topaz0

18 ms·

361.
by topaz0 3y ago
As I explained in my reply to your comment on mine, this analysis doesn't work out, even in this very-lopsided case. If the game resets when a car is revealed, then games where you first choice happened to be a car will always complete
362.
by topaz0 3y ago
Actually it does matter. If you lose automatically when a car is shown, that will happen in 1/3 of games: none of the times your first pick was a car (0 * 1/3 = 0), half of the times your first pick was a goat (1/2 * 2/3
363.
by topaz0 3y ago
You can tell because only trials where you chose a goat in the first round can be "censored". Your first pick is still twice as likely to be a goat as a car, but half of the times you do choose a goat on round 1 you won't get
364.
by topaz0 3y ago
Nice find! I have wondered this. It's easy to say after you have come around that you had first misunderstood the scenario and done the math right in that context, even if in truth you (implicitly) understood the scenario but just negl
365.
by topaz0 3y ago
What astonishes me is not that people interpret the scenario differently, but that they are so quick to conclude that others are doing the math wrong and feel superior or even angry, rather than thinking about whether you might be talking a
366.
by topaz0 3y ago
I think GP is implying that you would reject 50:50 as absurd in this case (answer that rhetorical question with a "no"), and therefore should also reject it in the original. I agree that was not clear, though.
367.
by topaz0 3y ago
I guess my point is that in the inevitable arguments, whether they are in advice columns or HN comment threads or around dinner tables, sometimes seem to their participants to be about how math works, when they're really about the prob
368.
by topaz0 3y ago
The explanation in the article is fine as far as it goes, but I think it's much more helpful to emphasize one key fact, which is that MH has to show a goat, and can't open your first choice door, even if it's a goat. That mea
369.
by topaz0 3y ago
TFA also presents this intuitive argument.
370.
by topaz0 3y ago
If you look at the definition of CRDTS, it seems trivial that all distributed scms must satisfy CRDT properties. Some observations are trivial once you think about it, but worth saying to connect to different audiences with different intere
371.
by topaz0 3y ago
Other commenters have pointed to tricks that are undoubtedly useful, but the real answer imo is to understand where rounding error will be introduced in your problem, and where it can become catastrophic so that you can use careful alternat
372.
by topaz0 3y ago
It's at least nice to see somebody reasoning through where error comes from instead of just throwing up their hands as if the error was inexplicable. I agree that the title is unfortunate though.
373.
by topaz0 3y ago
This sounds straightforward but you're glossing over a lot of second order effects. Notably, if this idea dominates your attitude you'll be much more likely to miss the cases where a bit of judicious optimization actually would sa
374.
by topaz0 3y ago
Corporate greed is arguably a market challenge
375.
by topaz0 3y ago
> The frog was not collected, so no prognosis is possible.
376.
by topaz0 3y ago
> the more human of the billionaires which is to say, still not the least bit human
377.
by topaz0 3y ago
I don't think any average joe has a tesla.
378.
by topaz0 3y ago
It's amazing to me that people still believe markets work in 2024.
379.
by topaz0 3y ago
The chance that they won't deliver factors into the initial expectation and is reflected in the hiring and salary decision. You can evaluate this chance both globally and for an individual by considering their interview, past experienc
380.
by topaz0 3y ago
Seems to me you've missed the point of the "expected value" part, throwaway.
381.
by topaz0 3y ago
Replace "delivered value" with "expected delivered value" and the argument goes through mutatis mutandis. Of course there are uncertainties in the value of unrealized work, but the company is paying because they think th
382.
by topaz0 3y ago
Yes, at least on linux, the os sends a signal (namely SIGSEGV) to the process, which the process may or may not handle. But kill also sends signals (including SIGSEGV if you specify), so the answer to your question is that it's not rea
383.
by topaz0 3y ago
# may not be the same glyph as musical sharp, but the language name was indeed intended to have a musical interpretation, according to the wikipedia.
384.
by topaz0 3y ago
As a fellow mediocre player, my sense is that the best way to prevent blunders is to slow down and enumerate the possibilities. Sure, tools will help, just like having the computer suggest the three best lines will help, but it kind of defe
385.
by topaz0 3y ago
Topology gets its utility from collapsing lots of degrees of freedom into a small number of equivalence classes. That's great for reasoning about topological properties, where those degrees of freedom are not relevant, but it doesn&#x2
386.
by topaz0 3y ago
In my experience this kind of story should be treated with extreme skepticism. Not that the specific thefts it describes didn't take place, just that they are likely to be blown out of proportion. Not unusual for this to be a story pus
387.
by topaz0 3y ago
"Forced" is a bit strong -- I haven't ordered anything from amazon for years.
388.
by topaz0 3y ago
I'm sure you believe this, but the evidence doesn't support it.
389.
by topaz0 3y ago
I've observed the trend. I'm unsurprised that it was named after the generation that was putatively buying the most houses at the time. But I haven't observed any people my age actually liking this fact.
390.
by topaz0 3y ago
Since when are redditors representative of the population?

More ›