mathematicians have a very weird standard for use of the term “well-known”
This is the most correct post about mathematicians I have ever seen.
see also:
clearly
trivial
self-evident
straightforward
Self-evident: evident to the self, and nobody else. XP
:)
I’d say those all mean “I’m fairly sure it’s true but I don’t want to try to prove it where anyone can see” :)
If you don’t play bassoon reblog this because it applies to you too
THE AMOUNT OF PEOPLE REBLOGGING SAYING THEY DON’T EVEN KNOW WHAT A BASSOON IS MAKES ME HAPPY. NON MUSICIANS SPREAD THIS SHIT. DON’T KNOW WHAT A BASSOON IS? GOOD!
Yeah, I’d describe my bassoon skill as neutral. No particular musical merit, but it doesn’t shit all over the constitution and start WWIII.
“if somebody becomes panicked when you accuse them of lying theyre obviously not telling the truth” shut up ugly im a survivor who got punished for shit i never did all the time of fucking course im gonna panic when im blamed for something i didnt do
since this post is actually getting attention rn i really want to emphasize this-
many of the “tells” of lying are traits commonly found in abuse survivors and mentally ill/disabled people.
stuttering, averting eye contact, panicking, raising your volume, fidgeting, and other similar traits are actions performed commonly by these groups, especially in situations of heavy stress- such as being accused of doing something we didnt do, especially if we are afraid of being punished for doing nothing.
im honestly begging people to think critically when accusing somebody of lying for small traits like these.
Adding entirely to elaborate in case drawing out the actual causation here is useful: Most of the “tells of lying” are tells of anxiety.* In the clinical sense. They’re tells of someone having anxiety about how what they’re going to say is going to be perceived, received, and reacted to.
This is also what polygraphs test. It’s why they’re not actually “lie detectors”, and why any sane jurisdiction does not allow them to be used as actual evidence (and why they SHOULDN’T be, any more than anybody’s “gut feeling”). They literally measure the body’s physiological anxiety responses to the question/statement they just heard (or at least the physiological anxiety response that happens right AFTER the question/statement they just heard - just to make it even wobblier). That’s all they do.
These things are associated with lying for a simple reason: most people, when lying, are some level of anxious. They are concerned about how what they’re going to say is going to be received - if it will believed, how it will be reacted to. If something weren’t at stake, if they didn’t care about convincing their audience, they probably wouldn’t bother lying!
However, as OP points out, there are lots. of. other. reasons. for anxiety. Lots of them. From having an anxiety disorder to just being afraid in that moment to trauma crap to who knows what. The most common in small children including being insulted all to hell and back that you don’t believe them.
So be careful, or risk being an asshole.
*“most”, in the sense that some - like “blatantly contradicts reality as reality has been established by something more reliable than a human, like a video recording” - have nothing to do with anxiety, and depending on what people are thinking of as “tells”, this may apply.
I hate lie detectors. They’re not completely useless, in the sense that if someone gets anxious when you mention something they have no reason to know about, it probably means they know SOMETHING about it.
But if you arrest them and then ask them if they did it, it’s not really evidence to work out how anxious they ought to be and see if they’re more or less anxious than that.
If you want to FIND OUT INFORMATION, I think anyone with any familiarity with lie detectors would know not to try to use them except as described above. But I can’t help notice, it’s v convenient for police to have an extremely ambitious procedure they can use as justification for almost anything
(at a lecture on the Oedipus complex)
Lecturer: Oedipus was a character from Greek mythology. He was the son of Laius and…uh…um…
Me: Jocasta?
Lecturer: No, that was his wi…wait, I’m an idiot.
Also from the same lecture:
Lecturer: Also, there are many alternative sexualities today. Some people believe that they’re not their biological sex. These people are called transgender. Other people believe that they’re not even human, and identify as types of animals. These people are called transhuman.
