Objection

Newcomb's problem is a thought experiment where you're presented with two boxes, and the option to take one or both. One box is transparent and always contains $1000. The second is a mystery box.

Before making the choice, a supercomputer (or team of psychologists, etc) predicted whether you would take one box or both. If it predicted you would take both, the mystery box is empty. If it predicted you'd take just the mystery box, then it contains $1,000,000. The predictor rarely makes mistakes.

This problem tends to split people 50-50 with each side thinking the answer is obvious.

An argument for two-boxing is that, once the prediction has been made, your choice no longer influences the outcome. The mystery box already has whatever it has, so there's no reason to leave the $1000 sitting there.

An argument for one-boxing is that, statistically, one-boxers tend to walk away with more money than two-boxers. It's unlikely that the computer guessed wrong, so rather than hoping that you can be the rare case where it did, you should assume that whatever you choose is what it predicted.

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ml/post/41758664

Obviously it's really about oil but this is a shitpost.

FFIV's great opening

Obviously it's really about oil but this is a shitpost.

FFIV's great opening

Original

Link

I'm aware that in many cases the answer is simply, "they don't," as many people don't seem to have the historical or theoretical curiosity to investigate it. However, I genuinely want to encourage more cerebral discussion around here, so I'll give a brief rundown.

The Second International was a big federation of socialists/social democrats with lots of different perspectives, the largest being Germany's SDP (which still exists today). The aim was to foster international cooperation and solidarity, and to promote the interests of the common people, including preventing the outbreak of a major European war. The Basel Manifesto, passed by a unanimous vote at the International Socialist Congress in 1912, stated:

If a war threatens to break out, it is the duty of the working classes and their parliamentary representatives in the countries involved supported by the coordinating activity of the International Socialist Bureau to exert every effort in order to prevent the outbreak of war by the means they consider most effective, which naturally vary according to the sharpening of the class struggle and the sharpening of the general political situation.

In case war should break out anyway it is their duty to intervene in favor of its speedy termination and with all their powers to utilize the economic and political crisis created by the war to arouse the people and thereby to hasten the downfall of capitalist class rule.

The Second International fell apart when the SDP voted in favor of issuing war credits, indicating support for German entry into WWI, with other social democratic parties following suit. This made any hope of international cooperation impossible. Although everyone said that they opposed the war in principle, they all found reasons to rally around their respective flags and point fingers at each other for who's side was more responsible.

Lenin was an exception to this trend and not only strongly opposed Russian participation in the war, but even went so far as to explictly call for Russia's defeat. The Leninist perspective is that the social democratic parties betrayed the international socialist movement and failed to oppose the war because had become filled with opportunists, people who were willing to go against the interests of the people out of fear of political persecution (or, in the interest of advancing their own careers) and that, from this, we can see that attempts to work within the system to achieve reform are vulnerable such mechanisms of subversion.

The breakdown of the Second International was not just a disagreement between social democrats and Leninists, but also between social democrats of different countries. When their respective countries turned against each other, and the range of acceptable opinions narrowed to the point that opposing the war would be seen as treasonous, they all found reasons to start fighting each other, in a largely pointless war on an unprecedented scale.

Is it really possible to build any sort of international coalition if a party limits itself to the range of opinions that are permissible within a capitalist system? And are modern social democrats even interested in that sort of internationalism anymore?

The government targeted disabled people from some of the poorest communities in the country, who McNamara referred to as, "the subterranean poor."

Many of those drafted were illiterate, they had to be taught to tie their shoes, and they didn't know things like who the president was, even as they were being sent to kill and die on his orders for an imperialist war, for reasons they could not understand.

A book called McNamera's Folly records some stories of those recruited in the program. One thought a nickel was worth more than a dime, because it was bigger. One of them failed to attend training and was sentenced to four years of labor in prison, and the sergeant asked if anyone "wanted to join them in the stockade." Another conscript didn't know what the word "stockade" meant and thought it meant going home, so he said yes - he received the same sentence.

If you can believe it, this was actually sold to the public as a "progressive" program, as part of Johnson's "War on Poverty." The claim was that this would be a way to help the conscripts learn useful skills. in reality, a study by the DoD itself found:

Comparisons between Project 100,000 participants and their non-veteran peers showed that, in terms of employment status, educational achievement, and income, non-veterans appeared better off. Veterans were more likely to be unemployed and to have a significantly lower level of education. Income differences ranged from $5,000 [to] $7,000 in favor of non-veterans. Veterans were more likely to have been divorced.

