They could, though I think much of that can be mitigated with effort. I believe the textbook example is domestic abuse, but I worry that the scope also coincides with fallout from poisoned well attacks and tribalistic recruitment efforts.
Against the use of double binds. To me they are an indicator of hostile intent, although as demonstrated here and in the practice of law, adversarial interactions can be constructive. This abstraction is incredibly beautiful, but typical examples are not necessarily nice.
Glad to hear that. The Freemium solution is certainly a simple one, but I didn't feel it was appropos. Personally I'd have to start writing a day ahead to have a chance at formalizing my question before the time limit. Expert advice does benefit from codified standards but it's hopefully dissimilar in that the question I brought features a double bind; It doesn't have a 'winning' answer. There are tons of regular answers, so an expert would just tell you not to fall for it. Education against them is one of the few ways I acknowledge of their constructive use, and I'd guess logicallee still won't be satisfied with my breakdown. I do what I can.
Not at all. It's correct that this problem is formally recognized as a false paradox. It is a thought experiment infamous for its illustrative misuse in relation to other areas. "What are the 'boxes' in this case?" - The unfortunate choice of fiat is one such area, and it is correct for practical purposes to discard the subject right here because answers will modify the service, or fail a test. So fail a test, it's not a problem. Ignore the unstated false equivalences between test criteria and aim to break the criterion that matters least. Different situations call for different choices, but standard consensus is to admit to 2-boxing. Different hybrid strategies are improved by personal values. By 1-boxing I don't value my time, I value the information. While I'm coming up to speed I might get a chance to use it. That could take a while though, I have a decent memory but I'm not a fast proofreader.
I share a similar view, that testing whether the examiner is lying is itself worthwhile. But while the analysis has several interpretations this question may pose the agency a small problem. They are answering a paid user and therefore have technically already opened box number 2. They cannot therefore lay claim to box 1, only dodge the question, lie, or accept their fate.
There's multiple bounds. The mounting evidence for BPP=BQP unfortunately falls aside P=BPP for evidence without proof. The weak interpretation is that BQP is vulnerable, and the strong interpretation is that BQP is broken. It's in the air, but for certain applications people can't afford to guess wrong. It's reasonable to remove it as a dependency in those fields.
I find it amusing that I didn't say anything for OR against, just mentioned them and that apparently someone 'disagrees.' With what, an inaccuracy? Then post a reply. Just voting says: I don't get it.
Buboard may be assuming that performance is greatly influenced by skill and that skill is learned rather than innate, leaving a 'string of failure' in the learning process. Probabilistically, this is roughly that skill-based success is a coin with highly biased initial weight for failure, and learning changes the coin's bias. I do not care to speculate on how success actually works; I'm quite sure it's more complicated than I can fit in a comment.