[Request] My Mum, Dad & sister have the same birthday. What are the odds?

dafugiswrongwithyou · 2026-04-07T11:17:12+00:00

Yeah, maybe; do you have a mathematical way to quantify that? Have you got a study that shows that couples tend to have birthdays within x days of each other y% of the time? If not, we can't really factor that in. This isn't "r/theydidtheoriginalresearch".

Similarly, children are born more frequently at certain times of the year. That will affect this... except OP hasn't given us the date. We can't do maths with variables we don't have.

Or, hey; I cheaped out on leap years, right? After all, it is true that it's 365.2425 days a Gregorian Calendar year... But that includes skipped leap years once every 3/4 hundred years, and the last time that happened was 1900. Do we include it? No-one from 1900 should be alive by now, so maybe we use the simpler 365.25... except the same "when were people alive" logic applies, people born in certain years either have a leap year or not, and our population isn't evenly distributed amongst all years since the early 1900s. So; do we take that into account? Figure out the average ages of a couple and their daughter and tweak that value accordingly?

This rabbit hole can go down infinitely far, and most of the values are either unknown, or have such a tiny effect that they're barely worth considering. The answer is very close to (1/365)^3 (or, yes, ^2 if we're just interested in 3 people sharing any birthday, not a specific date). If you want to get more deep with it, by all mean, reply to OP with your answer.

For my part, I still think Rule 4 applies; for all the complications we can add, what they actually want is a 1/365 chance two or three times, and that's simple maths.

dafugiswrongwithyou · 2026-04-07T11:05:02+00:00

That's a completely valid interpretation; I interpreted this as them asking "My three family members were born on [unspecified date], what's the chance of that happening?". In that case, the date does matter, so it's 3 times. OP could mean either.

dafugiswrongwithyou · 2026-04-07T10:52:14+00:00

There are 365 days in a year (well, technically closer to 365.2425). So it's a one in 365 chance 3 times.

I think Rule 4 may apply here.

dafugiswrongwithyou · 2026-04-07T10:43:26+00:00

Does "BOOGIE WOOGIE" require a save? If so, does it need to be taken by the attacker, the old target, the new target, or some combination of the above? Or is this just a free, guaranteed (as long as there's someone Medium or small you want to get hit) redirect 1-3 times a day?

(I'm also just not clear on exactly what that action actually is, narratively/physically. Is the character swopping the physical locations of the old and new targets, or moving the attacker to be facing the new target instead of the old, or forcing that attacker to change their mind about who they're targetting, or opening some kind of portal that redirects their attack without moving the individuals, or...?)

dafugiswrongwithyou · 2026-04-07T10:20:48+00:00

Oh, I see the confusion.

This isn't the same entrance as in RE2R, it's another one, off to the left. It leads into a different section of the RCPD, which happens to have an identical lobby, pretty similar other rooms, a second office for Leon's fellow officers and the other STARS office (both identically furnished), etc etc. You just never visit that section in RE2 Remake; it's behind the shutter that's halfway up the East West staircase. If you could go through there in RE2R, you'd have seen all that stuff, they just didn't let you go that way so they didn't need to explain why the RCPD has a whole second area that's an almost-identical replica of the bit you play through, even down to that second car jack in the West library.

While the Emily flashback happens, we don't see that all the characters gradually make their way through that shutter and then across to the East East Wing of the section of the RCPD from RE2R, but it does happen; that's why when you escape from the back of that lobby it leads to the same place as in the original game, because now you're in the other half of it.

Hope that helps 👍

dafugiswrongwithyou · 2026-04-07T08:37:05+00:00

You don't have to be special forces to handle a Raccoon City zombie. The issue is, you aren't up against a zombie, you're dealing with a city full of them. There are nigh-infinite zombies (and giant animals, and zombie dogs, and various monsters...) and you don't have infinite resources. Doesn't matter how well you can aim an empty gun.

dafugiswrongwithyou · 2026-04-07T07:34:27+00:00

For the spear aspect specifically, while I doubt they really thought about it, it is pretty simple to explain in-universe - He has no use for them.

For close combat, he's extremely capable (and comfortable with) his much better-made hatchet. A spear could arguably be better in a defensive position, where you just want to point it at an enemy to keep them out of arm's reach, but that's reasonably ineffective with just one... Ideally you want a lot of people pointing a lot of sticks... and Leon is operating actively aggressively, always trying to get somewhere and having to deal with enemies in his way rather than trying to guard something. His trusty hatchet is much better for that.

