Skip to main content

link's face before eating dubious food is so funny to me

image
image

he hasn't even tasted it yet he's just bracing himself for it

A system that ensures the majority of people have no security of housing, food, safety, income, healthcare, education, civil rights? That's what seems radical to me.

"how to look androgynous" "nonbinary fashion tips" you are skinny im not listening to you

Tags that read "this post is so fucking funny to me as a skinny nonbinary person. Like how am I supposed to interpret this"ALT

Youre supposed to interpret it as "skinny nonbinary ppl see themselves as the default state of being nonbinary and exclude fat nonbinary people constantly especially in discussions of presentation" hope that helps

it's honestly a red flag to me when people insist that random women they've never met (whether it be celebrities or just random people online) have "mean girl vibes" and this means they must be secretly bad people concealing their true nature- not based on anything they've said or done but just based on Vibes(tm). it's so gendered, like no one talks about men that way, it's often used as a smokescreen for other forms of bias, conscious or otherwise (i've particularly seen it lobbed at, for example, Black female athletes like serena williams for 'not smiling enough' in interviews), and in general i just don't trust anyone who treats their internal vibe detector as a meaningful arbiter of someone's character. i am sorry you were bullied in school but instead of projecting your high school cafeteria experiences onto random adult women, maybe blast some olivia rodrigo about it like the rest of us

yknow i was wondering why i recognized this guy and then the username watermark finally caught my eye. and yall. its him.

image

what is happening .

image
image

image


image

yall couldnt even put the block in the square hole on kids toys

image
image

somebody open their eyes or do i just gotta close mine 🔥

image
image
image
image

HENRI PRIVAT-LIVEMONT

image

Sometimes twitter be hitting

image

This is even funnier with context attached

image

“But someday you'll find somebody and love him and love him and never let him go.”

This is a cinematic masterpiece

Appropriately, the song used in the beginning is originally from the soundtrack of a spaghetti western movie, Django, Prepare a Coffin.

The song is called "Last Men Standing", by Gianfranco Reverberi and Gian Piero Reverberi.

Then when he starts dancing it transitions to "Crazy" by Gnarls Barkley, which samples and is inspired by "Last men Standing"

Nothing makes me want to call math fake as much as the Monty Hall problem. Not even 0.999999... equaling 1. Yes I understand the proof yes it technically makes sense but I just hate the Monty Hall problem so, so much.

Is that the game show one with the doors?

Correct. The basic scenario is that there is a car behind one door and a goat behind two doors, and you don't know which is which but the game show host does. If you pick the door with the car, you win the car. The host let's you pick a door, then opens one of the two doors you didn't pick, revealing a goat. The host then offers you one last chance to switch your pick from your original door to the other remaining closed door.

The Monty Hall problem states that you should always switch your pick, and that by doing so you will double your chances of winning the car.

Which, intuitively, that's nonsense. Your choice has no actual impact on the reality of the situation. You're guessing blindly the same as before, it's just now that you have a one-in-two chance of guessing the right door instead of a one-in-three chance.

EXCEPT

During your first round of choosing, you had a 1/3 chance of guessing the car vs a 2/3 chance of guessing a goat, if you were only allowed that one guess. But once it's narrowed down to two doors, one with a goat and one with a car, you're now guaranteed to get the exact opposite outcome of what your original guess would have been if you switch. So if you stick with your first choice, you still have a 1/3 chance of getting the car and 2/3 chance of getting a goat. But if you switch, then suddenly that becomes a 1/3 chance of getting a goat, and a 2/3 chance of getting the car.

It's bullshit and I hate it so much.

I understand it but i hate it, like the maths is right but logically it just doesn't click

See, you understand my pain.

#why doesn’t choosing the same door you already chose have the same effect? that’s what I want to know#like does math not agree with the sage advice of ya authors that not choosing is also a choice?

The trick to it is that you're technically playing two games in a row, and the second one is the only one that you actually have to win.

In the first game, you have two chances to lose (picking a goat) and once chance to win (picking a car). Worse-than-even odds. But the important thing is, you don't actually get a prize for winning this first game. It's just set-up for the second one.

In the second game, sticking with your door is basically saying "I think I made a lucky guess in the first game, I'm sticking with that decision." Switching doors is saying "I don't think I got lucky in the first round, so I'm going to change my decision." You are gambling on whether you won or lost the first game, and what wins or loses you the prize is guessing correctly whether you were lucky in the first game. And because the odds of the first game were worse-than-even, guessing that you lost the first game is the safer bet, because you probably weren't lucky.

The really painful part of it is that our brains want to interpret it all as one game, where you've basically got 50/50 odds no matter what you do. That's what our every instinct is screaming at us should be happening, because the physical endgame is two closed doors, only one of them with something we want behind it, which has been there from the start. But it isn't one game with 50/50 odds. It's two games in a trenchcoat, and their combined odds are skewed.

“You are gambling on whether you won or lost the first game” is in fact the only time the Monty Hall problem has ever made even a shadow of sense to me, and I think you should get an honorary PhD in math or maybe philosophy for writing it down.

That's actually very flattering, especially considering how long I've wrestled with this thing, thank you.

go-drink-the-kool-aid-deactivat

Ok but lets be honest id be happier with a goat

Nothing worse than antiwar people saying "everyone should put down the weapons" fully knowing that it won't happen and those who hold those weapons in defense would be dead without them

like yeah, dude, war is bad, we should all frolic around in a meadow and shit, but you see, there is this one guy throwing bombs at my head and threatening to kill my entire family, and I'm afraid the power of your bellybutton friendship gem won't help, Steven

dude I'm fucking frustrated. some people think on a level so theoretical that it leans into fantasy fiction, while I'm here sitting with insomnia becoming religious in hopes that next missile or drone won't hit my apartment because I saw what it did to a whole fucking house. it was a hole in the ground. just a crater, you know. imagine a farm house in a country side, and now imagine a crater 5 meters deep 20 meters wide. nothing left except one bent spoon and photos of a family that used to live there that people put on the side of the road as some resemblance of a grave, because there weren't even any fucking bodies left. People get torn apart when they get hit by a blast wave from a few meters away, you know. Can you "theoretically" imagine what happens with a direct hit?

I wish everyone could put down the weapons and be like "friendship, peace and whatever else", but sometimes you want to live, and for that you need to kill whoever wants to kill you, and for that you need a Weapon.