gametheoretic

9 ms·

31.
by gametheoretic 13y ago
See literally the 2nd sentence of the article.
32.
by gametheoretic 13y ago
I think I'm ready to admit being wrong and move on with my life. Thanks for your ridiculous patience, Colin. I will be leaving my comments up as a monument to idiocy. Good god am I frustrated with myself right now. Again, thanks. I apo
33.
by gametheoretic 13y ago
>Before you are told anything about the children we have four equally likely possibilities: BB, BG, GB, GG. After one is eliminated, why should the others still not be equi-probable? Because in Monty Hall, the effect of changing probabil
34.
by gametheoretic 13y ago
>That turns out not to be the case. The answer to A is 1/3. Write a computer program to simulate it and then post it here. Seriously, don't just theorize about it, try it. I misread A. I agree that it's 1/3 if you fli
35.
by gametheoretic 13y ago
Well don't I feel like an idiot for saying any of that. Why were you running a "computer simulation" of the problem? Were you, even? >"The two" ?? What "two"? Your "explanations" are very uncl
36.
by gametheoretic 13y ago
> To keep things equally likely, let's suppose Monty flips a coin. Aha! But he can't! Do you see? He can't open a door with a car, so he can't flip a coin in the event that the car is behind a door other than yours. H
37.
by gametheoretic 13y ago
No. In person I can see what the other party is thinking. The two are independent variables, man. I don't know how to explain it any more clearly than that. What's tripping people up is the idea that removing GG from the possibili
38.
by gametheoretic 13y ago
Yeah, I actually deleted it before seeing your response because I thought it was unclear. My bad. >The most obvious way to do that is to talk about the older and younger. Exactly. The father doesn't talk about older and younger, but
39.
by gametheoretic 13y ago
Hahahaha oh my god what a response. The fact that you think you're pointing anything out to anyone with that second paragraph is just priceless. In GB and BG, he has only one way of telling you which is the boy. In BB, he has two. Thus
40.
by gametheoretic 13y ago
>We haven't added any artificial ordering into the problem. Yes you have! To run the experiment, you have to treat TH and HT as different but you "pretend" not to do so by adding them into the same pile. You're preten
41.
by gametheoretic 13y ago
God, I knew this was coming. Since you won't accept my strategy of building up to the complete question (because it is in fact your formulation which is incomplete, and thus I, like you, will not respond to it), let me try this inste
42.
by gametheoretic 13y ago
I'm not, you're overcomplicating! X is a boy. What is the chance that Y is also a boy? 1/2 or 1/3? Non-rhetorical, answer the question as posed.
43.
by gametheoretic 13y ago
You only misunderstand because the author is presenting it stupidly (as you state, incorporating order where order is irrelevant), leading to his own stupid conclusion. Read my post elsewhere in the thread for the full explanation, and if y
44.
by gametheoretic 13y ago
This is wrong. In oversimplifying your table for potential idiot readers by introducing the silent variable of older vs younger child, you have introduced order into a statistics problem wherein order is irrelevant and masked the fact th
45.
by gametheoretic 13y ago
>a proprietary gateway in each domicile (or open source device design for enthusiasts), which could also provide routing? Why not bypass this and go straight to the device? Imagine paying for internet and not being limited to your house.
46.
by gametheoretic 13y ago
Damn. At least it's 1920 times 2.
47.
by gametheoretic 13y ago
HEY BUDDY, if you don't think the country has come a long way from where it was in 2004, then I just don't know what to say to you.
48.
by gametheoretic 13y ago
Yep, exactly. Some matters are just "big enough" that you can't go rogue without answering for it. After all, the heads these agencies (NSA, SEC, whatever) are all presidential appointees.
49.
by gametheoretic 13y ago
Ah, but what is within reach of government regulation? Are they willing to, say, shoot down satellites?
50.
by gametheoretic 13y ago
Do you think the government would rather deal with more ISPs or fewer, insofar as surveillance is concerned?
51.
by gametheoretic 13y ago
We've tallied the votes, and it turns out it didn't matter who you voted for. Sorry. We hope it felt, for a fleeting moment, like you had influence over anything outside your immediate surroundings.
52.
by gametheoretic 13y ago
Avoid anything that starts with 'Why'. "Gather 'round children. I have wisdom to graciously impart."
53.
by gametheoretic 13y ago
First we lived in a post-9/11 world, now we live in a post-2008 world. Insofar as as the opening lines of articles are concerned.
54.
by gametheoretic 13y ago
The Vanguard enjoys dividing millions into This Group and That Group. Usefulness > understanding.
55.
by gametheoretic 13y ago
Why is that obvious? We are all totally unaware of what percentage of the time that lie succeeds.
56.
by gametheoretic 13y ago
Jeeesus. So this ain't even a "don't hate the player" situation -- they are the game?
57.
by gametheoretic 13y ago
By 'save' do you mean locally, or do they also disallow email, dropbox, etc? (I think it's great what you're doing regardless; I ask only to more clearly assess their intentionality in all this...)
58.
by gametheoretic 13y ago
Whether you recognize it or not, you face a choice between: a) keeping your name on said repo, and b) substantially higher growth rate. When people do things for free, they don't do it so someone else can put their name on it. (It&#x27
59.
by gametheoretic 13y ago
"Blank is about blank" statements have no real meaning; you'll rarely find them in use outside politics, where they enjoy extreme popularity due to the difficulty of their conversational negation.
60.
by gametheoretic 13y ago
There are no moral phenomena, only moral interpretations.

More ›