>>16967652
I press the red button even without the option to survive, fuck you all, i'll sacrifice myself for a good thing here, i see farm stables regulary in my job, non of these animals has ever stand on grass only on shit, every human deserves death for a million reasons

>>16967652
I will press the button that kills anyone who spam posts about the hypothetical button pressing scenario

>>16967652
It sounds like a better series than Pluribus. But the number of jeets that would be pressing the red button, you would be forced to follow.

go back

>>16967652
Waitbutwhy laid out elon’s plan for going to mars back in 2015

https://waitbutwhy.com/2015/05/elon-musk-introduction.html

File: 1755505220044794.jpg (10 KB, 200x194)

10 KB JPG

>>16967652
I won't press a button.

>>16967652
There's no downside to pressing the red button, so obviously you press the red button and assume everybody else presses the red button. The only people who would press the blue button are so mentally deficient that there's no real loss.

>>16967652
>>16970362
blue then suicide and this isn't complicated, it's a one-shot prisoner's dilemma with global scope and >>16970362 has just reinvented the nash equilibrium and congratulated himself for it like my second year students do before i explain why nash equilibria are descriptive not prescriptive, yes defection is the nash equilibrium of a one-shot game, axelrod showed in 1980 that tit-for-tat dominates in iterated play but nobody reads axelrod anymore apparently, the actual problem here isn't game theory it's that this is a one-shot game with no iteration and no reputation effects which means cooperation has to emerge from something other than reciprocity, nowak and may showed in 1992 that spatial structure alone can sustain cooperation without reciprocity, the paper's in nature, 359, 826, i've cited it in every intro lecture for fifteen years and i've watched every single cohort of students still conclude that defection is "logical", the word logical does not mean what you think it means, it's not logical it's just locally optimal and locally optimal strategies are why we have six mass extinctions in the geological record, anyway i press blue then i kill myself not for any poetic reason but because the surviving population in the blue world has just undergone the most severe one-generation selection event in human history and i want that population to have a lower frequency of people who reason the way >>16970362 does, i am not in that population, i reasoned correctly but i'm sixty-one years old and i haven't published anything real since 2019 and my department is being merged with computer science which is not a science, blue then out.

I consider the slim possibility that I might save the lives of a large number of people more valuable than my own life so I would press the blue button.
Only sociopaths would press red

>>16970362
This is the correct answer. At first glance I thought blue is better because "everyone survives," but then I realized that there's no scenario where pressing the red button presents ANY negative effects to you, but not pressing the red button opens up a huge liability. Like, legit I don't understand why this is even a question except to maybe catch out my past self for speed-reading and to catch other speed-readers for not re-reading.

>>16970404
>Like, legit I don't understand why this is even a question except to maybe catch out my past self for speed-reading and to catch other speed-readers for not re-reading.
"Everyone in the world" includes three-year-olds. given that fact, many people will choose blue because they don't want children to die preventable deaths.

File: JC.jpg (35 KB, 469x385)

35 KB JPG

>>16970358
manual labor, innit

>>16970413
But everyone in the world also means that those children will also be able to press the red button in the first place anyways. There are three outcomes then:
1. The choice is not immediate. Therefore, people would be able to tell their children how to vote. Then it would be on the adult.
2. The choice IS immediate, AND private, but people can still discuss openly (i.e. holographic projection meaning you can see your own button, but no one else's, but you can also still see them), meaning the only children in any real danger here are those outside of adult view range.
3. The choice is immediate, AND private, AND people are now isolated from each other. This one is slightly more excusable, but now introduces a huge issue as 30% of Earth's population is under 18. Of that, if you assume that this population is evenly divided among the years, that means that ages 15-18, a small chunk, MIGHT have the development enough to make a logical choice, but the rest won't. Ages 11-15 will maybe be voting emotionally based on what just SOUNDS good, and then ages 11 down will be voting completely randomly for all intents and purposes.

Basically, 25-30% of the entire vote is going to heavily swing the vote in a random direction. Those kids might all just select red because it's a better color. Either they will automatically live, or they will swing the vote so hard that blue will probably pass anyways with the inclusion of the illogical and the illiterate.

There is no reason to choose blue if you are intelligent.

>>16970413
if the universe counts as "the world" then you also have to take into account the moral systems and voting preferences of alien species, which enables the possibility of everyone on Earth dying even if 100% of humans vote blue.

