triclops6

joined 2 years ago
[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 years ago

Brr (for cold) And brrrrrrrrr (for money printer)

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 years ago

You can support unions across the board and still be able to commend Costco on the good it does for its employees.

Anyone who shits wholesale on the company (pun intended) is missing the point.

Respectfully, I think that's where the downvotes are coming from.

[–] [email protected] 54 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I only know marginally more but I think you're right.

Costco is known for being a good corporate citizen to its members and employees.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 years ago
[–] [email protected] 8 points 2 years ago

Likewise, progressive here, most of this is right wing straw man stuff

The only point op gets right is we tend to eat our own, purity tests and all that, though the right has a big tent filled with ideologically incompatible people, and that's the other extreme.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 years ago (4 children)

I appreciate that, genuinely.

But this troll straw-manned the gun control argument to "banning all guns" -- their position is stupid.

And the thing is, at this point whether that stupidity is either willful, or obtuse, they're not changing it.

[–] [email protected] 55 points 2 years ago (8 children)

Gun nut's gonna gun nut, logic need not apply

[–] [email protected] 32 points 2 years ago (3 children)

The black spy died more often though

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 years ago

Depends on the conversation rate of red kids to blue, if as you suggest, it's only a minority, then you're right

[–] [email protected] 14 points 2 years ago (1 children)

The intuition is exactly your argument:

When the machine says yes it's either because

(1) the sun went nova (vanishingly small chance) and machine rolled truth (prob 35/36) -- the joint probability of this (the product) is near zero

OR

(2) sun didn't go nova (prob of basically one) and machine rolled lie (prob 1/36) -- joint prob near 1/36

Think of joint probability as the total likelihood. It is much more likely we are in scenario 2 because the total likelihood of that event (just under 1/36) is astronomically higher than the alternative (near zero)

I'm skipping stuff but hopefully my words make clear what they math doesn't always

[–] [email protected] 29 points 2 years ago (3 children)

That last part is what the Bayesian scientist is wagering on, it's not missing, as op suggested

view more: ‹ prev next ›