Can we just applaud b99 for addressing gay sex as casually as it would heterosexual sex because it’s disturbingly rare?
PLEASE WATCH BROOKLYN NINE NINE
But what’s the answer though?!
You are twice as likely to win if you switch doors.
Why?
When you select door 1 there is a 1/3 chance you win and a 2/3 chance you lose. The host, who knows which door is right, will always eliminate an empty door (this only works because the host has more information than you) So now you get to choose between the 1/3 chance you were right the first time, or the 2/3 chance you were originally wrong.
To think of it another way, the set of doors 2 and 3 have a probability of 2/3. Because tje host eliminates an empty door (making the open door a 0 probability now), that 2/3 chance “collects” in the remaining door. Your original door is still only 1/3 because you made that choice before you had the new information.
when you select your door initially, it DOESN’T MATTER AT ALL what it boils down to, is a decision between keeping the door you initially picked (with a 50% chance of being the right one at this point) or picking the OTHER door (which ALSO has a 50% chance of being correct)
To put in other terms, when you initially select one door you have a 1/3 chance of it being correct. The host eliminates a door that you did not pick, a door that would have been a losing choice. You now have a choice between two doors. You have received no additional information about these doors. You have a 50/50 shot with either of them. Because probability isn’t affected by prior choices.
But you did initially have a 1/3 The host can only choose between the doors you didnt choose. So when he eliminates all but 1 remaining door, he isnt affecting the probability of your door, only the door he is leaving.
No, once one of the doors is revealed the odds slip from 1/3 to ½ for each unopened door
No. The host can only remove a door ypu didnt choose, so your doors probability isnt affected by the new information. Opening an empty door narrows the “you were originally wrong” choice to just 1 door, but still with the 2/3 probability.
Again, you can actually test this in simulation.
2/3 is correct. I spent an hour looking at this on Wikipedia on Friday. While I was at work. Because I’d recently reblogged this and it started bothering me.
Look at it another way: the host is, effectively, removing all but one of the losing doors.
If there were 100 doors, and you picked one, and the host removed 98 out of the 99 wrong doors, leaving one wrong door and one right door, you’d switch doors in a heartbeat.
Why? Because you knew that the door you picked was only 1 in 100 likely to be the correct door. Well, nothing changed, the prize didn’t move anywhere, and there’s nothing special about the door you picked; the ONLY reason it’s one of the top two is because you picked it.
As one out of one hundred.
This door you picked first is the Miss Congeniality of doors. There is nothing special about it except that you chose it. You eliminated it from being among the of 99 losing doors selected. The other door, on the other hand? They have to leave the winning door in play. Odds are thus 99 to 1 that they selected that door to leave because it’s the winning door. The only chance it’s a random door is if you selected the right door out of 100 doors the first time. At 1 in 100 odds.
The fact that there’s only one wrong door to remove is a deliberate red herring, a choice by the game’s designers to obscure that detail. [All but one of the losing doors] gets mistaken for [one of two losing doors] as the important part.
The other deliberate misdirection in the game is the cognitive bias where it feels worse to have something and lose it through your own actions than to never have it at all. If you switched doors and the new door lost, you’d kick yourself for having picked the winning door and given it up, much harder than you would if you kept the door and the other one won. Making a decision that loses what you’ve got feels much more like a mistake than making a decision that loses what you’ve never had.
And given that one-in-three odds are not that much less than one-in-two odds, switching doors and losing because of it is a real threat in the three-door game. This induces people to prefer to keep the originally-selected door, which is in the house’s favor. Again, this is deliberate.
Oh my god this is the first actually intuitive explanation of the Monty Hall Problem I’ve ever heard. I didn’t think it could be done.
say what you want about elon musk but you gotta admit it’s extremely funny that the rescue team got those boys out before elon could even finish masturbating all over his shitty little escape pod
like he was hemming and hawing over what kind of music to load it with and the thai rescue teams just. got the job done normally. without him. he contributed jack shit and his shitty little submarine was rendered useless by completely standard scuba gear and a few determined workers.
dude tried playing the white savior just got blown the fuck out by people who actually cared about what was going on
the people replying to this are wild
their go-to thing is “well what did you do to help” as if elon himself did anything to help. at all.
here’s what happened: he heard about the tragedy on the news and immediately tried to make it about himself. he publicly announced he was going to swoop in and help before consulting anyone, threw a tantrum when the thai rescuers declined his offer because they knew what they were doing and didn’t need an expensive, impractical escape pod to do their jobs, and now he’s STILL making the issue about himself by ragging on the rescuers for refusing his help.
i get it. he’s rich. he makes spaceships. he lives the way you wish you could live and does the things you dream about doing with his money, but he’s still an egotistical dickhead. he underpays his workers, wastes money on useless ventures, and any time he does anything charitable he does it for PR purposes.
if he wanted to help people he wouldn’t wait for opportunities to spontaneously show off, he’d actually actively be helping people. he’d be using his money to fix broken roads, fund schools, fix flints pipes, stuff that’s been a problem for a long time. you don’t have to wait for an opportunity to help people, there’s always people in need.
elon doesn’t do that. he makes expensive toys for his own amusement. he’s not interested in helping people. the story about the boys in thailand happened to grab his attention and he thought “i bet i can make a toy for that.”
and that’s what he did. he made a highly publicized toy for himself and then threw a tantrum when the actual rescuers declined his offer to swoop in and save the day with an impractical toy and he is still throwing that tantrum now that the boys are safe.
I am Silver Tongue, I am an artist. I have many characters and you can check out my art in the art tag. I occasionally practice witchcraft though I don't do anything too complicated. I am girl 2 and don't know what else to put here.