So Theresa May didn’t visit the residents of Grenfell because of a ‘security risk’, but less than a day later the Queen shows up at one of the relief centres with her grandson in tow.
Is there a game of Humiliate-Theresa Bingo going on that I don’t know about?
It’s been all over the headlines all week!
the monty hall saga
please watch brooklyn nine-nine
Can we just applaud b99 for addressing gay sex as casually as it would heterosexual sex because it’s disturbingly rare?
PLEASE WATCH BROOKLYN NINE NINE
But what’s the answer though?!
You are twice as likely to win if you switch doors.
Why?
When you select door 1 there is a 1/3 chance you win and a 2/3 chance you lose. The host, who knows which door is right, will always eliminate an empty door (this only works because the host has more information than you)
So now you get to choose between the 1/3 chance you were right the first time, or the 2/3 chance you were originally wrong.To think of it another way, the set of doors 2 and 3 have a probability of 2/3. Because tje host eliminates an empty door (making the open door a 0 probability now), that 2/3 chance “collects” in the remaining door. Your original door is still only 1/3 because you made that choice before you had the new information.
when you select your door initially, it DOESN’T MATTER AT ALL
what it boils down to, is a decision between keeping the door you initially picked (with a 50% chance of being the right one at this point) or picking the OTHER door (which ALSO has a 50% chance of being correct)
To put in other terms, when you initially select one door you have a 1/3 chance of it being correct. The host eliminates a door that you did not pick, a door that would have been a losing choice. You now have a choice between two doors. You have received no additional information about these doors. You have a 50/50 shot with either of them. Because probability isn’t affected by prior choices.But you did initially have a 1/3
The host can only choose between the doors you didnt choose. So when he eliminates all but 1 remaining door, he isnt affecting the probability of your door, only the door he is leaving.No, once one of the doors is revealed the odds slip from 1/3 to ½ for each unopened door
No. The host can only remove a door ypu didnt choose, so your doors probability isnt affected by the new information. Opening an empty door narrows the “you were originally wrong” choice to just 1 door, but still with the 2/3 probability.
Again, you can actually test this in simulation.
2/3 is correct. I spent an hour looking at this on Wikipedia on Friday. While I was at work. Because I’d recently reblogged this and it started bothering me.
Look at it another way: the host is, effectively, removing all but one of the losing doors.
If there were 100 doors, and you picked one, and the host removed 98 out of the 99 wrong doors, leaving one wrong door and one right door, you’d switch doors in a heartbeat.
Why? Because you knew that the door you picked was only 1 in 100 likely to be the correct door. Well, nothing changed, the prize didn’t move anywhere, and there’s nothing special about the door you picked; the ONLY reason it’s one of the top two is because you picked it.
As one out of one hundred.
This door you picked first is the Miss Congeniality of doors. There is nothing special about it except that you chose it. You eliminated it from being among the of 99 losing doors selected. The other door, on the other hand? They have to leave the winning door in play. Odds are thus 99 to 1 that they selected that door to leave because it’s the winning door. The only chance it’s a random door is if you selected the right door out of 100 doors the first time. At 1 in 100 odds.
The fact that there’s only one wrong door to remove is a deliberate red herring, a choice by the game’s designers to obscure that detail. [All but one of the losing doors] gets mistaken for [one of two losing doors] as the important part.
The other deliberate misdirection in the game is the cognitive bias where it feels worse to have something and lose it through your own actions than to never have it at all. If you switched doors and the new door lost, you’d kick yourself for having picked the winning door and given it up, much harder than you would if you kept the door and the other one won. Making a decision that loses what you’ve got feels much more like a mistake than making a decision that loses what you’ve never had.
And given that one-in-three odds are not that much less than one-in-two odds, switching doors and losing because of it is a real threat in the three-door game. This induces people to prefer to keep the originally-selected door, which is in the house’s favor. Again, this is deliberate.
