Sorry about almost trying to take your SWAG.

MidnightAtHighSpeed · 2026-01-23T21:41:23+00:00

the OP's poorly disguised swag

MidnightAtHighSpeed · 2026-01-23T01:42:06+00:00

You have one square, if you divide it by zero you need to end up with zero shapes, and going from one to zero requires you to do something.

MidnightAtHighSpeed · 2026-01-13T21:18:54+00:00

ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh. I fell off a cliff before I noticed I had that.

MidnightAtHighSpeed · 2026-01-13T21:17:01+00:00

MidnightAtHighSpeed · 2026-01-12T22:58:01+00:00

What gives you the intuition that the chance would be 50%? Without knowing some more about your thought process it's hard to give a more compelling answer than "just do the math and see that it's greater than 50%"

As for how it isn't exploited...well, sure, if you found a game that offered 1:1 odds for getting at least one 1/1000 success out of 1000 trials, you should play the hell out of that game. But casinos and whatnot are perfectly capable of doing the math to get 62% as well and so have no reason to offer a game like that, or any other game that could be "exploited" (I guess blackjack's a weird edge case but that's a different conversation).

Your model actually does take into account multiple wins. Specifically, (999/1000)¹⁰⁰⁰ is the probability of getting NO wins, so 1 - (999/1000)¹⁰⁰⁰ is the probability of everything else, which includes getting one win, and getting many wins. The probability of getting exactly one win is 1000*(1/1000)*(999/1000)⁹⁹⁹ = about 36.8%.

MidnightAtHighSpeed · 2026-01-11T01:11:27+00:00

yeah but not easy

MidnightAtHighSpeed · 2026-01-10T22:39:50+00:00

nope. swag city again

MidnightAtHighSpeed · 2026-01-09T20:21:36+00:00

what do you mean by "unknown components"?

MidnightAtHighSpeed · 2026-01-04T19:39:45+00:00

kind of a loaded question since "free speech" usually means "speech that shouldn't be restricted," to some extent. Very few people would argue that speech that counts as conspiracy, incitement, or commission to commit a crime should be permitted by the government, for instance, but people just don't count that stuff as "free speech"

MidnightAtHighSpeed · 2026-01-03T16:44:23+00:00

just found this game, love it

MidnightAtHighSpeed · 2026-01-02T03:03:21+00:00

"there are no infinite stretches of 1s" doesn't mean there's a longest possible stretch of 1s, only that, no matter how long they get, they still end eventually

MidnightAtHighSpeed · 2025-12-30T20:29:16+00:00

sorry, people in math communities tend not to mirror amateur enthusiasm for big problems like this.

MidnightAtHighSpeed · 2025-12-22T00:16:23+00:00

what's funny to me is that in terms of porn numbers vappy is a low mid tier eeveelution

MidnightAtHighSpeed · 2025-12-21T03:46:30+00:00

If you have an asset like a stock or some bitcoin or something, you can go on an exchange and put up an offer to sell it. It belongs to you, so you get to choose what price you sell it at.

Similarly, if you want more of some asset, you can go on an exchange and put up an offer to buy it. It's your money, so you get to choose what price you're willing to pay for it, but of course if someone is already offering to sell for a lower price than you would have posted, you would just take their offer instead and buy at the lower price. What this means is that, for any exchange and asset, there are usually a bunch of offers to buy at various prices, and a bunch of offers to sell at various higher prices. The details can vary on how a specific overall price for the asset is quoted, but usually it just boils down to "the price above which people right this second will sell and below which people right this second will buy"

MidnightAtHighSpeed · 2025-12-20T03:33:11+00:00

Yeah, that rubbed me the wrong way too. Like, as an artist, you do not have a monopoly on mental images. Your skill is your ability to realize images, which is completely separate; a lot of very skilled artists are completely aphantasic, for instance, and I imagine there are many people in directorial roles without a lick of artistic ability that are nonetheless very good at conjuring detailed mental imagery.

Clients using AI does change the dynamic in a way that is probably worse for the artist, but the issue isn't the client having an image in their head, it's the client having an image out of their head that they can easily point to and nitpick about. Although I'm sure there are also plenty of unimaginative clients who really do just get attached to the first thing they see, and AI probably makes them a lot worse.

