The Flat Earth Society
Other Discussion Boards => Philosophy, Religion & Society => Topic started by: disputeone on September 17, 2025, 11:30:36 PM
-
This one is a little dark but there is a silver lining, so indulge me. I'm particularly interested in Juras answer, I think he knows the answer, and there is an answer, you'll understand when I explain it, but I'd encourage anyone with an idea to share it.
Here is the scenario.
You and one other person are tasked with watching over one hundred people in an open space, when one of you sleeps the other is standing guard. You have to make sure none of them escape. There are no fences or barricades to keep them inside, you have one gun and one bullet. The prisoners know that you only have one bullet. You have access to other items, but you cant build a prison, you can't tie them up or restrain them in any way, and you cant buy more bullets.
How do you ensure no one escapes?
Remember there are no wrong answers, if you think you have an idea please share it, once we've talked about it a bit either myself or Jura will tell you the answer.
-
I put the kettle on and start updating my CV.
-
You don't have to try and answer it if you don't want to. This is a real question with a real answer.
-
That was a real answer. I’ve been given a job to do without the tools and resources to do it. Fuck this job.
-
You do have the tools and resources to do the job you're just not thinking about it correctly.
-
You said there were no wrong answers.
My answer is that this “prison” is completely inadequate. Any attempt to contain an escape puts my life in danger. I’m not working under these conditions.
-
OK your answer is that you cant figure it out. That's fine.
-
Sorry you don’t like my answer. I’ll check back to see what you think is the “correct” answer.
-
This may or may not be possible. Are they Japanese soldiers? Then no chance. Demoralized German soldiers? Meh.
The best shot (PNI) is to establish clear boundaries. A well defined line around the "camp". The first to cross the line gets shot.
-
Sorry you don’t like my answer. I’ll check back to see what you think is the “correct” answer.
I didn't make this up myself.
Its a real question with a real answer.
The best shot (PNI) is to establish clear boundaries. A well defined line around the "camp". The first to cross the line gets shot.
Excellent.
That's a real answer and you're on the right track to solving the problem. Although they aren't soldiers, they are unarmed prisoners.
That will work for a little while, but eventually a group of prisoners will make a run for it together, maybe all one hundred will agree to run for it at the same time, reducing their chances of getting shot to one in one hundred, which most people would take.
How do you stop the prisoners from organising in a group and making a run for it at the same time?
-
How do you stop the prisoners from organising in a group and making a run for it at the same time?
Play sesame street?
This may be the limit of my contribution.
-
How do you stop the prisoners from organising in a group and making a run for it at the same time?
Play sesame street?
This may be the limit of my contribution.
That's fine you solved half of it.
Have a think about it and maybe you'll have an answer tomorrow.
-
I'd shoot the sleeping guard and run off with the prisoners. FUCK THE SYSTEM!
-
I'd shoot the sleeping guard and run off with the prisoners. FUCK THE SYSTEM!
But then for the purposes of the thought experiment you failed your task. It's more about human psychology than anything else. I was nearly certain that you'd been asked this question before and knew the answer.
I'll let our American friends have a few guesses before I tell you the answer.
-
You pick a small girl child from the group, sit it next to you and say if you leave the child dies.
Although that wouldn't work as they would just lynch you the fuck to death, I'm still leaving with the group and shooting the dumbass that gave me one bullet.
-
I'll let our American friends have a few guesses before I tell you the answer.
Sorry dude.
They are overpaid and overthoughtexperimented.
-
You pick a small girl child from the group, sit it next to you and say if you leave the child dies.
Wow that's dark.
You'll find out of a group of one hundred people there will be at least one (probably much more) that value their lives over the child's life, and decide to run and allow you to shoot the child. In your scenario the group would probably reason that the lives of ninety nine outweigh the life of one and just walk away.
Good attempt tho.
-
You pick a small girl child from the group, sit it next to you and say if you leave the child dies.
Out of any random group of 100 people, there are probably 10 who have psychological disorders that prevent them having emotional empathy, even for a child.
-
You pick a small girl child from the group, sit it next to you and say if you leave the child dies.
Out of any random group of 100 people, there are probably 10 who have psychological disorders that prevent them having emotional empathy, even for a child.
You're pretty bright. I think you can figure this out with a bit more time.
-
Wow that's dark.
You'll find out of a group of one hundred people there will be at least one (probably much more) that value their lives over the child's life,
Australians then.
what are the other items?
Cos if it includes 500 wolverines, some stakes and chain, I might have a plan.
-
Wow that's dark.
You'll find out of a group of one hundred people there will be at least one (probably much more) that value their lives over the child's life,
Australians then.
what are the other items?