Sounds like everyone here just needs to bone
I would like to give a shoutout to @kyraneko because although I’ve known the solution to this for some time this is the first time I’ve actually understoood it
The way I often explain it, is that the way the puzzle is phrased, it can be ambiguous whether “the host opens a door at random, that HAPPENS to contain a goat” or “the host choose a door they KNOW has a goat behind”. Good statements of the problem make this clear but it’s still easy to miss it but it’s an artificial distinction if you’re not used to this sort of puzzle.
To start with there’s 1/3 chance you have a prize, 2/3 chance you have a goat.
If the host opens at random:
A: 1/3 you have prize and door opened doesn’t matter
B: 2/3 * ½ you have goat and host opens goat
C: 2*3 * ½ you have goat and host opens prize
You know C didn’t happen, so of the remaining 2/3, both possibilities have an equal 1/3 chance, so it’s 50/50 just like people’s intuition often says.
OTOH, if the host opens a goat door with foreknowledge:
1/3 chance you have a prize, and door opened doesn’t matter
1/3 chance prize is behind the next door, and host opens previous door
1/3 chance prize is behind previous door and host opens next door
In both of the second two cases, you win by switching. Only in the first case do you win by staying.
Octopus and squid evolution is officially weirder than we could have ever imagined
Just when we thought octopuses couldn’t be any weirder, it turns out that they and their cephalopod brethren evolve differently from nearly every other organism on the planet.
In a surprising twist, scientists have discovered that octopuses, along with some squid and cuttlefish species, routinely edit their RNA (ribonucleic acid) sequences to adapt to their environment.
This is weird because that’s really not how adaptations usually happen in multicellular animals. When an organism changes in some fundamental way, it typically starts with a genetic mutation - a change to the DNA.
The findings have been published in Cell.
Olga Visavi/Shutterstock
I’m saying though.
They Cthulhu children. Stay woke
this is why octopus is the superior food
i love my family
Whoa.
Darwin: And that was why Lamark was wrong.
Squid: Hold my beer.
sinningsleepingandshitposting:
Hi guys! So I know we all don’t actually read the terms and conditions of things and just hit agree assuming there’s nothing important in there (I do it too oops) but if you take writing commissions or anything involving money, then there’s actually something in the AO3 terms and conditions to be aware of.
Linking to a personal website or blog/social network where you are taking donations, posting commissions or mentioning published works is permitted, but advertising it directly on the Archive is not, nor is using language which one might interpret as requesting financial contributions. For example, you can say something to the effect of “check out my Tumblr if you want to know more about me and my writing” and include the link to the site, but you cannot specifically state anything about donations, commissions or sales on the Archive.
Today someone reported one of my fics as violating this condition - presumably because I’d mentioned my patreon in the author’s note (I wasn’t actively requesting donations either… I’d literally just mentioned that it existed, and that the fic in question was written as a thank-you for hitting one of my goals).
I’ve written to AO3 to check whether just saying ‘thank you to those who support me on patreon’ is fine and I’ll let you guys know when they get back to me, but if it’s still going too far in terms of being a ‘commercial promotion’ then I’ll just avoid mentioning this in the future! :’)
As I said, someone did actually report my fic for this - so there are people out there who are noticing/reporting these situations. Please be aware of this if you take fic commissions, or use patreon or ko-fi, because your account could end up suspended, which of course no one wants!
<3 <3
UPDATE: AO3 got back to me - you’re not allowed to mention or link to patreon at all, regardless of how it’s phrased. Not sure if it’s the same for ko-fi but it might be better to be safe than sorry!