>>16967652
Assuming the rules are adequately explained to everyone, the only reason to every risk pressing blue is to fucking virtue signal.

>>16970413
>Socialists will play Russian roulette instead of taking responsibility for their children.
The button is blue for a reason.

What do twitter "thought experiments" have to do with science or math?

>>16970505
The /pol/ copy bot just brought it here, it was spammed in pol a lot couple days back. So nothing which is the point.

>>16967652
Stop making threads about this you annoying pathetic retarded mentally ill sad lonely faggot.

Stop trying to force this. Stop making off topic threads about this. This isn't relevant to any topical board.

This isn't politics.
This isn't science.
This isn't literature.
This isn't video games.
This isn't television and film.
This isn't history.
This isn't ANYTHING.

NOBODY gives a FUCK about your FORCED TWITTER MEME. STOP sliding threads.
GO the FUCK back.
KILL your FUCKING self.

>>16970514
Yep, you're definitely an immoral red voter.

>>16970366
I appreciate you, old man.

>>16970366
>cooperation ... defection ... prescriptive ... strategy
Holy shit, you are monumentally retarded. Retarded enough to completely fail to grasp the trivial point of the post you're responding to.

File: HHBEjPeaoAAFRvS.jpg (44 KB, 736x745)

44 KB JPG

Interpreted as asked, and what makes the question interesting in the first place, is that we can assume someone will press blue.
(Take some retards, some toddlers, polls which indicate large percentages - it doesn't matter how.)

Fact list:

* "Everybody will vote red / blue" is an event we already rule out.
Arguing from those rejected antecedent is trivial/doesn't contribute to the conversation.

* If you step into the proverbial voting booth, all other people independently press some button also. At the point you choose a button, the ratio is fixed. The chance that the votes are exactly at 50/50 is absolutely tiny. I.e., conditioned on the other's votes having been cast, your singular votes generally doesn't affect what gets a majority. Hence, the action of you voting red "does nothing", while the action of you voting blue puts you at risk.
This is the marginal benefit analysis for the individual. The "game theory matrix" way of arguing. Some people stop reasoning there, which is a mistake. When we discuss the problem, we discuss the constitution of the population.

* Since blue is the optimal (least bad outcome), knowing 1 person will vote blue, a majority group superrational agents will vote blue
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superrationality

* Few even do the rational game theory thinking. And basically nobody is superrational and we won't get people to drop fear of death by discussing a puzzle.

* We can easily find people with constitutions towards either button:
a) The person who is pathologically afraid to die => votes red
b) The person who would commit suicide when they witness millions of children die => votes blue
c) The people who is convinced color C will win => votes color C.

Conclusion:
Because there are people who's constitution commits them to either of the two colors, this entails that there is not "deriving what everybody should vote"

For the majority of people, to vote blue is effectively to bet that there will be many who bet.

>>16970366
you got merged because you're at a regional comprehensive. which is better than community college, but not very good in the grand scheme of things. you're smarter than your students, but a medium fish in a small pond. you're not that smart and this is a retarded take

>everyone who is convinced that voting red is the only choice is insulting and belligerent to anyone who disagrees
surely this is just board culture and not a foundational problem emergent from a certain epistemic position :^)

>>16970543
>Take some retards, some toddlers, polls which indicate large percentages
Blue voters should take responsibility for themselves and their children. The funny thing about this riddle is that you can't actually hurt anyone but yourself, and regardless of collective consensus, nobody HAS to die. But many blue voters will press blue because they're mentally disabled, then other blue voters will snowball it because their ideology compels them to. Then they will collectively whinge about some nonexistent moral dilemma. But if you want to make it about morality, red is the only moral choice BECAUSE it kills blue children.

>>16970553
if you're talking about me, then i never said which one i'd vote for. i'm telling this geezer why his math department is getting merged with computer science, and why his spergy argument from authority isn't a very good one. this is assuming you're not the same person (if you are, it would elucidate a lot -- math and schizophrenia have a strong correlation, as in you are the person posting his schizo crap here a lot). notwithstanding this is obviously a political allegory which flies over your head and everyone else's head in this thread.

>>16970557
blue lives matter?

>>16970561
>blue lives matter?
I'm gonna need some peer review on that.

File: q96zH.png (105 KB, 500x324)

105 KB PNG

>>16967652

File: 5b9lzq.png (3 KB, 342x386)

3 KB PNG

>>16970413
You forgot that it also includes all the animals besides just humans, most of whom can't even comprehend the question, and many of whom aren't even capable of freely moving to enter a polling booth or even press a button.
You didn't think about that, huh, did you?

