Happy 3rd Pit Birthday!

[Phil_Giordana_FCD]

#EBEMACARE2016


Meanwhile, I haven't watched Blazing Saddles yet, being derailed somehow by a FB friend who reminded me I had to re-watch Forrest Gump. I did, and then I cried.

I'm a wuss.

[another lurker]

It snowed overnight.

And the forecast calls for snow and rain all day. I am going to be busy.

I could probably say something about how inclement weather oppresses wymyn more than men cuz bewbs but I won't.

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/73 ... 748c83.jpg

[Phil_Giordana_FCD]

That's one happy Clarence on the way...

[another lurker]

That's one happy Clarence on the way...

I try to be inclusive.

You might say that I am a Slymepit Justice Warrior

However, this random gfycat URL generator said FU to inclusivity, and nymmed itself for that anteater guy:



nsfw, naturally

[AndrewV69]

http://hotair.com/archives/2014/09/27/t ... he-b-word/ also of interest

Ayup. Been talked about the last few years in the 'Manosphere' where explicit mention of Blacks behaving badly is apparently deliberately obscured in the media.

Wherever the race of the alleged perp is not mentioned but euphemisms such as 'youth(s)' are utilized it is pretty much guaranteed that they mean 'Black' or 'African-American'.

Why? Of course, even posing the question immediately brands me as a hopeless, hateful racist in the minds of half the nation and the conversation immediately shuts down. But a responsible media, if they truly wanted to have a frank conversation about racial conflict in America, would be honest enough to tackle this issue.

You have got to be joking. Except for a few exceptional individuals, the media is is corrupt to the core, devoid of any ethical considerations and you want them to give some sort of resemblance to responsible behaviour?

*cackles*

[JayTeeAitch]

That's one happy Clarence on the way...

Nice euphemism, I'll start using that one from now on.

[AndrewV69]

Latest Ally Fogg is up [url=http://freethoughtblogs.com/hetpat/2016 ... ilisation/]Medway, male violence and invisibilisation[/url and he deals with a subject that MRAs have been yelling about for the last few years.

The words you will not see in descriptions of the victims of the ugly assaults are these: “boys” or “young men.”

*shrug*

Suck it up buttercup. Males are disposable and invisible except when the time comes to blame them for any of the ills that befall women.

[Cnutella]

An interesting comment on a Feministing about how Arrested Development are dropping a storyline where George Sr. comes out as trans. One swallow doesn't make a summer, but Feministing is also sworn to orthodoxy. If the base is getting restless over the authoritarian direction that third wave feminism is taking, that may be be a positive sign:

a day ago
Oh FFS...I am a feminist, a liberal, a progressive, and a supporter of LGBTQ rights. But I gotta say, I am getting exhausted being outraged at everything and never being allowed to freaking laugh. Feminists are becoming as joyless as haters always accuse us of being. Be outraged if you want. It's your right. But I saw nothing "phobic" or "transmisogynist" about Gervais last night, or about Tambor's performance. I laughed. And it felt really good.

http://feministing.com/2016/01/11/arres ... e-awkward/

It will be interesting to see what responses this comment gets, if any.

[AndrewV69]

(reposted to fix link because my fucken edit button has disappeared ... WTF man?)

Latest Ally Fogg is up Medway, male violence and invisibilisation and he deals with a subject that MRAs have been yelling about for the last few years.

The words you will not see in descriptions of the victims of the ugly assaults are these: “boys” or “young men.”

*shrug*

Suck it up buttercup. Males are disposable and invisible except when the time comes to blame them for any of the ills that befall women.

[x_?_x]

#EBEMACARE2016


Meanwhile, I haven't watched Blazing Saddles yet, being derailed somehow by a FB friend who reminded me I had to re-watch Forrest Gump. I did, and then I cried.

I'm a wuss.

You haven't seen Blazing Saddles? You mean, you've never seen it? Ever?

[Dave]

Last week the Powerball jackpot was hundreds of millions. But this week, it has passed an arbitrary point which you now consider worth a punt. This is where you become a moron. What the fuck could you do with 900 million that you couldn't do with 600 million? The chance of winning is the same, and your exposure is minimal ($5). So where the fuck does reason and skepticism and science come into this decision to bet this week and not last week? You are, you fucking cretin, revealing the exact lack of statistical understanding - mixed with pure human greed - which has allowed gambling to survive so long and so strongly within human societies.

Well to be fair whether or not a bet is good depends on the payoff.

But that was my exact, stated point: that when placing $5 worth of bets, a change in prize from 600M to 900M should not cause a sober gambler to suddenly think that this has made the astronomical odds suddenly change from not being worth the bet to being worth the bet.

