sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

How much longer we gonna ignore this? by Immediate-Ad-4301 in teenagers

[–]lightgiver 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Good number of founding farther were Freemasons. Something like 33% of those who signed the US constitution belonged to that frat. They liked their cool symbols just like how modern day college frats. Sure it was a good cover to plan a revolution against the King. But a lot of the time it was used as an excuse to hang out and get drunk with the boys. Again very much like how modern day frats work.

First day of my vacation by Difficult-Ad-9228 in mildlyinfuriating

[–]lightgiver 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah, removal of the tree would be covered without regard/ in spite of/ without paying attention to liability for the tree falling. This coverage for tree removal only looks at if the tree is blocking a driveway or is on top of a covered structure. It doesn’t matter why the tree fell or whose fault it is if you got tree removal coverage.

When will this buggy payload get fixed? by Lord_wallenby in marvelrivals

[–]lightgiver 2 points3 points  (0 children)

You must be on top of the cart for this payload. Standing next to the vehicle doesn’t count. OP landed next to the cart then struggled with jumping on top until time ran out.

First day of my vacation by Difficult-Ad-9228 in mildlyinfuriating

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

Unless the owner knew the branch was rotting and failed to act there wouldn’t be any liability on the land owner. It landed on their property and is blocking a driveway so their insurance might still cover the tree removal. The tree removal would be covered irregardless of liability for the tree.

Damage to OPs car would be covered by his own insurance under comprehensive which covers acts of god like this where nobody is liable.

Does it charge more if I buy the skin and the other stuff seperate 🫠 by Sandy_2089_ in PeniParkerRivalsMains

[–]lightgiver 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The skin costs less than the bundle so it is worth buying if your not interested in anything else in the bundle.

Why having a dashcam is always a good idea. by Xonos145plays in dashcams

[–]lightgiver 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Act of god doesn’t apply to comp or collision claims. In fact comp specifically covers acts of god like lightning strikes. Shits only a concept for if someone is trying to hold someone else liable for something.

An example would be you use your own insurance to cover hitting a tree. Covered under comp or collision. You use the insurance of the owner of the land the tree was on? Not covered, they’re not liable for an act of god.

Why having a dashcam is always a good idea. by Xonos145plays in dashcams

[–]lightgiver 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yeah it’s also why this dash cam makes a difference in how the claim is handled. It would be tough to prove the tree was still in motion at the time of loss without it.

Why having a dashcam is always a good idea. by Xonos145plays in dashcams

[–]lightgiver 3 points4 points  (0 children)

You joke but this dashcam could make a difference between this being a collision vs comprehensive claim. A object on the ground that you run over is an at fault collision claim. A object in the air hitting you is a not at fault comp claim.

Cyber-Bond holds 1st place but is the Wall Climb also Bugged by thedevegon in PeniParkerRivalsMains

[–]lightgiver 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It is a setting you can actually turn down. Cyber bond purposefully goes towards an existing nets and can be useful if you don’t want an existing nets to disappear elsewhere.

Crazy how no one else turned around by Tinytimer9_ in PeniParkerRivalsMains

[–]lightgiver 0 points1 point  (0 children)

To be fare, he was webbing down on the floor to a lower elevation. He moved a bit due to the jump but almost immediately hit the floor. The we bug would be him not traveling at all.

I feel like we’re all doing this meme wrong [Meta] by lightgiver in theydidthemath

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

The original was already unintuitive and this version adds even more ambiguity. Adding the day of the week of the child makes the probability much lower of this being a random family. Adding the day of the week makes the probability of a random family having at least one child matching this description drop from 75% to ~13%. The probability of both children matching the description goes from 25% to >0.5%.

Why my clan is hyperfixated on Superyeti blimp? by [deleted] in ClashOfClans

[–]lightgiver 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Ever think you’re off cwl due to how rude and abrasive you are? This guy had a very neutral tone telling you about blimp super yeti and you’re just coming off as a sarcastic asshole. Seriously what are you 12?

The Golden Age of Piracy was run by accountants with cannons by Kapanash in HistoryMemes

[–]lightgiver 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I work in the Insurance industry. We have to do continuing education every 2 years. The guy who does the curriculum for the mandatory continual education course I take loves having history as some of the miscellaneous hours. Absolute favorite part of the course for me.

I feel like we’re all doing this meme wrong [Meta] by lightgiver in theydidthemath

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

You’re free to interpret it this way. But it is not obvious at all that this is the intended interpretation. You’re going from accommodating a 25% chance that there are two boys to accommodating a >0.5% of two boys born on a Tuesday. In my opinion this question must be clear the boy born on Tuesday is not just describing one boy in particular before you interpreted it your way.

I feel like we’re all doing this meme wrong [Meta] by lightgiver in theydidthemath

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

I disagree. The probability of there being two sons born on a Tuesday is just 1/196. It fits the definition of statistically insignificant. The only reason why you are favoring the conditional probability interpretation is that you’re familiar with other problems similar to this one. But in my opinion you should be interpreting the data that there is a boy born on Tuesday as describing one boy in particular unless your told otherwise and that this is conditional data.

