this post was submitted on 25 Nov 2024
1300 points (99.2% liked)

Lemmy Shitpost

26948 readers
3575 users here now

Welcome to Lemmy Shitpost. Here you can shitpost to your hearts content.

Anything and everything goes. Memes, Jokes, Vents and Banter. Though we still have to comply with lemmy.world instance rules. So behave!


Rules:

1. Be Respectful


Refrain from using harmful language pertaining to a protected characteristic: e.g. race, gender, sexuality, disability or religion.

Refrain from being argumentative when responding or commenting to posts/replies. Personal attacks are not welcome here.

...


2. No Illegal Content


Content that violates the law. Any post/comment found to be in breach of common law will be removed and given to the authorities if required.

That means:

-No promoting violence/threats against any individuals

-No CSA content or Revenge Porn

-No sharing private/personal information (Doxxing)

...


3. No Spam


Posting the same post, no matter the intent is against the rules.

-If you have posted content, please refrain from re-posting said content within this community.

-Do not spam posts with intent to harass, annoy, bully, advertise, scam or harm this community.

-No posting Scams/Advertisements/Phishing Links/IP Grabbers

-No Bots, Bots will be banned from the community.

...


4. No Porn/ExplicitContent


-Do not post explicit content. Lemmy.World is not the instance for NSFW content.

-Do not post Gore or Shock Content.

...


5. No Enciting Harassment,Brigading, Doxxing or Witch Hunts


-Do not Brigade other Communities

-No calls to action against other communities/users within Lemmy or outside of Lemmy.

-No Witch Hunts against users/communities.

-No content that harasses members within or outside of the community.

...


6. NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.


-Content that is NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.

-Content that might be distressing should be kept behind NSFW tags.

...

If you see content that is a breach of the rules, please flag and report the comment and a moderator will take action where they can.


Also check out:

Partnered Communities:

1.Memes

2.Lemmy Review

3.Mildly Infuriating

4.Lemmy Be Wholesome

5.No Stupid Questions

6.You Should Know

7.Comedy Heaven

8.Credible Defense

9.Ten Forward

10.LinuxMemes (Linux themed memes)


Reach out to

All communities included on the sidebar are to be made in compliance with the instance rules. Striker

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] sergih 8 points 13 hours ago

This guy is already implying that youll like it better if 3 randoms die as 1 loved one, he's choosing for you already in the explanation 😭😭😭

[–] feedum_sneedson@lemmy.world 5 points 14 hours ago

More challenging if there's only one person on the middle tracks.

[–] BenLeMan@lemmy.world 3 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

There is no such thing as an "amount of people". It's "number of people". And the question given is basic game theory, just worded to be nasty.

[–] m_f@midwest.social 5 points 4 hours ago

I think it's "amount" after the trolley is done squishing them into goo

[–] azvasKvklenko@sh.itjust.works 4 points 16 hours ago

As many frags as possible

[–] Tudsamfa@lemmy.world 21 points 22 hours ago* (last edited 22 hours ago) (1 children)

This is only superficially a prisoner's dilemma. In a true one, you cannot get a better result for yourself no matter what the other person does, but here if you assume the other person pulled the lever, there is no reason to pull the lever yourself.

To fix this, you can have 4 relatives on the trolley, and 5 of the opposite faction way back on the middle track. Both do nothing, 1 relative of each is killed. One guy switches the lever, their relatives are all fine, other guy loses 5. Both switch, crash with all 8 relatives on the trolley dead.

[–] TargaryenTKE@lemmy.world 11 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

I see what you're trying to do and you're not necessarily wrong, but you're kinda perpetuating the attitude that inspired someone to make this meme in the first place

[–] Tudsamfa@lemmy.world 5 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

I'm not sure I follow. Should this meme's creator not have been inspired?

[–] TargaryenTKE@lemmy.world 8 points 20 hours ago* (last edited 8 hours ago) (1 children)

Touche. But no, my point was more of a haphazard reflection on how both the Trolley Problem and Prisoner's Dilemma are (by design) built on the idea of reducing human life and/or morality and empathy down to a math problem. It is a method of thought that has its purposes, sure, but I think too many people make that their default setting, which makes dehumanization more common, even if subconsciously. Idk man, I'm going through some stuff

Edit: Fixed a pretty bad typo

[–] postmateDumbass@lemmy.world 6 points 19 hours ago

Given that this problem is given during corporate interviews ... it probably screens for the requisite level of sociopathy.

[–] guest3@lemmy.world 7 points 19 hours ago (1 children)
[–] guest3@lemmy.world 4 points 19 hours ago

with a knife or whatever

[–] Wirlocke@lemmy.blahaj.zone 12 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

How much did I like that one guy really.

[–] postmateDumbass@lemmy.world 8 points 22 hours ago* (last edited 22 hours ago) (1 children)

Are the 5 people on the opposong trolley worthy of death? Will killing them outweigh losing my loved ones?

Or is the one loved one ill save my really hot 1st cousin?

Because with the rest of the family dead, we can live happily ever after without any annoying incest complaints.