Heh? If the odds of payoff are 140,000,000 to 1, then a sober gambler should not make a $5 bet for a $600M payoff, but should for a $900M. The EV is less than $5 for a $600M payoff and its greater for the $900M.

The astronomical odds should factor into how much one should bet -- This is an absurd long shot, but so long as the amount bet is insignificant to your budget, then its a sensible bet.

Why should one not engage in long-shots if the net EV is positive? Since you cant make enough bets to ensure a reasonable chance of payoff, you should always keep the amount small, but as long as the net EV is positive, a small bet is sensible.

[Phil_Giordana_FCD]

#EBEMACARE2016


Meanwhile, I haven't watched Blazing Saddles yet, being derailed somehow by a FB friend who reminded me I had to re-watch Forrest Gump. I did, and then I cried.

I'm a wuss.

You haven't seen Blazing Saddles? You mean, you've never seen it? Ever?

Ever.

[SM12]

#EBEMACARE2016


Meanwhile, I haven't watched Blazing Saddles yet, being derailed somehow by a FB friend who reminded me I had to re-watch Forrest Gump. I did, and then I cried.

I'm a wuss.

You haven't seen Blazing Saddles? You mean, you've never seen it? Ever?

One of the funniest films ever.

[another lurker]

An interesting comment on a Feministing about how Arrested Development are dropping a storyline where George Sr. comes out as trans. One swallow doesn't make a summer, but Feministing is also sworn to orthodoxy. If the base is getting restless over the authoritarian direction that third wave feminism is taking, that may be be a positive sign:

a day ago
Oh FFS...I am a feminist, a liberal, a progressive, and a supporter of LGBTQ rights. But I gotta say, I am getting exhausted being outraged at everything and never being allowed to freaking laugh. Feminists are becoming as joyless as haters always accuse us of being. Be outraged if you want. It's your right. But I saw nothing "phobic" or "transmisogynist" about Gervais last night, or about Tambor's performance. I laughed. And it felt really good.

http://feministing.com/2016/01/11/arres ... e-awkward/

It will be interesting to see what responses this comment gets, if any.

The Atlantic is already on Ricky's case:

http://www.theatlantic.com/entertainmen ... er/423792/

All I can say is, praise the :cdc: for comedians who don't give a shit about being PC.

[another lurker]

JFC, there is over a foot of snow out there and it's still cuming down.

Thanks Dr. Richard Carrier, PhD

Point that shit elsewhere!

[Lsuoma]

Time for another colonoscopy. While I'm prepping, I'm going to see if I can pour out more content-free shit than Carrierbag, but I doubt that I'll manage it...

[Phil_Giordana_FCD]

Time for another colonoscopy. While I'm prepping, I'm going to see if I can pour out more content-free shit than Carrierbag, but I doubt that I'll manage it...

Sounds like fun. Enjoy!

[Sulman]

MA Melby got fired. Quite fucky if that did actually happen because of people targeting her work.

Melby and her type aren't great employees. It's not unexpected that when the axe swings, they go. From a simple time management point of view, these people spend their lives jerking off on social media. That's hardly good for productivity.

[Billie from Ockham]

Carrier doubles down. He has no self awareness, he'd have made a great WW1 general.

As much as love your tweets on all this, I would not continue with the joke that you are acting as a reviewer; that's the false definition of "reviewer" that we are criticizing him for using. I worry that idiots will see what you're writing and not get the joke.

[Billie from Ockham]

A douche can be, and is, used for assholes too. And assholes are like opinions: everybody has one.

Ableism at its worst.

Disproof:

[youtube]yzt0IACxlFA[/youtube]

[Billie from Ockham]

Heh? If the odds of payoff are 140,000,000 to 1, then a sober gambler should not make a $5 bet for a $600M payoff, but should for a $900M. The EV is less than $5 for a $600M payoff and its greater for the $900M.

The astronomical odds should factor into how much one should bet -- This is an absurd long shot, but so long as the amount bet is insignificant to your budget, then its a sensible bet.

Why should one not engage in long-shots if the net EV is positive? Since you cant make enough bets to ensure a reasonable chance of payoff, you should always keep the amount small, but as long as the net EV is positive, a small bet is sensible.

Every attempt to argue that the EV might be positive for tonight's PowerBall has ignored the fact that multiple winners must split the pot that remains after all other prizes have been awarded. So, if an argument doesn't include an estimate of how many tickets will be sold by tonight, ignore all the math ... it's no better than a Carrier Bayesian analysis.

