IQ (moved subtopic)
^^Hey Luciom, can you remind me again how smart JD Vance is? Above, same, or below the average MAGA chode?
I have no problem with schools using affirmative action to help people like Vance with humble backgrounds.... but maybe not in law school where these idiots start becoming dangerous. And they got to find smarter people then Vance or the whole thing just looks ridiculous and all you're doing is de-valuing your own department.
And for one brief shining moment he did. And then he has to go and make a poor analogy equating enslaving with disenfranchisement while basically showing the error in the same post by noting that many women themselves thought women shouldn't vote, which would virtually never be the case with slavery. So you are probably safe for now. However, you are on very thin ice because your post describing how a simulation sometimes gives you better advice about reality than theory does not apply to pure m
Don't worry, I'm well aware that I'm not making it on to the "people who say nice things about David Sklansky" list. I've made my peace with this tragic loss.
I'm finding my intuition is helped by assuming the ball doesn't mark the starting slat. Nothing special about the zero except the first landing is to it's left or right.
I'm finding my intuition is helped by assuming the ball doesn't mark the starting slat. Nothing special about the zero except the first landing is to it's left or right.
Except that it does, the conditions state so. Also, there are 38 numbers on a 00 wheel, so we have to assume that the probability being 1/37 implies that 00 is already painted.
Edit: Actually, I just went back and the conditions are not explicit on this point. I had assumed if the ball is slathered with paint and placed in the 00 slat, this slat is considered painted. Sklansky, can you confirm? I don't think it matters much either way other than the final answer being 1/37 or 1/38.
Except that it does, the conditions state so.
Edit: Actually, I just went back and the conditions are not explicit on this point. I had assumed if the ball is slathered with paint and placed in the 00 slat, this slat is considered painted. Sklansky, can you confirm?
Change the poblem how you like if it helps with intuition. If i can get the intuition the rest is much easier.
It really is the same problem though. I can put the initial mark back in the answer to please the examiner
I just don't see how it helps with the intuition, but each to their own. I find the clock face with 4 hours / pie chart with 6 sectors simplification much more helpful.
For those of you who are concerned that their intuition doesn't align with the logic/math answer I give you this explanation which I just thought up a few minutes ago at age 76.7. It is very slightly un rigorous but should satisfy the intuition you are worried about.
Consider only the two slats on either side of the 00. After the first flip one of them will be locked out of being last. The other one will have to go around 35 slats before it hops back two slats. Just like a coinflip freezout with one player having two bets while the other has 35. Thus the slat that isn't originally jumped into is a 35- to 2 underdog as it would be in the freezeout, Which is 2/37, and it will be that half the time ( ie its1/37).
So, what does your intuition say happens to the odds as the slats get further and further away from 00? Almost certainly it doesn't think it will switch willy nilly. Maybe it thinks that the probability goes down or perhaps up But actually it can't think that it moves at all. Not once the two slats next to the 00 are precisely 1/37. If there is no will nilly all slats must all be the same so that the total probability of these mutually exclusive events add to 100%.
And for one brief shining moment he did. And then he has to go and make a poor analogy equating enslaving with disenfranchisement while basically showing the error in the same post by noting that many women themselves thought women shouldn't vote, which would virtually never be the case with slavery. So you are probably safe for now. However, you are on very thin ice because your post describing how a simulation sometimes gives you better advice about reality than theory does not apply to pure m
David,
If I intend to make an analogy, it will be obvious. I was simply citing another issue on which moral norms have changed significantly. I wasn't implying that the issues were morally equivalent or analogous. Do you seriously think that I am so stupid that I didn't understand (or didn't consider) the distinction you are highlighting.
Except that it does, the conditions state so. Also, there are 38 numbers on a 00 wheel, so we have to assume that the probability being 1/37 implies that 00 is already painted.
Edit: Actually, I just went back and the conditions are not explicit on this point. I had assumed if the ball is slathered with paint and placed in the 00 slat, this slat is considered painted. Sklansky, can you confirm? I don't think it matters much either way other than the final answer being 1/37 or 1/38.
The 00 is instantly painted.
David,
If I intend to make an analogy, it will be obvious. I was simply citing another issue on which moral norms have changed significantly. I wasn't implying that the issues were morally equivalent or analogous. Do you seriously think that I am so stupid that I didn't understand (or didn't consider) the distinction you are highlighting.
No. But you sometimes pick examples where better ones are available that are more analogous.
(Actually my only real quarrel with you are your comments such as "If I had to vote to choose a dictator who will murder 1000 innocents painlessly or one who would torture them first, I would choose not to vote." Or "if I was running for office I would hope that someone who wanted my opponent got the chance to vote (rather than something like getting caught in traffic on the way to the polls). This anti utilitarian attitude, this fealty toward "principles" is matched on this website only by one other who you probably would prefer I don't mention.)
For those of you who are concerned that their intuition doesn't align with the logic/math answer I give you this explanation which I just thought up a few minutes ago at age 76.7. It is very slightly un rigorous but should satisfy the intuition you are worried about.
