Once you're out of the room, don't forget to shout until your voice is hoarse, then get on that horse and ride away.
Posts made by eViLegion
-
RE: The bad jokes topic 🐴🍹👨
-
RE: Gaming board games
Well this is why we need a guy playing the government... to specify the rules on the ratio of how much the banker can lend, given the reserves he has available.
Assuming you have stuck to the rules, you don't lose, the government bails you out. Likewise, if the government doesn't have any money, the IMF steps in.
We could probably also find some way to model sub-prime mortgage trading.
-
RE: Gaming board games
You'd probably need one player needs to be the government's legislative branch, and another to play the role of the IMF.
-
RE: Gaming board games
If you start your own bank, are you allowed to do the fractional reserve thing? That might make it quite entertaining.
-
RE: The 벨기에 of corporations
Also, dude, chinaman is not the preferred nomenclature. Asian-American, please.
-
RE: Designer rant
But it really resonates with my personality.
No-one else adds ham like I add ham. Oooh the hams I have added. Never will you have ever seen a ham more added than when I've finished with it.
I AM THE ADDER OF HAM.
-
RE: Designer rant
Can I get a version of that at 184x184 pixels?
I'd like to make it my steam avatar.
-
RE: PARADE!
@dkf said:
It's much more important to assume that the initial placement of cars and goats is random (with uniform distribution).
I just imagined Monty Hall distributing some kind of uniform to the goats for them to wear. This would immeasurably improve the game.
-
RE: PARADE!
@PalmerEldritch said:
It doesn't matter, pick any door you like and I'll open 1 of the other 2 doors to reveal a goat. I'll still make you the same bet. So, if you pick Door1 I'll always open Door2 if it contains a goat (and offer the bet that the car is behind Door3), if you pick Door2 I'll always open Door3 if it contains a goat (and offer the bet the car is behind Door1), if you pick Door3 I'll always open Door1 if it contains a goat (and offer the bet the car is behind Door2). You'll lose money, I can guarantee it.
OK:
My policy: I shall always switch, regardless of if I can deduce that I should stick
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case A:
I pick door 1, car behind door 1, your policy reveals door 2, I switch to 3 and lose.
Case B:
I pick door 1, car behind door 2, you MUST reveal door 3, I switch to 2 and win.
Case C:
I pick door 1, car behind door 3, you MUST reveal door 2, I switch to 3 and win.
Case D:
I pick door 2, car behind door 1, you MUST reveal door 3, I switch to 1 and win.
Case E:
I pick door 2, car behind door 2, your policy reveals door 3, I switch to 1 and lose.
Case F:
I pick door 2, car behind door 3, you MUST reveal door 2, I switch to 3 and win.
Case G:
I pick door 3, car behind door 1, you MUST reveal door 2, I switch to 1 and win.
Case H:
I pick door 3, car behind door 2, you MUST reveal door 1, I switch to 2 and win.
Case I:
I pick door 3, car behind door 3, your policy reveals door 1, I switch to 2 and lose.
--------------------
3 cases where always switching loses, still at least 6 cases where always switching wins.
2/3 * ($70 + $100) = $113.33
1/3 * ($0) = $0
Add those up, and the expected win is $13.33 more than my original stake.
Unless of course, you're suggesting I give you $100, and EVEN IF I WIN you give me less back. No-one would agree to that. -
RE: PARADE!
How do I "pick a door" if you're saying "you picked #1"? If you're telling me I picked #1, then I didn't pick it... you picked it.
The word "say" in "say No. 1" and "say No. 3" means "for example" not "this is the way it has to happen every time".
There is no interesting maths/probability in the problem as you're contriving to state it.
So, basically, you're just trolling now, but putting too much effort into doing it for it to score very highly. -
RE: PARADE!
@PalmerEldritch said:
Put it this way: if you picked Door1 and I (as Monty) opened Door3 to reveal a goat, would you accept a less than even money bet (say $100 gets you $70) that the car is behind Door2? You shouldn't if you don't know the method by which I chose to open Door3.
But thats NOT the monty hall problem, as YOU have just selected door 1 on my behalf, knowing where the car is already.
Also, if the problem states "monty opens door 3", then there is no process to decide... its already decided for him.
I can therefore assume that you have put the car behind door 1 in order to coax me into switching and getting a goat.
[flippant]I actually refuse to pick door 1, I'm picking door 3 instead, now I know you were planning on revealing a goat to me... then regardless of whatever door you pick, I'm switching[/flippant] -
RE: PARADE!