Cos if it includes 500 wolverines, some stakes and chain, I might have a plan.
I already said you cant restrain the prisoners. I didn't mention wolvaccines, but there is only one person with one gun and one bullet guarding the prisoners at one time, you cant get more guns or more weapons. Or explosives, explosives are a weapon.
Apart from that get creative.
-
What are we now? Reddit?
I'll let our American friends have a few guesses before I tell you the answer.
We started off with "Remember there are no wrong answers" now we are told there has been a bunch of wrong answers and there is a correct one, which we will soon be told.
The idea of thought experiments is to create a hypothetical that helps elucidate aspects of logic, morality, physics etc. To highlight inevitable compromises, internal contradictions or impossibilities.
This seems to be something in line with the practical application of human psychology instead. I'm going to say the answer d1 has in mind is something along the lines of telling everyone the first person to rebel will be shot and nobody wants to get shot so nobody rebels and they carry on standing around in this open field. Yadda yadda.
Of course when you get into it, the state of mind of the prisoners becomes important. If they are all serving full lifetimes in this "prison" then the guard is fucked - anyone on their own trying to guard a super max prison full of violent offenders (with little to live for) is going to get killed pretty quick, even with a full clip. Especially when the the contractors have, literally, cut corners and not put any walls up.
On the other hand there a plenty of "open" prisons where the guards don't have any guns or bullets and the prisoners (assessed to be suitable) don't try to escape because it is the rational thing for them to do.
-
I'm going to say the answer d1 has in mind is something along the lines of telling everyone the first person to rebel will be shot and nobody wants to get shot so nobody rebels and they carry on standing around in this open field. Yadda yadda.
You're missing the point and Torve already solved as much.
See.
That will work for a little while, but eventually a group of prisoners will make a run for it together, maybe all one hundred will agree to run for it at the same time, reducing their chances of getting shot to one in one hundred, which most people would take.
How do you stop the prisoners from organising in a group and making a run for it at the same time?
You can figure this out Jimmy.
I should have said that there aren't any "bad" answers. My apologies.
-
I know! You play them endless clips of Tucker and they all sit down and lose the will to live.
-
I know! You play them endless clips of Tucker and they all sit down and lose the will to live.
I think republicans hate Tucker nearly as much as you do at this point, but no. When Torve was so quick to solve half the puzzle I thought we would get there pretty fast after that.
-
This one is a little dark but there is a silver lining, so indulge me. I'm particularly interested in Juras answer, I think he knows the answer, and there is an answer, you'll understand when I explain it, but I'd encourage anyone with an idea to share it.
Here is the scenario.
You and one other person are tasked with watching over one hundred people in an open space, when one of you sleeps the other is standing guard. You have to make sure none of them escape. There are no fences or barricades to keep them inside, you have one gun and one bullet. The prisoners know that you only have one bullet. You have access to other items, but you cant build a prison, you can't tie them up or restrain them in any way, and you cant buy more bullets.
How do you ensure no one escapes?
Remember there are no wrong answers, if you think you have an idea please share it, once we've talked about it a bit either myself or Jura will tell you the answer.
Easy. You do what round Earthers and big government has always done. You convince them either that there are dangerous animals outside the area (e.g. "here be dragons" and tales of dangerous expeditions) or that leaving is a waste of time, because they'll be back again (e.g. RE being fully circular in all directions vs just east or west, or what I was told by a member of a cult who had left only to return).
Every single one of them will decide it is pointless to leave. Now if you had about ten thousand people or more, one of them might be a true explorer and set out anyway, knowing that they might die or just go in a circle. But the two guards will say to the rest, "See? He never came back because he was eaten."
-
Easy. You do what round Earthers and big government has always done. You convince them either that there are monsters outside the area (e.g. "here be dragons" and tales of dangerous expeditions) or that leaving is a waste of time, because they'll be back again (e.g. RE being fully circular in all directions vs just east or west, or what I was told by a member of a cult who had left only to return).
Every single one of them will decide it is pointless to leave.
Brilliant, that isn't the accepted answer but its one I didn't even consider. That's what I meant when I (should have said) there are no bad answers. This is actually much more like 4chan than reddit where we crowdfund ideas until the best ideas win.
Let's say for the purposes of this thought experiment that these prisoners are adults who don't believe in monsters. What you're describing would absolutely work, but it would take more time than you have and you'd need to do it to children. The movie "The Village" explored this concept in some depth.
-
I should have said that there aren't any "bad" answers. My apologies.
Having now googled this and skimmed the inevitable hundreds of pages of reddit threads, I will disagree. There is probably an infinite variety of bad answers. What there isn't is a "good" answer. Everything involves making presumptions that aren't detailed in the original scenario.
