Best Of

The Rest is Politics have done an emergency podcast on the Qatar attack.

An advantage of having people with such networks. Rory: One of my contacts was driving past the building when it went up.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RBMnDbW2GVg

Very interesting. Attacking a sovereign country other than in self defence is illegal in international law. As Rory says if they had had the peace talks in London would the Israelis have attackedLondon. Well worth listening to. Netanyahu has completely lost his mind.

Wrong.

If a third party country is harbouring forces/elements that are hostile to a given country, they are legitimate targets.

The precedents go back to before Napoleonic wars.

Essentially - if you are at war with country x, being present in a neutral country doesn’t protect you. You are still a legitimate target of war.

Apparently 5 members of Hamas were killed in the strike

Well done Israel.

No surprise to see roger complaining about Hamas leadership being attacked and falsely claiming international law.

Hamas are legitimate targets. Hitting them, anywhere, is legitimate.

You really are a clown and a stupid one to boot. What Israel have done is commit a war crime. They have also killed Qataris. It would be no different to having peace talks in Lodon and the Israelis bombed the building where the talks were being held and killed several British policemen and a child.

If we hosted Hamas in London then yes it would make London a legitimate target. Which is why we don't host Hamas.

You're the stupid one who thinks people at war are safe if they step foot in a third party state. Not the law.

How about if we hosted them for a peace negotiation backed by all permanent members of the Security Council, with broad international agreement to guarantee their safety to try and secure a peace settlement and save lives?

You know, like Qatar did…

Moot, since Qatar host them to live there and direct terror from there.

They're not only there for a peace conference.

They were asked to host them by the U.S. and the Israelis as a favour to the U.S. and Israel….

[Citation Needed]

Qatar has hosted them since 2012, since they were expelled by Syria.

That makes them a perfectly legitimate target and the idea they'd rocked up for peace talks only to be ambushed is bullshit.

Show some interest in history! It’s a basic public fact that President Obama asked Qatar to host them, and Israel worked with Qatar to fund them. Google is your friend. See news articles passim.

Off-topic:

My son brought a waif home after school today, another boy in his year. I let the boy's mother he was here, then offered him a simple dinner of chicken and rice.

He is twelve.

It was the first time he had ever had rice.

I was flabbergasted.

I was 18 before I had rice

When I was a kid, every week my mum would cook some concoction with lentils in it.

As a result, I *never* cook with lentils...

As for rice: it is simple to cook, but easy to muck up. We do it the Turkish way: fry some orzo in butter before adding the rice and water.

I like lentils tbf, and split peas. Nice bit of pease pudding.
Mum was an extremely traditional English cook - and a little of thrift dishes as we weren't ever so well off. Leftover meals, bubble and squeak etc etc and plenty Yorkshires to fill you up with roasts. Suet pudding of savory and sweet kinds, proper Norfolk dumplings and simple sinkers too. Yum.
But baking was where my mums family all excelled and excel, my great grandma was in service to the local big families (Gurneys etc), a senior member of various kitchens and through her the female members of my clan all bake like its second nature. As do I now tbf

You’re making me nostalgic. My maternal grandmother was in service at Blickling Hall. She was sent there after her mother, stepfather and sister all died in the last outbreak of Bubonic Plague in England. Near Ipswich in 1910.

Now bringing to mind this photo I took from an old WW2 era (now deserted) hospital :

OK, one last try then I too will give up

There are 2 bags

You are not asked to choose between them until you are given information about the contents of the bags.

Armed with that information, you can calculate the odds of each bag, and select the best one.

The odds don't change during the game. They are fixed by the parameters of the game including the reveal. (In Monty Hall you choose before the reveal. Here, you don't.)

You are I think, assuming that the bags are totally random. But they are not - the information from the kids says that they are not. We have ruled out BBB and BBBB. Thus is crucial information.

If bag A the good apple is chosen from any good apples, while bag B the good apple is chosen at random, then we've eliminated many more outcomes from B.

In bag A we have eliminated BBB

In bag B we have eliminated BBBB, BBBG, BBGB, BBGG, BGBB, BGBG, BGGB, BGGG

So choose bag B.

I don't agree. Once the apple is returned to the bag, in bag b we have only eliminated BBBB.

