Commercial Break (Worm / Slut Life) (Borderline SFW)

I've made my way through a BA in math (though statistics was far from my best subject), and I can fairly confidently say that it does. It's called the sum of an exponential series. I could probably give you the formula if you want.

(It doesn't actually work that way in practice, of course, for reasons that I mostly folded under "non-childbirth causes of death".)

[EDIT: I'm not eligible for the hacker guessing, so no answer for that one, unfortunately.]

 

I wonder if the magics Taylor thinking of picking works like a muscle the more you used the better you get as oppose to a sudden power up that has a upper limit on how strong you get.

 

The easiest way of calculating probability in a situation like this?

80% chance of surviving childbirth, 5 children born:
.8 * .8 * .8 * .8 * .8 = 0.32768 = 32.768% chance a woman would survive 5 childbirths.
Not 100% chance she'd die.

Granted, that is a rough method, the actual way to calculate single-event probability over multiple iterations is explained here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernoulli_process

(this post is pure math, only using the childbirth bit because that's how the original math was presented)

 

This is... not actually how the math works.

I mean, sure, there would be a 32.768% chance of having at least 6 children (and, for example, a slightly under 8.59% chance of having at least 12). There would also be a 20% chance of having only 1, and a 36% chance of having 2 or less, which in turn brings the average down towards 5.

If you actually work out the exponential series, the average does, in fact, come out to 1/p (or 1/(1-p), depending on which event you're counting), or, in this case, 1/(1-0.8)=1/0.2=5.

...I'm seriously considering asking you to look in a few (probability theory/statistics) textbooks and check the definition of the term "average". It might not mean exactly what you think it does (pun not intended, but funny).

 

january1may edale
Pretty sure Jonakhensu asked you guys to pull it up.

As for the hacker, I have no idea. What pool are we choosing from?

Felicity Smoak, from Arrow?

 

Given the chapter:

I'd say the pool is "males not already in the room" right now.

 

This is a fundamental misunderstanding of what the law is and how it works. The purpose of the law isn't to follow arbitrary prescriptions, it's to maintain a functional and stable society. In any half-sane legal system, that "contract" isn't worth the paper it's printed on.

 

Or at least people Farnsworth might mistake for being male.

I think I see the issue. You're assuming the legal system is st least half-sane and that the people who control the multiverse from the shadows didn't put in loopholes for their own use.

I'd go further, but then I might be violating Rule 8 (I think). Just checked. Got the right rule number.

 

I think he assumed that you meant that a woman would die after 5 (as in 20% * 5 = 100) which would obviously be wrong. Instead you're saying that 1 + 0.8 + 0.64 (and so on, repeating the 0.8^n) approaches 5.

Which was wrong to ME because of what it applies to, as it both assumes the 20% is stable and more importantly, that we can make an infinite series out of this (or at least, get our 0.8^n repeated until n is at least 20 or so to get it to 4.95)

 

I didn't think of the former (though it does makes sense), and the latter is the part I mentioned as "folded under "non-childbirth causes of death"".

That said, women having 15+ children was very much a thing that happened in early modern times (~18th century), at least in the richer families; there is no immediate reason to believe that it did not happen in pre-modern times (and/or in poorer families) as well, aside from most of those women not being "lucky" enough to survive that far (and/or being unable to feed that many kids).

...Either way, can we please put that discussion on hold for the moment? We're getting darn close to actually disturbing the thread author.

 

EDIT: Oh right... Ack? one of my students doodled a little cross-hatched thing in their notebook once. I saw it and ended up telling them about the Raft of the Medusa, because the shape of the doodle was just like that raft down to the angled bow relative to most of the hatching and the stern strands sticking out. Compared to that, going from age of consent discussion to historical pre-reproductive mortality is no jump I assure you.

Problem: Incessant European wars, and China's Malthusian Trap cycle, put a lie to the math working in the other direction.

30% pre-age-15 mortality would be just fine given all the wars, epidemics, etc., and populations did usually grow slowly over time in pre-modern times (with some catastrophic contractions).

A sane QAI? As in the entity that can math-precog months of a galactic war?

Loopholes just make for more orifices to to fill with deadly invertebrates.

A legal system that doesn't meet a minimum standard of sanity would not survive long enough to have many previous contestants. Of course, the minimum standard could in this case be "you're a primitive who we're making sign this just for the paper trail, the death ray that's pointed at you for this is out of frame and trying to renege on us will result in us dealing with you permanently before you can seriously think of going through it--we have psychics, remember?"

Because let's face it, exploiting primitives is considered standard. And being part of the secret society... "observers" are a part of a group, but can't actually do jack shit.