The one I liked best was "Just shoot one, they don't know you only have one bullet". Of course this presumes they don't know you only have one bullet. I'm going to say that the prisoners might be looking at this prison, with no walls, and starting to question their jailers' competency. They might just start thinking you have no bullets as, you know, it doesn't look like a lot of resources have been committed to this operation.
Anyway, if you have your own super clever "solution" to this that for some reason isn't on a reddit thread, then just tell us.
-
I already stated the prisoners know you have one bullet.
Bulma made an excellent point and made me think. Trying to google this is like using a walkthrough to beat a Zelda game, it takes all the fun out of it.
There is an accepted answer and we are pretty close to it. Torve solved the first part, all we need to do is figure out how to stop the prisoners from working together to try and escape.
I'll tell you the answer tomorrow.
However if you're so desperate to know now then I can send you a PM with the answer, but where's the fun in that? Its like beating the water temple in Ocarina of Time while you watch a youtube video of someone beating it. I figured it out myself. It took me longer to beat that temple than the rest of the game combined, but the feeling of figuring it out and beating it was fantastic.
-
I wrote out the answer for you. Its ready to go, if you want it then I can send it to you by PM but please don't spoil it for others. I'm going to go and watch cartoons on my new TV shortly.
-
I’m surprised Torve hasn’t suggested finding the most radical leftist and shooting them first.
-
I’m surprised Torve hasn’t suggested finding the most radical leftist and shooting them first.
First order thinking is what you do. Don't confuse it with what I do.
-
This isn't a thought experiment, this is railroading a Roleplay session.
You have a solution. That's the only solution you accept. Thus it's not an experiment. An experiment has multiple possible outcomes that are unknown. Your scenario does not, according to you.
I know what you want.
You're trying to get people to say 'oh threats of violence or fear keeps people in line' in a round about way. Like that stupid movie The Village.
So the solution you want to hear is:
Make a boundary. Threaten to shoot anyone who crosses because if you don't, monsters will find us to kill us all.
-
Easy. You do what round Earthers and big government has always done. You convince them either that there are monsters outside the area (e.g. "here be dragons" and tales of dangerous expeditions) or that leaving is a waste of time, because they'll be back again (e.g. RE being fully circular in all directions vs just east or west, or what I was told by a member of a cult who had left only to return).
Every single one of them will decide it is pointless to leave.
Brilliant, that isn't the accepted answer but its one I didn't even consider. That's what I meant when I (should have said) there are no bad answers. This is actually much more like 4chan than reddit where we crowdfund ideas until the best ideas win.
Let's say for the purposes of this thought experiment that these prisoners are adults who don't believe in monsters. What you're describing would absolutely work, but it would take more time than you have and you'd need to do it to children. The movie "The Village" explored this concept in some depth.
Which is why I later changed it to wild animals.
Although claiming that the area is a "country" surrounded by a hostile army and the gun is for their "protection" might also work. Though you'd have to rationalize why there is not more than one gun.
And yeah, I love the premise of The Village, and its twist ending.
I have no idea what the answer you had originally but it will be interesting to hear.
-
This isn't a thought experiment, this is railroading a Roleplay session.
You have a solution. That's the only solution you accept. Thus it's not an experiment. An experiment has multiple possible outcomes that are unknown. Your scenario does not, according to you.
I know what you want.
You're trying to get people to say 'oh threats of violence or fear keeps people in line' in a round about way. Like that stupid movie The Village.
So the solution you want to hear is:
Make a boundary. Threaten to shoot anyone who crosses because if you don't, monsters will find us to kill us all.
Try reading the thread before posting.
I've already stated that this is part of the answer and I've already clarified that these are adults that don't believe in monsters.
Don't let your dislike of me ruin your fun. I want someone to figure this out. I promise I have an answer you'll accept.
Which is why I later changed it to wild animals.
Although claiming that the area is a "country" surrounded by a hostile army and the gun is for their "protection" might also work.
I think the soviet union did that with a fair degree of success.
This is what I wanted, us to work together to figure out an answer we are happy with. You've made some very interesting and valid points.
-
Anyway, we do know that threats only work if there is sufficient force. So the solution can't be, "Don't leave or I'll shoot."
Which makes me wonder, what is the gun for?
-
There's only sufficient force to kill one of the prisoners, so in the successful scenario the gun is never used. Once you've used that bullet and shot one prisoner the other 99 will tear you to pieces.
I actually want to tell you guys the answer as much as you want to hear it. I've already typed it out, I'll tell you tomorrow morning, my tomorrow morning so your tomorrow night.