[MacGruberKnows]

Winters replied to my case for TF being correct in FTB traffic beig dow by 2/3 ad Carrier not only being wrong but beig a liar with a cut and paste piece of misdirection:

Winters Fact: The issue has always been TF's intellectual reliance on Kent Hovind's tactics when making anti-feminist videos. TF's desperate need to change the subject away from his taking Ken Ham as a role model drives his made up numbers. It is an attempt to avoid the facts. He is no different from a creationist who uses fake numbers and then demands others prove his fake numbers are wrong. Instead of being data-led, he is a hate-based ideologue who makes things up instead of looking them up. Here is another example of his complete inability to do research, instead he makes up lies and then demands you disprove his lies...like a creationist.

thunderf00t's continued anti-science antics
https://storify.com/camethedawnxp/thund ... .co_g1Fgz

My reply:

+Kristi Winters Wrong. The issue was whether TF lied about FTB traffic. He could have made a honest error, but Carrier said he lied. It turns out TF did not lie. And Carrier did lie with his purposeful omission of the August 2015 to January 2016 part of the graph and he lied when he tried to slip in his blog stats for FTB's. Which you as a scientist apparently do not have a problem with.


Because you are not a scientist. This video proves it and your non-response to TF being correct and Carrier not just being wrong but being a liar confirms it. You did not catch one error in Carriers analysis and claim to be a scientist. I caught them as a lay person in minutes.


Again, you are not a scientist. You are just an ideological hack. No wonder TF thinks that people like you and Carrier are a stain on the Skeptic/Atheist world.

[Dave]

Heh? If the odds of payoff are 140,000,000 to 1, then a sober gambler should not make a $5 bet for a $600M payoff, but should for a $900M. The EV is less than $5 for a $600M payoff and its greater for the $900M.

The astronomical odds should factor into how much one should bet -- This is an absurd long shot, but so long as the amount bet is insignificant to your budget, then its a sensible bet.

Why should one not engage in long-shots if the net EV is positive? Since you cant make enough bets to ensure a reasonable chance of payoff, you should always keep the amount small, but as long as the net EV is positive, a small bet is sensible.

Every attempt to argue that the EV might be positive for tonight's PowerBall has ignored the fact that multiple winners must split the pot that remains after all other prizes have been awarded. So, if an argument doesn't include an estimate of how many tickets will be sold by tonight, ignore all the math ... it's no better than a Carrier Bayesian analysis.

Oh, I agree, and have pointed that same fact out elsewhere. As well as the fact that for almost all, the ticket price comes out of post-tax dollars** and the payoff will be taxed, which significantly alters the calculations as well.

However, even if we factor all that in, it is likely that there exists *some* point in which the EV becomes positive, even if we have not hit that point yet. Concentrated seem to be suggesting that even if the EV is positive, a sober gambler should not play the game, and I am trying to understand why.

[Parody Accountant]

Missed 2 months+ of pit.

I owe friends pm's that won't come, and a few projects that I feel bad about abandoning. Life got real for me for a bit, but all is well now.

What is the funniest thing that I missed?

Were there new witches of the week?!?

Dare I ask about Elyse?

Elyse got a tattoo that is the worst thing ever. If the Holocaust and cancer had a baby, this tattoo would still be worse.

Was it those stupid signs she tweeted about... 'parking signs "enter here" teehee on my butt hahahahehehehehehahahaheheheh'???

[Dave]

Forgot the footnote:

** In theory, I believe one could deduct non-paying tickets as gambling losses, but I am not aware of anyone who does.

[Parody Accountant]

Missed 2 months+ of pit.

I owe friends pm's that won't come, and a few projects that I feel bad about abandoning. Life got real for me for a bit, but all is well now.

What is the funniest thing that I missed?

Were there new witches of the week?!?

Dare I ask about Elyse?

Elyse got a tattoo that is the worst thing ever. If the Holocaust and cancer had a baby, this tattoo would still be worse.

It's only on her forearm, which I'm sure won't interfere with her employment prospects, seeing as how her car was just repossessed, her husband is gone and she's struggling with mental illness and addiction. While taking care of her two children.

Oh wow. Why is the clock at 8:09:00? Shouldn't it be at 8:00:09?

She's taking care of her kids though. Good to hear.

[Billie from Ockham]

However, even if we factor all that in, it is likely that there exists *some* point in which the EV becomes positive, even if we have not hit that point yet. Concentrated seem to be suggesting that even if the EV is positive, a sober gambler should not play the game, and I am trying to understand why.

Given that the sales of tickets rises faster than the size of the pot (at least in my state), I doubt that the EV gets better when the pot becomes huge. There may be a sweet-spot somewhere in the middle, but the actuaries running lotteries aren't stupid, so I doubt that the EV is ever positive.

