I rolled 1d12 with an actual d12 (Hey, you kids! Get offa my lawn!). 1-4 to upvote gwern, 5-8 to do nothing, and 9-12 to downvote. I got a 10. Then I upvoted all the comments between gwern and Eliezer, inclusive, as a celebration of starting this thread up again. (I also found another comment of gjm’s and voted it up, because the Bertha Jorkins and Charlie Gordon references are brilliant.
Hopefully a*|I voted this down and immediate parent down>*|other-stuff-1> + b*|I voted this up and immediate parent down>*|other-stuff-2> + c*|I voted this down and immediate parent up>*|other-stuff-3> + d*|I voted this up and immediate parent up>*|other-stuff-4> + e*|other possible outcomes>
with a, b, c, d having hopefully approximately the same modulus and e having small modulus, by requesting from hotbits (which claims to use a quantum source of uncertainty) one byte, taking the two lowest order bits, with the 1 bit being for the immediate comment I’m replying to and the 2 bit being for its immediate parent, going by the rule of 0 = downvote and 1 = upvote. (Well, okay, really a mixed state given how it’ll all work, but there will be in the mixed state a sum of states of the form described above, so...)
Requesting byte… now:
And this blob of quantum amplitude is a blob that received FC. So let’s see, that means… both low order bits zero. So downvotes for both Normal_anomaly and gwern. Awww. Well, at least there’ll hopefully be other branches of equal weight in which you both got upvotes from this procedure.
(Hotbits apparently stores up random bits and generally serves requests by peeling off the stack of stored random bits the number of bytes requested. So if the pre stored stuff entangled itself with the rest of the world sufficiently that my decision to do this ended up nontrivially entangled with the particular byte I got, then no promises about other branches. But again, probably end up with basically just a whole lot of states similar to the desired one except that the “other stuff” parts are a tad different.)
Blame me, because I restarted the chain. I voted this down, because it was not very amusing, and the parent up, because I assume it was an HPMOR reference and that is awesome.
I just want to say that I find this chain ridiculously funny beyond all expected measure. None of it (past a point) has any reason to exist, but it still went on quite a while. Good job everyone on writing something so amazingly ridiculous :-)
I’m voting up some pseudo-random selection of comments in this chain, because...well because I found that there was a bottom, and it seemed natural to extend it one further.
I voted up on every comment in this chain on which someone stated that they voted it up, and down on every comment on this chain on which someone stated that they voted it down, removing votes when they cancelled out and using strong-votes instead when they added together. I regret to say that the comment by Dorikka seems to have had three more people say that they voted it up than that they voted it down, so although I gave it a strong upvote, I have only been able to replicate two-thirds of the original vote. I upvoted Dorikka’s last comment on another post to bring the universe back into balance.
I rolled 1d12 with an actual d12 (Hey, you kids! Get offa my lawn!). 1-4 to upvote gwern, 5-8 to do nothing, and 9-12 to downvote. I got a 10. Then I upvoted all the comments between gwern and Eliezer, inclusive, as a celebration of starting this thread up again. (I also found another comment of gjm’s and voted it up, because the Bertha Jorkins and Charlie Gordon references are brilliant.
Hopefully a*|I voted this down and immediate parent down>*|other-stuff-1> + b*|I voted this up and immediate parent down>*|other-stuff-2> + c*|I voted this down and immediate parent up>*|other-stuff-3> + d*|I voted this up and immediate parent up>*|other-stuff-4> + e*|other possible outcomes>
with a, b, c, d having hopefully approximately the same modulus and e having small modulus, by requesting from hotbits (which claims to use a quantum source of uncertainty) one byte, taking the two lowest order bits, with the 1 bit being for the immediate comment I’m replying to and the 2 bit being for its immediate parent, going by the rule of 0 = downvote and 1 = upvote. (Well, okay, really a mixed state given how it’ll all work, but there will be in the mixed state a sum of states of the form described above, so...)
Requesting byte… now:
And this blob of quantum amplitude is a blob that received FC. So let’s see, that means… both low order bits zero. So downvotes for both Normal_anomaly and gwern. Awww. Well, at least there’ll hopefully be other branches of equal weight in which you both got upvotes from this procedure.
(Hotbits apparently stores up random bits and generally serves requests by peeling off the stack of stored random bits the number of bytes requested. So if the pre stored stuff entangled itself with the rest of the world sufficiently that my decision to do this ended up nontrivially entangled with the particular byte I got, then no promises about other branches. But again, probably end up with basically just a whole lot of states similar to the desired one except that the “other stuff” parts are a tad different.)
I voted on this and the immediate parent, but I won’t reveal why, or which direction, or how many times, or which account I used.
Don’t blame me, I voted for the original comment.
Blame me, because I restarted the chain. I voted this down, because it was not very amusing, and the parent up, because I assume it was an HPMOR reference and that is awesome.
Voted up all comments in this chain except this one, because I can’t vote on my own comments anymore.
I just want to say that I find this chain ridiculously funny beyond all expected measure. None of it (past a point) has any reason to exist, but it still went on quite a while. Good job everyone on writing something so amazingly ridiculous :-)
Voted down all comments in this chain except this one, because I am flesh.
Voted up this comment, for reasons that should be self-evident.
Voted up this comment, for kabbalistic reasons.
Voted down this comment, because 2 other people voted it up and didn’t even have the guts to admit to it.
I’m voting up some pseudo-random selection of comments in this chain, because...well because I found that there was a bottom, and it seemed natural to extend it one further.
I voted up on every comment in this chain on which someone stated that they voted it up, and down on every comment on this chain on which someone stated that they voted it down, removing votes when they cancelled out and using strong-votes instead when they added together. I regret to say that the comment by Dorikka seems to have had three more people say that they voted it up than that they voted it down, so although I gave it a strong upvote, I have only been able to replicate two-thirds of the original vote. I upvoted Dorikka’s last comment on another post to bring the universe back into balance.
I may or may not have voted on your comment, but then I deleted this comment.