ryao

52 ms·

901.
by ryao 2y ago
I have been known to heat water in a microwave after doing the calculations needed to know roughly when the water would reach boiling. It is rather quick once the microwave timer starts going.
902.
by ryao 2y ago
It is odd that having 240VAC outlets installed in kitchens for kettles has not caught on. A NEMA 6-15R would allow for parity.
903.
by ryao 2y ago
I doubt the person writing the question had the more nuanced version in mind. When the column was published, nearly everyone who wrote to Marilyn vos Savant had been in agreement that the host always opened a door with a goat as the problem
904.
by ryao 2y ago
That was how everyone interpreted the original column (according to thousands of letters sent to Marilyn vos Savant), and it was made explicit in a clarification made in a follow up to the column. What you are discussing is a different prob
905.
by ryao 2y ago
This is an excellent example of what I am saying. 2 + 2 = 4 was already written and you are insisting that it was not. That said, the source material is this: https://web.archive.org/web/20130121183432/http:/&
906.
by ryao 2y ago
You can have the machine draw twice the amount from the server PSUs. It kills the redundancy, but it is supposed to work.
907.
by ryao 2y ago
Amazon lists 1500W models: https://www.amazon.com/electric-kettles/b
908.
by ryao 2y ago
My kitchen has at least 2 120VAC circuits, which seems to avoid this.
909.
by ryao 2y ago
Server systems already work like this for redundancy.
910.
by ryao 2y ago
Here is the source material for the article: https://web.archive.org/web/20130121183432/http://marilynvos... It contains a clarification that the article omitted from the description: > So let’s look
911.
by ryao 2y ago
Here is what Marilyn vos Savant had to say: > So let’s look at it again, remembering that the original answer defines certain conditions, the most significant of which is that the host always opens a losing door on purpose. (There’s no w
912.
by ryao 2y ago
Here is what Marilyn vos Savant had to say: > So let’s look at it again, remembering that the original answer defines certain conditions, the most significant of which is that the host always opens a losing door on purpose. (There’s no w
913.
by ryao 2y ago
I would assume Monty Hall was paid the same amount either way.
914.
by ryao 2y ago
The source material for the article says otherwise: > So let’s look at it again, remembering that the original answer defines certain conditions, the most significant of which is that the host always opens a losing door on purpose. (Ther
915.
by ryao 2y ago
I see your point. You are arguing that the fact that the host did this could convey additional information that would affect the distribution. This criticism still does not seem valid to me because this argument can be used to alter the cor
916.
by ryao 2y ago
The question asks what the best choice in this situation is, not a different situation. The answer does not depend on whether any other situations exist.
917.
by ryao 2y ago
The problem text asks what is the better choice in this particular instance. It does not care about hypothetical other instances.
918.
by ryao 2y ago
The problem text itself specifies that the host opens an unselected door that has a goat behind it.
919.
by ryao 2y ago
You have removed a constraint from the original problem. What could have happened does not matter since we are being asked about what did happen. Imagine two people playing a game of chess. Various moves are played. Then you are asked a que
920.
by ryao 2y ago
The question as stated does not permit such a choice by the host since if it were a choice, it had already been made. This is like being presented with a nearly completed game of chess, asked if the loser can lose in 1 move and then arguing
921.
by ryao 2y ago
The problem statement does put constraints on the host, by specifying that the host opened an unselected door with a goat behind it, only to ask if the player wants to change his choice. The answer to the question of whether the player shou
922.
by ryao 2y ago
This is like being asked how to solve a (legal) Rubik cube configuration and then considering how close you can come to a solution if given an illegal configuration. It is not relevant since it is not what was presented. You can always make
923.
by ryao 2y ago
The problem as stated has the host open an incorrect door and offer the player a chance to change his choice. Inferring that another possible variation might exist does not change the fact that we are discussing the variation that was prese
924.
by ryao 2y ago
I read the entire article. They all had defective reasoning. The player picked an option with a 1/3 chance of being right and a 2/3 chance of being wrong. The host’s action did not change that. However, the host’s action did make
925.
by ryao 2y ago
The problem as stated does not give the host such an option. If it did, the host opening a door would imply that the player picked the right answer, and it would only happen 1/3 of the time. Some of the comments aged fairly well, altho
926.
by ryao 2y ago
> “Our brains are just not wired to do probability problems very well, so I’m not surprised there were mistakes,” Stanford stats professor Persi Diaconis told a reporter, years ago. “[But] the strict argument would be that the question c
927.
by ryao 2y ago
<deleted>
928.
by ryao 2y ago
Anyone who is paranoid about hardware backdoors might enjoy this: https://www.contrib.andrew.cmu.edu/~somlo/BTCP/
929.
by ryao 2y ago
There would be even better privacy if they published the weights so that they could be run by third parties that have no log policies or even better, locally.
930.
by ryao 2y ago
If I had to guess, iRISC = internal RISC. They likely rolled their own to avoid having to worry about features that they do not use and avoid having to pay royalties to others.

More ›