Obviously.

We all know the meme, but most of the time it's referenced about someone shitty saying something you already agree with. What I wanna hear about is a time when someone who you broadly disagree with actually gave you some kind of new insight about something - even if you didn't end up coming around to their point of view. Maybe they gave you a piece of a puzzle that you were missing, but then you built on that in a completely different way.

Doesn't have to actually be "the worst person you know," interpret it however you like.

This is an interesting little historical artifact I came across the other other day. The "Why We Fight" series was directed by Frank Capra (of "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington") working for the War Department (as it was called at the time) as an attempt to counter the Nazi propaganda film "Triumph of the Will," and to explain to soldiers what they were fighting for, as well as familiarizing them with the basic conditions that allied countries had experienced.

The film has a couple of inaccuracies, and Chinese communists are completely absent from it, focusing entirely on the KMT. And of course, it's full of slurs for the Japanese (I think I actually learned a new one from it). The claim that China "has never once waged an aggressive war in it's 4000 years of history" seems, uhh, somewhat dubious, let's say. It cites the "Tanaka Memorial," a document which historians dispute the existence of. Otherwise, the film is fairly accurate and pretty interesting, if nothing else, because of how much it contrasts with narratives people have put forward in recent times where China was always some uniquely evil villain throughout it's whole history.

But there are a couple points that I found particularly relevant to certain modern discussions, such as:

"This vast area consists of China Proper and four outer provinces."

Tibet, a province of China? In 1944, before the PRC even existed? Huh. Wasn't 1944 during the period of time that people say it was an independent country?

"But how could Japan, only 1/20th the size of China, and with only 1/6th it's population, think of conquering China, much less the world?"

"Modern China, in spite of its age old history, was like the broken pieces of jigsaw puzzle, each piece controlled by a different ruler, each with his own private army. In modern terms, China was a country, but not yet a nation."

Why, that's certainly an interesting point, isn't it? Back when China was divided, with all these different warlords doing their own thing, it was certainly quite a bit more vulnerable to foreign aggression, compared to when it became more unified.

It kinda makes me wonder if the Japanese -or any foreigners, really - ever thought of intentionally trying to drum up internal strife within China, say, in Chinese provinces like Tibet or Xinjiang, for the purposes of weakening and exploiting the Chinese people as a whole 🤔

Anyway, to whatever time-traveling tankie went back and infiltrated the US government to add these things to the film, I just wanted to say, I see you.

This is an interesting little historical artifact I came across the other other day. The "Why We Fight" series was directed by Frank Capra (of "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington") working for the War Department (as it was called at the time) as an attempt to counter the Nazi propaganda film "Triumph of the Will," and to explain to soldiers what they were fighting for, as well as familiarizing them with the basic conditions that allied countries had experienced.

The film has a couple of inaccuracies, and Chinese communists are completely absent from it, focusing entirely on the KMT. And of course, it's full of slurs for the Japanese (I think I actually learned a new one from it). The claim that China "has never once waged an aggressive war in it's 4000 years of history" seems, uhh, somewhat dubious, let's say. It cites the "Tanaka Memorial," a document which historians dispute the existence of. Otherwise, the film is fairly accurate and pretty interesting, if nothing else, because of how much it contrasts with narratives people have put forward in recent times where China was always some uniquely evil villain throughout it's whole history.

But there are a couple points that I found particularly relevant to certain modern discussions, such as:

"This vast area consists of China Proper and four outer provinces."

Tibet, a province of China? In 1944, before the PRC even existed? Huh. Wasn't 1944 during the period of time that people say it was an independent country?

"But how could Japan, only 1/20th the size of China, and with only 1/6th it's population, think of conquering China, much less the world?"

"Modern China, in spite of its age old history, was like the broken pieces of jigsaw puzzle, each piece controlled by a different ruler, each with his own private army. In modern terms, China was a country, but not yet a nation."

Why, that's certainly an interesting point, isn't it? Back when China was divided, with all these different warlords doing their own thing, it was certainly quite a bit more vulnerable to foreign aggression, compared to when it became more unified.

It kinda makes me wonder if the Japanese -or any foreigners, really - ever thought of intentionally trying to drum up internal strife within China, say, in Chinese provinces like Tibet or Xinjiang, for the purposes of weakening and exploiting the Chinese people as a whole 🤔

Anyway, to whatever time-traveling tankie went back and infiltrated the US government to add these things to the film, I just wanted to say, I see you.