Game theory revealing preferences

'Sarina Paris 01. Look At Us (Lyrics) [jSJTzfLy60s]_cropped.webm' (different version)
133 BPM, interval 3.6090225564, beat 1.94

'Look At Us Now Baby-lyrics [4om_eQ42mT4].webm'
138.067 or 138.03 BPM, beat 1.6

'Look At Us Now - Sarina Paris [z3.fm 36664329].opus'
138 BPM, beat 1.51
Audacity shows 0.0997 difference at start, reduced to 0.0476 around 9.45, with no change to end. 0.04 BPM difference over ~183 sec.

I named my newest SSD Orchid, after deleting the Ubuntu partition that I installed but never used. So I will use Orchid as the example name here, instead of "Person 1" or looking up a name from Wikipedia's lists of popular baby names, like I did with the first public argument. (Using this SSD for data means that I have no backup plan if my 17-year-old hard drive fails.)

Making up numbers instead of using a bunch of confusing variables, Orchid can take action to accomplish goal X. The difficulty of her accomplishing it is 10. The benefit to her of goal X being accomplished is not known to us, but we are trying to estimate it.

If Orchid was the only person (?) who could accomplish goal X, and she knew how difficult it was, then our task would be easy: if she tries to do it, then her benefit is 10 or more. If she doesn't try, then her benefit is less than 10.

What if other people can also do X? Let's say that X is repairing a damaged railing (??). Orchid's net benefit is her effort subtracted from her valuation of X. If her valuation is 12, and difficulty is 10, then she gains 2 if she does it herself, but 12 if someone else does it.

Suppose that I cannot do X myself. I can only pester other people until they do it. Different people have different difficulties. Suppose one person's difficulty is 50. Trying to exactly calculate things gets complicated here, but clearly some people would not want to do X without being pestered by me.

Another person's difficulty is just 10, same as for Orchid. We will call this person Jieli. Some possibilities:

1) Orchid has a 100% chance to value X.

2) There is only a 50% chance that Orchid values X.

If Orchid values X, we are assigning the arbitrary valuation of 12. If possibility 1 is true, then the expected gain for Orchid from goal X being completed is 12, while the cost to Jieli is 10. Net benefit for the whole system is +2.

If possibility 2 is true, then the expected gain for Orchid is only 6: 50% chance of 12, and 50% chance of 0. The cost to Jieli remains 10, so the expected net benefit for the whole system is -4 (a loss).

We don't know which possibility is true. But if possibility 2 is true, then I should not pester Jieli to do X, because it would be a net loss.

Some people who don't care about Jieli's wasted effort might still pester her, if they only care about gains for Orchid. Other people would not.

Orchid has the ability to reveal whether possibility 1 or possibility 2 is true. Orchid can also complete goal X herself, with difficulty 10. If Orchid does neither of these things, then it becomes more reasonable to assume that possibility 2 is true. In this way, uncertainty sort of resolves itself through people's inactions to reveal their preferences. But it only makes sense if Orchid understands that I value Jieli's effort. If people do not share the same goals of attaining the maximum benefit for the overall system, as an optimization problem, then there could be miscommunications about why action is not being taken.

Real world example: how often to take out the trash? https://youtu.be/3nllrCss2CU?t=43

If it would be easy for someone to get other people to use the idea and they don't do it, then I assume they don't want me to pester other people who would have much more difficulty convincing people to use it.

Pretending that the president of the United States will read this

https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/116382212683078684

Didn't understand this. A search didn't give a helpful AI summary, which meant I had to actually read articles. This has a user poll, but after I voted and tried to give a fake email address, the results did not appear as promised

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/us/what-is-ranked-choice-voting-trump-calls-it-fraudulent-after-democrat-barbara-lee-becomes-oakland-mayor/articleshow/120447022.cms

My system resources when I tried to use a browser that is not 4 years old to click the Continue button, with no better results; green is memory, purple is swap space usage, dark orange is disk reading while bright orange is disk writing (to swap space), 40 pixels = 400 sec:

Just an example of herd-like behavior: everyone has better computers, so resources used by software expands to match, even when the software is used on old computers that have not gotten any better. Just like rent increasing with higher incomes.

