skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Ok, so this is about the Monty Hall problem. A few remarks:

1. It is crucial exactly how the problem is framed. The "correct" framing is:

a) Contestant choses a door, b) Monty Hall will pick a door (different from the one the contestant chose) SUCH THAT a goat is behind it (if there are two, pick one randomly), c) contestant is offered a choice to switch. In that case, the correct answer is to switch, increasing the chance for a car from 1/3 to 2/3.

(The alternative framing is this: a) Contestant choses a door, b) Monty Hall picks a door randomly (different from the one the contestant chose), and if a car is behind that door, then the game ends, otherwise, c) contestant is offered a choice to switch. In this case, switching doesn't matter, the chance of getting the car is indeed 50/50, switching or not.)

2. Not everyone "corrected" her, some people did, and some people supported her. The confusion arose, arguably, because of the unclear framing. (One could argue that the phrase "the host, who knows what’s behind the doors" hints that the first framing is intended, but why not make it explicit? The host could know what is where and still choose randomly, in which case we're at the alternative framing.)
This repo isn't confusing for people in the field who would care about the project. Transformers are ubiquitous and need no explanation.
Think from the perspective of your first choice. You had a 66.66% chance of choosing the wrong door.

So now I just eliminate one of the doors you didn't choose. There are two left, including the one you chose first, which only had a 33.33% chance of being correct. Nothing else has changed about the problem.

What if we started with a thousand doors? You chose 1, with a 999/1000 chance of being wrong.

Of the remaining doors, I open 499 doors. The prize is behind one of the remaining 500 that you did not choose the first time. Do you want to have a chance to pick from one of the 500?
They don't have shareholders or a private equity firm requesting growth, so they don't have to grow. If they did, you'd see a renewed interface, ads more vaguely differentiated from regular results, and an ebay-like payment system. It's the difference between optimizing for maximum profit vs. optimizing for longevity.
Yeah, one way to find them in the USA would be to find all the restaurants that do NOT have Sysco deliveries.
Cool! The money was still spent on a good or service like it was intended.
I got into wargaming a few years when I decided a needed a non-tech hobby. I guess I'm ultimately more a miniature painter than a gamer(though I do game with my miniatures) and I've found the painting very therapeutic.
In this case, though, I don't believe it's just calculation vs. intuition. The reason the 100 or million door problem helped me understand was because it clarified an implicit rule of the game: that the door the host chooses to open is not random. If it were random, it would make for a very boring game ("Uhh, there's the prize, you win, I guess that's game over.") Once I understood that the host would only ever open "goat" doors, that's when I better understood the argument.
> The other door is no longer relevant and doesn't affect the new state at all.

There is no new state, that's the thing. By picking one door you split these in two groups: one group with 1/3 to win, the other with 2/3 to win. When the host reveals the door with a goat behind it from the group that is 2/3 to win, it doesn't change the fact that that group had 2/3 to win to begin with.

I mean: that's how I see it.
The simplest explanation I've heard that has helped it click for people is "You can choose Door A, or both Doors B and C". Clearly choosing both B and C is a 2/3 probability. Then you guide them to understand how the host revealing one of B or C doesn't detract from the fact that you are still choosing both B and C to begin with. And finally establishing that switching is equivalent to choosing B and C instead of A.
This is exactly why the Monty Hall problem doesn’t apply to Deal or No Deal. Intuitively, it disappears when doors are opened randomly because, by Bayes, the likelihood you picked the good prize goes up every time you reveal a bad prize.
You can brute force this without knowing Bayes’ theorem (see the grids in the article as an example of iterating through every possible solution then counting to arrive at the right probability).
Feature phones are perfectly capable of sms.
Sadly that's not going to fly, since the damage a bad actor can do with your account will generally hurt the service's bottom line.