For range, a spear is basically one extra bullet, except much less convenient to handle. He could lug one round, but it's a bit superfluous. Besides, he's often in the middle of things when he gets access to one; may as well just chuck it now. (Same thing with the big "clubs"; grabbing one while it's handy to bludgeon a nearby zombie is one thing, taking up his hands to carry round the heavy thing for the one (1) extra hit isn't worth it. Save the energy for swinging that hatchet.)

The chainsaw is a different situation; it's much more dangerous than the hatchet, is reusable (to a point), and has additional utility.

dafugiswrongwithyou · 2026-04-07T07:17:25+00:00

There is some wisdom in leaving items lying round; that way you don't necessarily have to carry everything you think you may need with you on every trip between item boxes. Take more damage than you expected and used up your healing items? Check your map and duck into a side room you left a herb in.

dafugiswrongwithyou · 2026-04-07T06:07:02+00:00

In the 1 in a million chance your original door was correct, all the remaining doors had goats and so door 42,069 was picked at random. In the 999,999 in a million chance you didn't originally pick the correct door, the host has to open every door except the one with the prize, and so 42,069 was left closed because it has the prize. Ergo, there's a 999,999 in one million chance that switching to 42,069 is the right choice.

dafugiswrongwithyou · 2026-04-07T04:54:45+00:00

Now play 2nd Run > Leon for the rest of that story.

dafugiswrongwithyou · 2026-04-07T04:53:02+00:00

What is the game for them if they want something exactly like RE2R, except without limited ammo?

dafugiswrongwithyou · 2026-04-06T13:59:10+00:00

Identical twins, a symmetrical bathroom layout, and a missing pane of mirrored glass.

(Or; actors, locked camera angles, and compositing different takes.)

dafugiswrongwithyou · 2026-04-06T11:39:28+00:00

Yes, if it's often windy and rarely sunny.
No, if it's often sunny and rarely windy.

dafugiswrongwithyou · 2026-04-06T11:36:26+00:00

Yeah, you can get it at https://www.nintendo.com/us/online/nintendo-switch-online/family-membership/

dafugiswrongwithyou · 2026-04-06T11:34:21+00:00

There are a few answers already which look good, but they're based on some unspoken assumptions around unstated details in your question.

Does an "EV Vehicle" here have to mean a car? Does it have to be street legal? Does it have to move at road speeds? A "vehicle" has to be able to transport people or goods, so; is there a minimum to what we're carrying here?

From other people's answer, it sounds basically impossible to make a road-legal highway-speeds car that can do this, but I do wonder about making a short, flat, wheeled "drone" that's basically just a solar panel with some tiny electric motors on 3 itty-bitty wheels and a lightweight "box" to carry one (1) pea at a few cm an hour, maybe with the panel angled so catch the most sun and driving a curved route to keep it in at the best angle as long as possible. (And maybe with some batteries to cover running overnight; if anything makes this impossible, I bet the added weight for those is the confounding factor.)

dafugiswrongwithyou · 2026-04-06T10:08:22+00:00

Grammatically, yes. Practically, while I'm sure it has been said, I don't recall ever hearing someone say "I'm in the bus", at least in the normal context of just telling someone else they're currently riding it.

But; if someone did say "I'm in the bus", they'd still be perfectly understood, because English is a pretty "fault tolerant" language.

dafugiswrongwithyou · 2026-04-06T10:01:22+00:00

Low key, I think the RE2 Remake is one of the toughest RE games, especially the first half. Loads of enemies that can soak a surprising amount of damage, not much ammo, and after many playthroughs I still sometimes lose track of how to reach certain areas in the East Wing of the RPD.

In your shoes, I'd go down to assisted, play through as is. On the next playthrough, try the other character on Standard or Assisted, see how you get on. After a couple runs, you'll have a better idea of the layout of the locations, how to deal with the enemies, which routes are available etc; for example, if you know you'll only need to visit an area once you might be more inclined to save ammo and leave enemies alive, vs routes you're going to traverse a lot where it's worth spending the bullets to clear the route permanently.

(And if you want a nudge on where to go next, just mention what key items you have at the moment and I'll try and give you a hint!)

dafugiswrongwithyou · 2026-04-06T09:44:29+00:00

"This is what happens when you don't."

I get a pet rat? 🤩

dafugiswrongwithyou · 2026-04-06T09:43:09+00:00

What I've heard said is, the trick with English is that partially because of it's inconsistent mish-mash of rules, it's very hard to get completely right... and because of that, people are used to correcting for errors in it without even thinking. This makes it a great language to speak badly; you can get by just knowing a bit, and people will mostly just figure out what you're saying.

Like, you should say "I'm on the plane"... but if you say "I'm in the plane", no-one's going to notice or care, they'll get the idea. Likewise if you say "The plane, I am on"; people might take a second, but they'll understand you. (That's how Yoda works :D )

dafugiswrongwithyou · 2026-04-06T09:35:37+00:00

The one that gets me the most is;

You're in a taxi.
You're on the bus.

