enkers

I love how you’ve set up a false dichotomy to complain about lack of nuance.

Also, since there will be a bit of oil splattering, make sure to quickly secure your lid with clamps. Hope you have a blast!

What have you done!?

^^…would, ^^though

Word of the year? OK, well, you’re about a few years late, but better late than never I suppose.

https://pluralistic.net/2023/01/21/potemkin-ai/#hey-guys

OK, but what if I just add a 2nd moebius, and twisted them a little, and… oops, Klein bottle!

She died for Zundamon’s sins. 🙏

Yes, I think that’s probably it!

I recall hearing that there’s a correlation with being good at sports and having a birthday earlier in the school year. Reason being, at a young age, on average there’s a big advantage to being 6 months older, and that advantage can often result in a positive feedback loop. You get selected more for showing aptitude and thus receive more training, which results in being selected more.

deleted by creator

Presumably the sign meant to say something along the lines of pelvic, or vaginal examination, or whatever the proper English medical signage should be, which would have the correct connotation, but instead they only picked a word with the same denotation.

Google Regulatory Affairs, said the DOJ is pushing a “radical agenda that goes far beyond the legal issues in this case,” and would harm consumers.

Bullshit. You’ve been slowly pushing the vertical integration angle, and now it’s coming back to bite you. Suck a bag of dicks, google.

What a great example of the difference between denotation and connotation.

Lost opportunity to call it “Operation CatSnip”

Imagine just chilling in the dark, minding your own business, and some asshole comes at you with a light as bright as the sun, and you can’t even close you’re eyes because you don’t have eyelids.

Whoa, good work! I think I’m going to have to go over this a few times to grock how it works, especially the Φ(b) - Φ(a) bit. My stats textbook has a bit too much dust on it. ;)

Moreover, that’s not how probability works in independent events.

It’d be like saying “I flipped coin A 1 billion times and got half a billion heads, so now that I’m flipping coin B 100 times, I probably won’t get any more heads.”

It should be fairly obvious that you can say the exact same statement about tails, and get a completely contradictory statement.

Yeah, I was trying to compute the “ballpark” of the odds, but it’s actually hard to do because of how astronomically improbable it is. Even computation systems that are designed to compute rather big/small numbers (think 100,000,000^1,000,000 big) fail.

Here’s another example: If a human only had 1,000 gut microbes, the chance that over 900 of them get snapped is 1 in ~10^162 [WA]. (This was roughly the biggest number I could get WA to yield a non-zero answer for a >90% snap.)

Now if you do that for every human on earth, the probability is still essentially zero. [WA]

When you consider that humans don’t have 1000 gut microbes, they have over 10 trillion, it’s just mind bogglingly improbable.

The alternative is even more disturbing: snapped humans leave behind a cloud of poopy gut microbes.

That would be incredibly unlikely. Due to the huge number of gut microbes, the chance to even lose 5% off of the median, even with billions of trials, is functionally zero.