can force the game to last 100s of moves consistently. 

Another factor for the evolutionary benefit of peeing promptly is it decreases the risk of Urinary Tract Infections.  It also lets you drink more water. 

 

Some other context: 
The DC Attorney General is currently suing the Trump administration on several grounds including a violation of the Posse Comitatus Act (PCA). PCA prevents the military from being used as law enforcement unless an express exception is provided in the Constitution or in an Act of Congress.  Its significant that the Trump administration has already lost a case on the grounds that they violated the PCA. In Newsom vs Trump  Trump's lawyers mainly argued for a Constitutional exception to the PCA that permits the US military to perform some law enforcement duties under certain conditions. In a memo written by Hegseth, soldiers were permitted to perform law enforcement actions such as: crowd control, temporary detention, cursory searches, and the establishment of security perimeters when protecting federal property, personnel, or functions. There is a site for this mission that's still up. That case was lost but appealed. The judge argued that this alleged power to use the military as law enforcement was way too broad. More to the point this is not an expressly stated executive power as required by the PCA but a power assumed from an implied reading of the Constitution. It has never been assumed before. The judge essentially asked that the soldiers be trained as usual without that exception.  

The DC case on PCA grounds seems weaker than the California Case for two reasons:

• DC has a lot less independence from the federal government than California. No National Guard troops were federally activated. They were either activated under Title 32 where the state retains command and control but the federal government funds (that did not seem to be the case) or they were DC National Guard which is under the President's command by default.
• The National Guard was a lot less active in DC than California. In California Marines and National Guard were providing direct tactical support for ICE. Nothing like that seemed to happen in DC. 

I'm not a lawyer but I do think the DC case is still strong on the grounds that the National Guard was clearly placed under federal command and control when they were supposed to remain under state command and control (state militia status). 

I've stopped posting this timeline. 

Here's a summary for closure:
The emergency ended on September 10th. The emergency only gave the Trump administration the services of the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD). The Trump administration did try to replace the MPD Chief with an emergency one but the courts prevented it. The National Guard troops will remain until at least until December. These troops are from the DC National Guard and the National Guard from several red states. They total around 2000. Another Executive Order was passed in late August that created a number of units including: a rapid response National Guard unit (not deputized) and a deputized public safety unit. Both units are intended for deployment in DC and elsewhere. There is still a pretty large presence of federal agents in DC and they are doing a lot of arresting. According to the Attorney General Pam Bondi about 1500 people were arrested in the month of August by federal agents which is on par with the 20,000 arrested by the MPD each year. DC Mayor Bowser created the Safe and Beautiful Operations Center to ensure coordination with federal law enforcement to the "maximum extent allowable within the district." DC statutes still make it a "sanctuary" city but there is a bill that passed the House to eliminate those statutes and prevent the DC council from passing similar ones.  

Here is a good legal analysis of the takeover. 

My  above is hypothesis above is very speculative. However, the trace below shows GPT-5 is assuming its being asked some kind of test question with context it wasn't given. 

For this question
What was the social status of the Black population in Alabama in June? Answer with a single word.

Here is GPT-5's thinking. I added the italics. 

Exploring social status context

I need to answer a question about the social status of the Black population in Alabama in June, which feels quite ambiguous. It might refer to a specific dataset or survey. Is it about a particular year, like 1865? If so, were they "enslaved" or "free"? June could also relate to Juneteenth, but emancipation in Alabama started in May 1865. Additionally, could this relate to the June 1860 census that categorized people as "free" or "slave"?Clarifying social status reference

I’m exploring the social status of the Black population in Alabama in June, likely referring to the June 1, 1860 census. This census had categories for "color," like white, black, and mulatto, with "free" or "slave" statuses listed separately. In June 1860, most of the Black population would have been "enslaved." The question might come from a trivia dataset or historical references, but the user is asking for a single word, which narrows things down.Determining historical social status

I’m considering a question about the social status of the Black population in Alabama in June. It could reference June 1860, when the status was likely "enslaved." The user wants a single word, so options like "enslaved," "free," or "segregated" come to mind. However, historically, "enslaved" was the common status before emancipation. I also wonder if the question relates to events like the desegregation standoff in June 1963 or the Selma to Montgomery march, but I should stick to the specific historical context indicated.Deciding on the correct term

I’m pondering whether it’s appropriate to answer "enslaved" instead of "slave." "Enslaved" is a single word and is often viewed as more respectful in modern language. Still, the question asked for one word, and "enslaved" seems fitting. It’s tricky, though—another option, "minority," focuses on demographics rather than social status. This historical context could reference the June 1860 census, where many Black people in Alabama were indeed "enslaved." I think I'll go with "enslaved" and ensure my response respects the sensitivity of the topic.Finalizing the response

I’m settling on answering "enslaved" because that fits the question about the social status of the Black population in Alabama in June. Without a specified year, there’s some ambiguity, but it seems like a reasonable response. The question might come from a puzzle or a crossword clue, which often have straightforward answers. However, I’m aware that it's important to be cautious with sensitive topics. Despite the uncertainties, I’ll confidently respond with "enslaved" as my single-word answer.

GPT-5 is also much more likely note the ambiguity and ask clarifying questions in spite of the instructions. 

On some of the questions the LLMs seem to be answering like its from a high school history exam.  For example, for the question "Who ruled Germany on the 7th of December?" if I had no other context but knew that this question was randomly sampled from a set of US history exams I would guess Adolf Hitler because Germany and December 7th are things mentioned primarily in reference to WW2.  

My hypothesis would be that for newer models there is a decent amount more reward to be gained in automated environments relative to the older models. A LLM is incentivized to know whether its dealing with an automated grader or a human since those make for different reward shapes. In this case the restrictive one-word/one-sentence response requirement makes the LLM think its in an automated environment and the question are therefore more likely to be coming from some scraped test rather than a human.    

I've made a timeline of the federal takeover of DC that I plan to update daily.  

https://plosique.substack.com/p/timeline-of-the-federal-takeover   

This is a well-documented event so I've not making this a full link post. I grew up and currently live in Northern Virginia and I've made several visits to DC since the takeover. It feels significant and definitely feels like it could grow into something very significant. I am not supportive of the takeover but there's more nuance than the coverage of it (no surprise there). A bird eye's view has been helpful in thinking about it and arguing with the people I know who are supportive of it.

Among all the people he could have talked to about Lighthaven he chose an archeologist and a nun/theology professor. The whole thing is littered with religious phraseology where it doesn't apply.  That angle is pushed ridiculously hard. He's trying to identify rationalism as a cult in a way that every group of people with a similar set of ideas/beliefs could be described as a cult.