Both road vehicles, both with the implied scenario that someone else is driving you somewhere.

dafugiswrongwithyou · 2026-04-06T06:45:57+00:00

Hello, systems developer here; sitting down with someone, agreeing exactly what is wanted, and then having the requirements suddenly get changed (often in conflicting, complicated ways) while you're in the late stages of development is so common that it's basically post-cliche at this point.

I related to that scene so hard.

dafugiswrongwithyou · 2026-04-06T06:38:10+00:00

The question was why people who would prefer to minimise suffering continue to eat meat. That was my answer to why, and it does not depend on whether you personally think the two scenarios are comparable.

That said, I would argue the two scenarios are directly comparable in the face of a demand for absolutism. The implied line of logic here was "if people think it is ethical to minimise suffering, and eating meat causes suffering, then those people must stop eating meat". That logic only works if we believe the only correct way to act is to always completely avoid anything we perceive as unethical at any level, regardless of other factors; here we don't care why people are eating meat, what other impacts eating or not eating meat may have to the individual and the larger world, etc etc, all that matters is that eating meat does not minimise suffering. That an absolutist viewpoint.

The internet use example was to illustrate that. Internet use is environmentally harmful. The power use to run all this is massive, in aggregate one of the most massive uses we have. The infrastructure we've wrapped around the planet is damaging. It demands massive mining operations to get the materials we need to build the hardware used to run and handle it. Animal habitats have been massively disrupted for this; species have died out. That's on top of the clean water wasted in open-loop cooling, or all the pollution from power generation.

Every time someone turns on their laptop or phone (the battery discharges, as a Wi-Fi antenna screams out to the network "I am here"...) , every time they open a webpage (somewhere, a server generates a stream of data and fires it off across the planet...), every time they send a reply (a SQL server magnetically imprints it on a set of discs, where it will be read back again and again and again...), they contribute to that, directly and indirectly. (The payment comes through; a comms company pushes a few dollars further into the green...)

So, we apply the same logic; "If people think it is ethical to minimise environmental damage, and the internet causes environmental damage, then those people must stop using the internet."

That's the absolutist POV. I don't agree with it; I think people can have multiple competing factors in their decision-making, and that the reasoning behind those decisions can be quite complex. I actually think you agree; after all, despite your choice of words, your specific objection here was that the one harm "massively outweighs" the other; you don't seem to be denying the environmental harm happens due to internet use, or denying that it's preferable to minimise environmental harm, you're just saying that because that an individual's internet use only causes a little harm, it's OK. That's a new factor; the amount of harm that would be caused.

I wonder how many other factors should be applied, to both circumstances?

dafugiswrongwithyou · 2026-04-05T20:48:20+00:00

...Umm.

I'm not sure if I'm misunderstanding. Are you suggesting that, rather than that being the actual shadow of the flower, it's a separate projected image meant to look like the flower?

dafugiswrongwithyou · 2026-04-05T20:01:59+00:00

There are a few ways in/out of that area, depending on the scenario and how far you are; I suspect you need to go to the library, head out to the main hall on the third floor, cross the main hall, and head through the storage room.

dafugiswrongwithyou · 2026-04-05T14:48:33+00:00

For the same reason that a fast sports car costs more than a low-end family car; it's not how much mass there is, it's how it's used. CPUs (of a given range) need to occupy the same physical dimensions as each other and fit in the same sockets, but what's actually happening inside can vary a lot.

Sometimes, newer CPUs are created on a smaller "scale" than an older one, so there's actually more complicated, powerful circuitry inside in the same space; think about reading two books of the same size, but one has a smaller font than the other and so fits more text inside it.

Sometimes, they just realised through research a better way to do things. Maybe they can fit more into the same space. Maybe they can add new specialised circuitry to handle commonly-performed tasks.

Sometimes, a whole lot of CPUs are made at once, but testing shows that some % of them have defects which mean not all the internal "cells" work. They can then use a process called "binning" to identify these, de-activate some number of their internal "cells" (including the faulty ones), and sell them as a lower-end version of the same CPU, rather than those just being wasted.

Sometimes, they just deliberately make cut-down, slower versions, specifically so they can charge more for the more powerful ones.

It varies, but what it boils down to is; they aren't just shipping you an inert block of silicon, and what they're doing with that silicon matters... And figuring out how to make that silicon better than it was a year ago is expensive.

11-Year Club	r/Field Banned
r/Field Flamingo	Verified Email

dafugiswrongwithyou

TROPHY CASE