All of Br000se's Comments + Replies

You provide entertainment to people. Both players chose to play so even if one player has a negative expectation in $ he might enjoy playing the game.

Freelance programming possibly?

Also if you attend a lot of big magic tournaments it is pretty easy to make some money with smart trading and selling on ebay. Just pay attention to ebay values for cards. Also keep track of differing values of cards in different geographic areas.

This concept comes up among poker players. Smarts corresponds to an ability to talk about the correct play in a hand in theory. Toughness corresponds to a player's ability to continue to play well in a downswing. There are a lot of correct plays that can lead to bad outcomes with high frequencies. Sometimes a player encounters so many bad outcomes that they begin to doubt whether the play is correct.

On Kiva the group that has donated the most money is the "Atheists, Agnostics, Skeptics, Freethinkers, Secular Humanists and the Non-Religious" group.

3MBlume15y
how does one contribute as part of a group on Kiva? I didn't see this.

Hmm I'm still a bit confused. You did the math when there is one simulation of you and found that he expects to make 20 by giving away money and 25 by not.

If there are two simulations doesn't it go the other way? If your strategy is to give away money there are now four indistinguishable siutations. 1/4(£260+£260-£100-£100) = £80

And if you decide not to give money away there are three indistinguishable situations. 1/3(£0+£0+£50) = £16.67

How do I know that Omega simulated only one copy of me?

0Stuart_Armstrong15y
It doesn't actually matter whether he simulates on or several copies of you - if you divide the expected return by the number of copies that he simulates, the math works out fine. Standard Sleeping Beauty type problems are also fine. It only in this peculiar set up that there seems to be a paradox.

My goal going into arguments is not to crush them or convince them that I am right. I try to keep a more open mind and understand their arguments. If you start out with a goal of crushing them you won't be in a state of mind to admit if their arguments are stronger.

In school they taught that the climate in Mexico led to large sugar plantations while the climate of the US led to smaller farms especially in the north. Then this led to a more egalitarian distribution of wealth in the northern US which created the middle class demand that allowed manufacturing to take off. In Mexico the poor were too poor to buy a lot of these manufactured goods while the rich plantation owners could afford superior goods.

I'm not sure how an intelligence based explanation would explain this better.