With that said, if you actually find a game of chance with a positive EV, go ahead and play. But try to keep what is known about psychological EVs being distinct from objective EVs, so you don't fool yourself. For example, keep in mind that many people think that, all else being equal, it is better to buy one ticket per week for a year than to buy 52 (different) tickets for a single drawing. The reason is that the "psychological loss" of $2 is less than one-fifty-second of the "psychological loss" of $104.

In summary: Humans should not be let out of their cages.

[Parody Accountant]

It's only on her forearm, which I'm sure won't interfere with her employment prospects, seeing as how her car was just repossessed, her husband is gone and she's struggling with mental illness and addiction. While taking care of her two children.

(A) If its "Just 10 seconds" why is the timer pointing to 9 seconds?

snip

It's actually at 9 minutes. There's a second-hand in the smaller clock face. That clock strikes ZERO.

[Parody Accountant]

So elyse has a tattoo that says... "It takes me 1 minute to do something for 10 seconds"

[Gumby]

#EBEMACARE2016


Meanwhile, I haven't watched Blazing Saddles yet, being derailed somehow by a FB friend who reminded me I had to re-watch Forrest Gump. I did, and then I cried.

I'm a wuss.

You haven't seen Blazing Saddles? You mean, you've never seen it? Ever?

One of the funniest films ever.

Meh. Completely overrated and mediocre movie. And with the exception of Young Frankenstein, the rest of Mel Brooks' movies are overrated as well. History of the World Part 1 was one of the worst "comedies" I ever saw.

YMMV.

[Billie from Ockham]

Forgot the footnote:

** In theory, I believe one could deduct non-paying tickets as gambling losses, but I am not aware of anyone who does.

Nice try, but in the US, you can only deduct the cost of the tickets from your winnings. This applies to all forms of gambling. If you did not win anything, then you cannot deduct anything. In other words: if your net from gambling is negative, you get no deduction.

[Dave]

It's only on her forearm, which I'm sure won't interfere with her employment prospects, seeing as how her car was just repossessed, her husband is gone and she's struggling with mental illness and addiction. While taking care of her two children.

(A) If its "Just 10 seconds" why is the timer pointing to 9 seconds?

snip

It's actually at 9 minutes. There's a second-hand in the smaller clock face. That clock strikes ZERO.

I believe thats supposed to be a stop-watch, so its only a second-hand. The smaller clock-face is the minutes.

Something like this:

https://lh6.ggpht.com/sS8LrhjdwFrFScpip ... B74Um=w300

It would be silly to have a second hand that only counted to 30.

[Parody Accountant]

Carrier doubles down. He has no self awareness, he'd have made a great WW1 general.

Holy shit. You guys have him on the ropes. How the shit is he going to respond to that? Please tell me you tweeted that to him, or conveyed a similar message.

[Spike13]

The true historiosity of Jesus is one of those questions that, short of the discovery of real " smoking gun type documents, will probably never truly be answered.

Being most of the readers here are Atheists, I think we can agree that the supernatural " son or prophet of God" Jesus theories can be discarded.

That leaves us with a flesh and blood preacher/ teacher/ rouser of rabble.

A conglomeration of various claimed or proclaimed " messiahs or prophets.

A character made up out of whole cloth whose chroniclers engaged in full blown authorship( inspired by what they though the messiah should be.

Or a thousand different variations of the above mixed and blended together.

We simply do not at present have enough real evidence to conclusively prove who or what Jesus was.

I find that is the fascinating and wonderful part of this debate. The digging and sleuthing, the reasoned speculation and batshit lunacy, that often reveals as much about the researcher as it does about their subject.

For the record, from everything I have read about legends, origins of religious sects, the cycles of urban myths, the most readable assumption would be along the lines of Phils, a kernel or reality mixed with a tankers worth of bullshit.

[Parody Accountant]

I don't believe history ever existed, but if there was a guy named jesus, he might be magic.

[Spike13]

Readable-reasonable....

[Matt Cavanaugh]

SM12, nothing in your comments puts forward evidence that the early Christians believed in a celestial Jesus and then came to believe I'm a historical one. Those steps remain unevidenced and therefore unparsimonious.

Nothing in those comments.

So early Christians didn't believe that Jesus was there at the creation of the world?

1 Corinthians 8:6

' yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.'

All things came from God and came through the Lord Jesus Christ?

There were indeed docetists who believed that JC only appeared to be human, and there were docetists who believed the Christ spirit temporarily possessed the human body of Jesus, first entering him when JB baptized him, then making a neat, last minute escape on the cross. But to claim that all early christians believed that JC never actually appeared on Earth, and was but symbolically crucified on the astral plane, is hogwash.

