site banner
Advanced search parameters (with examples): "author:quadnarca", "domain:reddit.com", "over18:true"

Showing 25 of 2322 results for

domain:philippelemoine.com

No, it tells us nothing. The question is conditioned on a gold coin having been picked.

What's up with the separation of kitchen, dining, and living rooms? I strongly dislike it.

I personally like explicitly separating the different rooms. Even if zoning is bad, having individual blocks (not entire neighborhoods) dedicated to residential, commercial, industrial, and office uses still looks more elegant on the map of the city.

Is this how modern apartments/houses in the US are designed right now?

At a glance, no.

We'll see but I don't think it's an unreasonable assumption the the pollsters would try to improve and trump voters would become less shy as support for him is normalised.

This is literally what happened in Sweden.

Various threads lately have had me thinking about how incredibly wealthy we are as a country, and how it definitely was not always so. For example, I made this comment a couple days ago about how everyone was just flat super poor back in 1900, and we're literally at least 10x richer now. I had likewise told the following story in the old place, in context of wealth to afford vast quantities of food (and how that may interplay with societal obesity):

Even coming from Canada, my wife was shocked by how cheap food is here in America. Historically, it just was not this way. We are one generation removed from stories like, "In the fall, dad made his semi-annual trip to the market in the city and brought back some quantity of 50lb bags of flour and 5lb chunks of lard, having a huge smile on his face, saying, 'We're gonna eat reaaaal good this winter!'" (I don't actually remember the exact quantity he said, but it was a low number, and we can easily scale by a small multiplier.) Like, this was a level of abundance in preparation for the winter that they were not used to (obviously, this was not their entire supply of food for the whole winter; they had some other food stored, but it is indicative that it was, cost-wise, an absolute treat). I checked a nearby grocery store's website; 50/5lbs would cost me $26.85. Like, pocket change. (Even if the multiplier was 5x, that's like nothing.) I probably have that much in random cash sitting around in my car. If I lost it or it was stolen, I'd be sad about a violation of my property, but literally wouldn't give a shit about the monetary value. This was a wonderful blessing of food abundance to some people in first-world countries not very long ago.

I didn't completely spell it out, but that was my wife's father's story when he was a child in Canada. (I also hedged on the number; my best memory was that it was precisely one 50lb bag and one 5lb chunk). That was not that long ago.

Yesterday, I read an obituary for a 95 year old who was born in a homestead dugout in New Mexico. Literally born in a hole in the ground.

Perspective on how utterly ridiculously quickly we went from basically universal poverty to nearly universal wealth is often lacking in many conversations where it could be quite beneficial. Sure, some in the capitalism/communism debates (or more generally the sources/causes of wealth and how it interacts with society's choices/governance), but also in obesity conversations (as mentioned) and even fertility conversations. Born in a homestead dugout. And you don't want to have a kid because of a car seat?!

I still don't properly know how exactly to craft an argument that comes to a clean conclusion, but I really feel like this historical perspective is seriously lacking in a country where the median age is under 40 and many folks no longer have communal contexts where they get exposed to at least a slice of history from their elders.

Yes. But the fact that w already picked a box with the gold coin tells us that it was almost certainly the double gold box and therefore that the probability of the gold second coin is even higher.

I always vote Libertarian no matter who their candidate is. I want no part of the bipartisan shitshow. I wish we had a Proportional Representation Single Transferable Vote system to allow a larger portion of the political spectrum to be represented in the legislature.

The “official” numbers came out around 140k though the last two months were revised down heavily basically resulting in the ADP number. But yes, the labor market has been shitty for some time. The “official” numbers are catching up after they were manipulated.

Inflation is probably understated. Industry data on grocery store prices are about 75% higher than the CPI figure.

I too will be voting in our not quite fair state for Trump.

The polls underestimated Trump by 3-4 points in both of the last two elections. There is no reason to think this has changed.

“Surely they wouldn’t make the same mistake three times!” Please allow me to introduce you to managerialism.

The math doesn’t really math. These companies that had huge losses would have NOLs. Granted, the post 17 NOL limited to 80% of operating income. But that would mean at most 20% of the income subject to FIT so or an ETR of around 4%.

Really the change to 174 really would only impact a company that has only R&D expenses but didn’t have material historic losses.

Some examples

Whats up with the separation of kitchen, dining and living rooms? Is this how modern apartments/houses in the US are designed right now?

I strongly dislike it, especially the cases where the dining room is "across" the hallway from the kitchen. I would always choose an eat-in kitchen, probably open floor with the living room.

The 174 change has to be compared to all of the other changes (eg the 14 point rate cut). The nature of lowing the rate means the five year amortization pain is less because the deduction is worth about a third less. So that means the deduction isn’t driving decisions as much. Though yes I concede in the short run it is a bit of a drag.

The bigger drag may be Linda Kahn (sp) at the FTC killing M&A in the tech space. Tech development seems to happen a lot in an outsourced manner. Microsoft buys target X who did Y. Target X was funded by VC. But if FTC has practically shut down these outsourced R&D plays, then the economics means VC won’t invest as much into them since VC can’t exit timely. If VC can’t exit timely, then IRR gets screwy.

They dont matter because the question is conditioned on that we already picked a box with a gold coin.

The question is what the odds are that we picked the box with both gold and silver, given that we have a box with at least a gold coin in it. There is 1/3 with gold and silver, hence the probabilty of the second coin being gold is 2/3. You could increase the amount of silver coins by infinity and it wouldn't matter. You're picking boxes, not coins.

