What they should do is push for voting reform. There are tons of proposals for voting systems that solve the two party stalemate and the issue of gerrymandering.
If they really wanted to stop the insanity of the Republican party, that’s what they would do. Until they do, they are complicit in it.
Well, I only know how it tends to work in China, where the traditional calendar is used for cultural events such as festivals, while the Gregorian calendar is used for just about everything else, including domestic business. I assumed it’s the same in most modern cultures with a different traditional calendar, but maybe I’m wrong.
Is it? I know some cultures have a traditional lunar calendar, but I didn’t know there were many that didn’t also use the Gregorian calendar for business.
Which cultures have the seven day week without the solar year?
Not quite the same, since in my scenario the player loses everything after a loss while in the St. Petersburg Paradox it seems they keep their winnings. But it does seem relevant in explaining that expected value isn’t everything.
I’m looking at the game as a whole. The player has a 1 in 8 chance of winning 3 rounds overall.
But the odds of the player managing to do so are proportionate. In theory, if 8 players each decide to go for three rounds, one of them will win, but the losings from the other 7 will pay for that player’s winnings.
You’re right that the house is performing a Martingale strategy. That’s a good insight. That may actually be the source of the house advantage. The scenario is ideal for a Martingale strategy to work.
Well, they have to start over with a $1 bet.
I don’t know if that applies to this scenario. In this game, the player is always in the lead until they aren’t, but I don’t see how that works in their favor.
You’re saying that the player pays a dollar each time they decide to “double-or-nothing”? I was thinking they’d only be risking the dollar they bet to start the game.
That change in the ruleset would definitely tilt the odds in the house’s favor.
Right, and as the chain continues, the probability of the player maintaining their streak becomes infinitesimal. But the potential payout scales at the same rate.
If the player goes for 3 rounds, they only have a 1/8 chance of winning… but they’ll get 8 times their initial bet. So it’s technically a fair game, right?
That’s not true. The Hoover Dam contributes to Vegas’s power supply, but it’s nowhere near “almost entirely powered” by the dam, except in Fallout: New Vegas.
I apologize for misunderstanding you.
I guess it would help if we clarified what ethical issues specifically are we talking about? If you tell me what scenario you are concerned with trying to prevent, I will gladly share my thoughts on it.
You say that as if the ethical concerns of AI kept tightly under control by a single organization aren’t infinitely greater. That is no solution at all to any ethical concerns arising from AI.
Competition and open source is how we navigate it. Ensuring that the power is shared, not monopolized by the few.
The conversation was about ChatGPT and not about AGI.
Really? I actually found it’s gotten less restrictive recently. Maybe it’s just because now I’ve learned to control the context so it doesn’t perceive a request as offensive.
Well, I’ll be the second. Like all tools, generative AI is going to be used for good and evil purposes. Frankly, I’m not comfortable with a large corporation deciding what is and isn’t ethical for all of humanity. Ideally, it would do what the user asked it for, like all other tools, and society would work to control the bad actors, not OpenAI. Any AI doomsday scenario you can picture gets worst when one party has complete control over the AI technology.
I think it’s important that we support unrestricted open source AI, just as it’s important we support federated social media like lemmy.
Well, as long as a distinction is made. I appreciate the information. I still feel that “decentralized” should be replaced with “polycentric,” but I’ll accept that “decentralized” is the standard term for a system with multiple centers.
Thanks for asking. :) Have a good one.
Well, I only know of two off the top of my head, but I really doubt they’re the only examples: Irish and Mandarin Chinese.
I think some Irish don’t even habitually use them when speaking English. If you ask them “Are you ok?” they’d answer “I am” or “I am not.”