@PalmerEldritch said:
I've already given an example (several times). In the problem as stated (you pick Door1, Monty opens Door3) if the probability that Monty opens Door3 if the car is behind Door1 = 1 then there is no benefit in switching to Door2 . I even reposted the Bayesian analysis from Wikipedia that shows that to be the case.
No... the problem as stated says you can pick ANY door, and monty will reveal one of the other doors with a goat.
"Pick door 1, Monty reveals 3" is just given as one example of what MIGHT happen during a possible game. You need to consider all other possible combinations.
If you contrive to say that the "player MUST pick door 1, and Monty MUST reveal door 3, should the player now switch?" then you'll get a very different result, but it stops being The Monty Hall Problem. -
RE: PARADE!
@PalmerEldritch said:
@flabdablet said:
then the probability of winning by switching becomes 2/3 without needing your third condition; that is, your third condition is superfluous.
The highlighted part of your response is incorrect, the probability of winning by switching in the problem as stated only becomes 2/3 if Monty randomly picks a goat door when he has a choice of 2 goat doors
The selection between 2 goat doors only occurs if you happen to choose the car first. So it only kicks in (1/3 of the time) at the exact point when you should stick.
All other times (2/3) that decision doesn't occur, so can make no difference to the final outcome... so ALL those other times you should switch.
So at the absolute minimum, your expected win if switching is 2/3.
It might be possible to transform your expected win if switching to somewhere between 2/3 and 3/3, if you know something about the process to decide between two doors,
but ONLY if you can deduce that process DIDN'T happen (e.g. you didn't pick the car first time, and should therefore switch). -
RE: PARADE!
@flabdablet said:
@eViLegion said:
With additional information you MAY get an opportunity to deduce that you mustn't switch
Short of actual prior knowledge of the car's location, or being under strict instructions from your beloved to come home with a goat, can you give an example? Because it seems to me that all you could ever conceivably find out is that you really, really ought to switch, not that you mustn't.Actually, I have no example...
I was imagining some unspecified hypothetical non-random process, which gives some you additional information.
Regardless of that process, that additional information could only ever be usable in 1/3 of cases, and will not affect the 2/3 of cases which provide the main grounds for always switching.
Further thought suggests that there is no non-random process that doesn't increase the players chances of deducing he should switch, nor is their any way for Monty to reliably communicate (via his choice of reveal, given their choice) that the player should stick (assuming he's trying to help the player). I certainly cannot contrive one. -
RE: PARADE!
@flabdablet said:
stuff
Yes, actually you're quite right... you can never be reduced below 1/2 chance by "always switching".
With additional information you MAY get an opportunity to deduce that you mustn't switch, but it cannot reduce the expected win from "ALWAYS switching" below 50%. -
RE: PARADE!
But that's the point of this game:
We are NOT an external observer, who knows Monty's mind, trying to calculate any specific probabilities.
We ARE the player, trying to determine if we should stick or switch, [b]with only the information available to us.[/b]
Crucially, this means that we're actually only interested in that information. Therefore, only the appearance of randomness is required for
the player to conclude that switching gives him the 66.7% chance instead of the 33.3% chance.
Monty's "pick between two goat doors" decision process may affect the underlying probabilities, but without imparting any information
about that process, the player will not able to glean anything of use to affect his/her choice. From the players point of view it is apparently
random, so their choice should be made as though it is random.
Only if we play the game multiple times in succession, might the player start to suspect that Monty has not eliminated the doors randomly,
and then they might be able to deduce what the systematic choice being made is, and thus deduce a better tactic than simply sticking or
switching.
Arguably, though, Palmer is more correct than Flab... we DO need some kind of 3rd condition, and we DO need it to appear to the player as random. -
RE: PARADE!
Actually you're both wrong.
Condition 3 should be: "Given a choice of goat doors, it doesn't matter what method is used to choose between them, so long as the player does not know that method".
This is to ensure that if, for example,- Monty always chooses the lowest numbered goat
- Player selects door #3
- Monty opens door #2
If the player knows Monty's method he can deduce that the car MUST be behind door number 1.
If he doesn't know the method, he cannot make that deduction.
- Monty always chooses the lowest numbered goat
-
Government Shutdown
I'm not talking about the politics that cause this to happen. I'm talking about it being the default option. Every other country in the world sees this as somewhere between baffling and absurd! I mean, Belgium didn't have a government for months a couple of years ago, but instead of shutting down everything ticked over smoothly until they did have one again.
Why is your government so weird? -
RE: Well this should not be a problem here in the UK.