Or, altwrnatively by Child A identifying a good apple, we can deem that to be apple 1 and eliminate BBB, BBG, BGB and BGG.

We can't do the maths one way for Child a and one way for child b. If we accept Child A is telling the truth, him peering and saying 'that one is good' is mathematically no different from Child B drawing one out and you both observing it's good. Whichever way you get there your starting situation is some apples in a bag, at least one of which is good.

Child A is not saying a specific apple is good. He is offering info on the bag as a whole saying "at least one is good". This is the same as saying "not all my 3 apples are bad". We are getting nothing other than this from his statement. So we can eliminate that one scenario, all bad. Crunching the numbers then gives the 57% as our chance of pulling a good apple from his bag. As against the 62.5% for B.

It's the same logic for child B, only the BBBB option is eliminated.
The probability is 2^{n-1)/(2^n -1) tending to 50% as n increases

Ah but there's a difference because for B we have a specific apple picked at random that's good. This leaves the other 3 each of which has a 50% chance of being good. 1 + 0.5 + 0.5 + 0.5 gives expected value 5/8 which is 62.5%. Higher than the 4/7 (57%) for A.

Indeed. Since in B it was chosen at random all combinations involving that one being bad are eliminated and the other 3 are 50% since their state was not involved in the selection so we've got no information about them.

In A their state was involved in the selection, so its no longer 50% for the non-chosen apples. Its only 35% for the non-chosen apples, making it 57% overall.

Yes. We have these apples cooked now, I think.

The Rest is Politics have done an emergency podcast on the Qatar attack.

An advantage of having people with such networks. Rory: One of my contacts was driving past the building when it went up.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RBMnDbW2GVg

Very interesting. Attacking a sovereign country other than in self defence is illegal in international law. As Rory says if they had had the peace talks in London would the Israelis have attackedLondon. Well worth listening to. Netanyahu has completely lost his mind.

Wrong.

If a third party country is harbouring forces/elements that are hostile to a given country, they are legitimate targets.

The precedents go back to before Napoleonic wars.

Essentially - if you are at war with country x, being present in a neutral country doesn’t protect you. You are still a legitimate target of war.

Apparently 5 members of Hamas were killed in the strike

Well done Israel.

No surprise to see roger complaining about Hamas leadership being attacked and falsely claiming international law.

Hamas are legitimate targets. Hitting them, anywhere, is legitimate.

You really are a clown and a stupid one to boot. What Israel have done is commit a war crime. They have also killed Qataris. It would be no different to having peace talks in Lodon and the Israelis bombed the building where the talks were being held and killed several British policemen and a child.

If we hosted Hamas in London then yes it would make London a legitimate target. Which is why we don't host Hamas.

You're the stupid one who thinks people at war are safe if they step foot in a third party state. Not the law.

So if the IDF bombed a building in London killing Brits at the same time you’d say that was legitimate. I really don’t know what to say . I’m gobsmacked .

One of the precedents was Swedish lighthouses providing navigation for French ships during the Napoleonic wars.

The RN variously bombarded the lighthouses and sent boat crews ashore to burn them. Killed a fair number of Swedes, IIRC

To have neural immunity in war, you have to severely limit activities by hostile nations within your borders. Even provide services, outside some tightly defined limits - congrats, you are a legitimate target as well.

A modern variation was with the Galileo navigation system. The EU tried saying that it would never be turned off in time of war. The lawyers pointed that would make the system a target. Along with the people working on it.

The Rest is Politics have done an emergency podcast on the Qatar attack.

An advantage of having people with such networks. Rory: One of my contacts was driving past the building when it went up.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RBMnDbW2GVg

Very interesting. Attacking a sovereign country other than in self defence is illegal in international law. As Rory says if they had had the peace talks in London would the Israelis have attackedLondon. Well worth listening to. Netanyahu has completely lost his mind.

Wrong.

If a third party country is harbouring forces/elements that are hostile to a given country, they are legitimate targets.

The precedents go back to before Napoleonic wars.

Essentially - if you are at war with country x, being present in a neutral country doesn’t protect you. You are still a legitimate target of war.

Apparently 5 members of Hamas were killed in the strike

Well done Israel.