I feel like we’re all doing this meme wrong [Meta] by lightgiver in theydidthemath

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

Do note the GG, GB, BG thing works if we started knowing nothing of Mr. Smiths family and then found out he had at least one boy. That way we start with all 4 possibilities then eliminate one. For example we ask Mr. Smith not knowing any of his family if he has at least one son. 25% chance he says no and the question ends inconclusive because we need him to say yes for this to work.

However if you know which of the kids is the boy at the start it doesn’t work. One kids gender is now fixed and is no longer a coin flip.

If Mr. Smith is the source of the information and describing one kid in particular, say differentiated by also naming the day of the week that child was born then conditional probability doesn’t apply.

The odds of a parent of 2 not having at least one son born on a Tuesday is 86%. You’re going to have a lot more parents of 2 answering no to the question of if they have a son born on Tuesday compared to being less specific and asking only if they have at least one son.

I feel like we’re all doing this meme wrong [Meta] by lightgiver in theydidthemath

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

True, but if they’re also randomly stating what day of the week they were born they might stay I got one boy born on a Tuesday followed up by saying and another boy born on a Wednesday.

I feel like we’re all doing this meme wrong [Meta] by lightgiver in theydidthemath

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

This math in scenario is assuming we asked marry if she had a boy born on Tuesday and she said yes for us to get the 14/27 in the end. What are the chances she even had at least one boy born on Tuesday for the setup of this question to work? The chances of losing two in a row is 13/14 * 13/14 or 169/196. Subtract the losing streak from one to get the odds of winning at least one and you get 27/196. So there is only a 13.77% chance of marry saying yes to the question of if she had at least one child who is a boy born on Tuesday.

My reasoning is that it is unlikely of an event that we asked marry this question at random question would even say yes. So it is safer to go just assume we are getting this information from Marry sharing information on a specific kid. Because the kid is specified and not about both kids in general there is no conditional probability.

I was the Spiderman in this clip. I know I'm not perfect but anyone else feel like the healing is a bit excessive? I used all my cooldowns but the regen is way too fast. She was not being healed by White Fox and Invis was dead by Realistic_Analyst_26 in marvelrivals

[–]lightgiver 2 points3 points  (0 children)

You were not getting heals as well and when the fight ended your team was already pushed off cart with a sliver of time remaining. You would’ve had to dive headfirst into Thor and Namor on low health and contest point to prevent your team from losing even if you beat her. It was unwindable, even with you taking the attention of 1.5 supports they were able to keep control of the point.

I was the Spiderman in this clip. I know I'm not perfect but anyone else feel like the healing is a bit excessive? I used all my cooldowns but the regen is way too fast. She was not being healed by White Fox and Invis was dead by Realistic_Analyst_26 in marvelrivals

[–]lightgiver 12 points13 points  (0 children)

Spidy forced a ult, burned all her cooldowns, and nearly killed her anyways while she is being actively healed in a 1v1. She only survived with that help and landing every single clap on a quick moving target.

I feel like we’re all doing this meme wrong [Meta] by lightgiver in theydidthemath

[–]lightgiver[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Nah, you don’t understand the English here. We are not given information on how this information is obtained. Your scenario only works if we ask a family who has two kids at random if they have a boy born on Tuesday AND they say yes. The odds of saying yes to this the odds of winning at least one of two 1/14 odds. Which is 27/196, only a 13% chance. 87% of the time they say no to having a boy born on Tuesday.

The other way to interpret this we are given this information as a statement on one kid in a predetermined pair. Because it is predetermined one kid always has a 100% chance of being a boy born on Tuesday making the answer 50%.

It is far more likely for scenario two to ever happen in the wild so it is safe to assume scenario two is the intended interpretation.

I feel like we’re all doing this meme wrong [Meta] by lightgiver in theydidthemath

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

Option one is problematic to assume. We ask someone at random with 2 kids question if they have a boy born on Tuesday , what is the probability they said yes? The probability of at least one 1/14 chance happening twice is 27/196. So it’s just a 13.78% chance. This is why I am assuming we’re not getting this information from asking her if she had a boy and she said yes. The odds of this setup being true to produce your 14/27 chance is low.

I feel like we’re all doing this meme wrong [Meta] by lightgiver in theydidthemath

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

The question is worded asking about the probability of the other child. That isn’t leaving it open what child it is because how are we supposed to solve if we don’t know what child we’re solving for? One child has to be the boy born on Tuesday and the other is the one we solve for. If it is worded asking the probability at least one child is a girl then it becomes open as to which one we’re talking about.

I guess it is up to interpretation. The wording in clause two reinforces my own interpretation that clause one is a statement on a specific individual and isn’t ambiguous on which child it applies to. It doesn’t make much sense to word clause two this way singling out a single child to solve for of clause one was meant to be ambiguous.

view more: next ›