[Parody Accountant]

Carrier doubles down. He has no self awareness, he'd have made a great WW1 general.

As much as love your tweets on all this, I would not continue with the joke that you are acting as a reviewer; that's the false definition of "reviewer" that we are criticizing him for using. I worry that idiots will see what you're writing and not get the joke.

No, I got the joke.

[Matt Cavanaugh]

In any case, it's a shitty tattoo. Amateurish artwork & sloppy technique. She could've saved some money by waiting until prison.

[Matt Cavanaugh]

The principle of parsimony says that one should prefer the simplest explanation which explains all the data.

A simpler explanation which fails to explain all data is not more parsimonious.

Parsimony isn't about simplicity, it's about inserting the fewest unevidenced steps into your argument. You can make a parsimonious argument that Jesus is not a historical figure, based on the fact that the evidence for his existence is poor and unreliable. But when you start postulating that the early Christians didn't believe he was a historical figure, but a celestial one who existed, was crucified and rose again in some kind of metaphysical realm, and only later came to believe he was a man who lived and died in a particular geographical and historical context, you're adding multiple unevidenced steps to your argument. Whether or not Jesus was a real person, the early Christian documents were written by people who thought he was.

Well, were they? It does depend what you mean by early.

Ehrman, for example, to get Paul to believe in a historical Jesus has to declare one half of a sentence in Paul as early and the other half as late.

I forget which sentence he used, but basically, Ehrman likes to put most of the Gospel stories as circulating before Paul, although the Gospels were written after Paul wrote.

Ehrman uses the fact that some Gospel stories use Aramaic as proof that they predate Paul. After all, Jesus spoke Aramaic.

Ehrman has this weird habit of completely undermining the trustworthiness of the gospels, then unquestioningly accepting the timeline found in the gospels.

[Parody Accountant]

It's actually at 9 minutes. There's a second-hand in the smaller clock face. That clock strikes ZERO.

I believe thats supposed to be a stop-watch, so its only a second-hand. The smaller clock-face is the minutes.

Something like this:

https://lh6.ggpht.com/sS8LrhjdwFrFScpip ... B74Um=w300

It would be silly to have a second hand that only counted to 30.

Thanks. But still. She has to explain what type of clock, what the quote means (good luck not sounding retarded, but I think I know what she means), and where she got it from (hah!) EVERY TIME IT COMES UP. FOREVER.

Are stop watches frequently also made to look golden and have elaborate chains similar to pocket watches?

[Kirbmarc]

Every attempt to argue that the EV might be positive for tonight's PowerBall has ignored the fact that multiple winners must split the pot that remains after all other prizes have been awarded. So, if an argument doesn't include an estimate of how many tickets will be sold by tonight, ignore all the math ... it's no better than a Carrier Bayesian analysis.

Yes, this is true, and as Dave wrote there are also some issues with taxes. However my point wasn't necessarily to say that you should buy some tickets, but that Rebecca Watson's argument wasn't technically wrong. As Dave also said, the point was that saying "there's no difference between a larger and a smaller payoff" isn't a good argument.

Given that the sales of tickets rises faster than the size of the pot (at least in my state), I doubt that the EV gets better when the pot becomes huge. There may be a sweet-spot somewhere in the middle, but the actuaries running lotteries aren't stupid, so I doubt that the EV is ever positive.

With that said, if you actually find a game of chance with a positive EV, go ahead and play. But try to keep what is known about psychological EVs being distinct from objective EVs, so you don't fool yourself. For example, keep in mind that many people think that, all else being equal, it is better to buy one ticket per week for a year than to buy 52 (different) tickets for a single drawing. The reason is that the "psychological loss" of $2 is less than one-fifty-second of the "psychological loss" of $104.

In summary: Humans should not be let out of their cages.

Yes, the biases of human psychology enter in the frame, too, but I'm not entirely sure that the difference between a loss of $2 per week and a loss of $104 once in a year is entirely psychological. In purely absolute matters the losses are the same, but consider this scenario:

A man earns enough that every week, after every expense and investment, he has allocate $20 to entertainment. If he spends $2 every week he'll still have $18 to spend in other forms of entertainment. The loss, for him, is not a huge deal, and the entertainment he receives from the idea of having one (astronomically small) chance to win a huge prize is worth the investment of $2.

The same man cannot afford to buy 52 tickets in a single drawing, because he doesn't have enough money to buy them to begin with, at least not in a single week.