Consider a game, as an example. A stolen account can be used to play with cheats or to commit credit fraud / chargebacks, and the typical punishment of banning the account is no longer a deterrent. If there's an in-game player market or gifting system, items can even be transferred to otherwise legitimate accounts.
The Plutonium Files
I wrote out a hopefully helpful intution down below [0]. Here's a terse part of it:

> Or just imagine monty hall with infinite doors. I'm thinking of a number between 1 and infinity (secretly, it's 19083412039102388171230123). You pick a number, and then I'll narrow down your choice to two options. Do you think you just happened to pick my number, or do you switch?

You're right that it's absolutely the narrowing down of the choice that's the key. If you happen to have not picked the prize door on your first try (more likely than not), the narrowing down will be your door and the prize door.

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27092614
As loathe as I am to defend Apple on any points

Top management isn't there to act as some infinite well of knowledge, they're there to speak about issues that have been distilled down to them on a higher level with other relevant teams

What you're effectively saying is that Apple's "VP of Software" or something not knowing every line of source code in IOS is "not a valid defense"
The other door is not irrelevant.

When you first picked a door, there was a 33% chance it was right, and a 67% chance one of the other two doors was right.

Once the other door got opened, it is still a 67% chance that the other two doors is right, but you now know which one of those two it would be - the one which wasn’t opened.
There is a similar publicly traded business - https://www.collectorsuniverse.com/
I read about this years ago in a very good book (for the layman) on the subject of probability: "The Drunkard's Walk." I highly recommend the book.
You could do it with a pen and paper in less than 5.
Indeed, that is a crucial bit of information that is not made explicit in the original framing of the problem.
Honestly, I can't figure out where are the full list of controls. I have been crawling the wiki/site/game for ages.

Edit: scroll down on this thread for a small list.
* Most of all, it's the calculation vs intuition that I like. You can do the calculation, or run simulations and prove correctness.*

It puzzles me that so many smart people got it wrong. It’s so easy to check your working.

When I first heard of this problem, I got it wrong too. Then I was told the answer, and to prove it to myself, it’s trivial to list the scenarios and simulate on paper. It’s still uncomfortable to think about sometimes, but I know how to show it’s true.

But all these people never thought to just do the working? Crazy!
I always thought it was Co-Q. I thought surely no way it was pronounced "cock".

Welp. I think this is a good move.
Failure accrue down, to people who do work. Successes accrue up, to managers who decided it should be done.

It's almost like this arrangement was by design...
Doesn't have to be fraud to be a good counterfeit. It could be sold honestly as a counterfeit.
Yeah, 1/3. Once I labeled them as R1 R2 B1 B2 and just listed all possibilities, it became clear where my error was.
Geneology of SARS COV2 proves it's probably lab made
Why don't critical infrastructure networks use a different CRC-32 polynomial for their IP packets?
> There’s nothing in this article indicating the operator has a recovery plan in place involving restoring backups to get these systems online.

No one cares about that type of work that’s why. It’s ridiculous but true.
Most of my devices don't notice page load times.

Information density it really what it's all about. The very idea of HN is high signal-to-noise. Don't confuse text density with information density though.

If I visit HN twice in one day, or even once each on consecutive days, I'll see the same stories there. Of course if not there I might miss a top headline if I go a day without a visit. My solution[0] was to only show today's stories. For yesterday's, click the page title. It also segments into categories based on some regexes.

I don't mean to hijack this post. The design is quite different and may suit some readers. I was only giving an example of information density which happens to save me a lot of time to see that there's nothing new since the last time I visited.

[0] https://hackerer.news
I haven't played in a few years but always felt like crawl's hunger system drove faster games -- where in NetHack I could usually find a way to survive indefinitely and camp out and explore slowly, crawl always felt like the Star Wars garbage compactor pushing me forward.

I think I liked it but I'm not sure it helped me master the gameplay (I sometimes felt rushed even when hunger management wasn't obviously an issue).
An adversarial system for an adversarial species
Lol. I worked at a biomedical informatics shop with IITians and other folks who were MD + PhD CS. No one referred to anyone as doctor and no one there took a MENSA test. I think it's safe to say the only "doctors" are clinical MDs, podunk colleges to seem elitist, and Spies Like Us during the surgery scene.
I don't think you can "remove" information from A probability problem in this way. And even if you could there's no reason to assume it would zero-sum with the later information gain.

