this post was submitted on 30 Aug 2024
40 points (78.6% liked)
Asklemmy
43807 readers
836 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy ๐
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- [email protected]: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
It's actually more like choosing the strategy with the relatively best worst-case scenario, in general. In zero-sum games it turns into what you're describing.
But either way, yeah, that's not what OP means.
But it's a specific best worst case : it's not only about how best you can do for yourself, it's for how far from you the opponent is. You prefer'd a -1 -100 option over a +2 +1 in minmaxing. While you'd take the second in a maximizing strategy, if there wasn't a third option thatd be like +3 +20. All that being your reward, opponent reward.
That's what I want to transmit to folks reading us.