Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | grraaaaahhh's commentslogin

Even then. Taking individual action to try and solve a systemic problem that results in a bad, unintended outcome is very on brand for Chaotic Good.

>But the summed probability of the “not too far away results” is much higher, i.e. P([93, 107]\{100}) > P([100]).

That's true of every result. If you're using this to conclude you have a weird coin then every coin is weird.


Also no one was going to blame Amazon for inflation. There are still people in the US who are under the impression that the only reason they would be paying any part of the tariffs is due to corporate greed instead of that just being how tariffs work.


Passing the cost to the consumer isn't a requirement. Sometimes it's impossible and stay competitive with local business.

Say local business charges $110. Imported charges $80 but a 50% tariff making it $120. If the import charges $120, they won't be competitive on price, so if that was their only differentiation, they would need eat at least $10 in tariffs.


I feel like its easy for "Trust, but verify" to degrade into "Verify, then trust". It's that initial step of distrust while verifying that starts to sour things.


I mean, if you go far back enough "dwarves cannot be wizards" was a core part of D&D as well.


Also probably includes all the times my company has made me change my password. It always takes a good week before I remember that my old password isn't the one anymore.


Honestly, this just Roko's Basilisk but even dumber.


E cannot be correct.

"All my hats are green" is still false even when I own a red hat and a green hat.


I would agree that's obvious, if not for the original error.

The liar doesn't necessarily "have" any hats. Again, the assumption that the liar has hats is incorrect because it's relying on an conversational implication, rather than a specific assertion.


Sure, but the question isn't about which statement is possible from the liar's statement, it's about which statement we can conclude from the liar's statement.

The liar could be lying because they have no hats. They could be lying because they have a non-green hat. We cannot conclude E because it's possible that E is not correct.


Or how when you look for something it always ends up in the last place you look, if it weren't there would have been some number of places you looked that were completely unnecessary.


Personally, I like to keep looking for the thing long after I've found it simply to prove the adage wrong. My keys weren't in the last place I looked because I checked three more places after I had them in my hand.


That's a dangerous game to play. What if you find the thing a second time?


>I wonder if this was supposed to be Nine Angels. Copy editing on the web is so sloppy that I'm going to assume so because it makes more sense (to me).

I'm going to assume that wired got it right and it's the neo-nazis that misspelled it; it's much funnier that way.


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: