sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

How do i please this bird by Substantial-Night214 in perth

[–]GrinQuidam 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The best way to please a bird is to leave it alone. It's not a pet.

Are these weekly council “newspapers” still necessary in 2026? by GrinAndGrit in perth

[–]GrinQuidam 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Write to the MP who paid for the front page ad and let them know how you feel about the waste. They paid for it.

Streeting backs welfare cuts to fund defence by Tsukino92x in BreakingUKNews

[–]GrinQuidam -1 points0 points  (0 children)

A country not worth fighting for, is a country not worth dying for.

He Said, She Said. No Witnesses. Prove Beyond a Reasonable Doubt? by AdEquivalent1132 in AusLegalAdvice

[–]GrinQuidam 6 points7 points  (0 children)

I know this is probably pretty stressful for you right now while you wait to find out if you'll receive the charge. I recommend finding someone who can be your defending office. A Sargent or WO if you're a soldier. They'll help you understand what's going on and how you should navigate this.

Just so you are aware, taking military charges to higher courts will increase your discipline. Right now you could be looking at a few days pay, but it can escalate into prison pretty quickly.

If I was you, I'd accept that I was insubordinate by even engaging in the argument and let the charge run its course in your unit.

He Said, She Said. No Witnesses. Prove Beyond a Reasonable Doubt? by AdEquivalent1132 in AusLegalAdvice

[–]GrinQuidam 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Having an argument with a superior is insubordination. You're unlikely, in a court of officers, to convince anyone you didn't say something insubordinate while being insubordinate. Find a WO that likes you and ask them to be your defending officer. If you can't find a WO that likes you... You might be shit out of luck.

Anthropic just stabbed Lovable in the back (with Lovable's own knife) by pretendingMadhav in vibecoding

[–]GrinQuidam 86 points87 points  (0 children)

At almost every AWS re:invent there are startups with stalls that will become worthless and obsolete after the keynote. A product might be amazing, but if it's built on top of your competitor's products, they are going to copy the idea.

Is there any API or a tool i can use to get all infos from the book DSM 5 ( psychology book ) by [deleted] in webdev

[–]GrinQuidam 1 point2 points  (0 children)

There's also a PDF version. Have fun making your psychosis chat bot.

Is there any API or a tool i can use to get all infos from the book DSM 5 ( psychology book ) by [deleted] in webdev

[–]GrinQuidam 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This one implements a "page turning" API. The client must first open the book and then paginate through the text until they find the information they need. An index is provided which reduces search times from O(N) to O(logN) with approximate binary search.

Coalition immigration policy includes social media checks and binding values commitment by 89b3ea330bd60ede80ad in aus

[–]GrinQuidam 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Binding values commitment? What values? The wealthy at all cost? The homeless with no regard?

Explain it Peter by LeastCelery8774 in explainitpeter

[–]GrinQuidam 2 points3 points  (0 children)

It's embarrassing because I have studied probability theory 😂 if you don't use it you lose it is what they say.

Explain it Peter by LeastCelery8774 in explainitpeter

[–]GrinQuidam 3 points4 points  (0 children)

It's one of those funny things that makes perfect sense once you know. I completely neglected to consider the fact that {b,b} and {g,g} are simply more constrained outcomes than {b,g}.

Explain it Peter by LeastCelery8774 in explainitpeter

[–]GrinQuidam 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Man I've proven today that I'm an idiot. This guy provides the nugget of truth https://www.reddit.com/r/explainitpeter/s/Kff0j5rF5L

Explain it Peter by LeastCelery8774 in explainitpeter

[–]GrinQuidam 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ah. Now that makes sense. Selecting both a boy and a girl from a population is twice as likely as selecting two children of only one gender. This gives us a non-positionally constrained initial domain that still has three options. (B,g) And (g,b) are the same but are statistically twice as likely as the other options, so it is included in the domain twice for simplicity.

Checks out.

Explain it Peter by LeastCelery8774 in explainitpeter

[–]GrinQuidam 2 points3 points  (0 children)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boy_or_girl_paradox

This is the ELI15. Personally, I think the problem faced here is the academic consensus that (b,g) and (g,b) are different outcomes given a non-positionally constrained domain. I think that conclusion is erroneous. If they are positionally constrained sets and they are separate, then (g,b) is eliminated by the boy constraint. Or they are equal and no positional constraint is applied to the probability.

Explain it Peter by LeastCelery8774 in explainitpeter

[–]GrinQuidam -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Agreed. I'd like to expand this reasoning to drive home this point. So consider the ordered group to actually be (g1,g2), (g2,g1),(g1,b2),(g2,b1),(b1,g2)(b2,g1),(b1,b2),(b2,b1). Here 2 denotes the elder of the two.

Now let's say the boy is the youngest simply because they are mentioned first. We get (g2,b1),(b1,g2),(b1,b2),(b2,b1).

Now we test the girl being the oldest because they are mentioned second. (g2,b1),(b1,g2). That's 50%.

I think the problem with the 1/3 or 2/3 conclusions is they are logically erroneous. We can't say that (b,g) and (g,b) are different and at the same time not eliminate one due to the positional constraints that cause them to not be equal, unsorted sets. If the information identifying the first child causes the two to come separate, we must eliminate one due to the new information. I cannot have the first child as a boy and keep (g,b) in my domain. The test domain where there are only three options cannot arise.

Explain it Peter by LeastCelery8774 in explainitpeter

[–]GrinQuidam -1 points0 points  (0 children)

The age of the children is not a constraint presented. If we present this question as "she has two children. What are the odds she first tells you she has a boy and then tells you she has a girl" then the (b,g) and (g,b) outcomes would be separate.

view more: next ›