<3 @kahnah23 relevant to you and possibly some others~
That’s a fucking bullshit rule, I’m sorry. They shouldn’t deny you the opportunity to advertise your own work.
archive of our own is run by the organization for transformative works. ao3 and the other services that otw offers - including legal services for fan creators who get in legal trouble - are nonprofit organizations.
this isn’t just a self-determined descriptor; that’s a legal definition that requires adherence to specific rules and laws regarding income, profit, and donations.
this isn’t a “bullshit rule” just meant to prevent creators from advertising. in op’s post, the contact from ao3 offers a roundabout way to advertise. this rule ensures that ao3 and the organization for transformative works to stay a non-profit organization - this “bullshit rule” is essentially a way so that ao3 and the other services that the organization for transformative works can stay online.
it’s not just about maintaining nonprofit status. (i question if that’s even applicable here, since the profits in question don’t go to the organisation, but i know very little about nonprofit law. just a gut feeling.)
the actual point is, they run a legal services organisation for fans who get into legal trouble. they literally exist for the purpose of helping you not get into legal trouble. profiting from fan fiction very much opens you up to the possibility of getting into legal trouble. they’re not going to let people do things on their website that they know will land them in exactly that trouble.
and to be clear, just because everyone who slaps a patreon button on their tumblr isn’t getting sued, doesn’t mean they aren’t doing something for which they could be sued.
let me say it again: profiting from fan fiction very much opens you up to the possibility of getting into legal trouble.
here’s why.
use of other people’s characters is subject to copyright law. the general principle that makes downloading a movie or a song piracy also applies to the use of a character, assuming certain factors such as uniqueness.
how fan fiction has come to scrape by in the past: by not being a commercial enterprise.
in contrast, for use music, video, images incorporated into new works: by being significantly transformative.
these two factors, commerciality and transformativity, are considered side by side. the greater the transformativity, the less weight commerciality will be given. if something is highly transformative and non-commercial, then it’s almost certainly fine. down the other end, if it’s not at all transformative and commercial, forget it.
it’s a matter of judgement as to what degree of transformativity there is in the work that will push it over the line to overcome the general prohibition against commercial use. but fan fiction in the truest sense is barely transformative. in fact the goal is to come as close to copying a character as possible.
an analogy with the use of music: a cover band, despite every part of the performance of the song being done by that band, is still playing a song that was created by someone else. you, the fic writer, as covering someone else’s character.
the cover band you see at your local bar? they, or the local bar itself, have paid a fee to obtain permission to play that song. (even if they were playing for free they would still have to obtain permission, because any public performance of copyrighted music is prohibited.) in contrast, use of a line from one song in another another song that uses the line for parody? fine (Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, 510 U.S. 569 (1994)). let’s call that the AU with the names changed, the location different, and everything about that character’s backstory is gone. they just look like the actor and have a dialogue pattern that matches.
the better you are at writing a character in character, ironically the more likely you are to violate copyright law. and that’s why the commercial factor becomes incredibly relevant.
basically, don’t get paid, keep being cool with the law*.
*this is not an endorsement of the principles of copyright law itself. this is about what that law is and how it works.
It makes sense they’d be really careful, whether it’s morally ok, getting money in ANY way from fanfic is really risky, even if it’s indirect.
What surprised me was no exception for people who post original fic. I guess it’s impossible to warn people when you can’t tell at a glance if it’s ok or not.
astronema-princess-of-all-evil:
Historical footage of the last T-Rex serving his country in WWl.
But isn’t that a Jeep? And the T-Rex is holding a…Browning M2? Which wasn’t used until 1933…
So I think this footage is actually of WW2.
I’m living for this historical accuracy
Get it together people! Cantrips, the “Immortals”, and both commands being as brain dead as each other. WWI. Nazis, dinosaurs, and the Geisterbeschwörergruppe, WWII.
Both sides made considerable efforts to militarise various therapods as early as 1916, but they were never practical. Think, have you ever seen a non-nazi T-Rex serving the german army? Ever?
There’s a reasonable summary of the timeline of the supernatural research at http://todayinfakehistory.tumblr.com/post/128118786215/dontcookbilly-nudityandnerdery but you need to google for the genetic engineering, the details depend on exactly which timeline you’re in. “Nazi dinosaurs” should give plenty of relevant hits.