>>16970553
It's the same as how everyone who says 1+1 is 2 will insult anyone who disagrees when faced with spam, that is to say entirely reasonable.

>>16970581
>Everyone
>Animals
>Animals are human
While all humans are animals, that does not imply dogs are people.

>>16970603
Nobody said that animals are human, streetshitter.

>>16970600
What if we're in Z/2Z?

>>16970604
Everyone is used for humans and only humans.

>>16970660
everyone animal is someone, and all animals are equal in the big 2026 of our science

>>16970560
I wasn't, I would have quoted you if I was. Sorry to hear it got to you though!

>>16970581
the english word "everyone" specifically refers to people. if you are trying to refer to each member of a set that includes non-people, you would instead use "every one".
if you'd like to argue animals are people, go ahead, i'm game.

>>16970765
>>16970660
If you're going to be a pedantic faggot and insist that toddlers are going to vote as well, then no, everyone shall include every being.

>>16967652
Press both, no downsides

>>16970543
>pathologically afraid to die
>being afraid to die for a stupid reason is... le... pathological....

>>16970366
>yes it works in original conditions, but if I change the conditions it doesn't, so you are actually stupid
holy fuck this nigger should have his teaching license revoked, what a retard

>>16967652
Red button.

>Everyone pressed red button, everyone lives and no risk.
>People dumb enough to press blue button still die, society gets better.

Ez

>>16970876
people don't deserve to be executed just because they're infants or happen to be waking up from anesthesia after a surgery or some emergency is distracting them or any number of other reasons they might press the blue button.
Hell, a non-trivial amount of people would be pressing blue specifically out of concern for the safety of young children. Those people don't deserve to die.

>>16970878
It said everyone in the world. Every swinging dick anon. Stop making false parameters to suit your white knight faggotry

>>16970366
Peoples brains typically start to rot at 70 but yours is going at 60

>>16970878
See >>16970557

>>16970557
>Blue voters should take responsibility for themselves and their children
I mean the interesting reading of the problem is that toddlers will get a random vote because they press in isolation.
If parents dictate their children's vote, I'd expect they make them press red. Then it's just about adults and the arguments for voting red are much stronger - and the stronger the pull to red is, the stronger it reinforces itself.

So, donno, being angry about the literal interpretation of the question - that all children do vote in isolation - just so you can call the blue voters retarded ... you can do that, but I don't see the point.

>>16970844
Being afraid to die is natural, it's the most common stance.
You can also be pathologically afraid to die - imagine a person afraid to go out because a brick might end up accidentally land on their head. "pathologically afraid to die" has practical use as a phrase even if everybody is afraid to die.
Most/All blue voters are also afraid of death. While people who are pathologically afraid of it will all vote red.

File: ada3c8334c.gif (3.08 MB, 320x320)

3.08 MB GIF

>pressing the blue button hoping to die

>>16970967
>the interesting reading of the problem is that toddlers will get a random vote because they press in isolation.
No, that's an insane blue voter reading of the problem (and of real life in general).

I think the red button pressers are rabid animals that need to be put down because they're too much of an immediate threat to actual humans that possess consciousness and morality.
I think it's unethical to let red button pressers live.

>>16971013
See >>16970557
You demonstrate the point quite well.

>>16970553
Red pressers are literally nigger criminals from the "how would you feel if you didn't have any breakfast this morning" copypasta. They don't have the theory of mind. The thought of other people having mental states different from their own makes them confused and angry.

>>16971057
you sound pretty angry yourself

>>16971057
I understand your "mental state" as well as any mental health professional, but why is it my problem? Decision problems only concern people who can make decisions. Your tard wrangler (who surely understands this condition you call a "mental state") should be pressing the red button for you.

>>16970981
I mean it's the literal reading as stated. Or does "Everyone in the world has to take a private voting" sound like 1 year olds would be instructed by their parents?

>>16971102
>I mean it's the literal reading
If you're so literal-minded, please consult >>16971101.

File: Soyjak.png (27 KB, 250x250)

27 KB PNG

>Muh toddlers
Is nobody going to address the concern that quadriplegics have no way to press either button? Also, how do you think you're going to get infants to press a button when all you do is throw them into a room on their own? They'll die before any button is pressed.

