I had to, I just didn’t.

Got charged $100 for “dental hygiene training” during annual dentist visit after dentist walked in and asked “Do you floss?” - “Yes.” - “Good. Floss every day.” and walked out. I only know of this charge because insurance refused to pay and they sent the bill to me. I know it’s definitely about these two utterances because this was the only interaction I had with this doctor at all. Everything else was performed by dental students.

I now refuse to answer any questions that do not directly pertain to the immediate procedure.

This also happened during the Korean War itself. When the Korean Armistice Agreement was negotiated in 1953, the UN forces insisted on a provision in the prisoner exchange procedures that the POWs could choose which side to be repatriated to, free from repercussions. The Americans meant for this to be used to allow North Koreans imprisoned in South Korea to choose to remain in South Korea, and then did surprise pikachu face when dozens of American soldiers refused repatriation and chose to remain in North Korea.

Had a functional iphone 5 I wanted to give away to someone, for use as a child phone or temporary replacement for a broken phone. Went to my local buy-nothing group, found several people asking for a free iphone to replace a broken or missing phone, every one of them saying “any old phone is fine, 12 or above”. I’m still using iphone 8…

Since OP is confused on this question in particular, the phrasing “safe to drink” means to drink straight from the tap. If you have to boil or filter your water, your tap water is NOT safe to drink. This is why OP is culture shocked, they thought their water counts as “safe” because they could drink it… after boiling. But as seen in this map, it is not.

Safe has this very specific meaning in this context. If “safe” included water after treatment, then there would be no unsafe water anywhere, because even radioactive waste water would be “safe to drink” when could just filter it.

Here’s my solution to Newcomb’s Paradox: the predictor can be perfectly infallible if it records your physical state and then runs a simulation to predict which box you’ll pick. E.g. it could run a fancy MRI on you as you are walking through the hallway towards the room, quickly run a faster-than-real-time physical simulation, and deposit the correct opaque box into the room before you open the door. The box, the hallway, the room, the door are all part of the simulation.

Here’s the thing: a computer simulation of a person is just as conscious as a physical person, for all intents of “consciousness”. So as you are inside the room making your decision, you have no way of knowing if you are the physical you or the simulated you. The predictor is a liar in a way. The predictor is telling the simulated you that you’ll get a billion dollars, but stating the rules is just part of the simulation! The simulated you will actually be killed/shut down when you open the box. Only the physical you has a real chance to get a billion dollars. The predictor is counting on you to not call it out on its lie or split hairs and just take the money.

So if you think you might be in a simulation, the question is: are you generous enough towards your identical physical copy from 1 second ago to cooperate and one-box? Or are you going to spitefully deprive them of a billion dollars by two-boxing just because you are about to be killed anyway? Remember, you don’t even know which one you are. And if you are the spiteful kind, consider that we are already making much smaller time-cooperative trade-offs all the time, such as the you-now taking a breath just so that the you-five-seconds-from-now doesn’t suffocate to death.

What if the predictor doesn’t use a MRI or whatever? I posit that whatever prediction method it uses, if the method is sufficiently advanced to be infallible then somewhere in the process it MUST be creating conscious observer instances.

Reddit has been going downhill ever since the diggers migrated ;-)

Do not share your name online.

It’s worse - they are natural monopolies. I don’t need to run fiber to my house from 3 different ISPs any more than I want to run pipes from 3 different water supply companies. Utilities like electricity are already regulated with price controls and some semblance of democratic oversight. It’s time that internet hookups are too.

Never have I ever benefited from Google or Amazon or anyone changing my search string for me. Even if I do misspell something, I’m gonna click on the “did you mean x instead?” link myself, because I don’t trust the 50/50 mixed results anyway. But 90% of the time I’m gonna be immediately scrambling to put the double quotes back in, which it’s also gonna ignore half the time.