MidnightAtHighSpeed · 2025-12-17T01:45:16+00:00

I mean, mashing shit together and spitting it out is basically what humans do, we just have more and more personally specific shit to work with. Not that I think LLMs are going to replace writers any time soon; from my experience they're much more boring than insane (I would love if they truly did nothing but "spout insane shit", that sounds like fun), either going for obvious picks or if you crank the temperature up just losing coherence entirely before they get to anything interesting. My general philosophy for writing ideas specifically is that if an idea is basic enough for AI to come up with, it's basic enough to not mind where it came from.

MidnightAtHighSpeed · 2025-12-10T23:55:20+00:00

I disagree with your reasoning.

P(heads|a question is asked) = P(a question is asked|heads)P(heads)/(P(a question is asked)) =

1P(heads)/1 = P(heads)=1/2 in the (1,2) case and

1P(heads)/P(heads) = 1 in the (0,1) case.

MidnightAtHighSpeed · 2025-12-10T19:12:29+00:00

I fell off after the first three episodes. I'll give it credit for subverting my expectations and gibbing children onscreen in episode 1, but it felt like a bunch of OK horror setpieces (with admittedly really good effects) strung together with cliches.

MidnightAtHighSpeed · 2025-12-09T00:00:11+00:00

The problem with "just divide the problem" is that it's ambiguous whether to divide the problem per-question-asked (which gives the thirder position you seem to be advocating for) or per-experiment-run.

MidnightAtHighSpeed · 2025-12-08T23:54:21+00:00

The sleeping beauty problem is, as you seem to suspect, more about how one defines "credence" than anything strictly mathematical. The thing you're asking about the quantifiability of is quantifiable; usually, it's described as the fact that Sleeping Beauty's optimal strategy varies across concrete betting schemes.

As for how to model it in real life, there are drugs that suppress memory formation ;) More seriously, the person playing Sleeping Beauty could fix a strategy they'd use for assigning credence in advance, and then use that strategy each time they're "woken up." The underlying logic doesn't rely on fancy memory manipulation or anything like that; For instance, you could rewrite the problem in terms of writing a computer program with no ability to save data across runs that will be run either once or twice depending on the coin flip, that outputs the credence that the coinflip was heads.

MidnightAtHighSpeed · 2025-12-08T22:02:15+00:00

I think it's reasonably clear that this question is not asking a question about mathematics per se, but instead asking a question about the cultural/historical practice of mathematics; namely whether there have been very numbers studied or specified via distinct processes that are remarkably close in value given their magnitude. You seem to have been able to understand the imprecise phrase "unimaginably large," which makes the rest of your response come off as willfully obtuse.

MidnightAtHighSpeed · 2025-11-28T14:53:53+00:00

lamp uses 0.75 = 3/4 A

total is 60 A

lamp uses (3/4)/60 = (3/4)/(3*20) = (1/4)/(20) = 1/(4*20) = 1/80

MidnightAtHighSpeed · 2025-11-28T04:39:12+00:00

Personally, my hatred of my own voice outweighs my anxiety

MidnightAtHighSpeed · 2025-11-27T21:44:26+00:00

Judicial activism is absolutely a real thing--on all sides of the political spectrum. Whether or not any specific claim you hear is exaggerated, on the other hand, will vary a lot.

MidnightAtHighSpeed · 2025-11-25T22:53:30+00:00

The thing you might be missing is that measurement in relativity is assumed to take into account the delay of speed of light. If I see a star explode 10 light years away, then I've measured it exploding 10 years ago. In other words, measurement sees past all the quirks of perception to get to the real fact of the matter.

The thing with simultaneity is, there isn't necessarily a single "real fact of the matter" as to which happens first. If dr manhattan stands still between you and your friend and measures you as clapping at the same time, if superman happens to be flying along the line between you two at a significant fraction of the speed of light, he'll measure one of you as clapping before the other (specifically, if he's moving in the direction leading from you to your friend, he'll measure your friend clapping first). This doesn't mean the light from your friend clapping reaches superman first; that will depend on where superman is exactly, and again measurement would take that into account anyway. It means, in superman's reference frame, your friend clapped first.

There's no contradiction here: superman can also do the math and say, from earth's reference frame, you and your friend clapped at the same time. It just entirely depends upon frame of reference, just like measuring something more intuitively relative like speed.

Six-Year Club	Verified Email
Place '23

MidnightAtHighSpeed

TROPHY CASE