Does it mean "on a Sunday" ?
It might make sense to have different call forwarding rules for that... Although the sentence barely makes any sense at all.
-
RE: Php magicians
@dhromed said:
...it looks like you're shouting randomly
To be fair, that is the way many of us roll. -
RE: Just right? What's that?
@Ronald said:
@Pascal said:
I have a MasterCard I use for places that don't take Discover.
Why do you use Discover? That's like driving a Subaru. Wtf.
Do Subaru not sell the Impreza WRX to you guys? That car goes like lubricated shit off a greased shovel.
-
RE: Spotted recently on famous jobs listing site
@Faxmachinen said:
@PJH said:
It contains a word separator, hence it will be parsed as two separate words.For example, is there a single word 'words.For' in this paragraph or two separate words?
A period is not a valid word separator.
Yes it is... In fact it's so good at separating individual words that some people use it to separate whole sentences. Far out, huh?
-
RE: UK government showing they are modern?
Makes perfect sense if your aim is to pay out less in benefits... And I cant think of many better heuristics for selecting who should receive benefits than age of operating system.
-
RE: Git git git git git git git git heroku git git heroku git git git git git
@PJH said:
Empirical evidence from past posts would tend to indicate that you are not in the group you describe as "the majority of people" even though you apparently think you are.
Since "the majority of people" could be arbitrarily defined as "blakeyrat, plus any selection of at least 50% of the remaining people", I'd say that he is in [b]that[/b] majority of people.
-
RE: Security flaw* City of Johannesburg's invoicing system means anyone can see any resident's bills
@scudsucker said:
It's nice when you don't even have to hack a site to get private info.
But, on the other hand, aside from Identity theft (and a rates bill is not THAT useful) there is no real useful info.Actually, there is a shed load of useful info, especially as the city council is likely to have other poor, low-security processes to deal with their customers.
You could use this account info to convince someone at the council that you are one of these customers over the phone:
"Oh hello.... I'm [Name], living at [Place].... you sent me an invoice on [Date] for the sum of [Money], but I don't think it's correct.... I'm sure I already paid..."
...etc...
You can then use this situation to trick whoever is on the end of the line either into revealing more information, or performing actions on the account in question. -
RE: Stack Overflow isn't as optimistic about the economy as I am...
@ObiWayneKenobi said:
Whenever I look at StackOverflow, there's like maybe 4-5 jobs in my area and that's it. Very poor for tech here.
StackUnderwhelm.
-
RE: Goddamit, Gmail
@joe.edwards said:
Better to understand why it is correct than learn substitution tricks IMHO.
I agree, but not necessarily quicker to teach.
The substitution trick is a lot easier to both remember, and put into practice.
People already understand the words "he" and "him", and can make a small leap to understand the analogous "who" and "whom". Whereas it's harder to learn all of the technical terms related to grammar. I mean... the rule that I've set out makes no reference to the comparatively meaningless words like "genitive". (By meaningless, I mean if you say them to most people they'll just ignore you because you're effectively talking gobbledygook.)
If the people in question aren't really interested in understanding why but just want to use the words correctly (virtually everyone), then a simple rule is more appropriate. -
RE: Goddamit, Gmail
@Mo6eB said:
...whom stuff...
Easy rule of thumb, that doesn't rely on non language scholars (e.g. virtually everyone) understanding nominative or dative:
If you wish to put who/whom in a sentence, try using he/him instead, then replace he with who, and him with whom.
So "he dislikes this interface" becomes "who dislikes this interface", since "him dislikes this interface" is wrong. -
RE: Stack Overflow isn't as optimistic about the economy as I am...
@Seahen said:
@eViLegion said:
Jesus. Do you need a CV to get a job as a cleaner these days?
Well, I'd be more confident that someone would be able to -- say -- download and read an appliance manual when they needed to, if they'd been able to write and format a resume. Even minimum-wage work requires reading these days, and benefits a lot from basic computer skills.
If the woman is wearing a PVC tabard, can scrape together at least 3 English words, and looks like she probably won't steal anything while you're out... then she's qualified.
-
RE: Stack Overflow isn't as optimistic about the economy as I am...
Jesus. Do you need a CV to get a job as a cleaner these days?
What happened to job adverts in local shop windows like this:
----------------------------------------------
Cleaner Needed - Minimum Wage
Telephone Dave: 0123 456789 -
RE: My state has gone insane
@joe.edwards said:
@eViLegion said:
And given that there are actually a lot of rich, possibly-slightly-less-clever people who would also like to attend, the universities could quite easily just say "Actually, you know what?.... Fuck all of you, we're gonna take a massive pile of money off these rich people, and everyone else can sod off."