>>16971116
I'm sure that careful voting booth design can make a toddler press a button. What it can't do, though, is make a toddler vote. Retards like this probably hear the phrase "universal suffrage" and think that applies to toddlers, too. Either way, this faux debate boils down to blue voters demonstrating their damaged psychology and their intuition which always says politics and society should revolve around the feeble minded and the lowest common denominator.

File: corgi-sunglass-chill-corgi.gif (1.49 MB, 399x498)

1.49 MB GIF

toddlers not being able to partake in democrazy is fundamentally unjust

>>16971126
>Infant
>Toddler
Good morning, Saar

>>16971128
is the dual injustice to elders being able to partake

>>16971144
Nta but nobody above the age of 60 should be allowed to partake in democracy.

Too many stupid people in the recent comments

>>16971158
Why not?

>>16971274
For starters, to avoid something like 2020/21 happening again.

>>16971288
>to avoid something like 2020/21 happening again.
I interpret your lack of specificity as insecurity and defensiveness.

>>16971298
i think he wants no old people and lots of illegals in order to win the usa election

>>16971298
Cute projection.

>>16971324
Cute failing-to-answer-the-question-again. I interpret your lack of specificity as insecurity and defensiveness.

>>16971327
I already answered your question.

>>16971335
Imagine having a position so weak you have a feminine fear/avoidance response every time you're asked to elaborate on it.

>>16970413
My kid would press the red button. Retard blue kids BTFO

>>16971337
You didn't ask me to elaborate on anything.

>>16971350
wow, you really btfo'd him there. but can you elaborate?

>>16967652
Operating on the assumption that one vote matters (it doesn't), I'll press red.

Blue buttoners do not deserve to live.

>>16971352
On what?

>>16971356
on what you mean by barring old people from voting to preventing a year from happening again

>>16971357
prevent*

>>16971357
Obviously referring to the lockdowns and general insanity during those years. It showed that they have no genuine morals or ethics - especially when for decades prior, you'd hear the same people espouse the idiocy of such measures, and the necessity of negative rights in the prevention of draconian rule. People have proven themselves to be purely self-serving, and old people specifically will do anything and everything to cling on to their last few years of life and maintain their social and economic standing. They have zero interest in the long-term future, and as such cannot be trusted to engage in society with good faith; e.g. they were more than happy to cause tremendous disruption to children's development purely for their own self-interest.
Also
>barring old people from voting
Never said specifically voting. I said they shouldn't be allowed to partake in democracy; they should not only be barred from voting, but also from holding authority over anybody. Again, lockdowns were a specific example, but you see that when old people hold positions of power or authority, they rig the system in favor of their own short-term success with a total disregard for anyone else or the long-term effects.

>>16971361
>Obviously referring to the lockdowns and general insanity during those years
old people voted for lockdowns?

>>16971363
>old people voted for lockdowns?
Yes.

>>16971363
>congress run by old people
>congress voted to legislate lockdowns
yes, they did. retard. (i haven't read the convo, it's obv ur dumb)

>>16971364
>>16971365
Psychotic patient.

>>16971367
Feminine fear/avoidance type response. Your insecurity and defensiveness is really shining through.

>>16971369
No wonder you kept avoiding and deflecting, I guess you knew on some level that your "opinion" is just incoherent mental illness.

>>16971371
You asked if old people voted for lockdowns. It is an objective fact that there exist old people who voted for lockdowns. Why are you getting so emotional?

>>16971372
I'm getting emotional because you're my friend, anon, and it's hurting me to see you having this incoherent psychotic breakdown. :^(

>>16971374
What (specifically) do you think is incoherent about what I've said, and why do you think it's incoherent? I suppose deterioration of reading comprehension is another good reason why old people should not be allowed to partake in democracy.

>>16971367
i accept your concession. look up the average age of your congressmen. idgaf if you're american or not, this shit applies globally. report back. you do know it was congress who enacted lockdowns right?
>ackshually it was the state!!1!!!
yeah, and states have elderly congressmen or governors, retard.

File: 1763555654521566.jpg (111 KB, 1079x1171)

111 KB JPG

I would lobby and phonebank for the blue side. I would personally still press the red button. This way I get the best of both worlds. I did the morally right thing and still guaranteed my own safety.

>>16971382
>Oh no! A trolley is heading towards the track
kek

>>16971382
This isn't the same problem as OP. You would need to change it to "push the red button and a bunch of random children and disabled people die"

>>16971387
>a bunch of random children and disabled people die
It doesn't say that anywhere in the OP.