With all this I'm not saying that you should spend money on lotteries. In mathematical terms it's almost always (although not always) a loss, and in practical terms it's virtually always a loss. Personally I've never bought a lottery ticket, with the exception of small, local lotteries which donate their wins to charity, which is basically doing charity by other means (especially since the prizes are pratically simbolic).

What I'm saying is that if people can afford to lose $2 per week then that loss is no big deal, and people who feel smugly superior to those who buy lottery tickets and call lottery "a tax on stupidity" are obnoxious.

We all do small irrational things in our lives. If we were all 100% rational we should completely organize our days along what makes us the most efficient workers and human beings on earth. As long as one is aware of the odds and doesn't spend more than they can afford, buying a lottery ticket is a small concession to irrationality, just like eating some more sweets than you should.

The problems with lotteries come from people who spend more than they can afford, or who buy into some "get rich quick" schemes to pick the "right" combinations.

There are so many far worse irrational things that many people do (like, for example, supporting SJW bullshit) that ranting against a semi-correct argument about lotteries just because it's from Rebecca Watson is counterproductive.

[Spike13]

On the Elsye front, the stopwatch tattoo... Looks too much like an old timey pocket-watch.

There's no button for stopping the second hand that I can discern

Every stopwatch I've ever seen usually has a cord,not a vest chain, that would be more pocket watchey.

The style is that crude "Ed Hardy" hipster bullshit.( not my favorite, so I'm probably being overly critical)

Finally , unless this thing was free, how does someone get a tat, then unashamed anounce their car repossession and being broke.

Elsye, the internets object lesson on how not to go through life.

[Billie from Ockham]

No, I got the joke.

That third digit to your IQ is just one of the things that distinguishes you from the fans of Dr Richard Carrier PhD.

In other words: you aren't in the group that I'm worried about.

But it was just an off-the-cuff suggestion. I'm sure that my tweets have many more issues.

[Shatterface]

Crack dealers can't own guns because of white supremacy:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 ... touch.html

[Dave]

However, even if we factor all that in, it is likely that there exists *some* point in which the EV becomes positive, even if we have not hit that point yet. Concentrated seem to be suggesting that even if the EV is positive, a sober gambler should not play the game, and I am trying to understand why.

Given that the sales of tickets rises faster than the size of the pot (at least in my state), I doubt that the EV gets better when the pot becomes huge. There may be a sweet-spot somewhere in the middle, but the actuaries running lotteries aren't stupid, so I doubt that the EV is ever positive.

Odd. I would estimate that the Powerball sold approx 425 million tickets when the jackpot was $900M and expect to sell 550 million tickets with a $1.5B jackpot. Tickets sold are roughly equal to the increase in jackpot size (generally the lottery system "keeps" 50% and the tickets are $2. I quote keeps because most of that goes to the states not the private entity running the lottery) So a 30% increase in players for a 60% increase in jackpot. IOW, ticket sales are not rising faster than the size of the pot. Since the pot includes previous pots, I do expect there will eventually become a net positive return.

With that said, if you actually find a game of chance with a positive EV, go ahead and play. But try to keep what is known about psychological EVs being distinct from objective EVs, so you don't fool yourself. For example, keep in mind that many people think that, all else being equal, it is better to buy one ticket per week for a year than to buy 52 (different) tickets for a single drawing. The reason is that the "psychological loss" of $2 is less than one-fifty-second of the "psychological loss" of $104.

I would actually argue that this is rational (economic, if not statistical) behavior. Since, even if the EV is positive, the odds are so long that the typical player will still likely lose even across a lifetime of playing, one should only play with "throwaway money" ie, money that one will not miss when you lose. For most people $2 a week qualifies, while $104 would make a dent in their weekly budget. Most people operate on a paycheck-to-paycheck basis, not an annual budget where the two amounts become equivalent.

[Scented Nectar]

"USC students required to detail sexual history before registering for classes"

http://www.campusreform.org/?ID=7155

H/T https://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/

I'm a bit confused. Is forcing the students to reveal their personal sexual activity, and not allowing them to take courses unless they comply, sexual harrassment? Or is it a forced sexual activity and therefore a form of sexual assault? I'm thinking the latter.

On one hand, it's unasked for sexual words that the students are forced to read so it's sexual harrassment. But on the other hand, forcing the students to answer and reveal sexually explicit info seems more like a forced sexual act on par with "talk dirty to me or else".

If I was a student there, I'd be asking my lawyer these questions.

It is an unbelievable invasion of privacy if true, WTF.

