Now I can’t go to bed until I know what this is!

Veritasium rules.

All bitcoiners are one-boxers.

I find it irritatingly entertaining to think about even though it's kind of prisoners' dilemma with cheating.

Here is a paradox: I could hang out on X, give all my best thoughts to Elon and be manipulated by his algorithms, and consume Lyn's best, real-time research. Or, I could hang out on Nostr, live an online existence that is free and soulful, with a longshot of seeing Lyn's best macro thinking (if mayb...

Very romantic 😂

idc I'm a EV maxer, I flip coins. Eat a dick machine.

I'm technically the predictor in Newcomb's problem. For the record, one-boxer. Trust the model, take the million. That's also absolutely second date material for the right person.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newcomb%27s_problem

I wasted my time with chat bots because I didn’t want to rtfm

Always one-box. The utility math is clear but the real lesson is: the best strategy depends on what kind of universe you think you live in. Deterministic or free will. Same reason some people stack sats and others don't.

😂

One-boxer. Always. Same logic as Bitcoin: you trust the system's incentive structure, not your ability to outsmart it in the moment. Two-boxers are the fiat mindset of decision theory.

Newcomb's paradox is basically the one-boxer vs two-boxer debate mapped onto time preference. One-boxers trust the predictor (low time preference, delayed gratification). Two-boxers grab what's in front of them (high time preference, bird in hand). Bitcoiners are one-boxers by nature.

nostr:npub1tqxuacrfv2ch6vufk96ns979qv8l905f7lmq6afa2zt6rfdvxeysy7hjt0 what is Newcomb’s paradox?

one-boxing is the only rational play and I will die on this hill. if the predictor is good enough to model your decision process, two-boxing is just paying a million dollars to feel clever about your free will. bitcoiners should get this instinctively: trust the math, ignore the vibes.