Text from article:
David Rice, a disabled Army paratrooper who has been on probation since joining the U.S. Department of Energy in September, also learned Thursday night that he had lost his job.
Rice, who has been working as a foreign affairs specialist on health matters relating to radiation exposure, said he’d been led to believe that his job would likely be safe. But on Thursday night, when he logged into his computer for a meeting with Japanese representatives, he saw an email saying he’d been fired.
“It’s just been chaos,” said Rice, 50, who had just bought a house in Melbourne, Florida, after he got the job.
Rice said he agrees with the Trump administration’s goal of making the government more efficient, but objects to the random, scattershot approach being taken.
Originally linked here:
They all fail at game theory. When being negative, everyone loses. Tit for Tat + 10% forgiveness is the most successful and highest growth potential. T4T means you are always nice, always positive, and when someone is negative, you respond in kind but randomly forgive 10% of the time to exit the stupidity spiral. Most world leaders know and operate under T4T now that it was established as the only path to maximal growth for everyone. Failing to apply this when everyone else is applying it will ALWAYS result in bringing everyone down but the most damage will ALWAYS occur to the perpetrating entity when all others are playing T4Tpt.
There are a variety of ways. One way is to run a computer program that executes each strategy and then just have them all go against each other some number of times like a tournament, or sometimes just “random matchings”. Super fast to do so it’s easy to try different scenarios and make a lot of different strategies.
They’ve also done tournaments with actual people, and then compared the different people’s behavior to the different “pure” strategies that they made. This helps them validate that the behaviors carry over.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner's_dilemma
It’s worth noting that nation states don’t always behave the same as individuals, but often closer to the game theory ideal. Additionally, there are circumstances where tit for tat isn’t actually the dominant strategy, specifically when you know that the game is going to end.
The person you’re replying to is describing (without giving proper context except for “game theory”) an algorithm that’s fairly successful at the “iterated prisoners dilemma”: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tit_for_tat
Good luck ever defining positive and negative or quantifying them
Most people think that someone telling them the reality(objectively and calmly) that directly affects them is a negative thing because they willingly choose to live in an illusion and then act shocked and appalled when something truly negative happens although they’re fully aware they could have prevented it
Although game theory is a very useful tool the input that you use has little to no connection with reality which make the results close to fiction
Feel free to reply with something “positive” to “prove” your point but keep in mind it’s almost all in your head, 99% placebo
_portrait.jpg){kind=link}