I thought Jura knew and he would spoil my fun as early as possible.
Edit.
I'll give you a hint, Unconvinced came much closer to the answer than he realised here. He wanted to be snarky but he has actually came the closest out of anyone so far. It will make more sense when I've told you the answer.
I’m surprised Torve hasn’t suggested finding the most radical leftist and shooting them first.
Well its nearly 10pm and that's my bedtime.
Ja ne.
-
This isn’t going to be some kind of alpha male thing is it?
-
This isn't a thought experiment, this is railroading a Roleplay session.
You have a solution. That's the only solution you accept. Thus it's not an experiment. An experiment has multiple possible outcomes that are unknown. Your scenario does not, according to you.
I know what you want.
You're trying to get people to say 'oh threats of violence or fear keeps people in line' in a round about way. Like that stupid movie The Village.
So the solution you want to hear is:
Make a boundary. Threaten to shoot anyone who crosses because if you don't, monsters will find us to kill us all.
Try reading the thread before posting.
I've already stated that this is part of the answer and I've already clarified that these are adults that don't believe in monsters.
Don't let your dislike of me ruin your fun. I want someone to figure this out. I promise I have an answer you'll accept.
Yeah, I saw that after the fact.
And it's not about you. I don't have any hatred or strong opinion about you. But I'm a DM. I run games with such puzzles. And I REALLY hate when people call a railroad puzzle a thought experiment. So it's not you, it's your choice of words.
-
This isn’t going to be some kind of alpha male thing is it?
I think the correct answer is:
"Netanyahu shot Charlie Kirk".
-
I think what he is getting at is how nations get us to act, in those nations that aren't allowed to own guns especially, and vastly outnumber those that do, so convince them it's for the greater good and the bullet is there to protect them.
It's lame, but probably the point of this.
-
I think what he is getting at is how nations get us to act, in those nations that aren't allowed to own guns especially, and vastly outnumber those that do, so convince them it's for the greater good and the bullet is there to protect them.
It's lame, but probably the point of this.
I'll buy the popcorn.
-
i have not looked into this in the slightest but i will give it a go to some degree.
use my weapon to split the 100 into two groups of 50. tell each group that whichever group keeps the other group from leaving gets to go free. of course never let them free but keep telling them 'two more weeks'
assuming i can trust the other person im giving them the gun after that because im not the kind to pass judgment and id probably want to die in this scenario anyway.
-
Our patron has not seen fit to explain to us how long the prisoners need to be kept, how they are fed, how sewage is handled, how they are protected from the elements, how they are entertained and whether they must be kept from murdering each other or by a third party.
-
Our patron has not seen fit to explain to us how long the prisoners need to be kept, how they are fed, how sewage is handled, how they are protected from the elements, how they are entertained and whether they must be kept from murdering each other or by a third party.
we just have to keep them 'two more weeks' and convince them as much
they will also just end up killing one another probably so the issue solves itself. i don't think it says we need to keep them alive
another idea is to just randomly give the gun to a new person each day and see who does not want to give it up the next day
many thoughts here. many such cases.
-
we just have to keep them 'two more weeks' and convince them as much
How do we convince them to submit for two weeks without food or even water?
-
we just have to keep them 'two more weeks' and convince them as much
How do we convince them to submit for two weeks without food or even water?
we don't, we just lie to them. then they eat each other and i can go home if i am not eaten already.
-
we don't, we just lie to them. then they eat each other and i can go home if i am not eaten already.
I think you should strive to improve yourself by studying human nature. If so, we here who are not worthy can enjoy the presence of an even more virtuous Junker.
That said, after a couple of days, no human being is going to believe any food is forthcoming and they will rush you.
-
we don't, we just lie to them. then they eat each other and i can go home if i am not eaten already.
I think you should strive to improve yourself by studying human nature. If so, we here who are not worthy can enjoy the presence of an even more virtuous Junker.
That said, after a couple of days, no human being is going to believe any food is forthcoming and they will rush you.
i agree with you 100%
-
tbh now that i think about it i am probably burying the gun somewhere once i have gotten the crowd to self-police. once the tool of power is out of the equation then human nature can just do human nature things.
they will probably find ways to build weapons anyway so may as well just do that and try to get them to come together and form a community to start farming and digging a well so subsistence is not an issue. then they can decide who leads them and self-police and whatever happens from there happens. either make it so they are scared to leave or don't want to leave. i just want to go home and watch tv anyway...
my god, are we just building a society from first principles?