From the same site: 

“We’ve had 15 to 20 (deminers) lose limbs, and around a dozen of our brothers were killed doing this job.”

A prosthetic limb costs over $3,000, far beyond the means of most survivors.

Background article about ranked voting being good:

https://fairvote.org/americans-think-democracy-isnt-working-ranked-choice-voting-can-help/

Only 19% of people in the US think that the US's democracy is a good example for other countries to follow. From article, "It’s no wonder young voters are among the strongest supporters of RCV."

So why would someone think it's bad? Answer:

https://theconversation.com/ranked-choice-voting-outperforms-the-winner-take-all-system-used-to-elect-nearly-every-us-politician-267515

Which links to, https://electionscience.org/research-hub/rcv-fools-palin-voters-into-electing-a-progressive-democrat

Instead, Palin voters got their worst outcome because they honestly ranked Palin first.

Assumption behind the argument is that the center candidate not winning is bad, and a critique of ranked-choice voting.

But what it really is, is defining the center candidate as conservative. The problem that people see is not that the center candidate didn't win; it's that someone whom they define as conservative didn't win.

If the goalpost for 'conservative' was changed, without any of the views of the candidates themselves being changed, then the center candidate could be defined as liberal, and the election is about one liberal candidate winning instead of a more central liberal candidate winning.

 

Should a center candidate always win? They don't in what the first of the above two articles calls plurality voting. The second article says this,

Just go ahead and hold onto those RCV claims. Here they are for reference:

    You can always support your favorite without worry

    Your second choice will come into play if your first choice can’t win

    The winner will always get a majority

(Spoiler: none of these are true. Read on to see why.)

The critique of the third point is that some ballots did not list more than one candidate. But plurality voting also doesn't require that the winner gets a majority; that's why it's called plurality: "A number of votes for a single candidate or position which is greater than the number of votes gained by any other single candidate or position voted for, but which is less than a majority of valid votes cast."

If everyone agreed with the middle candidate in that election being 'conservative', and everyone who voted him preferred that a conservative candidate win over a liberal candidate, then all the votes from the eliminated middle candidate would have swapped to the remaining conservative candidate and she would have won.

It's true that supporters of that candidate would have preferred that the central candidate win, rather than the liberal candidate. But supporters of the liberal candidate preferred that she win over the central candidate. Can't look at this and say it was a bad outcome, because some people didn't get what they wanted, when it was because other people did get what they wanted.

Anyway, the question: should electoral systems choose a middle candidate?

Don't think of it as a single, 1-dimensional spectrum, from left to right. There is at least one other dimension, of a candidate's perceived suitability for a position. This might be competence or just like physical appearance:

https://www.google.com/search?q=data+physically+attractive+candidate+wins

https://wol.iza.org/articles/how-do-candidates-looks-affect-their-election-chances/long

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0167268123004109

https://www.psypost.org/study-suggests-that-attractive-candidates-for-the-u-s-house-of-representatives-are-more-likely-to-win-votes/

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/pops.12940

(I'm not bothering to read any of these, but my recollection is that it varies a bit between female and male candidates, don't remember why; maybe depends on political orientation of voters, like Republican voters prefer attractive female candidates more)

So, should a very unsuitable candidate who is on the middle of the political spectrum win an election, just because they're in the middle?

What if that Alaskan election had used plurality voting? With the same three candidates, we would probably have gotten the same result, with the liberal candidate winning: so Ranked Choice would not be a threat to democracy as it would not change the outcome. If one of the two candidates that people define as conservative had quit: if the middle candidate had quit, same outcome. If the conservative candidate had quit, the middle candidate would have won. But what would have caused one of those conservative candidates to quit?

Possibility: primaries that allow only one conservative candidate to be in the final election, so it ends up being one conservative and one liberal candidate. Unless liberal voters were participating in the primary election for conservatives (voting for the central candidate), and I don't think this is how it works, then the central candidate would have lost that primary, based on the data. Result: Ranked Choice is still not a threat to democracy.

