amnonian

[amnonian]

- NPCs when you talk with them one too many times

All your posts start with “I’ve said this before” now

Yeah I'm mostly repeating myself at this point

[amnonian]

Vision: A mathematical wiki which tracks a dependency graph for each theorem. You can click on the theorem and it builds a path from foundations to that theorem for you as a big long page you can scroll through to learn it, and it automatically inserts little suggestions of examples to look at along the way.

[amnonian]

Summoning a skeleton inside of an enemy bandit will double the number of bones they have at the cost of making them explode.

[amnonian]

Pixel Art by Philipp A. Urlich

[amnonian]

I drew some of the Ethereal Workshop monsters in pixel art!

[amnonian]

RPG class selection

religious killer: i can hear God speaking to me, to kill the demons that live in this world with my gun of justice

atheist killer: I kill only because of my own moral code. Whether it's for money so I can survive, or self-defense against a threat, I am the one who chooses when I kill.

agnostic killer: nobody really knows why I shoot people

[amnonian]

First off I love this question. I'm zigzagging between saying that the final board state contains all the information and we don't care how we got to it, and between saying that if some tile's probability consistently goes lower, we should suspect it's not a mine. I didn't get a satisfactory answer yet, but I can write the question a bit more formally. The following is a bunch of math with no definitive answer: Let M be the statement "this tile is a mine", B1 be the initial board state where we gave M 81%, and B2 be the final board state where we give M 50%. Rewriting it: P(M | B1) = 81% P(M | B2) = 50%

Now we want to know whether getting to B2 from the initial B1 changes our probability of M. I.e. whether the game route we took to get to B2 affects the probabilities we should give.

I'll write it as P(M | B2, B1), meaning the chance of M when we know the board is B2 at the end and was B1 at the beginning. From Bayes theorem:

P(M | B2, B1) = P(B2 | M, B1) * P(M | B1) / P(B2 | B1) = 81% * P(B2 | M, B1) / P(B2 | B1)

I'm gonna write ?= between the probabilities so we can have them in the same equation. What we're trying to do is figure out if it's actually <, >, or =. Note that we can manipulate the equation after that without changing any inequality's direction, because all the elements here are positive.

P(M | B2, B1) ?= P(M | B2)

81% * P(B2 | M, B1) / P(B2 | B1) ?= 50%

P(B2 | M, B1) ?= (50/81) * P(B2 | B1)

So we're left with the question of how likely B2 is after B1, and how likely it is after B1 when M is true. I'm not sure how to answer these.

I also wonder whether these probabilities depend on your playing strategy, since the probability of seeing boards B1 and B2 depend on your choice of moves, or whether we're asking here "if I pick a board at random, what's the chance of getting from B1 to B2?"

Hey mathblr question on probability:

If this type of situation happens where some spots are more likely to have a mine than others

But then you go and solve other parts so that it later becomes 50/50 odds is there a way to have better odds than 50/50?

I feel like there could be, like because the high probability kept dropping from 81% to 50% it might actually be the best spot, but I don't really have a framework for this in a mathematical way

[amnonian]

Asking because I overheard a physical therapist say that she uses this question to see if she wants a second date with a guy, and if he says more than like 4 eggs at once it's a red flag.

[amnonian]

with love. you have to fact check shit. yes you. you still have to fact check shit. a lot of people are great at fact checking stuff they don’t want to be true, but somehow are still absolute ass at fact checking stuff that’s rhetorically convenient to them. even people my age, who I KNOW grew up doing internet/bibliography literacy workshops, and being warned not to believe anything that isn’t reliably sourced, people who DO harp on fact checking conservative output or whatever, are still kneejerk sharing unsourced shit that is partially or wholly untrue or misleading, because it suits whatever narrative they’re pursuing in that moment, without even a “take this with a grain of salt”. fact check!!!!!! look at the sources!!!!! yes it’s a drag!!! do it!!!!!

[amnonian]

for an embarrassingly long amount of time i didn’t realize that couples showering together meant they were fucking in there i thought they just got lonely or something and wanted to hang out. in the shower

[amnonian]

riding the trolley out of omelas because i'm a little too shaken to walk rn and i just heard this weird thump from the tracks. probably nothing

[amnonian]

Pixel Art by Pixeldoshi

[amnonian]

Lantanas in the afternoon.

Bsky / Tip jar

[amnonian]

sunrise

[amnonian]

The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past (Nintendo, 1992)

[amnonian]

[amnonian]

Sort of like epicycles. Christianity has less moving parts, less degrees of freedom, so it's easier to falsify.

when you think about it, atheism was lucky that christianity ended up becoming the dominant religion, its actually incredibly easy to argue against an omnipotent and omnibenevolent god. can you imagine if we had to argue against the existence of zeus

“priest, why is there so much evil in the world?”

“fuck son, the olimpians probably got drunk again, just be glad you werent raped by a goose, ok?”