Glide

But you do know which one it is, because you said "other child". As soon as you ask the question, you assign a specific outcome to a specific child eliminating HH and HT (or in the new example, BB and BG). "What are the odds they have a female child" and "what are the odds the other child is female" are not the same question.

Well, I guess OPs point is demonstrated. People will in fact argue about it.

What you're trying to present has multiple holes, but only one matters: you're not paying attention to the question that's being asked. You can say first, second, alpha, beta, Leslie, whatever you want to assign the child in question as, but the question only asks you the gender of a singular child. The door opening child doesn't matter, because it isn't part of the question. No one asked what gender that child is. No one asked what the odds they have a female child is. It just isn't a part of the question.

Yes, I referred to it as the second child because the question that was asked happens to have a child in it and ask you about another. Because we're communicating in a hilariously precise language, we have to say "the other child". But that doesn't make the door opening child a part of the equation. The question could be "there is a child in a box. What are the odds the child is female? Oh, it has a brother by the way." Cool, who cares, the sibling wasn't a part of the question.

The Monty Hall problem spreads multiple outcomes across multiple choices and then eliminates one. The outcomes and options have a relation. This question just asks you about a singular variable with two possible outcomes and throws around an unrelated red herring.

It doesn't, though. The Monty Hall problem utilizes the fact that there were more possibilities before one was eliminated AND that it cannot eliminate the "best" outcome. No such qualities are at play here.

The question being asked here is "what is the gender of the second child?" The gender of the first child is completely irrelevent. Observed or unobserved, door open or closed, it doesn't impact the outcome of the second child.

I suspect it's not the question OP intended to ask, but it's the question they asked nonetheless.

His true thoughts are starting to slip out in his old age.

Sony has always been an industry leader in consumer abuse.

r/Canada is literally run with conservative propaganda efforts in mind. It's not surprised that any attempt to pull people out of the echo chamber is met with an instant ban.

Late stage capitalism be like: "look at how much money it cost when all this food essential to human life went to waste!"

I tried to keep scrolling, but this post made me wanna coomment so hard.

I'm shocked so many people have a problem with "vote for me again because I do the job. This is an example of doing the job. I'd love to stick around so I can do more of the job."

Homie wants to defund the CBC so we can get closer to a corporate-owned state. Because we obviously need media to be further dominated by wealth.

Sure, "both sides" or whatever, but let's not downplay just how fucking awful Pollievre is.

A man of culture.

Secret of Evermore is also grossly underrated.

But, but, but Polievre keeps saying it's the liberal-funded CBC that's biased and corporate owned, private interest media is the solution!

/s