To guarantee objectivity I turned to Grok to ask if Elon Musk has ever done this. The answer is yes.
Independent of whether I agree with this, I would like to point out that it is perfectly consistent and reasonable to both want [X] to be banned and also keep doing [X] yourself unless and until it is actually banned.
This happens largely because so many players effectively focus largely on their own survival rather than the survival of their team, so they become afraid to speak out or otherwise try to help the village win, and that the villager side is in various ways the harder one to play well. Whereas if the villagers are good enough at working together, getting people talking and analyzing Bayesian evidence, they can win remarkably often, including a high chance of identifying a werewolf at game start without any hard evidence.
In werewolf, there's a tradeoff as a villager between playing optimally for the current game vs. glomarizing sufficiently that you're not immediately outed next game when you draw the werewolf role.
Speaking from minimal cooking experience, why is this called a reverse sear? Is a non-reverse sear where you sear the outside first and then cook the inside afterward? What makes one of these a better technique?
Does this mean that they reported misalignment and then didn't want to be paid the bounty, or that they rejected the deal altogether?
Notice that "average chord length of a circle" isn't well-defined.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bertrand_paradox_(probability)
Ask a random participant what number they picked, and copy that. Hopefully that won't mess up the average too much.
conscious * each_other * care_other * bored * avoid_wireheading * active_learning
0.4618944000000001
Don't the events have to be independent for you to just multiply like this?
Just call it the Factor Fund.
2Yeah, you should be subtracting 3 rather than 2. (Taking the result mod 3).
Is the "wasabi" listed in the ingredients (8th ingredient) a different part/extract of real wasabi?