No surprise to see roger complaining about Hamas leadership being attacked and falsely claiming international law.

Hamas are legitimate targets. Hitting them, anywhere, is legitimate.

You really are a clown and a stupid one to boot. What Israel have done is commit a war crime. They have also killed Qataris. It would be no different to having peace talks in Lodon and the Israelis bombed the building where the talks were being held and killed several British policemen and a child.

If we hosted Hamas in London then yes it would make London a legitimate target. Which is why we don't host Hamas.

You're the stupid one who thinks people at war are safe if they step foot in a third party state. Not the law.

So if the IDF bombed a building in London killing Brits at the same time you’d say that was legitimate. I really don’t know what to say . I’m gobsmacked .

Bart is considerably better on apples than on Israel.

The Rest is Politics have done an emergency podcast on the Qatar attack.

An advantage of having people with such networks. Rory: One of my contacts was driving past the building when it went up.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RBMnDbW2GVg

Very interesting. Attacking a sovereign country other than in self defence is illegal in international law. As Rory says if they had had the peace talks in London would the Israelis have attackedLondon. Well worth listening to. Netanyahu has completely lost his mind.

Wrong.

If a third party country is harbouring forces/elements that are hostile to a given country, they are legitimate targets.

The precedents go back to before Napoleonic wars.

Essentially - if you are at war with country x, being present in a neutral country doesn’t protect you. You are still a legitimate target of war.

Apparently 5 members of Hamas were killed in the strike

Well done Israel.

No surprise to see roger complaining about Hamas leadership being attacked and falsely claiming international law.

Hamas are legitimate targets. Hitting them, anywhere, is legitimate.

You really are a clown and a stupid one to boot. What Israel have done is commit a war crime. They have also killed Qataris. It would be no different to having peace talks in Lodon and the Israelis bombed the building where the talks were being held and killed several British policemen and a child.

If we hosted Hamas in London then yes it would make London a legitimate target. Which is why we don't host Hamas.

You're the stupid one who thinks people at war are safe if they step foot in a third party state. Not the law.

So if the IDF bombed a building in London killing Brits at the same time you’d say that was legitimate. I really don’t know what to say . I’m gobsmacked .

KING DAVID HOTEL

OK, one last try then I too will give up

There are 2 bags

You are not asked to choose between them until you are given information about the contents of the bags.

Armed with that information, you can calculate the odds of each bag, and select the best one.

The odds don't change during the game. They are fixed by the parameters of the game including the reveal. (In Monty Hall you choose before the reveal. Here, you don't.)

You are I think, assuming that the bags are totally random. But they are not - the information from the kids says that they are not. We have ruled out BBB and BBBB. Thus is crucial information.

If bag A the good apple is chosen from any good apples, while bag B the good apple is chosen at random, then we've eliminated many more outcomes from B.

In bag A we have eliminated BBB

In bag B we have eliminated BBBB, BBBG, BBGB, BBGG, BGBB, BGBG, BGGB, BGGG

So choose bag B.

I don't agree. Once the apple is returned to the bag, in bag b we have only eliminated BBBB.

Or, altwrnatively by Child A identifying a good apple, we can deem that to be apple 1 and eliminate BBB, BBG, BGB and BGG.

We can't do the maths one way for Child a and one way for child b. If we accept Child A is telling the truth, him peering and saying 'that one is good' is mathematically no different from Child B drawing one out and you both observing it's good. Whichever way you get there your starting situation is some apples in a bag, at least one of which is good.

Child A is not saying a specific apple is good. He is offering info on the bag as a whole saying "at least one is good". This is the same as saying "not all my 3 apples are bad". We are getting nothing other than this from his statement. So we can eliminate that one scenario, all bad. Crunching the numbers then gives the 57% as our chance of pulling a good apple from his bag. As against the 62.5% for B.

It's the same logic for child B, only the BBBB option is eliminated.
The probability is 2^{n-1)/(2^n -1) tending to 50% as n increases

Ah but there's a difference because for B we have a specific apple picked at random that's good. This leaves the other 3 each of which has a 50% chance of being good. 1 + 0.5 + 0.5 + 0.5 gives expected value 5/8 which is 62.5%. Higher than the 4/7 (57%) for A.