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.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newcomb's_problem?wprov=sfti1 In philosophy and mathematics, Newcomb's problem, also known as Newcomb's paradox, is a thought experiment involving a decision problem where a player must decide whether to take one or two boxes in conditions where a being, often called t...

and I see: "I'm reading, sometimes with a conversation, you read: "but I want to engage in a conversation, keep it relevant to your personal engagement, you can tell us. Have a conversation, share a conversation with a conversation, you know, but I love to write about the conversation, but the conve...

It all comes down to whether you think that the present can affect the past.

It’s hard not to risk causing myself pain to prove to myself I have free will, but I suppose that’s it’s own kind of prison, just one I’ve imposed on myself rather than one imposed on me

I think the answer is that it’s silly. Nothing is omnipotent or almost omnipotent. No one is giving away a million dollars. So the correct answer is to decline to play and go and make breakfast

Doesn't it depend on the subjective value of what's in box A relatative to value in box B for the picker?