I saw a video somewhere where Cristina Hoff Summers said that what helped stop the witch burnings centuries ago, was people starting to sue the people doing it. I really hope that a ton of students sue the universities. Not only for shit like this, but also for shit like what happened to the guy who was the victim of Mattress Girl's malicious claims, which the university allowed to occur. That guy's suing, but I don't know how many other similar suits are happening. If I was a student today with rich enough parents, I'd be suing the shit out of this mandatory questionnaire.

[Dave]

Yes, the biases of human psychology enter in the frame, too, but I'm not entirely sure that the difference between a loss of $2 per week and a loss of $104 once in a year is entirely psychological. In purely absolute matters the losses are the same, but consider this scenario:

A man earns enough that every week, after every expense and investment, he has allocate $20 to entertainment. If he spends $2 every week he'll still have $18 to spend in other forms of entertainment. The loss, for him, is not a huge deal, and the entertainment he receives from the idea of having one (astronomically small) chance to win a huge prize is worth the investment of $2.

The same man cannot afford to buy 52 tickets in a single drawing, because he doesn't have enough money to buy them to begin with, at least not in a single week.

I was clearly :nin: 'ed

With all this I'm not saying that you should spend money on lotteries. In mathematical terms it's almost always (although not always) a loss, and in practical terms it's virtually always a loss. Personally I've never bought a lottery ticket, with the exception of small, local lotteries which donate their wins to charity, which is basically doing charity by other means (especially since the prizes are pratically simbolic).

My wife buys a ticket when the amount is high enough, seems about $200-300M is her trigger. She claims that the entertainment value of fantasizing about what she would do with the money, and it does generate a 10-30 minute discussion for the family, is worth the $2.

Shrug. Over the course of year she spends perhaps $20 for this entertainment. Thats pretty cheap.

[Dave]

I don't believe history ever existed, but if there was a guy named jesus, he might be magic.

He is.

Whenever I bring my car to him, it stops making that strange noise.

[Shatterface]

#EBEMACARE2016


Meanwhile, I haven't watched Blazing Saddles yet, being derailed somehow by a FB friend who reminded me I had to re-watch Forrest Gump. I did, and then I cried.

I'm a wuss.

You haven't seen Blazing Saddles? You mean, you've never seen it? Ever?

I might be in a minority but I think To Be or Not to Be is Brooks' best film.

[Scented Nectar]

I'm a bit confused. Is forcing the students to reveal their personal sexual activity, and not allowing them to take courses unless they comply, sexual harrassment? Or is it a forced sexual activity and therefore a form of sexual assault? I'm thinking the latter.

On one hand, it's unasked for sexual words that the students are forced to read so it's sexual harrassment. But on the other hand, forcing the students to answer and reveal sexually explicit info seems more like a forced sexual act on par with "talk dirty to me or else".

If I was a student there, I'd be asking my lawyer these questions.

It is an unbelievable invasion of privacy if true, WTF.

USC apologizes for questioning students about their sexual history

In a statement to the Washington Examiner, USC Senior Vice President for Administration Todd Dickey apologized for the questions and said they have been removed from the training.

"USC apologizes for any offense or discomfort caused by optional questions included as part of a mandatory on-line training for students on sexual consent, misconduct and other important issues," Dickey said. "These questions have been removed from our online-training module."

That's good. Although, next I'd like to see them remove the part of the course where they say that any man accused of a sexual harassment/assault must acknowledge that he may have done it and just doesn't remember. That's quite insulting and demands that the accused admit to possibly committing a crime even when they know full well they didn't do it.

[Dave]

Forgot the footnote:

** In theory, I believe one could deduct non-paying tickets as gambling losses, but I am not aware of anyone who does.

Nice try, but in the US, you can only deduct the cost of the tickets from your winnings. This applies to all forms of gambling. If you did not win anything, then you cannot deduct anything. In other words: if your net from gambling is negative, you get no deduction.

True.

[Shatterface]

I don't play the lottery but I can see why buying one ticket a week and fantasising about your potential winnings is more entertaining than blowing 52 tickets in one night.

[Spike13]

Outside of fancy, high falooting maths,

If you want a chance at an unearned windfall of riches, buy a ticket.


Or, latch onto feminist victim narrative and start a Patreon account...

[Billie from Ockham]

Yes, the biases of human psychology enter in the frame, too, but I'm not entirely sure that the difference between a loss of $2 per week and a loss of $104 once in a year is entirely psychological. In purely absolute matters the losses are the same, but consider this scenario:

A man earns enough that every week, after every expense and investment, he has allocate $20 to entertainment. If he spends $2 every week he'll still have $18 to spend in other forms of entertainment. The loss, for him, is not a huge deal, and the entertainment he receives from the idea of having one (astronomically small) chance to win a huge prize is worth the investment of $2.