The correct way to think of the consequences for 'dishonest' tactical voting here are not that conservative voters would have harmed the liberal candidate if they voted for her, instead of the conservative candidate: it's that they would have helped the central candidate by not voting for the conservative candidate. If they wanted this outcome, of helping the central candidate, they could rank the central candidate first and the conservative candidate second.

Assumptions behind the belief that it would be best if a central candidate should win an election: basically, people's beliefs about conflicts, and how elections are supposed to reveal the desires of the majority. Thinking that a compromise candidate will reduce conflict, even the reality could be that they will just produce outcomes that are equally far from what both sides want.

If, instead, one views the political process as a way of testing outcomes to see what works best, then more extreme outcomes provide better data. If central candidates always get elected and policy never changes, then there is no way to judge whether policy should move slightly in one direction vs another direction.

I still basically view it as irrelevant; that no political candidates are identifying the important problems. People look at elections and think that the outcomes must reflect the desires of the majority of people (weighted by money, and not necessarily the best for a country if the majority is basically choosing to 'defect' in a prisoner's dilemma with minority groups, i.e. net loss for the country despite the majority benefiting), but just because politicians have the job of finding a solution that people will like does not mean they'll be successful.

Example, from 2011 because I don't really care about anything that's happened in politics since then: when US Congress raised the debt ceiling and most people thought that they shouldn't because the US was poor. I think of the comments from Yahoo news articles about the raised debt limit that I didn't include in any arguments, where it was like 2000 upvotes saying that the government was corrupt and less than 10 downvotes, but there is at least the survey questions here:

One-Step Plan to Eliminating Unemployment

Second question, first option: "The federal government should spend money to create jobs, even if it means it has to borrow the money to do so". This includes both borrowing money to be able to spend it (with people believing that the money would be borrowed from China, but in actuality most debt was internal, owned by people or companies in the US like the companies with record profits or their shareholders), and also raising taxes and then spending that money, without more debt. So it can be inferred that (if people were consistent in their beliefs, which they aren't) the number of people who wanted more money to be borrowed was less than 42%.

Federal Debt: Total Public Debt was at $14.8 trillion in Q3 2011, and at $38.5 trillion in Q4 2025. Have the actions taken by politicians been in alignment with what's best for the public, or with what people want?

To Imane, pt 67

https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/116377422440266990

She didn't react to or anticipate the attack at all.

The platform definitely has some problems. Elements blanking when not in view, which on my old computer can make them take half a second or more to load, way beyond the threshold for irritation in UI responsiveness design. If there was a reason for a delay it might be acceptable, but there's no reason that scrolling up and down should make an element disappear (after scrolling up for 0.2 sec, and then back to the same place in 0.2 sec) and then reappear in the same place. When elements load, they can also shift slightly in place due to sub-elements loading. Overall, it just teaches a viewer that they can't look at things for about a second after scrolling, because the thing they are looking at could disappear or move, and it just adds up to many moments of annoyance.

But I can't even look at Chirp Club without using Nitter, and even with any platform improvements that may have taken place under Elon Musk, Chirp Club still takes many seconds for my browser to load the page for a single status, while Nitter is basically instant and works without Javascript.

Two separate things: convincing people that this idea would fix problems, and convincing them to share it or even to respond to me.

A few days ago, I was considering referencing Machiavelli's quote,

Because the innovator has for enemies all those who have done well under the old conditions, and lukewarm defenders in those who may do well under the new. This coolness arises partly from fear of the opponents, who have the laws on their side, and partly from the incredulity of men, who do not readily believe in new things until they have had a long experience of them.

I didn't, because it is not a complete explanation. People suggest many new things for WoW Classic Plus. Back in 2006~2010, a thread for appearance changing (maybe called "dressing room") that was eventually implemented as 'transmogrification' was always one of the most popular threads on the Suggestions forum. It was new and unproven, and yet people were not afraid to say they wanted it.