[–] BluesF@lemmy.world 7 points 21 hours ago

ಠ⁠_⁠ಠ

[–] postmateDumbass@lemmy.world 10 points 22 hours ago

I ban trolleys. Everyone walks.

[–] Peck@lemmy.world 11 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

Well obviously you should pull the lever once the front wheels past the split but before the rear wheels cross it, so that trolley gets off the rails. This way everybody has the chance to survive and you have defensible position during inevitable court hearing.

[–] somewhathinged@lemm.ee 17 points 1 day ago (7 children)

If you think about this for any length of time and actually imagine this scenario, you realise you don't pull the lever and it's not even close.

[–] socsa@piefed.social 16 points 23 hours ago (2 children)

Wrong. You pick the obviously wrong moral stance and then aggressively yell about it on the internet. The more obvious it becomes that you are wrong, the louder you yell. This protects your ego from introspection.

[–] Ilovethebomb@lemm.ee 2 points 15 hours ago

That's something a lot of people will do for fun.

[–] mynameisigglepiggle@lemmy.world 6 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

SHUT UP. THE RIGHT CHOICE IS TO DROP A NUKE ON EVERYONE.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] kreskin@lemmy.world 4 points 22 hours ago* (last edited 22 hours ago) (1 children)

that right, I'd masturbate on the tracks and on the people tied to the tracks so they are slipery and can slide or bounce to safety. And before you judge me, its the only thing I'm really good at and we should make the most of what we have in life.

Failing that for whatever reason (or maybe in addition to that), I'd asses which of the prospects are lefties and make sure those people in particular live. Sorry centrists and republicans, but we need the votes and some people have to die, but I'm focussed on doing the least harm here.

wildest trolley solution I've seen so far lmao (the slippery jon trons)

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] RizzRustbolt@lemmy.world 14 points 1 day ago (7 children)

Have these folks seen The Good Place? Or are they just approaching the same conclusion by accident?

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] a_wild_mimic_appears@lemmy.dbzer0.com 53 points 1 day ago (5 children)

for the longest time, i did know that game theory did not have anything to do with β€œgames” and that it is somehow connected to the prisoners dilemma, but the concept as such wasn’t very clear to me. If you are like my former me, take 30 minutes out of your day and visit https://ncase.me/trust/ to learn and play around with game theory; it’s a great webpage and it’s pretty good fun all around.

[–] solstice@lemmy.world 13 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I did a few game theory simulations in college and they were always real interesting. In one of them for example, it was a multiplayer game, with multiple interactions. I think it was to simulate global trade basically: you could cooperate with as many players as you want and each time you cooperate you both get a point. If you defect then you get two and they get none. However, all the players could see what the other players are doing, so if you defected they would know and probably would play (trade) with you. The best way to win was to form as many connections as possible and fully cooperate the whole time.

I formed maybe like 20-30 connections with other players and didn't defect. Each point was worth a few cents or something. So I walked out with a check for like $20-$50 or something. Many players walked out with nothing because they cheated too many people too many times and nobody wanted to trade with them.

Therefore, clearly, the best economic policy is protectionism, tariffs, trade wars, and fucking over both allies and enemies, right? Right?!?

[–] Lemming6969@lemmy.world 4 points 22 hours ago

Your simulation seems to only punish selfish actors when that's not always the case. Doesn't include natural monopolies, lacks clandestine exploitation, and there's likely no market capture or saturation. In such a case the only play is to cooperate.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] Fedizen@lemmy.world 12 points 1 day ago (1 children)

mercifully pulling both levers.

[–] samus12345@lemmy.world 14 points 1 day ago (1 children)

But then how do you kill the remaining two people?

[–] Fedizen@lemmy.world 6 points 23 hours ago

Survivor's guilt

[–] Thcdenton@lemmy.world 3 points 20 hours ago
[–] MystikIncarnate@lemmy.ca 9 points 1 day ago

The meaning behind the trolly problem has been entirely eroded at this point.

[–] m0darn@lemmy.ca 10 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (2 children)

I think these scenarios might be easier to analyze if we made them a bit more realistic.

This an analogy for military intervention. If we empower our military to be proactive, we can save one "good guy"^TM^ by killing 3 bystanders. But if NATO's adversaries are participating too we lose 3 of our "good guy"^TM^

[–] OneWomanCreamTeam@sh.itjust.works 11 points 1 day ago (2 children)

I think the abstract nature is one of the strengths. If you ask someone a question about military intervention, their pre-existing views towards military intervention will heavily bias their answer.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] smiletolerantly@awful.systems 63 points 1 day ago (6 children)

This isn't philosophy anymore, it's just game theory

[–] Ashen@sh.itjust.works 1 points 15 hours ago

I was thinking the same!

it's interdisciplinary.

load more comments (4 replies)

Yell "Jump!"

[–] chtk@feddit.nl 90 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

wow what an excellent day in the neighbourhood

i sure hope I won't be faced with an ethical dilemma in the very near future

oh rats it's the trolley problem

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next β€Ί