So it's the prisoner's dilemma, but they got rid of the essential part of the dilemma. Why are you retards trying so desperately to overcomplicate it and pretending that it's some kind of moral quandary?

>>16971389
it's an obvious consequence of the way the OP is phrased.
The fact that a large amount of ignorant/naive/confused people would press blue irrationally is literally the only reason that anyone would rationally pick blue, to protect those people. If you reframe the question to not factor in those people it's not even vaguely close to being the same question anymore.

>>16971403
>A large amount of ignorant/naive/confused people would press blue irrationally
It doesn't say that anywhere in the OP.

>>16971406
The OP says every person on the planet has to make a private vote. Everyone. Are you telling me that you believe that if you put a 1 year old child in a private room with two buttons, that the 1 year old will make a purely rational decision factoring in game theory before slapping a button?
If you changed the question to a completely different question like if only sober rational adults are forced to vote then I agree the only rational choice is red, but in the context of OP where a huge amount of individuals who can't possibly make a rational choice are swept up in things it's just not the same.

>>16971408
>Hurr durr everyone includes 1-year-olds
Are you telling me that you believe if you put a quadriplegic, or a newborn infant in a private room, he will be physically capable of pressing a button?

>>16971392
It's only equivalent to the prisoner's dilemma if you're precommitted killing let babies, retards, and demented seniors.

>>16971413
You still haven't addressed how you think a baby or a quadriplegic is going to press a button when left in a private booth on his own.

>>16971415
Obviously every set of buttons appears to the person that's supposed to press in one a way that allows them to press it. The buttons are magically summoned by an omnipotent game theorist after all.

>>16971420
So you're just arguing in bad faith. Got it, thanks. Red button remains the only reasonable option.

>>16971423
>arguing in bad faith
No, I'm arguing from formal game theory. The problem poses that everyone must vote. This implies that everyone is able to vote, which must be supplied by construction. Sure, claiming
>an omnipotent game theorist did it
is flippant, but it is strictly not bad faith, but rigorous.

>>16971455
Then you can also safely assume that everyone understands what the vote is about.

>>16971475
Fair point. But knowing the task still doesn't predetermine that those parts of "everyone" that are incapable of long-term planning (like babies and a chunk of the elderly) understand the implications of the vote.

>>16971375
>>16971380
>What (specifically) do you think is incoherent about what I've said
There's no relation between democracy and lockdowns. The public didn't vote for lockdowns. The public didn't vote for representatives that ran on a lockdown platform. This fact applies to old people as much as it does to every other segment of the public. Your entire mongoloidal argument (through your obvious samefag) seems to be that old people are responsible because politicians are old, but by the same token, radfems can argue that men should be barred from democracy because politicians are men. But there's no sense reasoning with a psychotic patient. More generally, there's no sense talking to imbeciles who unironically believe """democracy""" ever existed or will ever exist, let alone in a way that some generic demographic could cause or prevent any high-level agenda.

>mouth-breathing mongoloids are still arguing about babies pressing buttons
>mouth-breathing mongoloids literally don't understand the difference between voting and pressing buttons
Lel. Typical for voters and especially blue voters. :^)

>>16971392
The colors aren't random. It's a political allegory which amusingly this board is incapable of grasping.

every blue argument involves hypothetical infants somehow

>>16971622
>every blue argument involves hypothetical infants somehow
It's especially funny because they generally don't have kids and viciously hate others people's kids.

>>16971622
>Blue wishes to save hypothetical infants
>Red wishes to kill living infants
There's a correct choice here. And it's not the one you made.

>>16971654
OP's pic essentially rules out infants etc. but it does a great job baiting deranged socialists into arguing that everyone should risk suicide in the name of socialism.

>>16971661
ask me how i know you don't have children, and never had a relationship where you thought about proposing.
>inb4 lying
you're free to lie and say you're in a happy and perfect marriage with le heckin based wife and 4 beautiful kids etc., but that is not the point. think about how i can tell you're childless and loveless.

>>16971681
I don't even need to ask. You "know" it because you're mentally ill, just like how you "know" that "everyone" in a context of voting includes persons that inherently can't vote.