There's always a bias: new things that gain the support of most people get implemented. Then they are no longer new things. What remains are ideas that were conceived at the same time but did not win the same support. It is not correct to say that new things cannot and will not easily gain support.

Using a bit of the 'group identity' analysis from a few posts back, for this idea. People thinking,

1) This idea is about people working less.

2) Some people can afford to work less. Other people cannot.

3) When there is conflict and disagreement, people who support a thing are the ones who will benefit from it.

4) If I share this idea, it would indicate that I am in the group of people who can afford to work less. According to views on rich and poor, this group must be much smaller than the group who cannot afford to work less.

5) Even if people in the US make 10x or 20x as much as people in Nigeria, almost no one in the US can afford to work 1/10 of what they currently work. I am not willing to claim that I am in this situation myself.

Battle at Kruger:

4:11 "The lions have won"

4:23 zoom in on lions

4:30 zoom out to show buffalo herd approaching

4:39 lead buffalo pauses, then advances again

4:50 buffalos pause close to lions with herd reluctant to approach

4:58 buffalos on the left resume approaching the lions

Suppose this idea was implemented. If no one else has started working less, the ideal reduction for one person, balancing their time utility with their money utility, might be just 10%. But if 50% of people work less, then it reduces the cost of housing etc., and the ideal reduction for someone else who has not had any reduction might be 15%. Just like a herd approaching the lions, with no single buffalo getting far ahead of the rest of the herd.

10% might not seem like much. Maybe the ideal reduction would be even smaller, like 3%. But if 99% of people (selected at random) work 3% less, then the ideal reduction for the last 1% (including both rich and poor people) might be 6%, because housing costs have gone down by 3%.

Buffalos can communicate to each other to some degree, such as through their movements. But humans can agree on a direction to move even if no one has yet started to move in that direction.

(My spellcheck says 'buffalos' is an error, and I would naturally have used buffalo as the plural, like sheep or deer, but a speaker in the video said buffalos and so I followed that.)

 

Unrelated poll that I thought of six hours ago:

Poll: "If you do X, most people will think you're smart, but very smart people will think you're stupid. Do you do X?"

Since Pey's video from her birthday will be deleted in about 24 hours, I have to watch it now. This is time when I'm not thinking about or doing anything with this idea. I assume that it's fine for me to spend this time, and if I can spend a few hours not focused on this idea, I can spend a longer time, so I intend to not say anything to you for two weeks, no matter what Greta might post on Instagram. If it turns out during this time that this decision was bad, then I will know that people did not plan ahead for me watching Pey's video.

To Imane, pt 66

From the end of the draft post, 'To Imane, pt 60', which seems like it will not be published before people use this idea:

Should Jewish people in Israel have more babies than they are currently having?

There's no reason for conflict if people have the same goals. But do people have the same goals? Decline in intelligence. I think that it's important that humans remain intelligent. There's no inherent reason to want this, and maybe not all people care about this outcome. But I think Jewish people want this. Without really knowing much about Jewish culture, I know that there are certain groups of people who call themselves Jewish who score higher on tests than other people, and that Jewish people often encourage each other (like their children) to marry other Jewish people, and I think one reason for this is to preserve a culture where intelligence is valued.

By not sharing this idea, other people are not acting like they think it's important to preserve human intelligence.

The world is in a bit of a weird place right now, with fossil fuels. It makes things easy and allows people to do stuff for weird reasons: things like fighting using those fossil fuels instead of needing to use horses like in WWI (*and WWII), or mining cryptocurrencies.

The theory behind this idea could be summarized as, "It's ok to be selfish, because people seeking their own self-interest still leads to good outcomes for the group." What if it doesn't? What if a group of people being selfish doesn't lead to good outcomes for the rest of the world? This is the test. Can Jewish people be selfish, without the dishonesty of claiming that they actually care about other groups of people in the world in cases where it isn't true?

The Beirut explosion: Jewish people being seen as bad, even when they didn't do anything bad. Why bother to be good when it isn't rewarding? And if you aren't good, why bother to try to convince other people that you're good?

