conditional probability
Submitted 5 months ago by fossilesque@mander.xyz to science_memes@mander.xyz
https://mander.xyz/pictrs/image/7da786e9-099c-48cf-82e4-7f5a41dd628a.png
Comments
pruwybn@discuss.tchncs.de 5 months ago
MonkderVierte@lemmy.ml 5 months ago
Important to note here that you should not stand on an open field (being the highest point) or below a tree (high point that might drop wood) during a thunderstorm.
corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca 5 months ago
No one shakes a vending machine. Its part of gen-x schooling to learn you rock the machine back just a bit and then let it settle back on its feet.
What are they teaching kids now, if not that?
Lumidaub@feddit.org 5 months ago
I only know Vending Machine lore from Hollywood because they’re a lot rarer where I’m from so in my head “vending machine = shake” checks out.
Anticorp@lemmy.world 5 months ago
No, you punch it until it releases your goods.
RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world 5 months ago
Um, there were more than a few Gen X that got hurt by vending machines. We didn’t have an immunity to that.
However, a skill we did have to exploit vending machines in the pre-digital age was to learn which alternating buttons you could press rapid-fire to get two sodas instead of one.
JoeBigelow@lemmy.ca 5 months ago
My GenX uncle broke his shoulder checking a vending machine over a Snickers bar
Anticorp@lemmy.world 5 months ago
Dude needs more calcium, or possibly more Vitamin D3
son_named_bort@lemmy.world 5 months ago
I mean, coyotes can’t catch roadrunners despite having access to unlimited Acme products. They’re no match for humans.
Piemanding@sh.itjust.works 5 months ago
Sucks that the movie that was finished about the coyote fighting Acme in court for all their failing products got scrapped for tax purposes.
Couldbealeotard@lemmy.world 5 months ago
Please quit with this tax write off misinformation.
They cut their losses. We don’t know the details why, but for some reason they decided it would cost too much in money or reputation to continue with marketing and release.
Not everything is a billionaire conspiracy. Sometimes they just realise they made a film too shit to release, or some person in a suit just wanted to spite someone.
Anticorp@lemmy.world 5 months ago
Roadrunners are considerably faster than humans.
Swedneck@discuss.tchncs.de 5 months ago
i’m sure i can run faster than a road
kittenzrulz123@lemmy.blahaj.zone 5 months ago
“More people get bitten by New Yorkers than sharks”
Who lives around sharks all the time?
psud@aussie.zone 5 months ago
I feel I’m not in that venn diagram, living in Australia hundreds of kilometres from the sea
Though I have visited New York, and wasn’t bitten there, and as a kid I lived near a beach and spent summer in the Pacific and haven’t been bit by any sea animals either
rothaine@beehaw.org 5 months ago
Most car accidents happen within a mile from home
…because that’s where you’re driving most often
dragonfucker@lemmy.nz 5 months ago
90% of fatal accidents occur in the northern hemisphere
GiveMemes@jlai.lu 5 months ago
I can beat this. My first accident was less than 50 ft from the property line of my father’s house. Somebody pulled out from the stopsign on the corner of our property without looking :( (rip mercury mariner I still miss you)
Swedneck@discuss.tchncs.de 5 months ago
a depressing amount of people in the US have literally just driven over children while backing out from the garage, because the cars are so big they can’t see the kids
FauxPseudo@lemmy.world 5 months ago
Cow’s outnumber people on my block. But there are fences between them and us. However geese outnumber people in my yard.
I have added goose wrestling to my resume.ryannathans@aussie.zone 5 months ago
Good thing shaking babies doesn’t kill you then, or that stat might be even higher
limelight79@lemm.ee 5 months ago
Well there was that one time the vending machine decided to attack, but in general, it’s a human causing it to fall over.
affiliate@lemmy.world 5 months ago
sometimes humans cause me to fall over, but you don’t see me going around killing people
Dagwood222@lemm.ee 5 months ago
Getting an error message and a tiny thumbnail.
hanke@feddit.nu 5 months ago
At least it didn’t kill ya
Dagwood222@lemm.ee 5 months ago
It came up this time. It’s a good post and I’m glad I waited.
marcos@lemmy.world 5 months ago
If vending machines ejected their beverage as vigorously as coconut trees, people wouldn’t put them on the same category on those statistics.
technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 months ago
Realistically it’s carnists that murder the most animals by any statistic.
