Recent posts by TheBSG on Kongregate

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / #hyperthetical: 300

Buddhist monks lie and take serious analgesics and prepare their bodies with ointments and special diets before performing stunts like that. The famous monk who burned himself alive in the 60s almost necessarily severed his own spinal chord in order to withstand the pain, as he was determined to die for the cause. In the video you showed, the monk’s clothes were what was on fire, and I’d bet pretty confidently that his face and arms were covered in a flame retardant, as flesh burns rather quickly and he was able to move freely. I don’t doubt that their training is what allows them to proceed with these acts, and I don’t doubt that all of the drugs in the world don’t make it easy to not react, but I think Buddhism gets a really strange reverence for what amounts to serious parlor tricks where someone dies in the end.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Questioning the Nature of Your Embodiment

Yeah, I imagine lack of embodiment would happen far later. At first, people would have connections on the body they have now. Since fully functioning, power-friendly limbs and other attachments have more bottlenecks, I see being able to control a piece of machinery happening far sooner and with more ubiquity than depersonalized body rigs. In that scenario, we’d be able to control whatever we can interface with, and I’m not sure it’d be much different than interfacing with our hands as we do now. Not that it wouldn’t be interesting and unique, I just think that the novelty would wear off and only a few very specific incidences would reveal the disruptive nature of the technology.

But to humor the question, having experienced life in a wheelchair and from a much lower angle than everyone else, I think I’d just enjoy experiencing a normal body. I want to rock climb, skateboard, wingsuit, and free-run. I want to drive a sports car. I was born with an adventuring, self-challenge mentality, and it’s been frustrating that the only thing I can really do is exercise.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / The next President Clinton

Why can’t I drop some racist shit and then boost? This place is dumb yo. I’m a professional 15-yr-old-with-an-opinion, I don’t need dis.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / (Obama,Bush,isis and False flag wars)There is more shit in the world than we ever thought.

I miss CROW.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / The next President Clinton

I like how this thread started out. “Let’s not talk about anyone’s policies or values, let’s just discuss the fact that the genitals on one of the candidates is different from the genitals of the candidates we’ve elected a lot.”

United States is funny in that we will elect the same two families for two decades and still brag about not being an oligarchy. Clinton is the lesser of evils, as the Democratic party tends to be, but I am really not thrilled about Clinton, either. She’s historically capable in ways that terrify me, and incapable in ways that make me roll my eyes. She’s a master politician and that’s one of the only ways she got to where she is as a woman. Unfortunately it makes her an expert at being a totalitarian, save the kids, line her pockets while smiling Liberal.

On the other hand, if we can get a decent senate, and she includes Bernie Sanders in her cabinet, perhaps some progressive politics can actually get enacted by a progressive president. While Obama has achieved far more than a lot of presidents have, he still kind of chose his battle and went down with his ship instead of hard-lining his policies. Clinton will be far better at dealing with the right, but only because she’s a corporate liberal and both she and the republicans are dedicated to the dollar before their party.

Personally, as always, I wish we had a proper socially minded liberal and a fiscally prudent conservative, whoever is more needed at the time gets elected, and the other VPs in order to act as a counterbalance. But that’s pretending presidents just want to raise GDP and standards of living while maintaining passable relations and trade agreements with the rest of the world.

We are in desperate need of an ACTUAL conservative to go through America’s books as well as the books of the top 100 corporations and do some spring cleaning. The amount of waste, endorsements, and unregulated spending done by our government is astronomical, higher than a lot of modern countries. This corruption is bipartisan. These problems are fiscal and logic based problems. We barely use science or experts anymore to make policies, either. The antique “boards” and “special committee” system drives the lobbying bullshit that corrupts our government. The problem is that all of our republicans are corporate dogs that want to change our government’s policies to “encourage free market capitalism” and other lofty, heady ideas, while failing to deliver or serve American people in any tangible or real ways.

We need social security, but we need it to be sustainable. We benefit economically from the stability of our military force until it starts costing more to maintain than the rest of the budget combined. Then we’re spending more than we’re making, and we’re shipping loads of money to private industries with no regulations, accountability, or track record of efficiency. We need a strong education system that fuels our economy without burdening its students with debt. We are behind all of the other first world nations because both our economy is obliterated by corporate conservatives while progressives try to enact revolutionary policies without the coffers to do so, further spiraling our nation into debt and lowering our competitive advantage over more industrious nations.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / American Conservatism versus the world.

