Twitter | Search | |
very offline potat
545
Tweets
212
Following
122
Followers
Tweets
very offline potat retweeted
Adam Strandberg 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
Reply Retweet Like
very offline potat 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
Reply Retweet Like
very offline potat 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)
Reply Retweet Like
very offline potat Jan 28
Because the expected waiting time for RRRB doesn't care when RRRR shows up
Reply Retweet Like
very offline potat Jan 28
I corrected myself :) Formally, EX < EY, but P(X < Y) = 0.5 Dependence is unintuitive
Reply Retweet Like
very offline potat Jan 28
No, I mean when RRRR comes first. The target is RRRR or RRRB.
Reply Retweet Like
very offline potat 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.
Reply Retweet Like
very offline potat Jan 28
(this should not affect your betting behavior at the wheel, but that wasn't the question)
Reply Retweet Like
very offline potat 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.
Reply Retweet Like
very offline potat Jan 28
Replying to @metapotat
She noticed
Reply Retweet Like
very offline potat Jan 28
Reply Retweet Like
very offline potat retweeted
Indexical Banana Jan 27
a blog post written by a literal banana explaining indexicality
Reply Retweet Like
very offline potat Jan 27
Replying to @GKBesterfriend
It's William Eyelash
Reply Retweet Like
very offline potat Jan 27
Replying to @qorprate
tbh the first was probably diogenes, but I bristled at kant getting credit specifically because it seemed to suggest hume was a rat
Reply Retweet Like
very offline potat Jan 27
Replying to @qorprate
Reply Retweet Like
very offline potat Jan 26
Replying to @qorprate
Nah, Hume. And as punishment he's been doomed to be read as a rat for eternity
Reply Retweet Like
very offline potat Jan 18
same
Reply Retweet Like
very offline potat Jan 16
Replying to @strnglft
gottem
Reply Retweet Like
very offline potat Jan 16
Replying to @phl43 @davidshor
but it looks like it only goes back to 2009
Reply Retweet Like
very offline potat Jan 16
Replying to @phl43 @davidshor
yep, county and tract level. table S1501. Here's 5-year county level estimates for 2017 for example
Reply Retweet Like