Happy to be wrong though, been a long time since i dabbled in probably.
First off I want to note TI calculators are not anything special when it comes to assembler. It was more of a limitation of the platform (in order to get games that are fast, you had to write them in assembler because TI-BASIC was too slow).

Note also that assembly code is different for each CPU architecture. The TI calculator I had contained a z80 chip, so it was z80 assembler (Motorola assembler?). The x86 assembly language is a more complicated, but probably more useful to learn (can look at any program on your computer). Or maybe you could learn ARM assembly (e.g. this would allow you to write simple programs that blink lights on a Raspberri PI).

> [...] can you recommend anything?

I looked through my bookmarks and found some links you might want to check out:

1. Example of Comparing C to x86 assembly: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yOyaJXpAYZQ

2. The assembler project part of nand2tetris computing-from-first-principles course: https://www.nand2tetris.org/project04
I haven't gone thought this course, but I've heard many things about it.
Thank you for answering!
So is not reading the article:

> Maybe women look at math problems differently than men.

> “I still think you’re wrong,” wrote one man, nearly a year later. “There is such a thing as female logic.”
More movie recommendations please
A quick link for a shimano chain though...
It's the presenter sharing knowledge with you, by opening a door that isn't the one you choose nor one that has the prize that changes the odds. And it doesn't help you if you stay with the same door because he never opens your door anyway, so it only adds knowledge about the other doors.
First edition first printing of Harry Potter 1 from the UK was only 500 copies in hardback. That one fetched a recent record of 190.000 dollars. Paperback is expensive as well, from ranges between 2k and 10k.

Hardback US first printing is around 1k/2k too
It's kind of the anti-nethack. Explicitly not simulation-y, big effort to be playable without spoilers, character building is de-emphasized.
My hobby project https://linklonk.com (use invitation code 'hn') is a content recommendation system that is built around these principles:

- Control: what you see is based on your explicit upvotes & downvotes, not what you happened to click on.

- Transparency: you see content from feeds that posted content you upvoted and from other users who upvoted what you upvoted, but did that before you. For example, when you upvote a link it will tell you that "You will get more content from 2 users that also liked it and from 3 feeds that posted it". And when you see a recommendation from other users you can see what likes in common do you have with those users (“We’re showing you this because ...”).

- Fairness: the amount of attention every user and feed gets from you depends on how useful their past recommendations have been. Ie, the higher their signal-to-noise ratio has been for you - the more prominently their other upvoted items will be in your "feed".

Give it a try and let me know what you think. I'd like to do a "Show HN" post for my project soon and your feedback would help me prepare for it.

If you like to read a bit more here are my announcements with discussions:

- https://tildes.net/~tech/u7f/linklonk_a_link_aggregator_with...

- https://www.reddit.com/r/RedditAlternatives/comments/mpqnpl/...
“Hot Spots” of Aging and Disease Revealed by How Brain Cells Repair Their DNA
They bought it using the GI Bill loan assistance program. They didn't have anywhere near $30k in savings.
You're communicating with me as though I know what you're talking about and disagree with you. In reality I have no idea what you're talking about and am trying to understand. Just so we're crystal clear.

So it sounds as though Epic offered exclusive agreements to studios that reneged on other commitments to comply with Epic? Why isn't the anger at those studios? How is Epic at fault for other studios' behavior?
Great post and pretty interesting comparison, IMO. I can't imagine Nintendo, Microsoft or Sony allowing a competing store on their systems.
The tournaments kick ass. Agree that challenges make for some fun gameplay. Playing in a tournament with a random team I found really increased my enjoyment of the game.
Mouse Trap
There was plenty of actual sexism launched at her "wizard"
Hmm… but how useful will these be if I don’t have a TI calculator?
No, because the probability of a do-over depends on whether the contestant initially picked the door with a car.
This. The first line needs to give at least a hint which of about a hundred different meanings of "transformer" is meant. I had never heard of this use. That line would have told me that nothing I knew anything about would be useful to understand what the topic was.
It's funny to me that there always seem to be an over representation of rude people among those who get this problem wrong. There is absolutely no need to attack my person.

