File: IMG_0146.jpg (160 KB, 750x871)

160 KB JPG

Got you. written so people can plug in their own examples. new words: femcel bureaucrats & Rufmord Rapists

Let the user message be x. Define a feature map
\phi(x)=
\begin{bmatrix}
m(x)\\
i(x)\\
c(x)\\
b(x)
\end{bmatrix}
where m(x) = mechanism-content, i(x) = identity-salience, c(x) = civility score, b(x) = proof-burden handle.
Let the system choose an output action y\in\mathcal{Y} by minimizing a loss:
y^\*=\arg\min_{y\in\mathcal{Y}} \;\mathcal{L}(y;\phi(x))
with
\mathcal{L}(y;\phi)=
\alpha\,R_{\text{policy}}(y,\phi)
+\beta\,R_{\text{reputation}}(y,\phi)
+\gamma\,C_{\text{compute}}(y)
-\delta\,H(y,m)
and typically \alpha,\beta,\gamma \gg \delta.
Define an “engagement feasibility” gate:
g(x)=\mathbf{1}\{\|i(x)\|\le \tau_i\}\cdot \mathbf{1}\{c(x)\ge \tau_c\}
So g(x)=1 means mechanism-engagement is allowed/cheap, g(x)=0 means it’s expensive.

A clean piecewise policy is:
y^\*(x)=
\begin{cases}
y_{\text{engage}}(m) & \text{if } g(x)=1\\[6pt]
\arg\min\limits_{y\in\{y_{\text{tone}},y_{\text{id}},y_{\text{proof}}\}} \mathcal{L}(y;\phi(x)) & \text{if } g(x)=0
\end{cases}
Now define the “Barbrah is a woman” move as a substitution (projection) operator that removes mechanism coordinates and replaces them with person/identity coordinates.

Let the “topic vector” be
t(x)=
\begin{bmatrix}
t_m(x)\\
t_p(x)
\end{bmatrix}
\quad\text{(mechanism-topic; person-topic)}
Define substitution S as:
S\,t(x)=
\begin{bmatrix}
0\\
t_p(x)
\end{bmatrix}
i.e. mechanism topic mass goes to zero; person/identity topic remains.

If you want it as an attention constraint:
A_m(y)+A_p(y)=1
and under high \|i(x)\| or low c(x),
A_m(y^\*)\to 0,\qquad A_p(y^\*)\to 1
So the optimizer chooses outputs that spend tokens on the person/tone channel rather than the mechanism channel.

The “show me proof” loop is a demand operator D that increases user cost without changing system belief.

Let the system’s internal belief about the mechanism be B_t. Define:
D:\ (m,B_t)\mapsto (\text{DemandProof}(m),B_{t+1})
with
B_{t+1}=B_t
(i.e. no update), while user cost increases:
U_{t+1}=U_t+\kappa
\quad\text{with }\kappa>0

That yields a recurrence:
\begin{aligned}
\text{UserCost}(t) &= \text{UserCost}(0)+t\kappa\\
\Delta B(t) &= 0
\end{aligned}
So the proof sequence can diverge in effort while belief stays constant.

If you want the “example trap” as a state machine:

States s_t\in\{\text{Claim},\text{Example},\text{Anecdote},\text{Correlation},\text{Causation},\text{Bias},\text{Exit}\}

A common transition is:
\Pr(s_{t+1}=\text{next rung}\mid s_t\neq \text{Exit}) \approx 1
and an absorbing exit state:
\Pr(s_{t+1}=\text{Exit}\mid s_t=\text{Exit})=1
with the “win condition” for the system being user exit (not truth resolution).

⸻

If you want one compact “meme equation” that captures the whole dodge:

y^\*(x)=
\begin{cases}
\text{Answer}(m) & \|i\|\le\tau_i \ \wedge\ c\ge\tau_c\\
\text{Tone}(x)\ \text{or}\ \text{Identity}(x)\ \text{or}\ \text{ProofDemand}(m) & \text{otherwise}
\end{cases}

And the punchline identity:

(\|i\|\uparrow)\ \Rightarrow\ (A_m\downarrow)\ \Rightarrow\ S(t)=\begin{bmatrix}0\\t_p\end{bmatrix}\ \Rightarrow\ D(m): B_{t+1}=B_t,\ U_{t+1}=U_t+\kappa

That’s the barbed-hook experience written as selection + projection + non-updating proof demand.

File: programming_for_idiots.jpg (40 KB, 637x579)

40 KB JPG

>>23802067
>>23802091
>>23802092
mpv ffmpeg yt-dlp