Wait, are you saying that doesn't happen over there?Not really, no.
Well, sort of a bit. In terms of post-graduates, and foreign students, it probably does.
But to qualify for government subsidy for educating home-grown undergraduates all universities must fulfill certain criteria, to do with equality.
They could easily make a fuck-ton more money by telling the government to piss off, and charging an arm and a leg to anyone that can afford it though.
I have a feeling, though, that the majority of the academics would rather earn the university a bit less cash, in order to teach bright people that they'll have fun teaching, as opposed to the dull 'entitled' offspring of rich international business people. I'd certainly much rather be professor to a single penniless genius than a whole lecture room full of billionaires. -
RE: My state has gone insane
Fair enough... I don't really know how things go down in the US.
I'm mainly basing my observations on Oxford and Cambridge over here in the UK, which don't have an image of racism exactly (which I put mainly down to our nations very different histories with race relations), but have always been accused of being terribly elitist, despite pretty much bending over backwards to accommodate people from less privileged backgrounds.
They get regularly attacked in the press, usually because some specific straight-A student from a state school didn't get offered a place, despite having been told by their parents that they deserve it; the papers conveniently ignore the truck loads of other straight-A students from state schools who did get offered places.
The way I see it, they've actually done a bloody good job of getting smart people in through their doors, regardless of background, and they still get beaten up over it. And given that there are actually a lot of rich, possibly-slightly-less-clever people who would also like to attend, the universities could quite easily just say "Actually, you know what?.... Fuck all of you, we're gonna take a massive pile of money off these rich people, and everyone else can sod off."
(Edit: Oh... I went to a state school, as it happens, and I wouldn't say I was particularly privileged or under-privileged) -
RE: My state has gone insane
@Snooder said:
1. Improving the image of the school as a attractive place for minority applicants is a beneficial goal.
Only if the perception that it's not an attractive place for minority applicants has become a problem. If you're seen as elitist and in favour of rich white people who've already had a very expensive private education, but you also happen to have no shortage of highly educated rich white people to attend, then it isn't a problem.*@Snooder said:
2. In order to do this, you'll need to put someone in charge of making that happen
Actually, you'll probably need something else entirely. Many universities have spent money on staff to try and increase diversity, and on programs to increase access for minorities, and the disadvantaged. Often these universities are already very inclusive but still retain an image of being elitist. So, even when you've 'done the work', it doesn't necessarily mean that it has actually worked.@Snooder said:
3. If the task is difficult enough, or the school large enough, this can become a full-time job
Fair enough.**@Snooder said:
4. If you are going to give someone a full-time job, you'll need to pay them to do it.
Also fair enough.**
*Incidentally... if you think I have a problem but I don't think I have a problem, then it's your problem... unless, of course, you make it my problem.
**But sort of irrelevant if you take either the view that "this is a solution to a problem that doesn't exist" or that "this is a problem that we have already solved but which everyone insists that we haven't, contrary to the evidence". -
RE: My state has gone insane
@dkf said:
@Snooder said:
Keep in mind, university deans usually have actual classes to teach as well as research to do and papers to write. I remember the dean of students at my undergrad used to teach calculus. Deaning isn't a full-time job, it's an added responsibility/job title.
One of my former bosses was in such a role (though the title given was different at the time). He said that it was very simple: you were supposed to spend 50% of your time teaching, 50% doing research, and 50% on administrative responsibilities. He was much happier a few years later when he went back to just being a normal (full) professor.Typical maths professor.
-
RE: My state has gone insane
@PJH said:
@Snooder said:
Whether a dean of diversity is "bullshit" is somewhat debatable.
No, it really isn't. It's about as needed as the Ministry of Fun* is in the UKWell, we've already got the Ministry of Sound.
-
RE: Playstation Vita Pets
I've never really understood the appeal of pets games... I mean, if you want a dog, just get a dog. Now, I get that some people can't get a pet for various practical reasons, but I just don't think a simulated one is ever going to provide a satisfactory substitute (until our robot technology seriously advances).
-
RE: Apparently Tesla is run by crazy people
The Boomzilla interpretation was the correct one.
@Buttembly Coder said:
<font face="comic sans ms">en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_Of_Mass_Drownings_By_Scuba_Divers</font>
FTFY.