As for the problem, you are just plain wrong. We are talking about are regular old TV-quiz, there is not "universe resetting button" to save your logic.

In the regular situation, the host always remove a goat. because otherwise the quiz show is kinda boring. But in the modified version we are considering where he just picks a door at random, then in 2 of the 6 possible outcomes for the door the host picks, he'll be removing the car. Now since the problem has the host showing the doors content, that should be the end of the game show. Who want's to see someone pondering if they should switch between a goat and another goat right? But that doesn't change the logic at all, because the conclusion of "you should always switch" isn't impacted in any way. 0% to 0% is just no change. And in the rest of the cases your'll go from 33% to 66%.

Now of cause what would happen in your odd example where the host has a universe resetting button is that you don't have any choice at all, because no matter what the host will reset the universe until they maximize ratings, which might have you get the car or might have you not get the car, but there's no choice to be taken and the outcome that has maximum rating will always happen with 100%. That's why most stats problems avoid introducing "then the host resets the universe" in their problem description, it kind of ruins the whole point of calculating proabilities.
Which they can do with parental controls. Even something like sideloading could be behind parental controls. Why make everyone else's experience worse for some lazy parents?
you don't need to own property to live there - you can rent.

Buying and owning property will always be an investment. If this investment is worth it (aka, it has outsized returns), then it can not be affordable.
It’s extremely reductive to say “more lines = more bugs”. Are Perl one-liners the most bug-free way to write software?

Types drastically reduce bugs.
Sorry, in what way is that Epic's fault? Isn't that the fault of the developers? What makes Epic offering exclusive agreements to game studios a "bribe", as opposed to any other financial/contractual commitment?
Do you think monetary wealth is gained only when someone adds value to society (and in proportion to the value added)? If so, what is your definition of value?
It's not, but I'm also not intending to write a production grade language either.
I was unable to convince my father of this, so he and I just put together a little model with paper plates and coins and carried out the simulation manually until we had twenty or thirty trials and he became convinced by seeing it in action.
Hey! I loved the text and orated ones with the sfx. Some good writing copy in there too.

Btw, TheHistoryGuy does about a topic video per day. Might make a good collab to lessen the exhaustion!? Burn out: bad! :D
I won the Putnam?
Exactly.

On the surface, it may seem as if we’ve reached a common interface for mainstream desktop OSs, that one could use Windows and macOS interchangeably.

But there are still fundamental concepts that are unique to the Mac that always trip Windows users, namely, apps that keep running after all windows are closed and maximize vs full screen.

There’s obviously a common ground that has evolved over the years, but you must understand the platform in order to appreciate its subtleties or you’re bound to be frustrated.
It must just be my imagination, but it sure seems like I remember getting through high school math (up to and including first-year calculus) without a graphing calculator, as they didn't exist.
On the contrary, the complaint is that they did not. They specifically chose not to alert those affected.

But also... you do understand that we're talking about analogous but not identical laws here right? The context of this entire thread is laws that specifically require notifying people of data breaches, and not laws that require recalling bad food.
The gateway drug into real roguelikes would be Brogue. It’s beautiful, very well designed, focused, and very true to the roots.

https://sites.google.com/site/broguegame/

I’m sure there’s a mobile version too.