>>16971682
you have two choices here. you can either "win" this exchange by lying, or you can try to be a better person whom a woman would love, and eventually maybe even have a family. what's more important to you? silly question on my end, i know. you'd rather "win". enjoy the next two weeks of religiously watching this thread lol

get a job, loser

>>16971637
>It's especially funny because they generally don't have kids and viciously hate others people's kids.
objectively and scientifically true

>>16971684
>>16971681
>ask me how i know
I don't even need to ask. You "know" it because you're mentally ill, just like how you "know" that "everyone" in a context of voting includes persons that inherently can't vote.

Not reading anything else from your seething and mentally ill posts. :^)

>>16967652
How does this work with pregnant women? Do they have to wait to give birth so their baby can vote?

>>16971696
her body her choice, incel red voter. guess how i know you will never be loved by a woman?

>>16970391
>I consider the slim possibility that I might save the lives of a large number of people more valuable than my own life
You'd be saving people with negative value, too. It would even out.

>>16970415
>your own button
Twitter post writes "the button." There's only one.

>>16971588
you could just model the voting patterns of the mentally feeble and children into the problem, and compute an EV, rather than just assert a moral position based on nothing.

what has more value, you surviving without your children or some random portion of children surviving in a world without "sympathetic adults"
you don't even have to answer the question, but you can parameterize the problem this way and do the calculus.

>>16967652
I wonder how much of this argument is unconsciously predicated on religious/political associations of the colors.

would people argue differently if the buttons were labeled with "oval" and "concentric circles"

>>16971588
From a formal game theory point of view, it does.

File: Political parties.png (119 KB, 1181x700)

119 KB PNG

>>16971619
So it's a centre-left vs left-wing debate? Why are there no other colored buttons for other political points of view?

>>16970735
>I would have quoted you if I was.
That doesn't sound like the behavior of someone who doesn't quote others, but okay.

>Sorry to hear it got to you though!
Oh no he heckin replied to you in a thread. You literally destroyed him! It's so over...

>>16971703
I honestly can't tell if this is satire or not, but it is funny. I'll give you that.

>>16971730
It's meant to highlight the psychopathy of Republicans.

>>16971809
That's weird.

>>16971818
Yeah, you're right. Sorry. I've been a bit mentally unwell since the last elections.

File: 1778170186829501.png (362 KB, 1920x1394)

362 KB PNG

>>16967652
>DUUUUUUUUUUUDE THE MORE THE BETTER
I press red
>BUT DUDE WHAT IF BLUES DIE
More room to nature

Breakdown:
—Rational actors will pick red(this will be 20% of voters at the minimum)
—Those who won't understand the rules and pick whatever color they like(babies, tards) will pick red since it's bright(10% of voters)
—Adults/teens confused by the wording will pick blue(about 30% of voters)
—Suicidal hoes will pick blue(1%? more? less?)
—Superrational actors will pick blue since they trust everyone to do the same(10%?)
This leaves you gambling with the remaining 30% of voters. I love gambling but I'm going with red. If anyone gets on you about picking red just say gambling is a sin

>>16971868
>Superrational actors will pick blue since they trust everyone to do the same
You don't know what superrationality means.

>>16971868
>Superrational actors will pick blue since they trust everyone to do the same

Or red, since if everyone chooses red, no one dies either.

Of course, superrational actors have no way of knowing what everyone else will pick since there's no optimum strategy in this situation.

Now, you could object and say, "they would choose blue, since if any choose blue, it would be irrational to choose red," but I could make an argument for the exact opposite, too: they know they're all rational, and they know that picking blue "forces" others to snowball onto blue, therefore any other superrational voter won't choose blue and will instead have to choose red.

My point isn't that a superrational voter would choose either red or blue, but that a superrational voter wouldn't be able to determine what they should choose (i.e. their superrationality wouldn't help them.)

>>16970366
This is the intellectual equivalent of flipping the chess table and then lecturing your students about proper wargaming simulations.
You didn't win the chess game. You didn't even play it.

>>16971732
>>16971727

i press the blue and hope i fucking die, i mean this with 100% sincerity

>>16972421
based

>>16967652
hypothetically what if you were gay and i killed you.

>>16967652
> 51[B]>49[R] = 100%
> 51[R]>49[B] = 51%
> [R] has 100% chance of continuing regardless if [R] or [B] succeeds
> [B] has 0% chance of continuing if [R] succeeds

>>16967652
>Thoughts?
I think this is the lowest effort OP I've ever seen here, and the topic is so barmy they ban people for it even at /pol/.

Am I retarded, or naive? If everyone presses the blue button, then we all win
Easy as