frosty99c @ frosty99c @midwest.social

Posts

0

Comments

75

Joined

2 yr. ago

Oh my God, I read that as "Kissinger" and thought for a terrible moment that he was still alive.

Also possible that there may have been multiple in the household if so many were printed and mailed out? Maybe they turned the real one in for the prize money and then kept a non-winning one in a scrap book? Memories over time are weird so they could've convinced themselves that they kept the real one

Thank you! I should've linked to it. The actual text does a much better job of answering OP than my attempt to summarize it.

Especially in the US, where both parties are globally "right" in both political and financial aspects, a lot of time claiming to be a centrist means that you like capitalism and bombing other countries but you support LGBT causes and are pro-choice. I think, online and especially on lemmy, that the vocal left-wing voices (correctly) see this still as aiding the right but being too cowardly to admit it.

This also ties back to the MLK quote about the 'white centrist' being the biggest obstacle to his movement, because they may say the right things and appear to be helpful but take no action for the movement. By staying centrist and trying to meet in the middle, would lend credibility to the voices on the other side.

The original draft probably said "nearly a 300% increase" and then the editor didn't know the difference between percent increase and basic multiplication.

Right, isn't that the point of the question? What old time things did we do for one reason (cloven hooves) that turned out to be right for completely different reasons (health and safety)

In the original the possibilities for a prize behind the doors 1,2,3 are:

A) YNN B) NYN C) NNY

In (A) - A.1 you choose door 1 and then stay, you win A.2 you choose door 1 and switch, you lose A.3 you choose door 2 and stay, you lose A.4 You choose door 2 and switch, you win A.5 you choose door 3 and stay, you lose A.6 you choose door 3 and switch, you win

By staying, you lose in 2 of 3 cases (A.3 and A.5)

By switching you only lose in 1 case (A.2)

It works out for (B) and (C) the same way. You have a 2/3rds chance of winning if you switch and a 1/3rd chance of winning if you don't.

This isn't a trick or anything, the math is pretty clear and you can actually write out all the scenarios and count it up yourself. It's just a little counterintuitive because we aren't used to thinking in terms of conditional probabilities this way.

Another way to think about it is the probability of losing. If the contestant loses, it means that they picked correctly on their first choice and then swapped. This will happen 1/3rd of the games, because there is a 1 in 3 chance of picking correctly the first time. So, if you have a 1/3rd chance of losing by swapping, then it follows that you have a 2/3rds chance of winning by swapping (choosing incorrectly at the start and then switching to the correct door)

The original Star Wars would never have specifically created a character just to sell merchandise...

Do you know the third door is never correct? Because then the probability doesn't change.

Scenario 1: You chose 1/2 at first with a 50% chance of being correct, I introduce a 3rd door (but it isn't a legit possibility), so the actual choice for you is still 50/50 (between doors 1 and 2)

Scenario 2: If you think it's possible that 3 could be correct (but it actually never is) then, no, you wouldn't want to switch. By staying with your first choice has a 50% chance of winning, by switching it only has a 33% chance. But there's no way to know this ahead of time (because as soon as you know you shouldn't switch bc 3 is the wrong door, then you're back in scenario 1)

Scenario 3: For completeness, let's say the 3rd door can be correct sometimes. Then it doesn't matter if you switch or not. It's a 33% chance of winning either way. If there is a chance it can be correct, then your first choice doesn't matter at all and the second choice is the 'real' choice bc that's the only time you're able to choose from all real possibilities.

The only reason that the Monty Hall problem changes probability in the second choice is because you are provided more information before the switch (that the opened door is absolutely not the one with the prize)

Agreed. And I've never read anything quite like The Savage Detectives. His short stories are great too, and you can find a lot of them online published by the New Yorker.

Yes, it's the same concept. The same math/logic behind it doesn't change. You're choosing 1/3 or you are choosing 2/3 and I'll tell you which of the two is incorrect. It's just easier to visualize with 100 doors instead.

I'm not sure I'm following the other angle..there are 3 correct possibilities at the start but I can only choose 2? Or there are 2 possibilities and then you introduce a 3rd door that is never correct?

Roberto Bolaño

Because when you first picked 27, it was 1 out of 100 choices. Then I tell you that you either got it right, or it's this other number. None of the others are correct, only 27 or 44.

So you think your 1/100 choice was better than the one I'm giving you now? On average, you'll be right 1% of the time if you don't switch. If you do switch, you'll be correct 99% of the time.

Another way to think of it is: you choose 27 or you choose ALL of the other 99 numbers knowing that I'll tell you that 98 of them are wrong and you'll be left with the correct one out of that batch. One of those clearly has better odds, no?

Correct, extend it to 10 or 100 choices instead of 3 and it's easy to see.

Me: Pick a number between 1 and 100.

Them: 27

Me: Okay, the number is either 27 or 44, do you want to change your choice?

Them, somehow: No, changing my choice now still has the same probability of being right as when I made my first choice.

It's obvious that they should want to change every time.

Ok, now take it one more step. Why can't that person walk? Is it because someone broke their leg? In that case, it's not an 'exception' it's an aid. It makes the situation more equitable.

It's ok to say that a certain class is deficient. Sometimes we need to accept that. The problem is that, at this moment, the poverty class is deficient due to our capitalistic system that has oppressed them for years. They are not inherently deficient due to any fault of their own. And unfortunately, a large percentage of those are people of color due to years of systematic racism and discrimination (red lining, underfund education, food deserts, etc).

It's wrong to say that people of color are deficient because they are people of color. It's (more) correct to say that deficiencies do exist due to the current/historical structure of our society and we should start to find solutions to these issues.

Racism and insults occur when someone says "systematic racism doesn't exist so giving these people handouts is unfair to me" or "this person is deficient because they are black." We need to accept that inequality exists and do our best as a society to help overcome it.

I think this is one of the main reasons that critical race theory became such a hot button issue. This type of systematic inequality needs to be studied and understood so that reasonable, well researched solutions can be discovered. The privileged class is against it because they want to remain privileged; they want the rest of the upper/middle class to put their head in the sand and ignore that the systematic issues exist in the first place, so that fingers don't end up pointed at them and things won't ever need to change. It's easier to demonize the topic all together than to form actual arguments against equality.

Haha correct. I always get confused on how they're all related too.

I also think that Taylor and Madison were second cousins or something.

FDR was a president's brother? Which one?

That loads for me with no issue.