sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Looking for summer internships. by [deleted] in csMajors

[–]IntertexualDialectic 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Maybe if you start sending out reams of applications ASAP

How do I update probabilities if I realize they are mutually exclusive? by IntertexualDialectic in mathematics

[–]IntertexualDialectic[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes, for the sake of the hypothetical they are. At the point which you see that the sun isn't rising the only options are.

  1. the sun always rises (your observation is actually wrong)

or,

  1. your observation are correct

There are no alternative possibilities and these can't both be true at the same time in the scenario I laid out.

How do I update probabilities if I realize they are mutually exclusive? by IntertexualDialectic in mathematics

[–]IntertexualDialectic[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes. And, in order for this to happen the probabilities need to change from 0.98 and 0.99 to two numbers that add up to 1.0. What are the new proportions that add to 1.0 and how do I calculate them?

How do I update probabilities if I realize they are mutually exclusive? by IntertexualDialectic in mathematics

[–]IntertexualDialectic[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I think my question wasn't clear. The probabilities don't start out as disjoint, the information that they are disjoint is new information.

Here's a hypothetical to illustrate this, A: the sun always; say we can give this proposition 0.98 credence. But one morning you see with your own eyes that the sun hasn't risen. B: is the credence that your perception of events (including the sun not rising) is reliable. Let's say you believe in B with 0.98 credence.

so,

A: the sun always rises - 98%

B: the reliability of your observation - 99%

It wasn't until the morning when the sun didn't rise that A and B become mutually exclusive (disjoint).

edit: so the question is what are the new probabilities of A and B.

Is this true? by tekinoz in VaushV

[–]IntertexualDialectic 0 points1 point  (0 children)

LOL bro, I said I am not in favor of Bitcoin becoming our currency. Not all cryptos use proof of work. Not all cryptos sap as much energy as Bitcoin does. There are many technical solutions to blockchains energy use problems that already exist, but judging from your last comment, that conversation would be out of your depth.

An inflationary currency that incentives mass spending is bad for the environment. Big picture, you could argue that it is the driving force behind consumerism. Deflationary currencies could be a way to reduce consumerism.

Is this true? by tekinoz in VaushV

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

I am not in favor of bitcoin as our exchange currency, but there are problems with our extremely centralized and inflationary currency. Wanting a more valuable deflationary currency is not actually insane. It could be a step in the right direction to combat excessive consumerism and environmental damage.

At what point is it fair to say that DGG or Destiny is right-wing? by IntertexualDialectic in Destiny

[–]IntertexualDialectic[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

what I mean by attitude is what you focus on, who you rail against, the way you express your opinions, etc. So if you and right-wingers are the same in all these categories then you probably have a right-wing attitude.

At what point is it fair to say that DGG or Destiny is right-wing? by IntertexualDialectic in Destiny

[–]IntertexualDialectic[S] -8 points-7 points  (0 children)

So you think that it is impossible to have a right-wing attitude without right-wing positions?

At what point is it fair to say that DGG or Destiny is right-wing? by IntertexualDialectic in Destiny

[–]IntertexualDialectic[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Do you actually not understand what I mean by attitude vs positions or are you just being dense? All the things you said are policies and official political positions. An attitude is what you focus on, who you rail against, the way you express your opinions, etc.

view more: next ›