“Enabling shareholders to profit was seen as a means to that end.”

Right, that’s the part I take issue with. Why is there a profit on a public good?

I agree with all of the restrictions in place, but those have gotten weaker over time, when they should’ve gotten more restrictive. The problem with allowing them to profit is that over time, the profit gives them more bargaining power which allows them to erode the oversight and avoid all consequences for breaking the regulations.

I get your point, but I have trouble understanding how acting in the public interest and charging over operating costs can be compatible, especially in public service areas like hospitals/medicine and education.

“Is there any reason why this needs to be a taxpayer subsidized organization?”

Public safety? Is that a good enough reason? We should be subsiding more things that are in the public interest - programs that benefit the public should never be run by for-profit corporations.

Have you thought of trying to pick up another language? Starting learning Spanish 4 years ago and now I can go on conversations an have conversations with locals. Also, way more interested in their local history because I can read it/listen to it in Spanish and practice the language at the same time

I see vote counts. Is it possible that your instance blocks them for some reason?

I mean, it’s pretty well documented how awful Christopher Columbus was. Even in the context of the time period: he was arrested in the new world and shipped back to Spain for a trial because he was so ruthless in his treatment of the native peoples. The myths about him being a ‘great man’ are all only like 100 years old.

Oh my God, I read that as “Kissinger” and thought for a terrible moment that he was still alive.

Thank you! I should’ve linked to it. The actual text does a much better job of answering OP than my attempt to summarize it.

Especially in the US, where both parties are globally “right” in both political and financial aspects, a lot of time claiming to be a centrist means that you like capitalism and bombing other countries but you support LGBT causes and are pro-choice. I think, online and especially on lemmy, that the vocal left-wing voices (correctly) see this still as aiding the right but being too cowardly to admit it.

This also ties back to the MLK quote about the ‘white centrist’ being the biggest obstacle to his movement, because they may say the right things and appear to be helpful but take no action for the movement. By staying centrist and trying to meet in the middle, would lend credibility to the voices on the other side.

The original draft probably said “nearly a 300% increase” and then the editor didn’t know the difference between percent increase and basic multiplication.

Three games

Do you know the third door is never correct? Because then the probability doesn’t change.

Scenario 1: You chose 1/2 at first with a 50% chance of being correct, I introduce a 3rd door (but it isn’t a legit possibility), so the actual choice for you is still 50/50 (between doors 1 and 2)

Scenario 2: If you think it’s possible that 3 could be correct (but it actually never is) then, no, you wouldn’t want to switch. By staying with your first choice has a 50% chance of winning, by switching it only has a 33% chance. But there’s no way to know this ahead of time (because as soon as you know you shouldn’t switch bc 3 is the wrong door, then you’re back in scenario 1)

Scenario 3: For completeness, let’s say the 3rd door can be correct sometimes. Then it doesn’t matter if you switch or not. It’s a 33% chance of winning either way. If there is a chance it can be correct, then your first choice doesn’t matter at all and the second choice is the ‘real’ choice bc that’s the only time you’re able to choose from all real possibilities.

The only reason that the Monty Hall problem changes probability in the second choice is because you are provided more information before the switch (that the opened door is absolutely not the one with the prize)

Agreed. And I’ve never read anything quite like The Savage Detectives. His short stories are great too, and you can find a lot of them online published by the New Yorker.

Yes, it’s the same concept. The same math/logic behind it doesn’t change. You’re choosing 1/3 or you are choosing 2/3 and I’ll tell you which of the two is incorrect. It’s just easier to visualize with 100 doors instead.

I’m not sure I’m following the other angle…there are 3 correct possibilities at the start but I can only choose 2? Or there are 2 possibilities and then you introduce a 3rd door that is never correct?

Roberto Bolaño

Because when you first picked 27, it was 1 out of 100 choices. Then I tell you that you either got it right, or it’s this other number. None of the others are correct, only 27 or 44.

So you think your 1/100 choice was better than the one I’m giving you now? On average, you’ll be right 1% of the time if you don’t switch. If you do switch, you’ll be correct 99% of the time.

Another way to think of it is: you choose 27 or you choose ALL of the other 99 numbers knowing that I’ll tell you that 98 of them are wrong and you’ll be left with the correct one out of that batch. One of those clearly has better odds, no?

Correct, extend it to 10 or 100 choices instead of 3 and it’s easy to see.

Me: Pick a number between 1 and 100.

Them: 27

Me: Okay, the number is either 27 or 44, do you want to change your choice?

Them, somehow: No, changing my choice now still has the same probability of being right as when I made my first choice.

It’s obvious that they should want to change every time.

That was exactly my point with the linked xkcd too. Not sure how they interpreted that as being in support of their post.

https://xkcd.com/2501/