-
i have not looked into this in the slightest but i will give it a go to some degree.
use my weapon to split the 100 into two groups of 50. tell each group that whichever group keeps the other group from leaving gets to go free. of course never let them free but keep telling them 'two more weeks'
assuming i can trust the other person im giving them the gun after that because im not the kind to pass judgment and id probably want to die in this scenario anyway.
How long do they have to wait?
Sorry, can’t resist. Every single time.
-
in the doomsday version of my approach it doesn't matter how long they wait as much as how long you convince them to wait because if it weren't just for that dang other group we could be done by now.
-
How long do they have to wait?
Sorry, can’t resist. Every single time.
A reasonable movie quote is always worthwhile.
-
So here was the question.
Here is the scenario.
You and one other person are tasked with watching over one hundred people in an open space, when one of you sleeps the other is standing guard. You have to make sure none of them escape. There are no fences or barricades to keep them inside, you have one gun and one bullet. The prisoners know that you only have one bullet. You have access to other items, but you cant build a prison, you can't tie them up or restrain them in any way, and you cant buy more bullets.
How do you ensure no one escapes?
Torve solved half by saying you threaten to shoot the first person who runs but then I brought up the problem with groups of prisoners working together to escape and giving themselves good odds of survival against your one bullet.
Here is the other half of the solution.
>You assign each prisoner a number between one and one hundred. You mark it on them in a way that is clearly visible to you and to the other prisoners. You tell them if someone tries to escape, you'll shoot them. You explain that if a group of people try to escape, you'll shoot the one that was assigned the highest number.
>No one wants to try to run away by themselves and get shot, when groups of prisoners try to organise amongst themselves to make an escape, the one that has the highest number knows they will be shot. So they don't want to be part of the escape plan, but once the one with the highest number abandons the escape plan, you're left with someone else who now has the highest number in the group.
>Every group that is formed has someone with a higher number than the rest of the group, every time this person abandons the escape plan because they know they will be the one who is shot when the group tries to escape, that leaves another prisoner who now has highest number who also abandons the escape plan, and so on until there is only one person left, who won't try to escape by themselves because they know they will be shot.
>In this way you guarantee that a group of people won't try to escape together, and that no one will try to escape by themselves, thus fulfilling the winning condition of the thought experiment.
I'm sure we could have come to that eventually if everyone was less snarky to each other and worked through a logical process. Junkers idea about turning one half of the prisoners against the other half was pretty good.
-
It's not a bad idea.
Except human nature is a b-word.
Here in the west we don't have a lot of sacrifice, but in other parts of the world, one person sacrificing themselves for the good of the clan is a very real thing.
Even if just one person out of the 100 has a terminal disease the system breaks down.
Also, if the whole group just walked away in the opposite direction, would you shoot? If you did you'd have to expect that the 99 would turn about and kill you to death. A pretty empty threat then.
-
That relies on one person who is willing to die for the other 99.
In the average group of 100 people you won't find one thats willing to be a martyr. But youre right. One person whos willing to die takes away all your power over the rest of the group.
That was the silver lining.
-
well that was fun and now i have some self-reflection to do
-
That relies on one person who is willing to die for the other 99.
No one has to be a martyr. If everyone takes off at once, then they have a 1% chance of being shot at (and maybe not even get hit or seriously wounded) and a 99% chance of getting away unmolested. I'm pretty sure that most people would be just fine with those odds.
-
If everyone takes off at once, then they have a 1% chance of being shot at.
What's with you and Dave and your inability to read a thread before replying to it? I've already addressed that multiple times.
The best shot (PNI) is to establish clear boundaries. A well defined line around the "camp". The first to cross the line gets shot.
Excellent.
That's a real answer and you're on the right track to solving the problem. Although they aren't soldiers, they are unarmed prisoners.
That will work for a little while, but eventually a group of prisoners will make a run for it together, maybe all one hundred will agree to run for it at the same time, reducing their chances of getting shot to one in one hundred, which most people would take.
How do you stop the prisoners from organising in a group and making a run for it at the same time?
In the answer, 100 people don't have a 1% chance of being shot. 1 person has a 100% chance of being shot. Did you even read my answer?
>You assign each prisoner a number between one and one hundred. You mark it on them in a way that is clearly visible to you and to the other prisoners. You tell them if someone tries to escape, you'll shoot them. You explain that if a group of people try to escape, you'll shoot the one that was assigned the highest number.
>No one wants to try to run away by themselves and get shot, when groups of prisoners try to organise amongst themselves to make an escape, the one that has the highest number knows they will be shot. So they don't want to be part of the escape plan, but once the one with the highest number abandons the escape plan, you're left with someone else who now has the highest number in the group.
