(no subject)

[theweaselking]

Comments

[hakerh.livejournal.com]

Having seen how this plays out, I gotta say I'd leave that button the hell alone. But it'd still be a serious act of willpower.

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

I think I'd pound the offerer to death with it, because they're presenting the classic "BUT WHAT IF THERE WERE AN ATOMIC BOMB AND TORTURING THE DARK-SKINNED GUY WAS THE ONLY WAY TO STOP IT" scenario, and that makes *them* terminally fucking stupid.

[mentallill.livejournal.com]

But how would the mother tell you which of her children were to die if she's tied to the train tracks and there's an unstoppable train that can only be diverted by throwing a big switch that might or might not be electrified by the other prisoner or alternatively start global thermonuclear war and kill everyone on Earth with a probability of 98%?

(mother having to decide which of her two children is to be killed, the other one surviving, both die if she fails to decide. You could save person on train tracks by throwing switch, killing two on the other track. Prisoner's dilemma. Mutually assured destruction. People choose 100% probability of one million dollars over 98% of two million dollars but 2% probability of nothing, but (claim to, but don't actually once they've thought about it) choose .98% probability to win two million dollars over 1% probability to win one million.)

[mentallill.livejournal.com]

Er, what I really meant to say was that the situation could be symmetricised: another person in a similar room is the one you could kill, but they could also kill you. (With a delay, so it's not about who pushes the button first). With communication, one might negotiate a solution. Without communication, what's the point of not pressing the button and foregoing the chance at $1M?

Also, you've been poisoned (http://picturesforsadchildren.com/index.php?comicID=333) anyway.

Sorry for posting so often, I'll stop now.

[sparkindarkness.livejournal.com]

doooooooooooooooooooo it