If you want to understand the game before committing to ASCII graphics, start with Pixel Dungeon.
thank you!

the analysis from that thread which resonates best with me is the one quoting Elizabeth Warren and "The two income trap"

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15834496

housing prices, larger vehicle, or more vehicles, and other cost of living associated with more children are the private burden of the family. add to that the income loss of pregnancy and early motherhood and the cost of child care.

and it becomes easily obvious that a young family calculates twice before having another child.

and that's coming from a European country, where schooling is free.

is anybody aware of an opportunity cost calculation for raising 1, 2, 3, 4 kids? what is the TCO, the true full package material impact of raising children? ideally per country?
It's definitely a different game. Personally I love the changes and mostly agree with the devs. Food was for most characters a pointless mechanic once you had a basic level of game knowledge. However there are also some interesting forks which preserve some of the old mechanics.
Not GP, but:

- The Godfather

- Chariots of Fire

- Dr. Strangelove

- Das Boot (original German version)

- About Time

- Who Framed Roger Rabbit?

- Tron
The Mind's Eye A Computer Animation Odyssey (1990)
Inelastic demand items: housing.. like water, food, heating.

I guess my grandparents could've squatted in the Santa Cruz mountains for a while and kept saving to buy stocks. ;-)
Hacked in the "I figured out how to modify the device" since and not the "You can exploit it to track someone" way.
This is intentional. They only want you to have one account.
The reaction of given period’s academic culture to Hume speaks as much about the culture as it does about Hume. We now have an academic culture with very strong social beliefs, minimally tolerant of those that don’t toe the line, and justifiably so in many ways. It may be many decades before the standards by which academics judge historical thinkers starts to soften, if ever. Because Kant and Hume may be left somewhat by the wayside for a while, there’s a grand opportunity for their replacements. I would pitch to a publisher that the old canon is appallingly ripe for disruption.
Yes the same process done on any PC.
4-year-old orders 51 boxes of SpongeBob SquarePants Popsicles
Get ready for a lot of people loosing their accounts, crippling online services and become distrustful of google/2FA
One appealing thing to me about math is how egalitarian it is. It doesn't matter where ideas come from, they are probably right or wrong. It is (maybe unhealthily) rewarding to see critics acting like its another discipline where the senior or otherwise higher status person's opinion has more weight, only to make themselves look ridiculous. Contrast this with so many workplace things where senior people say dumb or incorrect stuff all the time but there is not the same objective way to call them out on it.
Could be worse, I saw IT reporting through HR once upon a time.
Similar but different app if you are on MacOS: https://www.orderedbytes.com/controllermate/

I used to use this all the time when I was running on MacOS. Most interesting part is the dataflow based graphical programming environment. It is fun to able to alter my mouse functions with a shifting key on my keypad controller.
In the probability puzzle, the chance to switch is part of the basis of the puzzle. It is always offered.

In the actual game show, the rules were more flexible. The OP article mentions this. For example, the host could "offer the contestant cash NOT to switch." That introduces a more psychological poker-like aspect, but that example still allows for switching and doesn't change the underlying probabilities.
Probably because it seems to inherently attract a very “spammy” group that does every trick in the book to appear in front of people, so it would be an endless game of whack-a-mile making sure they didn’t appear in searches.
Which, for those out of the loop, is likely taking random screenshots of the displayed image and uploading enough data up positively correlate images to known content, or more, I haven't bothered to learn these things. The people who implement them are creepy af though.
Look at it from actual door, first guess door pairs -- which are the random uncorrelated events:

1,1 - switch loses (host may have shown door #2 or #3)

1,2 - switch wins (host showed door #3)

1,3 - switch wins (host showed door #2)

2,1 - switch wins (host showed door #3)

2,2 - switch loses (host may have shown door #1 or #3)

2,3 - switch wins (host showed door #1)

3,1 - switch wins (host showed door #2)

3,2 - switch wins (host showed door #1)

3,3 - switch loses (host may have shown door #1 or #2)

The choice of which door to show you is not a random event and is highly dependent upon the events which preceded it, because the host cannot show you the door it is actually behind, or the door that you picked.
"Academics" is a very loose definition. I imagine a very low percentage of PhDs out there have studied math seriously beyond a middle school level.