Reblogged collapsedsquid
Reblogged
Marco Rubio: The last point I would make is – and I said this yesterday and I repeat – what’s about to – you’re about to see – we’re going to unleash Chiang on these people in the next few hours and days. You’re going to really begin to perceive a change in the scope and in the intensity of these attacks, as, frankly, the two most powerful air forces in the world take apart this terroristic regime and defang it and take away its ability to threaten its neighbors or hide behind a zone of immunity that allows them to develop their nuclear ambitions.
Unleach Chiang? Surely instead you gotta unleash Öcalan
Reblogged
this one's confusing :(
That seems... Wrong?
There's a 1/3 chance that the door you picked has the car.
There is a 2/3 chance that the car is behind one of the doors you didn't choose.
If you choose door A, and the car is behind door B, Monty will fall and open door C. Switching will get you the car.
If the car is behind door C, Monty will fall and open door B, switching will get you the car.
I'm not really clear on what intention or information change here?
Hmmm yeah, this seems incorrect (though I had to simulate it to be sure). Once you know that his random choice was a door other than yours and that it didn't have the car, you're left with the exact same set of scenarios as in the standard version of the problem, with the same probability distribution between them. The lack of intent only matters before you've conditioned fully on the results!
lumsel's post on this is pretty good:
the difference is that in the regular version of the problem, the two DOESN'T MATTER cases are SWITCH situations (because in those cases he would still reveal the goat door).
Ah! You're right, I didn't simulate it correctly is the issue. It doesn't help as a check on intuition if the simulation is also wrong!
Probability puzzles that depend on someone's subjective knowledge get real weird sometimes.
Like how if you know someone has two kids, the odds of them both being girls are different if "one is a girl" than if "the older one is a girl".
A bit of a tangent, but I think the "eldest daughter" example isn't a great example of "weirdness" due to subjective knowledge? Or, as normally presented, it's a fine way to show how small phrasing differences can point to meaningfully different outcomes. But consider starting the problem by establishing two facts that everyone should agree on.
- If you flip a coin twice and get at least one head, two-thirds of the time the other flip will be tails.
- If you flip a coin twice and the first flip is heads, half the time the second flip will be tails.
Once you state the problem in terms of objective facts, the "weirdness" looks much more like a trick of framing.
Reblogged caesarsaladinn
drugs. alcohol. smoking. they gotta make a secret fourth thing i can do every day with no consequences
Reblogged kaiasky
You might ask "shouldn't a workflow tool that makes developers 20% more efficient on average fundamentally change the software industry?" and I've already told you a million times I'm not going to switch to vim, fuck off.