-
RE: Apparently Tesla is run by crazy people
@Snooder said:
Actually, thinking about this a bit more, I wonder if the CEO's statement was prompted by the news stories about the kinect not identifying black people.
It's not Microsoft's fault if some people go around absorbing all the visible light, and reflecting none of it.
Edit: on a more serious note, I have narrowly avoided running down black people in the car, when they've been wearing jet-black clothing at night, having been completely unable to see them until almost the last second. Now, does it make me racist if I think their choice of attire was potentially dangerous? -
RE: My state has gone insane
@verisimilidude said:
You guys may be great programmers but I see few insightful economists here. Taxes are a necessary part of a modern economy. Why did Alexander the Great not impose taxes? Because in his time the monarch owned everything and could take all that he wanted. They didn't have problems with wealth concentration because anyone silly enough to get rich either paid off the government (a sort of tax) or got everything taken away from him (yes, only males were allowed to get rich). Today's problem is the complexity of the tax rules as government tries on the one hand to make the burden fair and on the other to placate the powerful backers that got the politicians elected.
Fascinating.
-
RE: Apparently Tesla is run by crazy people
@blakeyrat said:
@eViLegion said:
That, and the fact that scuba divers seem to turn up at schools to commit mass-drownings.
Ladies and gentleman, I present: the WORLD'S MOST OBVIOUS TROLL
?
You thought I was trolling? -
RE: Apparently Tesla is run by crazy people
@blakeyrat said:
People who don't play video games and are wholly ignorant of video games don't know the difference between Project Gotham Racing and Grand Theft Auto. And also are kind of crazy.
The difference between people who don't play video games and people who don't (say) go scuba diving is that people who don't go scuba diving don't assume they know everything there is about scuba diving and are experts in the subject. I have no idea why this happens.
That, and the fact that scuba divers seem to turn up at schools to commit mass-drownings.
-
RE: Yes, Wolfram|Alpha, that's exactly what I meant.
@dkf said:
@Ronald said:
Have you evaluated whether your ad hominem back-hander is justifiable according to the null hypothesis, given the general population profile of Australia? (OTOH, had you said “no women, that's sexist” I'd have given you the benefit of the doubt because under the assumption that around 50% of Australians are female, which is about normal for any national population, the likelihood of 8 random individuals being all male is 0.39%. Assuming that some sort of decision process was taking place in choosing individuals for that photograph is entirely reasonable. I have no data on ownership of jeans by Australian male bodybuilders.)no black guy, that's racist.
My main objection, is the use of a particularly crass euphemism for breaking wind.
-
RE: Yes, Wolfram|Alpha, that's exactly what I meant.
@OzPeter said:
@eViLegion said:
When I said plebs, I was mainly talking about the colonies of the new world, because of course, as we all know, we send our criminals to Australia.
You only sent crims to Oz because your previous colony attempt ended up with them throwing all your arses out, so you had no where else to send your crims.
Normals > Plebs > Criminals
:oPI just think it's funny that we got away with that sort of shit for so long!
-
RE: Yes, Wolfram|Alpha, that's exactly what I meant.
@aihtdikh said:
@eViLegion said:
@Ronald said:
How difficult can that be to make your country known.
It's generally difficult to get such knowledge to penetrate the willfully ignorant skulls of all the plebs we sent to the colonies.
On the contrary! We're big fans of skull penetration, Down Under.When I said plebs, I was mainly talking about the colonies of the new world, because of course, as we all know, we send our [b]criminals[/b] to Australia.
Normals > Plebs > Criminals
:oP -
RE: Yes, Wolfram|Alpha, that's exactly what I meant.
@Ronald said:
How difficult can that be to make your country known.
It's generally difficult to get such knowledge to penetrate the willfully ignorant skulls of all the plebs we sent to the colonies.
-
RE: Not even escalators?
@Ronald said:
Ramps are exhausting. Also unlike escalators and elevators they do not provide a clear direction for foot traffic and this can break the smooth flow of people coming and going. Also ramps are not popular with women in high heels (an important factor in casinos).
Why not combine ramps with escalators, to get the slanted travellators used in American Gladiators?
-
RE: Diskless server? Thats inconceivable!
@joe.edwards said:
See tags of first reply.
Oh right. -
RE: Protecting the truly important stuff
@HardwareGeek said:
A few people people accused drurowin of making the whole thing up. IIRC, drurowin never actually admitted it, but he stopped posting any more about the story. To me, at least, this is a tacet admission that it was a hoax, but it was a good one while it lasted.
I'm sort of torn between really hoping it wasn't a hoax, and appalled at the thought of it being real.