11 ms·

Do you actually think the point is to argue with people who actually know things, like a lawyer instead of a scientist? Using a modulo operator is the obvious s

by lutusp 12y ago

Do you actually think the point is to argue with people who actually know things, like a lawyer instead of a scientist? Using a modulo operator is the obvious solution to the original question, and cowardly anonymous downvotes can't erase simple facts -- but they eventually make them have so little contrast on the display that they become unreadable. What an achievement.

DanBC 12y ago
Nearly everytime you mention downvotes: the reason is tone and attitude. I don't know if you are aware just how much your tone influences the downvotes.
- lutusp 12y ago
  > Nearly everytime you mention downvotes: the reason is tone and attitude. Look -- I posted the obvious solution to a common problem. Everything else depends on those who can't stand the unwelcome intrusion of simple, easily stated facts. My "attitude" is that this problem is easily solved, using simple arithmetic. Imagine you're a scientist -- as such, do you object to a useful result because of its source?
  - DanBC 12y ago
    I say this to help you, feel free to ignore it. When you get a downvote, ignore it. It's probably accidental or meaningless and these tend to self correct over a day. When people downvote a bunch of your posts in a thread IGNORE THE DOWNVOTES. Vindictive downvote sprees are usually corrected over the course of the day. Mentioning the downvotes will usually prevent those corrective upvotes. Me tioning the downvotes in the unpleasant way that you do will attract downvotes. You may wish to consider how you're presenting the information. If the first table of numbers gets downvotes posting the same table again without more information is going to get the same downvotes. You could argue that it should not be this way, but it is.
    - lutusp 12y ago
      > You could argue that it should not be this way, but it is. Indeed it is. State facts, back up what you say with evidence, get downvoted. As certain as sunrise. > If the first table of numbers gets downvotes posting the same table again without more information is going to get the same downvotes. The alternative is to adopt the standards of religion instead of science. In religion, if you start losing followers, you change the mythology. In science, evidence is evidence, and how people feel about it has no standing. > When you get a downvote, ignore it. It's probably accidental or meaningless ... Easily proven false. My downvotes inevitably accompany anything I post that has evidence and/or links to references. If I offer an uncorroborated opinion or philosophical remark, however irrelevant or baseless, it's treated neutrally. This is how science works -- you observe things dispassionately and don't let yourself to be swayed by what people think is true.
      - TeMPOraL 12y ago
        Well, judging from your usual quality of comments (you're one of the users I remember for good contributions in science threads) I think there's an disagreement here that is not stated explicitly. Do you disagree with any of the following statements, and if yes, where and why? - original stopwatch solutions gives equal probability for any of the kid to get picked - your modulo solution does not give equal probability for any of the kid to get picked - you argue that the non-uniformness of your solution is not relevant in practice, because number of kids is likely to be an order of magnitude smaller than the readout from the stopwatch (i.e. last two digits)
        lutusp 12y ago
        > Do you disagree with any of the following statements, and if yes, where and why? Okay. I usually expect people to locate the errors in their own thinking, but in this case, I'll make an exception. Here's one of the suggestions: "multiply the last digit by the number of children and divide by ten". Let's see how this works out: n n * 7 / 10 ---------------- 0 0 1 0 2 1 3 2 4 2 5 3 6 4 7 4 8 5 9 6 The OP could have tested his suggestion before posting. I certainly would have. I'm going to avoid your straw men, with this exception: > you argue that the non-uniformness of your solution is not relevant in practice I never said that. I said that the error could be minimized. But consider my test of the the alternative listed above. The error inherent with a relatively small number of children and a relatively large original number, say, 0 - 59, is a smaller error than the proposed alternative.
  - lotharbot 12y ago
    > "I posted the obvious solution to a common problem" You posted a solution that was less correct than the solution you were responding to. The solution I originally posted is fair and practical. Divide the digits as evenly as you can between the kids, and treat any extras as a do-over. While it's technically possible to never end, in practical terms it produces a fair result within ten seconds. (The fact that you're trying to "fix" this solution confuses me; I wonder if perhaps you didn't understand it in the first place and have been arguing based on a misunderstanding ever since.) By contrast, your solution does not produce a fair result for certain numbers of kids. I promise, the kids in my family would have discovered that bias by the time there were 7 of us. > "can't stand the unwelcome intrusion of simple, easily stated facts" One of the reasons you've gotten a lot of downvotes here is because of the combination of: - posting an incorrect solution - insisting the incorrect solution is correct, in spite of several people showing you why it is not, and - complaining that people who are downvoting are the ones in the wrong, including several insults (calling people airheads, innumerate, brainless cyberwarriors, saying they can't stand simple facts, etc.) At times I really enjoy your comments. I've sent a lot of upvotes your way over the years. But in this case you're wrong, and you've taken to insulting the people who are patiently trying to explain to you why you're wrong. I know you're capable of better. Please take the time to reread and understand the original solution, and stop insulting people.
- baddox 12y ago
  I would say it's a combination of a factually incorrect comment and the arrogant tone in which it is presented.

