I haven't seen so much effort put into a set in years. This would decent if it wasn't so damn propogandistic. Of course the message is "communism hates science".
From the Netflix science-fiction series Three Body Problem
I haven't seen so much effort put into a set in years. This would decent if it wasn't so damn propogandistic. Of course the message is "communism hates science".
From the Netflix science-fiction series Three Body Problem
tbh Liu Cixin is basically a rationalist liberal. The whole serie is based on pseudoscience like ''game theory'' and realism geopolitics
Game theorists when people keep choosing cooperate
Game theorists really sound like some pseudo science shit. Kind of like how Rousseau made up ''social contract'' of hobbes ''leviathan'' when social collapse requires explanation for authoritarianism or state of exception.
spoiler
but tbh I can forgive him at the end of the Serie when it comes to a conclusion that game theory is stupid
With the spoiler...I was about to say lol, the conclusion shows how bullshit and pointless the dark forest is,. I think it's the whole point of the series.
Yeah that’s what i got from that. It’s basically that article about how there was a US think tank that gave the task to solve the nuclear tension problem during the Cold war to a bunch of STEMslords and humanities students. The former managed to nuke the earth 9/10 the latter managed to diffuse world tension.
But somehow the book made it about genders determinism. The whole serie has some weird obsession with gender binary which is problematic. I guess if you feel REALLY generous you can interpret it about how toxic masculinity logic thinking provoke the end of universe. Imho it’s just because Liu CiXin can’t write characters well
Yeah there is some weird hangups about women in the book that are just
, probably has to do with the fact the writer is a STEMlord lol
The dude is basically an effective altruist, he said in an interview some years ago about how Elon Musk gives him hope for humanity because tech will make everyone better (he also said that human dying is trivial because millions of people die anyway as history marches on).
The EA mindset and the rich people being the helmsman of progress is nothing new. Kim Stanley does that in his work too. Maybe that just sci-fi writer brainrot
Dude, I love those books for what they are, but the writing about Women is so weird. Literally hard times make strong men, strong men make good times, good times make soft twinks.
Supernova era also has some boomers stuff about how the youth are too dumb to face real life problems.
He also has a short story about how alien telling human to respect the elders.
So yeah the dude is just a boomer
See, I don't know that, because the first book (in translation to English at any rate) is so mid I only finished it to see what people were on about. I have the same issue with Mass Effect. "Actually the third game adressed all the racism that was uncriticially presented as good and normal with no qualifiers in the first game!" Like great, i'm really happy for them, but i didn't bother with those installments of the story because the first installment was enough to put me off.
When it's taken out of its original context, understanding the behavior of perfectly rational risk-minimizers in systems of rules, it usually is pseudo science shit.
Which doesn't actually exist anyway
Exactly! It's a mathematical fiction!
Are you telling me that happiness, democracy, freedom index is all fake?
The username fits
Is there a context in which the concept of a "perfectly rational risk minimizer" is a useful construct to explore?
Absolutely! It's very useful in communications theory. I'm thinking specifically of MIMO networks, in which game theory can be useful to find resource (ie power) allocations that allow the best power/channel capacity tradeoff. Here, the agents are nodes in a communication network, and the risk is how much power they spend to put signals into the network. Game theory is important in this kind of comm. problem because the optimal policy for any individual node's power allocation depends on the strategies of the nodes they're communicating with.
That makes sense, thank you.
That's my assessment of game theory. There are probably hidden depths I don't understand but from the outside it looks like "i am going to write the rules of a " game" that proves things i already believe are natural laws and i will ignore or dismiss any external complications that make my game bogus and make me look like a silly ass"