This thread has zero room for growth or discussion.

But then, most discussions that whittle human history and political systems down to team sports and vague opinions about groups of people that you don’t like are fruitless.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Can you be a woman just by saying you're one?

Luckily the number of biological differences between male and female humans is so small that it’s physically attainable. Becoming a tree is a bit beyond our technology right now, but if we honestly had the ability to somehow induce our own sentience into an inanimate object, you don’t think people would do it? Would you ostracize them?

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Can you be a woman just by saying you're one?

I was born with brown hair. If I want red hair, I can change my hair color to red. Some people have incredibly natural looking dye jobs. Some people are born with insanely unique and fake looking hair color. Some people get completely unnatural hair colors.

If I colored my hair red, I would have red hair. If I wore fake nails and a wig and makeup and spoke in a higher register and valued traditionally feminine things, I’d be in every way a female as every woman you meet is a female to you. A lot of what we consider feminine is an act in itself, and we just refuse to acknowledge it as a society. Gender has changed significantly in history. Gender is different all over the world. Gender is different in the Animal kingdom. We are an entirely plastic-brained, socialized creatures with various gender and family roles.

The reason so many of you have trouble with this has to do with your rigid and single minded ideas about your sexuality and what you’re attracted to. Exposing the fact that much of what we base attraction on is prescribed (more likely due to our naive, romance-inspired ideas of relationships that is a relatively contemporary refactoring of a political/practical procedure in the past.) might be incredibly disorienting. Maybe you prefer the prescriptions? Just don’t force them on anyone else because of your lack of desire to develop, explore, or define your own gender and sexual identities and how they might differ from the role you’ve been expected to fulfill.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Can you be a woman just by saying you're one?

See? These things seem obvious and not at all the modernist “inventing” of roles at all. I think we had a seriously fucked up 120-1000 years of gender roles in the western world that just don’t match the actual realistic variety of sexual, gender, and identity traits and roles there truly are. Not in a fluffy lovey dovey everyone-is-different kind of way, but in tangible, irrefutable ways. Trans kids are pretty obviously trans from a very young age, and it’s distinctly, both statistically and non-scientifically reportedly different than tomboys/girls. Being a sporty lady and not being allowed to be “lady-like” is another problem with our prescriptive gender roles, the same gender roles that restrict a trans kid from being the gender they identify as even if they portray desirable traits of the opposite gender. I think most cultures learn to create roles in society for the types that inevitably arise from the society’s current major roles. It’s weird to me when people try to pretend that these things don’t exist.

Another thing is that you should always be respectful in changes in people’s identity. We all kind of live on the presumption that people can change, even if we claim we don’t believe that. We strive to be better, we set goals that are different than our previous goals, we grow and change and don’t recognize our former selves. The idea that a person has to “pick” or cannot explore certain aspects of themselves is terrifying to me. The idea that we make people take their identities so seriously terrifies me, too. Exploring who you are as a person is a never ending process. The steps in that process aren’t illegitimate, even if they’re temporary or offputting to you. While these sound like platitudes, they’re just reality. You will change in your life. The opinion is that people have the room to grow and be their true selves if you don’t shame them. This applies to how you treat yourself, as well.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Can you be a woman just by saying you're one?

Not specifically, but I do find our modern bathroom practices to be bizarre. None of it makes any sense at all even a little bit. Not the hygiene, the “privacy,” gendering, the queuing, the water use, none of it.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Can you be a woman just by saying you're one?

Something about “shitlord” made me cough while drinking coffee, thank you.

How does anyone know what’s in anyone’s pants? Why does anyone care? Gender roles are clearly invented and change way more than we acknowledge. People seem to get upset when you put titles to what people really are. I think the more people you know who are different from you or people you know, the more you realize identity itself is wildly varied, yet lots of people have bizarre similarities. The codification of these traits seems trivial and people should really put them into perspective. I mean seriously, even in your traditional bible belt town, there’s butch women and feminine men and non-sexual people and there’s people who are really into clowns and people who wear leather and have sex with dolls. We learn to tolerate eachother and one of the ways we can respect eachother is by using identity terms that addresses the person who knows themselves the most.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Logic Puzzle

beauval guessed pretty much what my initial assumption was. The correct answer is slightly different, but the logic is pretty much on track exactly.