 

Nah, I'm assuming SystemSearcher was talking about, if not the actual law, at least a sort of platonic law.

 

Okay, question.

Can we see the wording of the original contract that Taylor signed?

Because I want to see how it's binding for her to be a contestant for Slut Life without ever saying the name of the company.

Because naming the entity to which you are promising to pledge your time is kind of a cornerstone of all contract law everywhere.

Now, calling it something other than the utter giveaway name of "Slut Life" I can see. "Welcome to Essential Lifestyle Entertainment, you're now a contestant expected to have constant sex on public display."

But not "Hey, you signed a contract with us. You now have to do what we say."
"Who's us? And what do I have to do?"
"We're Slut Life, and you have to have sex with people."
"What? Where does that say it on the contract?"
"Right here. 'You have to do what we say.'"
"No, where does it say that 'we' are Slut Life?"
"Uh ... the initials in the corner?"
"SL? Sure, just as soon as you show me on the contract that I signed where SL stands for Slut Life."
"Everyone knows it does!"
"Is it on the contract?"
"It's understood!"
"So, no."
"No, yes! You have to do whatever SL--I mean Slut Life--says!"
"Nope. Nowhere in that contract does it even refer to the initials 'SL'. In fact ...." (scribbles the words 'Solitary Lifestyle' under the letters 'SL'.) "That;s what SL means, to me. And Solitary Lifestyle, which isn't you guys, says I should have a great life and never have sex with anyone I don't want to."

So I'm interested. How does this work, exactly?

Can we see the wording of the contract?

 

I'm not a contract lawyer, and I haven't read enough contracts to even attempt a decent one, so, no, I will not be writing up the original contract.

To put it another way, it it's binding because of author fiat. It probably wouldn't work in the real world, except possibly on a still partially medicated and traumatized teenager, but it is necessary for the story and seems like a fairly minor sticking point to me.

 

Lots of companies operate under something other then their official name, it's called a trade name. Slut Life is probably technically a brand owned by some vaguely named corporate body. The real problems come from things like efficient breach, which says they'd only be entitled to sue her for the damages actually incurred by her failure to fulfill her contract, which at that point was nothing.

Of course, for the purposes of this story, we might as well just say that none of the people Taylor has talked to actually know anything about contract law.

 

Yeah, but there was no trade name mentioned in the contract. The strong inference is that the overarching corporation is called Slut Life, and the letterhead even has the SL logo without spelling out the name.

How did Trichter trick Taylor into signing her life away on a contract that didn't even mention the words "Slut Life" on it?

Sorry, but this is the plot hole I keep tripping over.

I don't need exact legal verbiage. I'm just looking for some sort of logic here. Having Taylor being trapped into this contract is a pretty huge plot point. In fact, it's the plot point. Without it, there wouldn't be a plot.

So how do their contract laws work, that a contract that doesn't mention Slut Life by name ever can still be binding to make Taylor into a contestant for Slut Life?

 

I don't think you have to know your counterparty by any particular name to form a contract with them. Do you know the corporate identity of your grocery store? Would not knowing it make you contract of sale with them invalid? Probably not. Taylor's understanding of who she was dealing with singles out specific entity, and that's probably enough.

 

The contract can't work in any reasonable legal system anyway. Purposefully misrepresenting the terms of a contract as Trichter did is fraud, and is grounds to claim the contract is voidable. Even ignoring that, Taylor is non-emancipated minor, and can't sign a legally binding contracts anyway. If this was ever tried in an American court, Tritcher would be laughed out of court, then tried for kidnapping.

This story basically can't run off anything but the assumption that Taylor's been kidnapped to a megacorp dominated dystopia where corporations have radically rewritten contract law in their favor. She's just 'lucky' that some factions in the company that's fucking her over is feeling just guilty enough to try to make it a little less terrible. Though apparently not guilty enough to just smuggle her to a dimensional transporter and send her home.

 

Kidnapping, exploitation of a minor, corruption of a minor, sex trafficking (that's the really big one, and the legal and literal definition of exactly what Trichter did), slave/human trafficking (owners/option to have yourself sold off), fraud (intentionally misrepresenting the contract... which IS illegal and can nullify the contract), entrapment (not 100% on this one, you might need to be an officer of the law to commit this).... I think that covers the major criminal charges Trichter would face in a US court. Civil court would be a whole nother list of things.

 

I'm assuming that the name used in Taylor's contract was something relatively innocious sounding (along the lines of OOO LLC Extreme Entertainment Technologies Incorporated Ltd.), which happened to be either a parent company, a child company, or a trademark owner of Slut Life.

