Not saying I’d do it, just throwing one more option out there.

It’s easier to park when there’s another car already parked, for reference.

Safety rules are written in blood. When you spend at least 8hours/day doing the same thing, even if that thing has a very small chance of generating an accident, that’s a lot of time spent doing something risky. Everyone has bad days, any one of those could kill you/severely injure you if you don’t take safety protocols seriously.

Good old Russian propaganda.

Can the average north Korean read though?

Considering everyone’s sperm is bathing in plastic rn, who knows lol.

Out of all the games I tried to play, only one of them worked.

PS3 in particular has very weird hardware. There aren’t any good PS3 emulators for PC. Basically the only way to play PS3 games is on an actual PS3.

Headline days 25% of electricity. The article says 25% of energy. Journalism at its finest. Which one is it?

Well, of course you can have few indent levels by just not indenting, I don’t think the readability loss is worth it though. If I had give up some indentation, I’d probably not indent the impl {} blocks.

Why have an async block spanning the whole function when you can mark the function as async? That’s 1 less level of indentation. Also, this quite is unusable for rust. A single match statement inside a function inside an impl is already 4 levels of indentation.

The war is inevitable. America doesn’t decide if Russia invades Ukraine or not. It can only decide if it will help Ukraine or not.

If america helps Ukraine, they will severely cripple Russia, thus making later invasions unlikely.

I america doesn’t help Ukraine, Russia will just get what they want and move on to invade more countries, leading to more wars.

You can’t just give a flower to the invader, say “peace” and suddenly there are no more wars.

Well, it’s the same in rust, that’s why I agree more with the first interpretation.

There is an existing solution in C/C++, just make some binding and call it *.rs

Both python and rust use py and rs in the same way, to signal that it’s the python/rust version of that library.

Of course, there are exceptions, but that’s what usually happens.

Yeah, no python package has “py”, JavaScript “.js” or java “java”. None at all.

I’m kinda pulling this out of my ass so I’d appreciate if someone can deny/confirm this.

I believe the LHC smashes particles to destroy them, to detect particles smaller than neutrons/protons/electrons, such as quarks.

That’s just reduce

“Del mundo mundial” on Spanish is a common phrase (mostly used by children) to say “of the world”. If you want to translate literally, it would be more like “of the worldly world”.

I tried to answer but idk why Lemmy failed to post it, so I’ll make a tldr instead.

TLDR:

Instead of reasoning I used actual statistics equations and you are correct: the chance in the coins case is 1/3.

However, I was misguided assuming that both the “girl and boy” problem and “coins” problem are the same, when in fact they are not.

In the “coins” case, the statement “at least one of them is heads” has a probability of 3/4. In the “girl and boy” case, the statement “the child that opened the door was a boy” has a probability of 1/2.

You didn’t eliminate BG and GB where a girl opens the door though. If you do that, then the answer is 50%. Because you remove half the probability from BG and GB and you remove none from BB.

I know you didn’t eliminate those cases because you said “That leaves us with 3 possibilities with equal probabilities”. That would be false, BB is twice as likely.

You can’t just end the experiment if the randomly chosen child doesn’t “fit the parameters”, by doing that you aren’t accounting for half the girls in the whole event pool. Half of the girls have siblings that are girls.

Being 2 girls was a possible event at the start, you can’t just remove it. This time it happened to be a boy who opened the door, but it could’ve been as likely for a girl to open it.

If it was phrased like “there are 2 siblings, only boys can open doors. Of all the houses that opened their doors, how many have a girl in them?”, then it will be 2/3. In this example, there is an initial pool of events, then I narrowed down to a smaller one (with less probability). If you “just” eliminate the GG scenario, then the set of events got smaller without reducing the set’s probability.