grraaaaahhh

Even then. Taking individual action to try and solve a systemic problem that results in a bad, unintended outcome is very on brand for Chaotic Good.

But the summed probability of the “not too far away results” is much higher, i.e. P([93, 107]\{100}) > P([100]).

That's true of every result. If you're using this to conclude you have a weird coin then every coin is weird.

Also no one was going to blame Amazon for inflation. There are still people in the US who are under the impression that the only reason they would be paying any part of the tariffs is due to corporate greed instead of that just being how tariffs work.

I feel like its easy for "Trust, but verify" to degrade into "Verify, then trust". It's that initial step of distrust while verifying that starts to sour things.

I mean, if you go far back enough "dwarves cannot be wizards" was a core part of D&D as well.

Also probably includes all the times my company has made me change my password. It always takes a good week before I remember that my old password isn't the one anymore.

Honestly, this just Roko's Basilisk but even dumber.

Sure, but the question isn't about which statement is possible from the liar's statement, it's about which statement we can conclude from the liar's statement.

The liar could be lying because they have no hats. They could be lying because they have a non-green hat. We cannot conclude E because it's possible that E is not correct.

E cannot be correct.

"All my hats are green" is still false even when I own a red hat and a green hat.

Or how when you look for something it always ends up in the last place you look, if it weren't there would have been some number of places you looked that were completely unnecessary.

I wonder if this was supposed to be Nine Angels. Copy editing on the web is so sloppy that I'm going to assume so because it makes more sense (to me).

I'm going to assume that wired got it right and it's the neo-nazis that misspelled it; it's much funnier that way.

I'd add Chants of Sennaar to this list. It's similar to Case of the Golden Idol/Obra Dinn in that the entire game is about making deductions about the game world, but in this case it's about decoding fantasy languages.

I've never understood this argument. Caregivers are paid; it's a job. No one is forced to go into elderly care.

Having kids isn't even a guarantee that they'll be around to care for you in your old age. My grandparents had four and still needed to be moved to a home with a full time carer at the end because none of their kids were able to move back home to take care of them.

This is the kind of statement that the Appeal to Authority fallacy was made for. Just because someone is an expert in one field doesn't mean their opinions matter in every field.

It's also a weird assertion because you also have to wait around for takeout/delivery. You could also just cook at home, which usually ends up taking just as long and takes actual effort instead of just sitting around which, in theory, would build even more resilience.

To tie in the sibling threads: devices that underreport will also be popular, just with the insurance companies after the fact to help them deny covering procedures. Your lung biopsy come back benign? CignaAI says you shouldn't have had it in the first place so out of pocket for you!

Can you really blame them?

Yes.

I know it's more complicated than this, but whenever I see businesses complaining about how including all the fees upfront will harm their business I can't help but read it as "Our business wouldn't be viable without the ability to lie to our customers."

Why does a position need to be political?

Mass surveillance involves giving the government, an inherently political entity, and its partners in the private sector increased power over public life. It's hard to get a more political issue than that.

Yeah, I was all ready to learn about how the ancient Egyptians used stacks to build the pyramids or something.

I don't think you (or he) can get better than 50-50.

Doesn't Monty reduce your win chances to 33% just by never opening a goat door?

It certainly can. For instance, when the speaker is my mother.

Doesn't this article basically show the exact opposite of what it's claiming? It cites simulation data showing that going for 2 here only increases the chances of winning by an absolute 1.7% and uses that to claim that that's a small increase, but it's actually not. The winning percentage of kicking for an extra point is already at 11.2%, increasing that by 1.7 is quite large (and is actually a larger increase than the relative 12% increase the article says is ludicrous).

I find this whole episode very unpleasant. How one famous person's word against can make you a pariah to entire community; just like that.

One famous person's word and Han's own history as a cheater that is.

Just using single cards will let bystanders know when both Alice and Bob say "No". The 5 card solution makes it impossible to differentiate between when both say "No" and when only one says "No".

"Researchers from MIT and China have developed a solar desalination device that could provide a family of four with all the drinking water it needs — and it can be made from just $4 worth of materials"

My dude, it's the first words in the article.

I think you'd have to go even narrower by predefined the AI's opponent's deck as well before you'd get an AI that consistently outperformed humans. Even the most all in combo or burn deck will drop lose percentage points if they don't take into account what they're playing against and what hate cards to play around.

I also don’t think it’s a very valid criticism to dismiss the most comprehensive research on this topic to date, performed at Sweden’s largest medical research institution, as “American right-wing propaganda”.

However, it is valid to dismiss the Heritage's conclusions on the study as American right-wing propaganda as the study doesn't support their conclusions whatsoever. That study compares the effects of gender reassignment surgery to the general population, not a population of transgender people who never underwent surgery. Any statement you would make about gender reassignment surgery would necessarily be confounded by the affects of being transgender at all.

Those runs get ignored since that isn't the scenario. Specifically we're looking at the case where Monty opens a goat by chance (ie. he could have opened the car, but did not). It also helps that that result doesn't matter to the overall question, is it better to switch or to stay, since both options are irrelevant when Monty opens the car door.

It's a game that is very fun for people who are already invested in card games. The pricing was a big issue, but another one was that the game just isn't that fun for more casual players. It's a game that is very sensitive to misplays, has much more visible RNG than other card games (but I'd argue not much more RNG total) and a lot of the game's play patterns push you into lines where the right play is to just do nothing.