Physical fragility.
I disagree with the commenters below-- I think you're fairly likely to find yourself wanting to be in a relationship if you're not careful. I'm a female, and I don't want to get married or have kids. Unfortunately, I'm 24, and some part of me/the body is really trying to marry me off and give me baybehs. So I try not to take in too much media that normalizes this vs. normalizing my goals, I don't babysit, and I am open about my intent so as not to attract invitations.
Injection is not just because of pricing. It's not that expensive-- $/effect is greater than many other opioids. Addiction behavior is known to manifest around drugs that have quick onset, quick fade of effect, and an intense peak. Injection yields this. Also snorting it will tear up your nose, possibly because you haven't filtered it yet (which virtually everyone does before IVing).
I don't know about other cities, but I've used heroin in NYC off and on for almost 5 years, and I can safely say that, although I attempted to control for nutrition etc., I almost always had some deleterious effects on my skin etc. from (presumably) additives, even using "pure" stuff. If you're taking something in intravenously, very pure is not pure enough.
I wouldn't state the motivation for a "diverse charity portfolio" as positively desiring warm fuzzies-- rather, I think the aversion to a mixed set (note that I doubt we would usually want an only-hands-on set of charities-- too much work and would feel like pushing a boulder up a hill) is about potential exhaustion at repeatedly doing the one "most efficient" thing to the point that you're not taking 60 seconds of mental refreshment. Psychological viability is the missing element here, causing us to intuitively sense that the proposal isn't actually best, utility calculation be as it may (the actual calc would not have such problems).
Prediction <-> our choice, if we use the 100/100 record as equivalent with complete predictive accuracy.
The "weird thing going on here" is that one value is set (that's what "he has already flown away" does), yet we are being told that we can change the other value. You see these reactions:
1) No, we can't toggle the other value, actually. Choice is not really in the premise, or is breaking the premise.
2) We can toggle the choice value, and it will set the predictive value accordingly. The prior value of the prediction does not exist or is not relevant.
We have already equated "B wins" with "prediction value = B" wlog. If we furthermore have equated "choice value = B" with "prediction value = B" wlog, we have two permissible arrays of values: all A, or all B. Now our knowledge is restricted to choice value. We can choose A or B. Since the "hidden" values are known to be identical to the visible value, we should pick the visible value in accordance with what we want for a given other value.
Other thoughts:
-Locally, it appears that you cannot "miss out" because within a value set, your choice value is the only possible one in identity with the other values.
-This is a strange problem, because generally paradox provokes these kinds of responses. In this case, however, fixing a value does not cause a contradiction both ways. If you accept the premise and my premises above, there should be no threat of complications from Omega or anything else.
-if 1 and 2 really are the only reactions, and 2 ->onebox, any twoboxers must believe 1. But this is absurd. So whence the twoboxers?
Assuming that Omega's "prediction" is in good faith, and that we can't "break" him as a predictor as a side effect of exploiting casuality loops etc. in order to win.
All the time. Or they don't know what it is, but they're reacting to the traditional presentation (heels).