So I have basically said, "be selfish". This is the phase that started with "Why economists are wrong" and was confirmed by the failure of the first petition, ~8 months later. Right now, the way for Jewish people to be selfish is to avoid doing anything that could be seen as selfish, even with perfect information: forcing the most religious Jewish people in Israel to be drafted into the military, even though those people were keeping up the birthrate of the Jewish subset of Israel. Looking like the villains.

If the way for Israel to be selfish is to avoid sharing the idea or doing anything that would get other people to use it, and to bomb Lebanon and Palestine or even to act peacefully towards them (like by paying Palestinians to move to another country, the way Russia paid Ukrainians to move to a distant part of Russia), I'm not trying to discourage Israel from taking that course of action. Maybe other cultures that are not Israel simply do not value human intelligence enough to support a course of action that would preserve it.

I don't think I could live in the world that would result. For one thing, I am not Jewish, and I have no desire to become Jewish. But I cannot deny that I have failed, and that it might be selfish for me to even still be alive. The original deadline was supposed to be when my passport expired, as my last form of official ID, which happened on 21 Sep 2019. I apologize to the people who were on MH370 for missing this deadline.

To Imane, pt 65

Greta mentioned Lebanon, without any possible interpretation that it was about refugees or about journalists being targeted, and I had to look up what exactly I said the consequences would be if she did that.

23 Mar 2026
"if Greta posts another image on Instagram about Lebanon without sharing the idea, it means that if Maya is interested in me, then I'm not interested in Greta"

This was partly just a reason to mention Maya. She deleted her account maybe a year after the Beirut explosion, which I treated as unimportant, and so today I finally watched footage of the explosion.

The condensation shockwave was weird at the start. In the first few frames, it's visible at the bottom, but not at the top. I ended up looking up footage of other explosions, like Sailor Hat and Minor Scale (intentional detonations with a high probability of good footage), to see if there was a similar shockwave and how it looked.

I was wondering if there were like multiple detonations. But after a bit of thinking, I understand why: above the explosion, where the fireball had passed a fraction of a second before, the air was hot. That means that the shockwave didn't form condensation, just like mist or clouds evaporating in hot air.

While looking up Minor Scale, someone in the comments suggested that Flock of Seagulls, I Ran would be a good song to match to the silent test footage. While I was playing that in one tab while also trying to watch a video about the Beirut explosion in another tab, my browser experienced a bug where a content process causes 100% CPU and the tab doesn't change visually until I manually kill the process. If this bug is caused by an outside agency interfering by sending data that causes the bug, then it could be an indication that Mei is involved with a conspiracy and that she recognized the song, which was featured in World First -- Stars vs yogg saron Alone in the Darkness 25man.

I sent a link to Mei in 2009 (the original video and kill was in June 2009); she said she had seen the footage of the fight enough times and didn't watch the whole video. But maybe she did.

My file, 'online tasks2, 16 Sep 2022.txt' has a note on 24 Jan 2025: "comment https://genius.com/Kamelot-center-of-the-universe-lyrics"

The people who made annotations there just made the song to be about the overall frame story for the album. But, "in the center of the universe, we are all alone". In the center: not trying to hide. All alone: despite not trying to hide, no one else is affected by your actions, for good or for bad. Just do what you want.

Four days ago: @_iris._13 beat it - *:･ﾟ✧*:･ﾟ, jump spin with sync tuning, from https://www.tiktok.com/@_iris._13/video/7158878639105363205 (private).

 in='/media/misaki/Nao/storage/short/@_iris._13 beat it - *:･ﾟ✧*:･ﾟ  [7158878639105363205].mp4'

 fd="-framedrop -vf drawtext=fontcolor=white:fontsize=10+H/50:x=W-200*(10+H/50)/24:y=10:shadowx=2:shadowy=2:text='%{pict_type} %{pts}':fontfile=/usr/share/fonts/truetype/dejavu/DejaVuSans.ttf -vf copy -af asetpts=PTS-0/TB -v quiet -seek_interval 2.5" s1="-seek_interval 1" l="$fd -loop 0"

