this post was submitted on 07 Nov 2025
730 points (98.8% liked)

Lemmy Shitpost

35630 readers
2899 users here now

Welcome to Lemmy Shitpost. Here you can shitpost to your hearts content.

Anything and everything goes. Memes, Jokes, Vents and Banter. Though we still have to comply with lemmy.world instance rules. So behave!


Rules:

1. Be Respectful


Refrain from using harmful language pertaining to a protected characteristic: e.g. race, gender, sexuality, disability or religion.

Refrain from being argumentative when responding or commenting to posts/replies. Personal attacks are not welcome here.

...


2. No Illegal Content


Content that violates the law. Any post/comment found to be in breach of common law will be removed and given to the authorities if required.

That means:

-No promoting violence/threats against any individuals

-No CSA content or Revenge Porn

-No sharing private/personal information (Doxxing)

...


3. No Spam


Posting the same post, no matter the intent is against the rules.

-If you have posted content, please refrain from re-posting said content within this community.

-Do not spam posts with intent to harass, annoy, bully, advertise, scam or harm this community.

-No posting Scams/Advertisements/Phishing Links/IP Grabbers

-No Bots, Bots will be banned from the community.

...


4. No Porn/ExplicitContent


-Do not post explicit content. Lemmy.World is not the instance for NSFW content.

-Do not post Gore or Shock Content.

...


5. No Enciting Harassment,Brigading, Doxxing or Witch Hunts


-Do not Brigade other Communities

-No calls to action against other communities/users within Lemmy or outside of Lemmy.

-No Witch Hunts against users/communities.

-No content that harasses members within or outside of the community.

...


6. NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.


-Content that is NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.

-Content that might be distressing should be kept behind NSFW tags.

...

If you see content that is a breach of the rules, please flag and report the comment and a moderator will take action where they can.


Also check out:

Partnered Communities:

1.Memes

2.Lemmy Review

3.Mildly Infuriating

4.Lemmy Be Wholesome

5.No Stupid Questions

6.You Should Know

7.Comedy Heaven

8.Credible Defense

9.Ten Forward

10.LinuxMemes (Linux themed memes)


Reach out to

All communities included on the sidebar are to be made in compliance with the instance rules. Striker

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] xxd@discuss.tchncs.de 8 points 1 week ago (3 children)

I think you should pull the lever, even if this ended after the entire human population was on the track and the experiment doesn't go on infinitely. Hear me out:

When a person pulls the lever with a chance of 50% and in one case they kill 2 people and in the other case 0, the kind of average outcome is 0.5 * 2 + (1 - 0.5) * 0 = 1. Now let's consider the last person in the chain of decision-makers. They would have 2^33 people on the tracks, or about the entire human population. To make the expected outcome be exactly one person, they'd have to pull the lever with likelihood x so that x * 2^33 + (1 - x) * 0 = 1 which would lead to x = 1/2^33 or about x≈0.0000000001. So only if the last person directs the train towards the people with less than this tiny chance, the expected outcome is smaller than 1. This chance is incredibly small, and far far smaller than I'd guess the actual percentage is. Think of the percentage of people that are psychopaths, or mass murderers, or maybe even just clumsy. If you evaluate the percentage as someone flipping that switch as anything above 1/2^33, you should therefore flip the switch yourself. You can guarantee that the outcome is 'only' one death, whereas the average outcome of just the last person likely exceeds 1 by a huge amount.

I really wanted to calculate the percentage so that the expected outcome is 1 even if every person in the chain flips the switch with that chance, but wolfram alphas character limit let me down :(

[–] LanguageIsCool@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago (2 children)

I am not seeing it. Are you saying the last person chooses between killing nobody and killing the entire population? Also, what about the intermediary likelihoods of pulling the lever?

[–] xxd@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

That was my assumption, yes. Because the last person would have the entire population on the tracks, and you can't really continue after that.

I neglected the intermediary likelihoods, because that calculation was too long for wolfram alpha, but I have since managed to get it working, and the conclusion is not significantly different. The expected number of deaths skyrockets, even if the chance of pulling the lever is tiny for every person.

[–] LanguageIsCool@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Got it! So you’re saying that the last choice is between 2^33^ or 0 and the last guy has a probably x of pulling the lever and killing everyone (therefore a (1-x) probability of killing nobody).

So, even if it’s guaranteed that nobody along the way pulls the lever (the best case scenario if we want 0 dead), the expected value at the last branch is x · 2^33^ + (1-x) · 0. And the only way this is less than 1 is if x < 1 / 2^33^, which is an absurdly tiny probability.

If we also consider the intermediary probabilities, this already tiny probability threshold of 1 / 2^33^ of killing nobody gets SMALLER because we’re allowing more chances for killing way more than 1 person along the way.

[–] xxd@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

That's exactly right, you got it!

The intermediary probabilities make it even worse, yes! But the overall probability is already ridiculously tiny, so I don't think it changes the conclusion by a lot.

[–] LanguageIsCool@lemmy.world 2 points 6 days ago

To be honest, I’ve kept thinking of this branching stuff for the past few days lol.

[–] Credibly_Human@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

They choose between half the whole population and the whole population (very roughly as it aligns alongside exponents of 2)

[–] LanguageIsCool@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

That’s what the meme is. But the user’s calculation multiplies 1-x by 0, not 1-x by half the population. Or by the future expected value.

[–] Pudutr0n@feddit.cl 1 points 1 week ago

Wait, we were supposed to figure out how to get less ppl ran over?

[–] elephantium@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago

Reading this analysis, I think it's all but guaranteed that the person at the switch on the last step is Davros.