>Every group that is formed has someone with a higher number than the rest of the group, every time this person abandons the escape plan because they know they will be the one who is shot when the group tries to escape, that leaves another prisoner who now has highest number who also abandons the escape plan, and so on until there is only one person left, who won't try to escape by themselves because they know they will be shot.
>In this way you guarantee that a group of people won't try to escape together, and that no one will try to escape by themselves, thus fulfilling the winning condition of the thought experiment.
-
That relies on one person who is willing to die for the other 99.
No one has to be a martyr. If everyone takes off at once, then they have a 1% chance of being shot at (and maybe not even get hit or seriously wounded) and a 99% chance of getting away unmolested. I'm pretty sure that most people would be just fine with those odds.
But the big question is:
The one guy that gets shot, is he one of the one percenters?
-
Torve do you work or sleep?
(https://i.postimg.cc/8PVyLvW3/Screenshot-20250919-083432-Firefox.jpg)
Today is my day off but I'm going to go and buy a welder because I have some steel framing to weld together and welders are cheap enough now to justify me buying one.
-
I'm going to go and buy a welder because I have some steel framing to weld together and welders are cheap enough now to justify me buying one.
hella fresh and welcome to the club (although i think you had previous experience iirc, i had to go take a short class)
-
A man can never have too many tools or skills. I can weld things together well enough but my welds are ugly. I'm looking forward to practicising and getting better at it.
-
Fair play. That’s not bad, and not something I thought of at all.
It’s still a bit of a simplified problem though. It assumes that the prisoners will play by the rules of the game. ie they either behave or make a break for it.
But people will try to circumvent the rules. They could take off their clothes or otherwise hide their number. They could rush you as a group (lowest numbers at the front) instead of trying to run. You could start adding more rules to mitigate for such attempts, but after a few hours or days of quietly whispering between themselves they would find new ways to defy you and get around whatever little rules you give them.
Assuming they want out and are prepared to take some risk, they will rebel and try to break the system.
It works as a logic problem where you are the smart person trying to find an inventive way to deal with dumb people with very predictable behavior. The problem is if they are just as cunning and inventive as you.
If it were an actual real life situation, it’s hard to escape the basic conditions set out at the beginning. You are vastly outnumbered with one gun and one bullet trying to stop a bunch of people who want to escape.
-
Fair play. That’s not bad, and not something I thought of at all.
Thanks, I did say that I had a good answer.
It’s still a bit of a simplified problem though.
That's why its just a thought experiment.
A thought experiment is an imaginary scenario that is meant to elucidate or test an argument or theory. It is often an experiment that would be hard, impossible, or unethical to actually perform. It can also be an abstract hypothetical that is meant to test our intuitions about morality or other fundamental philosophical questions.
Wikipedia
-
In the answer, 100 people don't have a 1% chance of being shot. 1 person has a 100% chance of being shot. Did you even read my answer?
One person may have a 100% chance of being shot at, but not necessarily a 100% chance of being killed or even hit. Assuming that the one shot is not wasted as a warning shot, of course.
-
Its a thought experiment, my silicon friend.
A thought experiment is an imaginary scenario that is meant to elucidate or test an argument or theory. It is often an experiment that would be hard, impossible, or unethical to actually perform. It can also be an abstract hypothetical that is meant to test our intuitions about morality or other fundamental philosophical questions.
Wikipedia
-
A man can never have too many tools or skills. I can weld things together well enough but my welds are ugly. I'm looking forward to practicising and getting better at it.
i agree and i am sure you will achieve the perfect weld bead (i have not and do not even practice anymore because no projects and too much life responsibility)
-
Torve do you work or sleep?
No.
And I never drink.
Wine.
-
I used to know someone pretty similar who posted here.
-
I used to know someone pretty similar who posted here.
So did I.
A tasty fellow.
-
Masalang
Is pretty tasty. Especially when it's spicy.
-
I'm sorry but that's your solution?
It's a terrible solution!
Now, I've read the thread and I do not recall the guards being invulnerable or otherwise unable to be harmed. So where did you explain that rushing the guards isn't an option?
Also, how do the guards hear, see, or otherwise know when a plan is made and who or who isn't in the group?
You also seem to assume that a group of people won't intentionally sacrifice someone to die by force or lie.
Or simply have say... Number 1 blocked by others so you can't shoot him as everyone runs.
Your "thought experiment" seems to make the assumption that everyone is scared and helpless.
Also, by your own post: this isn't a thought experiment as you, the person who made it, have created a solution. There is no testing. No argument. No theory. It's a riddle at best. Any experiment, when done, must not have the experiment or determine the solution prior to engaging it.
-
I'm sorry but that's your solution?
It's a terrible solution!
