triclops6

joined 11 months ago
[–] [email protected] 3 points 6 months ago

Brr (for cold) And brrrrrrrrr (for money printer)

[–] [email protected] 51 points 6 months ago (1 children)

I only know marginally more but I think you're right.

Costco is known for being a good corporate citizen to its members and employees.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago
[–] [email protected] 8 points 6 months ago

Likewise, progressive here, most of this is right wing straw man stuff

The only point op gets right is we tend to eat our own, purity tests and all that, though the right has a big tent filled with ideologically incompatible people, and that's the other extreme.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 6 months ago (4 children)

I appreciate that, genuinely.

But this troll straw-manned the gun control argument to "banning all guns" -- their position is stupid.

And the thing is, at this point whether that stupidity is either willful, or obtuse, they're not changing it.

[–] [email protected] 55 points 6 months ago (8 children)

Gun nut's gonna gun nut, logic need not apply

[–] [email protected] 29 points 6 months ago (3 children)

The black spy died more often though

[–] [email protected] 3 points 6 months ago

Depends on the conversation rate of red kids to blue, if as you suggest, it's only a minority, then you're right

[–] [email protected] 13 points 6 months ago (1 children)

The intuition is exactly your argument:

When the machine says yes it's either because

(1) the sun went nova (vanishingly small chance) and machine rolled truth (prob 35/36) -- the joint probability of this (the product) is near zero

OR

(2) sun didn't go nova (prob of basically one) and machine rolled lie (prob 1/36) -- joint prob near 1/36

Think of joint probability as the total likelihood. It is much more likely we are in scenario 2 because the total likelihood of that event (just under 1/36) is astronomically higher than the alternative (near zero)

I'm skipping stuff but hopefully my words make clear what they math doesn't always

[–] [email protected] 27 points 6 months ago (3 children)

That last part is what the Bayesian scientist is wagering on, it's not missing, as op suggested

[–] [email protected] 4 points 6 months ago

Technically you would still be buying it out of irony but I get your meaning

view more: ‹ prev next ›