CheeseNoodle@lemmy.world 5 months ago
Nah that’d be other animals, if you just count large mammals then yeh humans probably beat out everything else combined but predators of rodents, small sea creatures and insects almost certainly outdo us by orders of magnitude.
cliffracerflyyy@lemm.ee 5 months ago
It’s hard to put into words how stupid that original take about coyotes in a corral even dares to be.
NigelFrobisher@aussie.zone 5 months ago
Agadoo intensifies
Sam_Bass@lemmy.world 5 months ago
I bet that last commenter studied boolean math
AeonFelis@lemmy.world 5 months ago
LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net 5 months ago
The people pointing out the women killed by bears vs men stats a few months ago need to understand this as well lol
Like I am fine if you want to meme or dunk on men but once you bring bad stats into it that’s when I get serious.
Vanth@reddthat.com 5 months ago
The first time I saw the man or bear question, I assumed it was a setup for victim blaming. Neither choice is going to be a win for the woman.
Based on experiences, she doesn’t trust men so she picks bear? How dare she judge all men. So illogical!
Or she picks man? Then she should be prepared for an inevitable assault because eventually the man in the woods will be one of the bad ones and she should have known. She should have been more careful or just stayed home!
The whole thing was never a maths question. It was a rage bait question to rile up men who hate women and to give women an unwinnable binary choice. The only “winning” answer is to decline to play this stupid game.
nondescripthandle@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 months ago
The new women in mens fields trend is the same thing. Its there to agravate people by doing the thing people claim to hate just to a different group. Equality does not mean every one gets a turn at being the opresser and I can see why young people start to consider themself anti feminists if these two trends are the most interaction you’ve ever done with feminism. Which is likely since I don’t really see any other big social movements.
Maybe its not my place to critisize the way they choose to operate but all im saying is if you told me both of those trends were Russian plots to stoke anger at feminists I’d believe you easily.
KoboldCoterie@pawb.social 5 months ago
I assume that part of the intent with these type of scenarios is to draw attention to toxic masculinity by baiting out toxic responses, which is fine and obviously it’s effective if that is the intent. However, any attempt to respectfully disagree with the premise was also treated as toxicity and that just made me not want to engage with feminists or the discourse at all, which seems counter-productive.
itskindafake@lemmynsfw.com 5 months ago
no, it was a question to illustrate how women feel about safety around men. the rage came from male fragility. the refusal to understand a simple premise doesn’t make the “game” stupid.
LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net 5 months ago
All good points I hadn’t considered! However, some people did try to turn it into a math problem which I had to object to at that point.
nednobbins@lemm.ee 5 months ago
Tell me you’re old without telling me you’re old :)
www.youtube.com/watch?v=MpmGXeAtWUw
yesman@lemmy.world 5 months ago
It’s obtuse to treat the bear metaphor as a math problem. It’s doubly so to correct the work.
pachrist@lemmy.world 5 months ago
But would you rather be alone in the woods with a statistician or a bear?
stevedice@sh.itjust.works 5 months ago
Men kill more women than bears even adjusted per encounter.
KoboldCoterie@pawb.social 5 months ago
I’m not here to argue about the bear metaphor, but this claim seems spurious at best. Even if there’s only 1 fatal bear encounter per 10 years, the number of bear encounters is so low that I don’t think this statistic can possibly be true. Do you have anything to back up your claim, or is this just a gut feeling sort of thing?
NaibofTabr@infosec.pub 5 months ago
Wait why are we killing bears?
LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net 5 months ago
Do they? That’s hard to believe but if they did the stats right then feel free to share. How do you even measure the number of encounters?
Anticorp@lemmy.world 5 months ago
That’s pretty F’ed up
LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net 5 months ago
Is it? Men as a class are privileged. I’m fine with punching up.
Note this does not apply to individuals and certain subsets of men who may be relatively less privileged (gay men, black men, etc.)
Why do you think it’s fucked up? What’s the harm?
rebelsimile@sh.itjust.works 5 months ago
yeah I think the way I always read that question was in the hundred duck sized horses vs one horse-sized duck sense. The average woman passes by, say, in public, hundreds of men per day in a city, right? I read that question (and the implication) that they’d prefer from a safety standpoint if each one of them was a bear, which is more of a video game premise than a situation anyone would survive.