E: E 100%
E gets 100%.

DE: D 0% E 100%
If D doesn’t give E 100%, E will throw D overboard.

CDE: C 99% D 1% E 0%
If C gives D 1% (or >0%, something), he will vote in favor of C’s 99% to avoid giving E 100% and having %0.

BCDE: B 97% C 0% D 2% E 1%
If B gives E 1% and D 2%, more than they’d have in a 3 person scenario if B is thrown over, so B collects 97% and C can vote however they want.

ABCDE: A 97% B 0% C 1% D 0% E 2%
If A gives C 1% and E 2%, they’d have more than if A is thrown over.

I apologize that I didn’t use the coins. Googling the problem after not having done it in a while, I find a lot of people use at least 50% for a slightly different answer, and that coins are used as a means of avoiding less than and greater than concepts in the bargaining.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Logic Puzzle

The eldest pirate is not that stupid.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Logic Puzzle

I don’t really like the theme of this one because it implies that they all honor the rules they set in place here, but they’re willing to kill eachother. It’s better as a game show, but then you have to have really convoluted rules and there’s no obvious analogies in the gameshow.

So no, they will agree to the split no matter what if they vote over 50% in favor of it, regardless of external strategies.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Logic Puzzle

OVER 50% of votes is needed to succeed in a plan.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Logic Puzzle

You’re onto the right thinking, but still not exactly there yet. All of the things you’re both saying are correct but you’re not optimizing for the first person. Figure out what happens at all 5 scenarios to figure out what the 5th should do.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Logic Puzzle

Why would those two divvy it up with the eldest when they can just throw him over?

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Logic Puzzle

This is one of my all time favorite logic puzzles because I thought I had it and was waaaay wrong the first time I heard it.

5 pirates (all of different ages) discover a great wealth of treasure but are fighting over how to divvy it up. They decide that the eldest will propose a split and then everyone votes on it. If more than 50% of the pirates agree, the pot is split this way. If less than 50% agree, the eldest is thrown overboard and the next eldest is allowed to suggest a method and voting takes place again until an agreeable amount can be had.

Assuming all of the pirates do not want to die, want to have as much money as possible, and are rational and highly intelligent, what will happen?

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Logic Puzzle

Sorry, I figured out the problem all excited late at night and I should’ve checked over my math before I posted. Fixed it, thanks Beau. I still like my creative way of solving the alternate rules.

Originally posted by petesahooligan:

Yeah, that’s the gist of the elevator problem. Rainy days he has an umbrella to poke at the 10th floor button. This puzzle does not account for the fact that he always rides the elevator alone.

The Hat Problem (soon to be named the Beating the Dead Horse Problem)

I’m not sure how you’re not getting 100% success.

The structure of the game is critical to its solution.

• The three prisoners are each wearing a blue or a red hat. They can see each other but cannot speak.
• They are only allowed to raise their hand if they would like to wager a guess as to the color of their own hat.

Important: They raise or do not raise their hands in unison. They guess only AFTER they see whom among them have also raised their hands. The result will be that either one of them raises his hand or all three raise their hands. (This reflects the only two possible scenarios; they are either all wearing the same color hat or one of their hats is different than the other two. There is no other possible outcome.)

• They are 100% assured hat-color accuracy if…

–– The prisoner raises his hand only if the cadre’s hats are the same color.

The prisoners are then asked to declare their own hat’s color. They will be correct if:
- All three prisoner’s hands are up, they choose the color of their cadre’s hats.
- If none of their cadre’s hands are up, they choose the opposite color of their cadre’s hats.

That’s it. 100% success.

The 3 players in the puzzle as originally presented must all speak at the same time, or their votes are written on papers and submitted.