Thanks for sharing your opinion.
-
The only thing we can do at this point is get together and try this out for real.
-
I agree with Dave.
as you rightly said D1 in your critique of my dark scenario there are people willing to do stuff or allow others to do stuff that are morally bankrupt. Co-opting someone with a higher number than you by coercion, promising to cover them up, and then not doing so, cheating in society especially in potentially dangerous situations is a strategy that often works.
But, a fun exercise if fruitless.
-
A man can never have too many tools or skills. I can weld things together well enough but my welds are ugly. I'm looking forward to practicising and getting better at it.
i agree and i am sure you will achieve the perfect weld bead (i have not and do not even practice anymore because no projects and too much life responsibility)
My brother is an excellent welder. Someday I should take a picture of a trailer he built and show it to you. He is a welder and a mechanic for a living.
-
Listen dude, this thought experiment fails on the principles of game theory.
You threaten to shoot a member of the crowd if they try to leave, as previously outlined.
They crowd knows you won't shoot, bc if you do the rest will kill you.
You don't shoot when they pick up and leave bc you also know they will kill you if you do.
So it's a fail.
Sorry.
-
This was the original and purported to be an interview question for Blackrock. Whether that is true or not, I've no idea..
(https://i.imgur.com/0TAdfxC.png)
So, it's bit tighter, in that it tells us the parameters of the prisoners - ie if there's any chance of escaping they will. It's not really a good puzzle let alone thought experiment and apparently it's not meant to be. Blackrock were apparently less bothered about the answer itself and more with how you approached and framed it.
-
That could work.
-
Confirmed:
Disputeone works for Black Rock.
-
Confirmed:
Disputeone works for Black Rock.
No, he works for Putin.
-
This was the original and purported to be an interview question for Blackrock. Whether that is true or not, I've no idea..
(https://i.imgur.com/0TAdfxC.png)
So, it's bit tighter, in that it tells us the parameters of the prisoners - ie if there's any chance of escaping they will. It's not really a good puzzle let alone thought experiment and apparently it's not meant to be. Blackrock were apparently less bothered about the answer itself and more with how you approached and framed it.
Blackrock thinks a good answer is worth 400k a year. Its a pretty dark question to be asking investment bankers.
-
Blackrock thinks a good answer is worth 400k a year. Its a pretty dark question to be asking investment bankers.
You think that investment banking isn't dark?
https://www.mbacrystalball.com/blog/2018/07/30/investment-banking-dark-side/
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jackkelly/2024/05/30/the-dark-side-of-investment-banking-stress-pressure-and-100-hour-workweeks/
https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/082415/7-reasons-investment-banking-not-you.asp
-
No, I get it.
This was a revolutionary conversation
There's a way forward.
-
That said, after a couple of days, no human being is going to believe any food is forthcoming and they will rush you.
or run away, even at the risk of death (fast vs slow)
-
I've read the supposed solution, it's dumb.
First you set up a boundary, then you apply the following rules:
First person who crosses the boundary, will be killed. All others will be granted their freedom.
If someone tries to take one for the team (purposely be the one killed), one of remaining will be killed at random and the rest will be granted their freedom.
If you force someone to cross the boundary or be the last man, you will be killed, and everyone else will be granted their freedom.
If a group tries to force someone across the boundary, or be the last man, one person at random from that group will be killed, and everyone else will be granted their freedom.
If a group attempts to cross the boundary simultaneously, one person at random from that group will be killed, and everyone else will be granted their freedom.
If you try to cross the boundary en mass, the last person to cross the barrier is killed and the rest will be granted their freedom.
As long as you stay within the boundary, you are free to live how you want. Materials, tools, and supplies will be provided upon request. (Scenario says items are available)
----------------
Essentially you want to do two things, provide an incentive for staying in the boundary beyond just not dying and MORE IMPORANTLY within the rules create a rule paradox that makes it impossible to logic their way out of their chance of being killed.
-
As long as you stay within the boundary, you are free to live how you want. Materials, tools, and supplies will be provided upon request. (Scenario says items are available)
Would there be enough resources to fabricate one set of IronMan mk1 armor?
-
As long as you stay within the boundary, you are free to live how you want. Materials, tools, and supplies will be provided upon request. (Scenario says items are available)
Would there be enough resources to fabricate one set of IronMan mk1 armor?
As a though experiment, sure why not. If he escaped, it would be considered self sacrifice and one of the others would be killed at random.
-
As long as you stay within the boundary, you are free to live how you want. Materials, tools, and supplies will be provided upon request. (Scenario says items are available)
Would there be enough resources to fabricate one set of IronMan mk1 armor?
