| Tweets |
| very offline potat retweeted | ||
|
Adam Strandberg
@The_Lagrangian
|
Jan 9 |
|
the sorites problem doesn't hold if instead of a grain we add a heap's worth. but then, if we remove just one grain from the amount we're adding, it still doesn't hold. by induction, the sorites problem doesn't hold for the 1 grain case
|
||
|
|
||
|
very offline potat
@metapotat
|
Jan 30 |
|
wait until you find the DLC, where a fight about a stupid technical point completely misses the point, but also illustrates the banana's point better than anything else could
|
||
|
|
||
|
very offline potat
@metapotat
|
Jan 28 |
|
(this is the wrong thing to compute if you're interested in what shows up first, but it's also what Gigerenzer says in the paper, so I was trying to understand why it's true)
|
||
|
|
||
|
very offline potat
@metapotat
|
Jan 28 |
|
Because the expected waiting time for RRRB doesn't care when RRRR shows up
|
||
|
|
||
|
very offline potat
@metapotat
|
Jan 28 |
|
I corrected myself :)
Formally, EX < EY, but P(X < Y) = 0.5
Dependence is unintuitive
|
||
|
|
||
|
very offline potat
@metapotat
|
Jan 28 |
|
No, I mean when RRRR comes first. The target is RRRR or RRRB.
|
||
|
|
||
|
very offline potat
@metapotat
|
Jan 28 |
|
Wait, get ready for more mess, I'm backtracking some....
That intuition still only applies across sessions at the wheel. In the same session, it doesn't apply. They're equally likely to come first.
|
||
|
|
||
|
very offline potat
@metapotat
|
Jan 28 |
|
(this should not affect your betting behavior at the wheel, but that wasn't the question)
|
||
|
|
||
|
very offline potat
@metapotat
|
Jan 28 |
|
Actually he is more likely to see a RRRB before a RRRR. The expected waiting time is less.
The basic intuition is that when RRRR comes first, RRRB can come on the next spin, and will come as soon as a B comes. But when RRRB comes first, RRRR can't come until RRR happens again.
|
||
|
|
||
|
very offline potat
@metapotat
|
Jan 28 |
|
She noticed
|
||
|
|
||
|
very offline potat
@metapotat
|
Jan 28 |
|
|
||
| very offline potat retweeted | ||
|
Indexical Banana
@literalbanana
|
Jan 27 |
|
a blog post written by a literal banana explaining indexicality carcinisation.com/2020/01/27/ign…
|
||
|
|
||
|
very offline potat
@metapotat
|
Jan 27 |
|
It's William Eyelash
|
||
|
|
||
|
very offline potat
@metapotat
|
Jan 27 |
|
tbh the first was probably diogenes, but I bristled at kant getting credit specifically because it seemed to suggest hume was a rat
|
||
|
|
||
|
very offline potat
@metapotat
|
Jan 27 |
|
|
||
|
very offline potat
@metapotat
|
Jan 26 |
|
Nah, Hume. And as punishment he's been doomed to be read as a rat for eternity
|
||
|
|
||
|
very offline potat
@metapotat
|
Jan 18 |
|
same
|
||
|
|
||
|
very offline potat
@metapotat
|
Jan 16 |
|
gottem
|
||
|
|
||
|
very offline potat
@metapotat
|
Jan 16 |
|
but it looks like it only goes back to 2009
|
||
|
|
||
|
very offline potat
@metapotat
|
Jan 16 |
|
yep, county and tract level. table S1501. Here's 5-year county level estimates for 2017 for example factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableser…
|
||
|
|
||