Consider only the two slats on either side of the 00. After the first flip one of them will be locked out of being last. The other one will have to go around 35 slats before it hops back two slats. Just like a coinflip freezout with
Yeah you're gonna have to draw me a diagram or something, I have a vague notion of what you're trying to say about the probabilities but if I understand it correctly I don't think it works.
Your argument needs to fail when applied to the case of "odds of stopping on number N given M flips" because in this case, the numbers are not equiprobable. I think your argument predicts that they are equiprobable in this case also.
No. But you sometimes pick examples where better ones are available that are more analogous.
(Actually my only real quarrel with you are your comments such as "If I had to vote to choose a dictator who will murder 1000 innocents painlessly or one who would torture them first, I would choose not to vote." Or "if I was running for office I would hope that someone who wanted my opponent got the chance to vote (rather than something like getting caught in traffic on the way to the polls). This anti
You are mentioning rococo strongest moral intuitions here
No. But you sometimes pick examples where better ones are available that are more analogous.
(Actually my only real quarrel with you are your comments such as "If I had to vote to choose a dictator who will murder 1000 innocents painlessly or one who would torture them first, I would choose not to vote." Or "if I was running for office I would hope that someone who wanted my opponent got the chance to vote (rather than something like getting caught in traffic on the way to the polls). This anti
You've had about half a dozen posts in the last two days alluding to hidden messages, posters you won't name, etc. etc. Can you stop talking in riddles?
Incidentally, when I asked where you would place on the list and you said that if some other poster were still around, you would be "in trouble", I assume that implies you would put yourself first, right? If you were going to place yourself say, 6th, I don't see how the presence of one other poster gets you "in trouble".
And it’s “whom”, math geek
WHOM you probably would prefer I don't mention
Rococo would never make such a simple mistake 😉
No. But you sometimes pick examples where better ones are available that are more analogous.
(Actually my only real quarrel with you are your comments such as "If I had to vote to choose a dictator who will murder 1000 innocents painlessly or one who would torture them first, I would choose not to vote." Or "if I was running for office I would hope that someone who wanted my opponent got the chance to vote (rather than something like getting caught in traffic on the way to the polls). This anti
It is just as utilitarian to refuse to vote for either. You have to widen your consequence space.
Not that anyone is a utilitarian. We just find uiltarianism satisfying.
It is just as utilitarian to refuse to vote for either. You have to widen your consequence space.
Not that anyone is a utilitarian. We just find uiltarianism satisfying.
Repeated games utilitarianism is very different from single choice utilitarianism and anyway it is all about how you write assumptions for future behavior and the little value numbers attached to events, you can justify literally anything with utilitarianism (including human extinction being a moral positive) which is why it is morally horrific to be an unrestrained utilitarian.
See "effective altruism" as well on the topic.
Within a fairly clear set of options and preferences and moral rules you can be "pragmatically utilitarian" but that's another matter
And it’s “whom”, math geek
WHOM you probably would prefer I don't mention
Rococo would never make such a simple mistake 😉
[QUOTE=Ken Jennings]
Instead he offers a dumb, arbitrary intelligence test, presumably cherry-picked to match his own aptitudes. (Why not a standard IQ test or something else with a broader range than a college-level math test? Because anyone who consistently misspells “resurrected” as “ressurected” isn’t going to beat my SAT verbal score anytime soon.)
[/QUOTE]
https://web.archive.org/web/201605281017...
Sklansky getting owned by religionists is pretty funny, even if he is in the top 0.01% of his lot as far as smarts go.
No. But you sometimes pick examples where better ones are available that are more analogous.
(Actually my only real quarrel with you are your comments such as "If I had to vote to choose a dictator who will murder 1000 innocents painlessly or one who would torture them first, I would choose not to vote." Or "if I was running for office I would hope that someone who wanted my opponent got the chance to vote (rather than something like getting caught in traffic on the way to the polls). This anti
I honestly think you have me confused with someone else. I have never been an advocate of staying home unless you affirmatively like one of your choices. You have the choice you have, and it is naive to think that you are going to disrupt the machine by not voting. Nor have I ever been an advocate of shunning compromise or practical solutions in favor of blind adherence to principles.
It's true that I don't want to disenfranchise people with whom I disagree. It's true that I would not participate in a plot to steal an election. It's true that, if I were a detective, I would not plant evidence on a defendant, even if I believed the defendant to be factually guilty, and even if I believed that planting evidence was necessary in order to get a conviction. If that's what you mean by anti-utilitarian, then OK, but that seems like a low bar.
You've had about half a dozen posts in the last two days alluding to hidden messages, posters you won't name, etc. etc. Can you stop talking in riddles?
Incidentally, when I asked where you would place on the list and you said that if some other poster were still around, you would be "in trouble", I assume that implies you would put yourself first, right? If you were going to place yourself say, 6th, I don't see how the presence of one other poster gets you "in trouble".
No, it was a cute message to another regular poster regarding an affiliation with someone who would crush Ken Jennings and it wasn't me.
No, it was a cute message to another regular poster regarding an affiliation with someone who would crush Ken Jennings and it wasn't me.
Well you need to be clearer in that case. Being "in trouble" referred to your placement on the list, not anything else as stated. Geez, half this thread is me coaching the resident analytical thinking champion on basic logic errors and ambiguity avoidance.