The same man cannot afford to buy 52 tickets in a single drawing, because he doesn't have enough money to buy them to begin with, at least not in a single week.

Agreed. And this might be playing a role in determining how much of a loss $2 or $104 might be. Just because something is "psychological" doesn't mean that it's irrational (but please don't tell the evo-psych haters that I said that, OK?).

[Billie from Ockham]

Given that the sales of tickets rises faster than the size of the pot (at least in my state), I doubt that the EV gets better when the pot becomes huge. There may be a sweet-spot somewhere in the middle, but the actuaries running lotteries aren't stupid, so I doubt that the EV is ever positive.

Odd. I would estimate that the Powerball sold approx 425 million tickets when the jackpot was $900M and expect to sell 550 million tickets with a $1.5B jackpot. Tickets sold are roughly equal to the increase in jackpot size (generally the lottery system "keeps" 50% and the tickets are $2. I quote keeps because most of that goes to the states not the private entity running the lottery) So a 30% increase in players for a 60% increase in jackpot. IOW, ticket sales are not rising faster than the size of the pot. Since the pot includes previous pots, I do expect there will eventually become a net positive return.

I wrote poorly. I meant that new sales rise faster than the current pot rises. It becomes a snowball.

With that said, it would seem to be linear, if they really put a fixed % into the pot, so what I wrote was probably wrong. Plus the issue of carry-over. Maybe people are rational when they wait for several weeks of no big winners.

But I still ain't buying a ticket.

[another lurker]

hahaha

hahahahah

Deluded dimwits.

Madison Blane • a few seconds ago

It is not that 'people on the left' think that misogyny and homophobia don't exist in Islam, it's that it is not an especially relevant criticism in America and Canada where there are entire political parties full of racist homophobes who are much more dangerous. You don't have to be Muslim to be racist or homophobic. We can talk about racism and homophobia without singling out one religious group and acting like it is especially their problem. And when those political parties can understand your words as backing their hatred of Muslims as well, then there's a problem in the way you are presenting the information. We 'on the left' are not willing to single out Muslims as an exceptional threat. We are not willing to dogpile a hated minority. We are willing to acknowledge #NotAllMuslims the same way we are willing to acknowledge #NotAllChristians. There is a wide range of beliefs in Islam just as there are wide variations of beliefs in Christianity. We cannot group all people of one color or one religion together and insist they are all equally dangerous. And it is especially wrong when the effects of your words cause people who aren't even of the same religion to be feared and murdered just because they look 'Arabic'. What you are seeing 'from the left' is pushback against dangerous racism and xenophobia that is causing real harm to people in our countries - much more harm than Islam is causing. And if Namazie is continually being told that this is how her words come across, that her position supports white supremacists (because white supremacists take her words as being supportive) then perhaps it's time for some reflection on her part as to why. Also, I highly doubt it is 'people on the Left' calling her an imperialist, a white supremacist, or a race betrayer. That sounds like criticism from conservative religious Muslims TBH.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfem ... qus_thread

Cuz honor killings and Islamic violence never happen in America and Canada, right?

[Dave]

In a statement to the Washington Examiner, USC Senior Vice President for Administration Todd Dickey apologized for the questions and said they have been removed from the training.

"USC apologizes for any offense or discomfort caused by optional questions included as part of a mandatory on-line training for students on sexual consent, misconduct and other important issues," Dickey said. "These questions have been removed from our online-training module."

That's good. Although, next I'd like to see them remove the part of the course where they say that any man accused of a sexual harassment/assault must acknowledge that he may have done it and just doesn't remember. That's quite insulting and demands that the accused admit to possibly committing a crime even when they know full well they didn't do it.

They can leave that if they (a) change the sexist language, doesnt it apply equally to women accused of sexual harassment? And (b) include a part where any person who accuses another must acknowledge that s/he may be misremembering events. After all if the accused memory may be faulty, so can the accusers.

[Billie from Ockham]

I don't believe history ever existed, but if there was a guy named jesus, he might be magic.

He is.

Whenever I bring my car to him, it stops making that strange noise.

If your car is a fucking 2011-2014 Ford Fiesta or Focus with the god-damned DSP6 transmission, please PM me instructions on joining your church. It's that or park it in the "projects" and claim that it was stolen.

[another lurker]

. Also, I highly doubt it is 'people on the Left' calling her an imperialist, a white supremacist, or a race betrayer. That sounds like criticism from conservative religious Muslims TBH.

Privileged white woman saying that an oppressed POC is wrong about her lived experience re oppression.

I DON'T HAVE THE SPOONS FOR THIS