The normal person thinks that because the last 20 people survived, the next patient is very likely to die.
The mathematician considers that the probability of success for each surgery is independent, so in the mathematician’s eyes the next patient has a 50% chance of survival.
The scientist thinks that the statistic is probably gathered across a large number of different hospitals. They see that this particular surgeon has an unusually high success rate, so they conclude that their own surgery has a >50% chance of success.
not() is a base function that negates what’s inside (turning True to False and vice versa) giving it no parameter returns “True” (because no parameter counts as False)
Actually, not
is an operator. It makes more sense if you write not()
as not ()
- the ()
is an empty tuple. An empty tuple is falsy in Python, so not ()
evaluates to True
.
Oh, really? That’s disappointing to hear; I had no idea he was like that.
Oh hey, it’s the Minecraft guy
Last I heard they want to switch to another platform, and don’t consider it worth upgrading to 0.19 because they’re leaving soon so it wouldn’t be worth the hassle.
This is pure guesswork on my part, but they could be waiting for Sublinks (a Lemmy-compatible backend) to get up to speed before switching to that. They say that the new platform is “compatible with all Lemmy apps”, and Sublinks is the only project I know of that fits that criteria.
This isn’t entirely true, according the article. If a producer in the US was using the name “Champagne” before 2005, they can continue to do so, but producers can’t start using it anymore.
It took two decades of negotiations, but finally, in 2005, the U.S. and the EU reached an agreement. In exchange for easing trade restrictions on wine, the American government agreed that California Champagne, Chablis, Sherry and a half-dozen other ‘semi-generic’ names would no longer appear on domestic wine labels – that is unless a producer was already using one of those names.
I don’t see why you’re being downvoted - whilst a significant portion of Apple’s claimed ‘carbon neutrality’ can indeed be attributed to carbon offsets, they have also made changes in other areas. Here’s a graph from Apple’s climate report that shows the supposed change in emissions between last year and this year’s watches.
It should be noted that it’s on light mode by default, then they give you the pop-up to turn on dark mode
deleted by creator
Yes, that’s the conclusion that the scientist has come to. The chance of getting 20 in a row is so extraordinarily unlikely that it’s reasonable to conclude that the chance is not 50/50 for that particular surgeon.