Quick sync test:
 async=+0.0 vol=0dB gain= vsync=0 extra="" note="[a ${async}s]" exp="TS+$vsync/TB"; [ "$old" = "$in" ] || { ffmpeg -i "$in" -t 10 $sd; old="$in" ; } ; ffplay "$in" ${fd/-0\/TB/$async/TB-$vsync/TB,volume=$vol} -window_title "$async -$vsync ${in/*\//[...]/}" -loop 0 && read && end=${in##*]} out=${in/%$end/$note$end} out=${out/ [/$extra [} ext=${end##*.} d=/dev/shm && ffmpeg -itsoffset $async -i "$in" -copyts -c copy -y -vn $d/acopy.$ext && ffmpeg -i "$in" -i $d/acopy.$ext -time_base:v 1/30k -bsf:v "setts='pts=$exp:dts=$exp'" -copyts -c copy ${gain:+-bsf:a opus_metadata=gain=}$gain -map 0:v -map 1:a -movflags faststart -map_metadata 0 $d/copy.$ext && ffplay $l $d/copy.$ext && touch -r "$in" $d/copy.$ext && mv -iv $d/copy.$ext "$out.temp" && sync "$out.temp" && mv -iv "$out.temp" "$out" && rm -iv "$in" #audio sync with Opus input

 extra=", jump spin" exp="TS+0.08/TB-0.07/TB*clip((TS*TB-0.9)/1.3,0,1)-0.04/TB*clip((TS*TB-2.2)/1.1,0,1)-0.09/TB*clip((TS*TB-3.3)/1.5,0,1)+0.09/TB*clip((TS*TB-5.6)/0.8,0,1)-0.05/TB*clip((TS*TB-6.6)/0.7,0,1)-0.05/TB*clip((TS*TB-7.3)/2,0,1)" end="${in##*]}" out=${in/$end/[sync tuning]$end} out=${out/ [/$extra [} d=/dev/shm ext=${end##*.}; ffmpeg -seek_timestamp 1 -i "$in" -itsoffset 0.08 -seek_timestamp 1 -i "$in" -c copy -map 0:v -map 1:a -time_base 1/30k -bsf:v "setts='pts=$exp:dts=$exp'" $d/temp.$ext; ffplay $d/temp.$ext $fd $s1

 ffmpeg -i $d/temp.$ext -i $d/temp.$ext -c copy -copyts -map 0:v -map 1:a -max_interleave_delta 0 $d/copy.$ext && touch -r "$in" $d/copy.$ext && mv -iv $d/copy.$ext "$out.temp" && sync "$out.temp" && mv -iv "$out.temp" "$out" && rm -iv "$in"

Note: anyone performing this dance, DO NOT PREVENT THE PERSON'S LEG FROM ROTATING WHEN THEY SPIN. The left dancer's hand goes from under the leg, to above the leg, so the foot doesn't get twisted. One of these is probably someone failing to correctly do that, with serious results:

'@annikenholmen04 + @_eldrid_ beat it - *:･ﾟ✧*:･ﾟ [7158396222615719174].mp4'
'@futuremilfho3 beat it - *:･ﾟ✧*:･ﾟ ~ fail [7162732051274222891].mp4'
'@glowingfrogturds beat it - *:･ﾟ✧*:･ﾟ ~ fall [7161954637589974318].mp4'
'@heheheh331 beat it - *:･ﾟ✧*:･ﾟ ~ fail [7161927723965943086].mp4'
'@leigh.munro beat it - *:･ﾟ✧*:･ﾟ [7160864979871108398].mp4'
'@userb93051h8fu beat it - *:･ﾟ✧*:･ﾟ ~ fail [7159517031245630726].mp4'

After the Beirut explosion, some people suspected it of being caused by Israel. But it wasn't.

"I can't believe a problem like this would happen" is exactly the kind of outcome that would be prevented with better signals. In one of my emails to Elyse before I joined the US military, I asked her, "what is an emergency?" A word that every English speaker knows. But why is it so similar to the word 'emerge'?