Of course, it's perfectly possible that the contract as written wasn't binding, but Cindy didn't know enough about contract law to realize that, Taylor didn't get an opportunity to focus on it enough, the parts of the management who might have known about it (if any, aside from Tricher, who obviously wouldn't tell) didn't want a promising prospective contestant to get off on a technicality, and once Taylor signed the full contract with the options written out, both of them became binding anyway (at least, discounting the "underage" part).

 

Thinking on it.... Trichter was legally obligated to provide Taylor a copy of the contract when it was signed. Without doing so the contract is not legally binding.

 

By "Taylor didn't get an opportunity to focus on it enough", I meant "Taylor was too busy discussing stuff with Cindy, and/or too distracted by playing with her bugs, to actually focus on the contract long enough". I did not intend to imply that she didn't have a copy, just that she didn't focus on it enough.

(It is also possible that she also didn't know quite enough contract law to pick out whatever problem there was.)

 

Or she just doesn't have any legal knowledge either. She's still in school after all.

 

Given that I never have to sign a contract to buy things from my local grocery store (I get my groceries and hand over the money, then leave the store) that's not really an effective analogy.

Except in the story as written, there was no company name given. Just the initials "SL" in the top corner. Nor any indication of what the contract leads to.

I think this is supposed to come across as Trichter being clever. What it comes across to me as is "the author didn't think this through".

I think your definition of "promising" and mine vary greatly.

Taylor doesn't want to have sex with anyone. She's only doing this because a) she signed the contract which she thinks is binding, and b) because she thinks she can get enough power to save the world out of it. In the meantime, she's letting Good Cop Cindy con her into making unwise choices, just like Bad Cop Trichter did.

Once she realises what she's fully signed herself up to be ... she's gonna be pissed.

And then it won't be safe within three blocks of her.

Because unless they inflict mental programming on her without her permission, she'll still have her knowledge of what was done to her as well as her powers when she hits planetside. And you do NOT want her to be angry at you under those circumstances.

 

You're assuming that the multiversal society that Slut Life caters to and is based out of has the same laws we do. Granted some things are universal, for lack of a better word, but there clearly aren't laws forbidding incest between siblings, for example, which is something that's illegal in some (but not all) countries here on our Earth.

 

No.
Megacorporations would not allow such crappy contract laws because with it being this bad someone could use invisible ink on signing a bill at a restaurant and call it a binding contract.
Or take fingerprints from a doorknob that actually has microscopic writing all over it and call that a binding contract.
Megacorporations like looser terms so they can weasel out of things.

If a teenager can't figure out any ways to weasel their way out of something as full of holes as this then I don't know how said teenager ever learnt to control their breathing enough to actually talk.

The only way Taylor stays in this farce is "I want training, bodily upgrades and better powers. Having fans and people who think I'm good enough looking to watch have sex would be good for my self-esteem too", and with how averse she is to sooo many useful things, she's not going to be very good at gaming the upgrades and powers on her first run-through anyhow (translation: I'm still annoyed over her being too dumb to think to hide heavy weapons in nipple hammerspace).

If they didn't have that instinctive taboo they would never have evolved sentience, let alone sapience. It's almost certainly just a game show thing for fun and profit (like how porn claims to have "siblings"), and even then could be a "forced to video game with them" sort of joke.

 

A really funny fact that I found out recently, technically Bestiality is legal in Russia.

 

This will be what keeps her in the show, much like "Being the better person" and "wanting to be a hero" was all that kept her from going Bug-pocolypse on the Trio after the locker.

This is what she's going to be thinking as the show progresses

honestly i'm just patiently waiting for more, i like what has been written so far and will currently writing off problems to porn logic

 

Fun fact: in 2000s (and maybe even early 2010s) Russia, people paying with a card at grocery stores did have to sign something that looked a lot like a rudimentary contract. (I never got an opportunity to look at it closely, because by the time I got a debit card myself such things had already been mostly phased out*, but I definitely saw lots of people in lines in front of me signing some papers whenever they paid with a card.)
I highly suspect that many of those people didn't know the official name of the grocery stores in question either.

I also distinctly recall the fact of having signed an actual contract (though probably not a legally binding one) with Harry Potter back in either 2003 or 2005. Forgot the details, but it involved the then-upcoming 5th book in some way.
We might still have that one somewhere around, actually.


*) well, in Moscow, anyway; maybe it's still a thing in some other places

 

Something tells me that either you are breaking the Statute of Secrecy (which could not possibly have held out into the era of smartphones) or that a contract with a fictional person is less than legally binding... which makes me wonder HOW did you sign a contract with HARRY POTTER of all people??????