@hidden@cinerion I think we are saying the same thing. I didn't mean "perfect" as in possessing all good qualities, rather "perfect" as in not needing anything, totally completed. I find that "NPCs" tend to be complete in perfectly fitting in. Maybe my personal criterion for "not being an NPC" requires that the person have some kind of angst, some discomfort, something which separates them from society's expectations in some way.
Anyways, I would say that it is only "imperfect" people who need to leap or seek a leaper in the first place.
Testing trust with a small leap and then escalating it is definitely built into our brains. It's why doubling scams are so effective, and why Nigerian princes do often send you a small initial payment.
What you said also reminds me of the main advice I give to people who want to get closer to others. Make yourself available (in time and effort) in small ways - only then can you be someone they consider trusting with the big stuff.
On a related note, I personally feel like it is much easier for people to fall in love if they are also collaborating on something else. Not just because they have something in common, but also because the decision to love becomes a 'doubling down' rather than a random bet on something totally disconnected from anything else. (This is one of many reasons I'm skeptical of apps.)
@jeffcliff@hidden@cinerion I think the article was mainly addressing same-sex relationships, viewing "straight couples" as an "other." I'd have to check to be sure
@hidden@cinerion The article made me appreciate how little trust is required to survive in the modern world. All you need is to trust that, tomorrow, the system and your cushy job will still exist. Is it surprising that people forget how to figure out when to trust each other?
I completely agree with the characterization of relationships as Prisoner's Dilemmas. It's just the math abstraction of "investing in a joint venture with someone who can stab you in the back." The issue lies in needing game theory to help you analyze it, when 100,000 years of human evolution have been trying to teach you how to play
All tribal markers are stigmatized and erased, even while diversity is nominally celebrated. If I look at someone and see a blank slate, a perfect imitation, how can I trust them?
@hidden Oxygen atoms typically pair-bond, but carbohydrates are large molecules with many single bonds. Therefore, monogamy in 2023 is a *radical* premise, while polycules are often high in carbohydrates
@MercurialBuilding@hidden You can actually live a normal life with your brain compressed to a tiny fraction of its original volume, exactly like the Homer small brain meme:
"A man with an unusually tiny brain manages to live an entirely normal life despite his condition, which was caused by a fluid build-up in his skull."
@nemesis@MercurialBuilding@hidden Hmm... my naive takeaway was quite different - I came away with the impression that axons are a lot stronger and more stretchy than you'd think. Most of the brain already is fluid anyways, I don't think the total volume of neurons changed. But I also don't remember enough to say whether he had cognitive impairment...
If Jeff didn't have the Delta bomb, then CMD could guarantee a survival rate of 2/3 by just camping on one of the inner rooms. When Jeff hits CMD with an Omicron bomb, CMD knows that he'll get to choose one of 3 rooms randomly, so he survives at a rate of 2/3 > 1/2.
But if Jeff has the Delta bomb, then CMD can't use this camping strategy, because Jeff will just Delta bomb and win with probability 1. Or, if CMD switches randomly between the two inner rooms, then Jeff can Delta bomb and win with probability 1/2.
For the 'extra credit,' if Jeff had no Delta bomb, then CMD could achieve a 4/5 survival rate by camping in the central room, as Poalack pointed out. But using the threat of the Delta bomb, Jeff can prevent CMD from camping in one room. (I don't know the numerical answer for the extra credit.)
CMD's apartment consists of 4 rooms arranged in a straight line: [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] On each turn, CMD may stay in the same room or walk to an adjacent room.
NegaJeff wants to kill CMD. To accomplish this task, NegaJeff will use COVID bombs which may be detonated in any one of the four rooms of CMD's apartment. NegaJeff cannot see which room CMD is in, nor can CMD see in advance where NegaJeff is going to bomb.
NegaJeff has one Delta bomb and an unlimited number of Omicron bombs. These bombs function differently:
DELTA: If it misses, then the game ends and CMD survives. If it hits, then CMD dies.
OMICRON: If it misses, then NegaJeff cannot bomb during the next 4 turns (and CMD learns this fact). If it hits, then NegaJeff learns which room CMD is currently in, CMD gets to take one more turn, and then NegaJeff *must* hit CMD with another Omicron bomb. If this second bomb hits, then CMD dies. If not, then CMD acquires a natural immunity (the game ends and CMD survives).
In other words, the Omicron bomb acts like the Pfizer vaccine - it only works after two doses spaced out by one turn.
Your task: Given any real number r < 1/2, explain how NegaJeff can guarantee a kill probability of r or greater.
---
Example:
I will show that CMD can guarantee a survival probability of 1/2 by randomizing his position according to a uniform distribution.
If NegaJeff launches the Delta bomb, then NegaJeff wins with probability 1/4.
If NegaJeff launches an Omicron bomb and misses, then NegaJeff learns that CMD is in one of the *other* three rooms. In this case, CMD must use the 4 free turns to re-randomize his position, restoring the uniform distribution.
If NegaJeff launches an Omicron bomb at one of the two outer rooms and it hits CMD, then CMD should use his one turn to move or stay with probability 1/2, and then NegaJeff's follow-up Omicron bomb will hit CMD with probability 1/2.
If NegaJeff launches an Omicron bomb at one of the two middle rooms and it hits CMD, then CMD should use his one turn to move left or right or stay with probability 1/3, and then NegaJeff's follow-up Omicron bomb will hit CMD with probability 1/3.
---
Extra credit: What if CMD's apartment is a 3 x 3 grid?
@hidden Licking a photograph transfers the traces of light coming from the object, via the tongue, on to taste buds. A well-licked photograph is the *taste of light*. The light is reborn in the mouth; the mouth is in fact a *darkroom*. Looking at a photograph, by contrast, transforms the rays of light into neural signals, that is, into numeric relations. Neural signals are *without taste*. They are *neither sweet nor sour*. Thinking interrupts the *gusto* of life. The visual medium interrupts the magic relation in which the object is connected to the stomach via the mouth. An 'analogue' is something that is similar. Chemistry is an analogue of light. The rays of light coming from an object are preserved in protein-coupled taste receptors. There is, by contrast, no similarity between light and numbers. The visual medium *translates* light into neural signals. In this process, the light is lost. In looking at a photograph, smooth brains give way to wrinkly brains. It crumples photography.
@hidden@Ukko REJECT pictures, RETVRN to oral traditions of memory and myth growing only richer as the life of each era is incorporated into their depths which age like the wine in the wine-dark sea