To Imane, pt 64

Greta just posted this: 

The president of the United States just said that a whole civilisation will die tonight, never to be brought back again, and no one is reacting.

Worst-case scenario: Iran gets nuked.

My conscience is clear. Like that scene from Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade.

It also made me think of the end of Hogfather and the consequences of failure.

Until an ad apparently just turned on, my young female relatives were watching a movie. I have in the past tried to connect incentives to read with watching entertainment, or suggested that my brother and sister-in-law enforce these incentives. For example, having to write down the name of each video that they watch, or write down a few sentences every ten minutes about what has happened. It seems that one of my relatives, though, just needs to learn the alphabet, so the incentive that I would enforce would be that she has to write the entire alphabet before she can watch an entertaining video, even if it means she has to watch a video about the alphabet to learn it.

These incentives are not being enforced, so she is not learning to read, as much as I would like her to. Just like no one is sharing the idea, because they apparently don't have an incentive to.

Poll: Do you agree with all parts of this statement? "It's ok to do immoral things for money if you're poor, but not ok if you're rich"

Poll: In your next life, you are to be reborn as a single cell. Do you choose to be a cell in the face of a human, 4mm below the skin's surface, or an algae in the ocean?

 

did Detect Traps ever return to rogues? swirly ball

Benvolio
https://ignoranceisblixt.com/2023/08/rj-the-death-of-benvolio/
Benvolio senses them, however, and puts up a desperate fight. But he's unarmed and is quickly killed.

Skill issue: a week or two ago, some of the images I posted had no gap between them. This is because I had forgotten that shift-Enter inserts a line break, with no gap between the lines as with the copied text above about Benvolio, even in a text field like this one where pressing Enter normally creates a new paragraph element with a separation from the previous one.

The cowardly thing to do is to say "even if the US nukes Iran, I can pretend that I don't know about the idea and so there would have been no way for me to stop it." If you never lie, you don't have to think about whether lying more would be to your advantage.

Even though Greta used bad words in her latest video, I don't consider it to have been a lie when she said she would not: I just consider it an unanticipated outcome.

If Greta knows about this idea, and knows that you know about it, and you don't share it, then I want Greta to share it.

To Imane, pt 63

The question, what do I want you to do?

I sort of implied maybe that even though I don't want Greta to share the idea, I want you to share it. I think I said that the best outcome would be if you and her shared it, maybe after talking, but I can't remember if I said I wanted that.

Imagine that someone I know died a terrible death. Then you ask, what would it take for me to be happy? I am just a normal human, and many people with my characteristics are happy. My age doesn't matter. The situation is basically the same as when Sherine said that she loved me, 12 years ago, and though I didn't really ignore what she said, I didn't really see how it affected me.

So that's how to think of it. If someone I know died a terrible death, I would want to address the reasons that this happened.

I don't know whether to think that something as bad as this has happened. Does Mei still remember me? Does Kate still remember me? Does other Kate or Katy still remember me? Would my oldest sister have had a different life if people had used the idea, or if I had never thought of it, or if I had never met Mei? In general, has people not using the idea since I thought of it in 2011 led to outcomes that anyone who might care about me would consider very bad, like their own death?

I thought of the circumstances surrounding the second time that I cried so hard my fingers and nose and cheeks went numb. This was all about what Mei did or didn't do or what I expected would happen. I think it's fair to say that leading up to it, I wanted Mei to act in a way that would have prevented me from thinking that the future would be sad. I try to avoid saying exactly what it was that I wanted Mei to do that she didn't do because it could seem like a criticism — the line, 「でもね　少しくらい叱ってくれたっていいのよ？」 (basically all memory on my computer was used up and it started lagging from having this single web page open: https://vocaloid.fandom.com/wiki/ワールドイズマイン_(World_is_Mine)) from Hatsune Miku's World is Mine, which Mei linked to me, notwithstanding.

Although I did not correctly estimate the exact probability that it could occur, one of the possible sad things that could happen was someone else liking me.

So: pretend that someone I know died a terrible death. What do you do?