I have 2 of my favorites ready to go at home, I’ll post on Monday. The cooperative death games are fun, but I like the competitive money games, myself.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Logic Puzzle

My wheelchair raises up and I have reachers to push buttons. I am a cyborg. Don’t get too excited and turn this into a transhumanist thread, Vika :P

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Logic Puzzle

Aaaaah, essentially they don’t know what the others are guessing, as I can still pass information and get the probability down further if there’s an order and they can hear eachother. This was confusing since the last hat puzzle relied on hearing eachother’s guesses.

The correct answer to beuval’s puzzle, given the participants do not know what the other two are guessing, but can see them:

If you see 2 hats of the same color, guess the opposite color.
If you see 2 opposite hats, do not guess.

Uniform Combinations (Failures):
111, 000

Mixed Combinations (Successes):
100, 110, 101, 001, 011, 010

You will survive 3/4th of the time, not 1/2. (Math fixed)

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Logic Puzzle

Rereading the thread, I made some incorrect declarations and overcomplicated the strategy while I figured out the simplest way to do it, apologies for talking past myself. Normally I’ve solved riddles in these kinds of threads before, so it was cool to solve 2 of them.

By the way, is the actual trick for none of them to guess? That was actually what my initial post said, but then I read your post:

Originally posted by beauval:

OK then, more hats. This one’s actually quite easy if you think about it.

They are then told that they can either make a guess as to the colour of their own hat, or they can forfeit their turn. If one man guesses correctly, and there are no wrong answers, they will all be pardonned and set free. Any wrong guesses will see them all hang.

See the bolded “Guess” and “Forfeit” language, implying that one must actually make a guess in order to win, and that everyone forfeiting would mean no correct guesses.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Logic Puzzle

A: Okay guys, I’m going to forfeit right away. Then B, if I’m wearing the same color as C, you forfeit too. C, if B doesn’t forfeit, guess what color he’s wearing. If B does forfeit, guess what color I am wearing. Go.

1. A1 B1 C1: A forfeits. B forfeits. C guesses 1.
2. A1 B2 C1: A forfeits. B forfeits. C guesses 1.
3. A2 B2 C1: A forfeits. B waits. C guesses 1.

4. A2 B2 C2: A forfeits. B forfeits. C guesses 2.
5. A2 B1 C2: A forfeits. B forfeits. C guesses 2.
6. A1 B1 C2: A forfeits. B waits. C guesses 2.

As you can see, B’s hat color doesn’t matter, his decision to forfeit does. We can combine 1 & 2, as well as 4 & 5. There are two situations, either A and C are wearing the same hat color, or different hat colors. If they’re wearing the same hat color, B forfeits and then C can simply state the hat color of A as their own. If B does not forfeit, C can state the opposite color as A is wearing, providing for all 4 of the scenarios.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Logic Puzzle

Originally posted by beauval:

Except that B doesn’t get the opportunity. In the case of three red hats, A sees two red hats and chooses blue for himself (using optimal strategy). He is wrong and loses.

… What are you even saying? A never guesses. A always actively states outloud that they’re forfeiting. B’s hat color doesn’t matter. B acts based on A’s hat color and can encode a binary data point in it to inform C of their hat color. Only one person needs to guess correctly. You’re not even addressing the logic in my post that you clearly don’t understand, you’re just insisting that you’re sure if they all had the same colored hats, it’d be a 50/50 chance.

You might have a correct answer that isn’t mine in mind, but my answer solves the problem as it was presented.

My solvency doesn’t even require a B or a C. If B and C don’t forfeit, either can guess the color the other is wearing.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Logic Puzzle

Yeah I don’t know how to explain it to you any other way, everyone having the same colored hat would not mean the strategy doesn’t work. If B sees that A and C have the same color, he doesn’t say anything. C then knows that his hat is the same color as A’s. If B forfeits, then C knows his hat color is different than A’s.

B’s hat color doesn’t matter, so there are 2^2 permutations, or 4 possible situations they are in.
B only has 2 options, remain silent or forfeit guessing. Because B and C both know whether A’s hat is one color or the other, B can use that to encode the color of C’s hat in his binary decisions.

A1 C1 = B forfeits. C guesses 1.
A2 C2 = B forfeits. C guesses 2.
A1 C2 = B doesn’t act. C guesses 2.
A2 C1 = B doesn’t act. C guesses 1.