As a though experiment, sure why not. If he escaped, it would be considered self sacrifice and one of the others would be killed at random.
Ok, how about 100 sets of armor?
-
As long as you stay within the boundary, you are free to live how you want. Materials, tools, and supplies will be provided upon request. (Scenario says items are available)
Would there be enough resources to fabricate one set of IronMan mk1 armor?
As a though experiment, sure why not. If he escaped, it would be considered self sacrifice and one of the others would be killed at random.
Ok, how about 100 sets of armor?
Why not give them infinity stones and Thanos' glove?
-
Thought experiments have predefined terms.
-
Why not give them infinity stones and Thanos' glove?
Because using it would most likely kill the wielder. Also because bulletproof armor is within the realm of possibility.
-
What if one of the prisoners is Blade?
Huh?
Bet you thought you were clever.
I love that movie. If you haven't seen it in a while watch it in 4k HDR, it really pops.
-
Why not give them infinity stones and Thanos' glove?
Because using it would most likely kill the wielder. Also because bulletproof armor is within the realm of possibility.
If we were living in the realms of possibility, this scenario wouldn't exist.
-
Why not give them infinity stones and Thanos' glove?
Because using it would most likely kill the wielder. Also because bulletproof armor is within the realm of possibility.
If we were living in the realms of possibility, this scenario wouldn't exist.
If we were living in the realms of possibility, we wouldn't be discussing this scenario on a flat earth site.
-
Why not give them infinity stones and Thanos' glove?
Because using it would most likely kill the wielder. Also because bulletproof armor is within the realm of possibility.
If we were living in the realms of possibility, this scenario wouldn't exist.
If we were living in the realms of possibility, we wouldn't be discussing this scenario on a flat earth site.
So we agree. The realms of possibility are irrelevant here.
-
I've read the supposed solution, it's dumb.
First you set up a boundary, then you apply the following rules:
First person who crosses the boundary, will be killed. All others will be granted their freedom.
If someone tries to take one for the team (purposely be the one killed), one of remaining will be killed at random and the rest will be granted their freedom.
How would you differentiate between someone "taking one for the team" and someone just making a run for it?
If a group tries to force someone across the boundary, or be the last man, one person at random from that group will be killed, and everyone else will be granted their freedom.
If a group attempts to cross the boundary simultaneously, one person at random from that group will be killed, and everyone else will be granted their freedom.
So a 99% chance of survival vs being held prisoner for life? Bye bye prisoners.
If you try to cross the boundary en mass, the last person to cross the barrier is killed and the rest will be granted their freedom.
Sucks to be last then. Bye bye everyone else.
D1 did leave out one important aspect from this dumb set up - they are all murderers, so you aren't meant to be granting anyone freedom anyway.
-
If you try to cross the boundary en mass, the last person to cross the barrier is killed and the rest will be granted their freedom.
Sucks to be last then. Bye bye everyone else.
Or, you render two people unconscious to be left behind while 98 go free.
-
I've read the supposed solution, it's dumb.
First you set up a boundary, then you apply the following rules:
First person who crosses the boundary, will be killed. All others will be granted their freedom.
If someone tries to take one for the team (purposely be the one killed), one of remaining will be killed at random and the rest will be granted their freedom.
How would you differentiate between someone "taking one for the team" and someone just making a run for it?
That's irrelevant and on purpose. That's the conundrum of the rule. Both the first and last guys can be interpreted as a self sacrifice, putting the risk of being killed on everyone else. Self preservation comes into play and thus the others will want to prevent that scenario.
If a group tries to force someone across the boundary, or be the last man, one person at random from that group will be killed, and everyone else will be granted their freedom.
If a group attempts to cross the boundary simultaneously, one person at random from that group will be killed, and everyone else will be granted their freedom.
So a 99% chance of survival vs being held prisoner for life? Bye bye prisoners.
If you try to cross the boundary en mass, the last person to cross the barrier is killed and the rest will be granted their freedom.
Sucks to be last then. Bye bye everyone else.
D1 did leave out one important aspect from this dumb set up - they are all murderers, so you aren't meant to be granting anyone freedom anyway.
Actually no, last can be interpreted as a self sacrifice.
-
Penguins gather at rhe sdge of a cliff knowing there are leopardsaels and orcas in the water.
They gather and gather until someone falls in.
If the prisoners, if they are individual criminals will self hierarchy and sacrifice someone.
If the prisoners are an opposing warring team then overpowering a captor is in the relm of "all charge amdnhope its not me" because its eactly what happens when the wwi whistle blew to charge.
The only way they dont chagre is if they didnt even want to fight in the first place where punishment for not obeying orders meant death.