This is obviously correct, I have no idea what the other people are saying.

The entire state’s elections wouldn’t vanish overnight because the non-severability provision would also apply to the part of the comprehensive election reform law that repealed the prior election law.

The statement that courts ignore severability is also absolutely wild, considering severability questions have been a major part of many Supreme Court cases (which is relevant, considering your example related to Congress). I’m not going to go trawling for more, but off the top of my head, this was the case for the NFIB case upholding Obamacare and the Reno case that effectively created the modern Internet by invalidating almost all of the Communications Decency Act.

I’d also agree with @anti_dan that it is reprehensible behavior even if it were true, so it shouldn’t matter if it is truly some norm amongst judges, as you claim.

But wouldn't that make you even less interested?

Bioware has not released a passable game in over 10 years, all the original or even senior writers have either left or been fired, the game has been rebooted twice with the leads fired, with EA taking more or less full control as well as cleaning house of experienced people after the lastest reboot and the trailers look atrocious.

This game being decent seems like it would be one of the greatest upsets and comebacks in gaming history.

Notably this was how Anthony Albanese won the 2022 election in Australia - the small target strategy, banking on Scott Morrison's unpopularity after a series of scandals to shift votes over to him.

We live in an age of negative partisanship - "I'm not the other guy" is the dominant strategy on most sides of politics right now.

Of course they matter, they increase the chance that the gold picked in round one was from the double gold box dramatically, which itself hugely increases the odds of round 2 is also gold.

I disagree. Maybe this is the reason I "always forget" the simple route; because I'm not sure it's actually right. I did this two different ways, my renormalization route (thinking of things as a tree with info sets) and just brute reproducing the wiki entry on using Bayes to solve it.

Method 1: Renormalization

There's a 1/3 chance of picking each box, one which has a 100% chance of giving you a gold on the first draw and the other has a 1/11 chance (ignoring the option with zero chance of getting a first gold), so the chances of me being in each relevant box at the current state are 1/3 and 1/33. To renormalize, I need to multiply by the reciprocal of their sum, 1/3 + 1/33 = 12/33.

So my chance of being in the GG box is 11/12 and my chance of being in the G10S box is 1/12.

Method 2: Straight Bayes, yo

Just shutting up and calculating, reproducing the wiki article directly.

P(GG|see gold) = P(see gold|GG)*(1/3) / [P(see gold|GG)*(1/3) + 0 + P(see gold|G10S)*(1/3)]

P(GG|see gold) = (1/3) / (1/3 + 0 + 1/33)

= (1/3) / (12/33)

= 11/12

In that case, since we know he drew one gold coin, it also rules out Box 1, so we’re left with Box 2 and 3. We know that initially there were 13 coins here (3 gold, 10 silver) so now there are 12 coins left (2 gold, 10 silver). So 2 gold out of 12 remaining coins = 1 in 6 chance = 16.66%?

[Of course, the chances of him plucking a gold coin in the first place would have been much less than the 50% in the first question – it would actually have been just 20% 2 silver 2 gold 1 gold, 10 silver = 3 gold vs 12 silver = 20% But since we know he did actually pick a gold coin first, the chances of him also picking a gold coin second are 16.66%.]

I’m a sucker for the lore and know literally everything about it. It’s probably the only fictional setting I really know everything about.

And other than Andromeda I’ve enjoyed pretty much every BioWare game to some extent, so I doubt it will be so bad as to be no fun at all.

Because you know that you picked gold initially. The odds of the second coin being gold is the odds that you didn't pick 1/3 boxes with with both gold and silver coins, meaning 2/3. The only way the second coin isn't gold is that the initial choice was the box with both silver and gold coins in it, the number of silver coins in that box do not matter because of the precondition of having picked a gold coin.

All of this might force Kamala Harris to actually say or do something. For those following along she has made only one unscripted appearance since becoming the heir-apparent. It was an 18 minute interview (cut from 41 minutes) with a friendly interviewer and her running mate present as a chaperone.

The Kier Starmer approach of staying out of the media and just not being the other guy(s). No positive vision or policy, just "not the other guy".

I wonder if this will become a trend and keep happening on the left the world over?

no ICBMs yet, but nuclear bombers are still almost unstoppable

Bear in mind that 1940s fission bombs were not all that powerful. They were devastating to Hiroshima because that was a densely packed city of thin wood and paper. The brick/cement buildings of Germany were actually pretty resistant to bombing, which was part of why the strategic bombing campaign never worked as well as the allies hoped. So it's plausible we could have gotten a 1984 style world where they are regularly getting hit by nuclear bombs, but people survive and life goes on.

The most plausible scenario i've seen is where Germany simply avoids declaring war on the USSR, and coordinates better with Japan to avoid provoking the US. Instead they focus on the Mediterranean and taking apart the British Empire. If they could take Malta, Gibralter, and the Suez, that would pretty much lock up the entire med, protecting their southern flank and forcing the British to reroute shipping around Africa. Then they offer to come "liberate" Iraq, Iran, and India, which were all sympathetic to the Axis. At that point it's no longer a "world" war, it's simply a war against the British being fought in the middle east, so there's no particular need for the US or USSR to get involved, and the logistics for the Uk become nightmarish. No need to invade Britain, you can just ignore them, or build up a huge fleet of next-gen type XXI submarines to strangle them.

It would be pretty funny if he got more write-ins than Kamala.

Yes. Adults have better ways of doing things than children. You might as well be pogo-ing or roller blading to work.