Is that dog A or B?

Who knows? It doesn’t matter.

Jesus wept.  There are two dogs which are either male or female, we just don’t know.

Incorrect. We know one of them is male and the other is either.

You’re stuck in a 50/50 loop that no longer exists.

The four has ceased to exist.

3 options are available to you. MF, MM and FM.

There is no female dog, there is only a dog that is either male or female, we just don’t know!

And then with the additional information, we rewrite the model. We don’t just fudge the results of the old one that we now know is not true.

Do you agree that without any extra information about gender, the chances of randomly being in a male-male pair scenario is 25%?

Absolutely, but this isn’t the case in the OP.

No.

If I toss two coins I could get HH or TT. This is not applicable to the scenario in the question.

The coin toss model doesn’t fit with your answer.

Because it is wrong.

Which is kinda the point.

Precis, as they say in Sweden.

they could be ickle boy dog models or ickle girl dog models.

That’s the same error I’ve already pointed out.

There are only still three outcomes if you start off with the wrong four.

Hate to say but I think sbob is lost to us.

I understand the maths you are using, I’m questioning whether or not you should be using it.

Your coin toss models give outcomes that do not fit with the question, yet you insist on using them. Do you disagree with that fact?

And if you think that includes an “impossible outcome” then get them to only tell you the results that include at least one male dog.

So you want to use a model that gives incorrect answers, but then to just disregard those to fit your own agenda?

Do you work for the government?

Spoiler: you’ll get roughly 25 both-male pairs and roughly 50 mixed pairs.

Only by incorrectly using a 50/50 scenario that doesn’t exist and discarding the answers you don’t like.

ask them to pick two random dogs

They’re not random in the question.

Go flip some coins

Why is everyone insisting on using a model that is proven to give an impossible outcome?

All your coin tosses/spreadsheets do is prove that they are not applicable to the problem.

You claim to know that “one dog is male” so if I were to show you a photo of the two dogs would you be able to point to the known-male one? You’re including extra information which you don’t have.

I do know that one dog is male.

I do not know which dog is male. You’re ascribing extra information to my claim that I haven’t made.

Assuming a random dog has a 50/50 chance of being male or female

You’re assuming that both dogs have a 50/50 chance of being either male or female and then discarding the F/F option to give you 1/3.

Trouble is the question states that the probability of one dog being male = 1.

1×0.5=0.5

0.5×1=0.5

You know at least one dog is male, but you don’t know which one. That is important.

It’s only important if coming from the false premise that one dog is female which you need to get your four outcomes and your 1/3 conclusion.

Neither dog is female.

You have one dog in each hand

Why?

You have a dog that is male and a dog that is male or female.

In the 1/3rd scenario there is a female dog which doesn’t exist in the question. There is no female dog. There is a male dog, and a dog that is either male or female.

See?

You’re using the four outcomes of one scenario (unknown dogs) to try and prove the outcome of a totally different scenario (1 dog is known).

The question is still wrong.

<div class=”bbp-reply-author”>whatyadoinsucka
<div class=”bbp-author-role”>
<div class=””>Member</div>
</div>
</div>

<div class=”bbp-reply-content”>

the one thing i still don’t understand now is how you guys can reply to comments with the comment in the box,

when i click on reply its doesn’t show the box, what am i doing wrong.

Nothing!

So, the probability of one of the dogs being male =1…

</div>

The question is wrong.

1/3 maths is correct, as long as the two dogs are in a state of gender flux. They are not.

don’t drink if you have to drive the next day.

Wake up sunshine, I’ve already covered this.

Fortunately I don’t own a car, so you can only slag off my taste in hardtails/haircuts/barmaids in riposte. :)

What if I never drive the day after boozing, but I get really really **** shit-faced the day before that. Can I then ask for breathalyser advice?

is there a worse example of brand dilution than Aston with this abomination (and that Toyota thing)?

So, your analysis of me says…?

You have bland tastes in cars. :)

Ministry

Beaten to it!

Synth-pop to full on industrial metal.

(ETA: learnt that from a forum member, so props where they’re due)

It’s been nice knowing you…

you can still have a car that’s sporty to drive, although it is slower. Some small cars just feel fast. Bit like the classic mini.

Light, low to the road, direct unassisted steering, decent throttle response (no turbos please, we’re British), it isn’t difficult to build a sporty car.
I was in a Porsche the other day with a poxy two litres putting out barely over 100Bhp but it was still an absolute joy.

I’ll take the lower resistance, but tell me why I need to maintain the footprint

You don’t.

Go and fit the narrowest tyres possible to your car. Less resistance, you’ll be laughing.

What is the advantage of a “higher” [larger] footprint?

Really?

Friction is determined by the coefficient of friction of the material:

You’re missing the forest for the trees, but how about maintaining footprint for lower resistance, if it makes you happy.

There are reasons why cars don’t run on inch wide tyres you know, despite your quoted physics. I could explain if you really needed me to but I do have a eulogy to write…

Pointless.

By Increasing the diameter of a wheel instead of width, higher footprints can be achieved with less resistance.

Why are there cars on the road that can do in excess of twice the national speed limit?

So people like me can drive at twice the limit.

There are plenty of laws out there that exist to protect the less functioning in society that can quite comfortably be ignored by the rest of us. Take drugs for example. :)

Specific outputs have shot up in recent years.

100bhp/litre is now fairly standard when in the 80’s that was supercar territory.

Honda was producing 100Bhp/litre engines in the 80s and outputs have only increased as manufacturers have learnt to use turbos to fudge emissions.
Sierra is a good shout; the turbo was 100Bhp/litre back in 1986.

I have a 4.2 V8 S4 and I only do about a 2000 miles a year

Buy a less shit car and you’ll want to drive it more. :)

so hardly causing trees to die.

It is still grotesquely unnecessary. You could have built two cars from the same materials.

Explain to your child that she knows more than the teachers do.
It’s what my parents did in a similar situation and I *didn’t turn into the cockiest git devoid of any respect for their peers so what have you got to lose?

*I did.

It’s called a minute’s silence for a reason people.

Peace out.

The thread is wrong, Boris has three siblings.

Which is far less than the number of threads about **** Brexit. Shall we close this one down, a la the last Peterson thread?
Or does Brexit get an automatic pass into the lemon party?

I bought one recently.
First new MTB for 18yrs so difficult to compare to anything you might be familiar with.
Seems like a good amount of bike for the money. My only complaints are that the gearing is too short (It’s my only bike and I live in Cambridge, so run out of gears quite easily with a 30t) and that my hands appear to inhabit different counties, but then I have short arms and no shoulders (I’m about six foot but took a punt on a medium which seems good to me) and hacksaws are cheap.
It feels like more bike than I need, which is ideal.
It comes with a dropper post that doesn’t appear to exist (seriously; google the Kore dropper, it’s nowhere).
If you’re passing Cambridge give us a nod.

ETA: it is a lovely looking bike which matches my favourite T-shirt, that’s the most important thing.

Recently been experimenting with blends and am most certainly enjoying The Peat Monster from Compass Box.

Troll level: transgenerational.

Chapeau!

Insurance would need to be specific for the vehicle and the features fitted.

Insurance, and ergo liability is the key question here. I think the boss of Volvo said that they would cover insurance, and fully autonomous cars on the road will not happen until manufacturers do this.

Wake me up when this happens, nothing to discuss til then.