Comment on Percentages

ValiantDust@feddit.org ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

• kryptonianCodeMonkey@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

  My wife, father-in-law and I were playing a board game with my brother-in-law. In this game, we were playing as detectives who have to try to find his character, but each turn he could move in secret in one of several directions. We were a few turns in at one point and he could have been in any of dozens of places at this point. We drove him nuts by saying “he’s either in this spot or he’s not, it’s a 50-50 chance.” He kept arguing “I could be in a ton of places! It’s not a 50-50 chance!” But we just kept pretending we didn’t understand and arguing that there were only two possibilities, he’s there or he’s not, so it was clearly a 50-50 chance. He got quite angry.

  source

  • Hawke@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    Scotland Yard or Letters from Whitechapel?

    source

    • ch00f@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

      I love Scotland Yard. We got it for a friend who loves detective stories. Then discovered that it’s a public transit simulator which is even better.

      source

      • Hawke@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

        Honestly, Letters From Whitechapel is a better design of the same concept.

        For detective story games, Sherlock Holmes Consulting Detective is amazing.

        And for public transit games, Bus is the way to go (probably)

        source

        • -> View More Comments
      • brbposting@sh.itjust.works ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

        Public transit simulator! No way

        source
    • kryptonianCodeMonkey@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

      Letters

      source
  • Zagorath@aussie.zone ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    Letters from Whitechapel?

    Either that or you buried the lede by failing to mention something rather significant about the hidden character, and you were playing Fury of Dracula. Or my boardgamegeek-fu isn’t as strong as I hoped.

    source

    • kryptonianCodeMonkey@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

      Yeah it was Letters from Whitechapel.

      source
  • FuglyDuck@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    you know, if you watched for tells, that could tilt the probabilities… and I bet with the frustration… he was flashing tells all over the place…

    source
• IDKWhatUsernametoPutHereLolol@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

  Either I become president, or I don’t.

  Therefore, the odds of me becoming president is 50%

  Brb committing 34 felonies.

  source

  • masterofn001@lemmy.ca ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    You’ve already failed.

    You have to commit hundreds of felonies. In broad daylight. And brag about it.

    Threaten witnesses. Delay everything.

    And only be convicted of 34.

    Then not get sentenced.

    source
• Smokeydope@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

  Very weird fun fact about arrows/darts and statistics, theres 0% chance of hitting an exact bullseye. You can hit it its possible to throw a perfect bullseye. It just has a probability of zero when mathematically analyzed due to being an infinitesimally small point.

  source

  • Schmoo@slrpnk.net ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    Key word here is “infinitesimally.” Of course if you’re calculating the odds of hitting something infinitesimally small you’re going to get 0. That’s just the nature of infinities. It is impossible to hit an infinitesimally small point, but that’s not what a human considers to be a “perfect bullseye.” There’s no paradox here.

    source

    • Wolf314159@startrek.website ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

      Another lesson I the importance of significant digits, a concept I’ve had to remind many a young (and sometimes an old) engineer about. An interesting idea along similar lines is that 2 + 2 can equal 5 for significantly large values of 2.

      source

      • gibmiser@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

        What do you mean by significantly large

        source

        • -> View More Comments
    • emeralddawn45@discuss.tchncs.de ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

      Also the circumference of the dart tip is not infinitesimally small, so theres a definite chance of it overlapping the ‘perfect bullseye’ by hitting any number of nearby points.

      source
    • aim_at_me@lemmy.nz ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

      Oh. That’s what they mean. That’s dumb lol.

      source
  • Serinus@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    You must not be playing on a soft tip board.
    Image of a soft tipped dart board.

    source
• lugal@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

  On the other hand: Half of my lottery tickets were jackpots. I never played and have (1/2 * 0 = ) 0 jackpots.

  source
• conciselyverbose@sh.itjust.works ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

  The thing with that is that it’s actually a useful generalization to make in a lot of scenarios.

  If you know nothing about the distinction between two possible outcomes, treating them as equally likely is a helpful tool to continue with the back of the envelope guess. Knowing this path needs 5 coin tosses to go right and this one needs 10 is helpful to approximate which is better.

  Your example is obviously outside the realm where you have zero information, so uniform distribution is no longer the reasonable default. But the idea is from a reasonable technique, taken to extremes by someone who doesn’t fully get it.

  source