by lutusp 12y ago

DanBC 12y ago

Nearly everytime you mention downvotes: the reason is tone and attitude. I don't know if you are aware just how much your tone influences the downvotes.

lutusp 12y ago
> Nearly everytime you mention downvotes: the reason is tone and attitude. Look -- I posted the obvious solution to a common problem. Everything else depends on those who can't stand the unwelcome intrusion of simple, easily stated facts. My "attitude" is that this problem is easily solved, using simple arithmetic. Imagine you're a scientist -- as such, do you object to a useful result because of its source?
- DanBC 12y ago
  I say this to help you, feel free to ignore it. When you get a downvote, ignore it. It's probably accidental or meaningless and these tend to self correct over a day. When people downvote a bunch of your posts in a thread IGNORE THE DOWNVOTES. Vindictive downvote sprees are usually corrected over the course of the day. Mentioning the downvotes will usually prevent those corrective upvotes. Me tioning the downvotes in the unpleasant way that you do will attract downvotes. You may wish to consider how you're presenting the information. If the first table of numbers gets downvotes posting the same table again without more information is going to get the same downvotes. You could argue that it should not be this way, but it is.
  - lutusp 12y ago
    > You could argue that it should not be this way, but it is. Indeed it is. State facts, back up what you say with evidence, get downvoted. As certain as sunrise. > If the first table of numbers gets downvotes posting the same table again without more information is going to get the same downvotes. The alternative is to adopt the standards of religion instead of science. In religion, if you start losing followers, you change the mythology. In science, evidence is evidence, and how people feel about it has no standing. > When you get a downvote, ignore it. It's probably accidental or meaningless ... Easily proven false. My downvotes inevitably accompany anything I post that has evidence and/or links to references. If I offer an uncorroborated opinion or philosophical remark, however irrelevant or baseless, it's treated neutrally. This is how science works -- you observe things dispassionately and don't let yourself to be swayed by what people think is true.
    - TeMPOraL 12y ago
      Well, judging from your usual quality of comments (you're one of the users I remember for good contributions in science threads) I think there's an disagreement here that is not stated explicitly. Do you disagree with any of the following statements, and if yes, where and why? - original stopwatch solutions gives equal probability for any of the kid to get picked - your modulo solution does not give equal probability for any of the kid to get picked - you argue that the non-uniformness of your solution is not relevant in practice, because number of kids is likely to be an order of magnitude smaller than the readout from the stopwatch (i.e. last two digits)
      - lutusp 12y ago
        > Do you disagree with any of the following statements, and if yes, where and why? Okay. I usually expect people to locate the errors in their own thinking, but in this case, I'll make an exception. Here's one of the suggestions: "multiply the last digit by the number of children and divide by ten". Let's see how this works out: n n * 7 / 10 ---------------- 0 0 1 0 2 1 3 2 4 2 5 3 6 4 7 4 8 5 9 6 The OP could have tested his suggestion before posting. I certainly would have. I'm going to avoid your straw men, with this exception: > you argue that the non-uniformness of your solution is not relevant in practice I never said that. I said that the error could be minimized. But consider my test of the the alternative listed above. The error inherent with a relatively small number of children and a relatively large original number, say, 0 - 59, is a smaller error than the proposed alternative.
- lotharbot 12y ago
  > "I posted the obvious solution to a common problem" You posted a solution that was less correct than the solution you were responding to. The solution I originally posted is fair and practical. Divide the digits as evenly as you can between the kids, and treat any extras as a do-over. While it's technically possible to never end, in practical terms it produces a fair result within ten seconds. (The fact that you're trying to "fix" this solution confuses me; I wonder if perhaps you didn't understand it in the first place and have been arguing based on a misunderstanding ever since.) By contrast, your solution does not produce a fair result for certain numbers of kids. I promise, the kids in my family would have discovered that bias by the time there were 7 of us. > "can't stand the unwelcome intrusion of simple, easily stated facts" One of the reasons you've gotten a lot of downvotes here is because of the combination of: - posting an incorrect solution - insisting the incorrect solution is correct, in spite of several people showing you why it is not, and - complaining that people who are downvoting are the ones in the wrong, including several insults (calling people airheads, innumerate, brainless cyberwarriors, saying they can't stand simple facts, etc.) At times I really enjoy your comments. I've sent a lot of upvotes your way over the years. But in this case you're wrong, and you've taken to insulting the people who are patiently trying to explain to you why you're wrong. I know you're capable of better. Please take the time to reread and understand the original solution, and stop insulting people.
baddox 12y ago
I would say it's a combination of a factually incorrect comment and the arrogant tone in which it is presented.