Isn't the null hypothesis that the apples all came from the same tree, and the children involved are equally completely untrained at apple-picking, so it doesn't matter which bag you pick from?
And if you don't want tears before bedtime, you should take one apple from each, to show that you don't have favourites?
Take both bags, empty them out, select the best apple.
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.
Isn't the null hypothesis that the apples all came from the same tree, and the children involved are equally completely untrained at apple-picking, so it doesn't matter which bag you pick from?
And if you don't want tears before bedtime, you should take one apple from each, to show that you don't have favourites?
Apart from my initial thought of 'Wut?' - I wonder how many meetings they had to arrive at the precise "this is worth about £1.3million to us" figure. I really hope my cynical thoughts of "We can't just say 'a million' - sounds corny. How about 0.9? Too cheap? I know.... how about 1.3? Sounds precise. Like an algorithm! Perfect! Now, who's for lunch?"
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.
No. In bag B you can only know for sure that BBBB is gone.
Isn't the null hypothesis that the apples all came from the same tree, and the children involved are equally completely untrained at apple-picking, so it doesn't matter which bag you pick from?
And if you don't want tears before bedtime, you should take one apple from each, to show that you don't have favourites?
Yes, but the children deliberately included wasp infested apples after picking them, and getting people to pick one. Surely the whole game is the front for a prank where the mark eats a wasp?
Isn't the null hypothesis that the apples all came from the same tree, and the children involved are equally completely untrained at apple-picking, so it doesn't matter which bag you pick from?
And if you don't want tears before bedtime, you should take one apple from each, to show that you don't have favourites?
Take both bags, empty them out, select the best apple.
Ask one of the children which bag I should choose and then take an apple from the other one.
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.
No. In bag B you can only know for sure that BBBB is gone.
In Bag B if the apple is chosen at random, and we assign apple 1 as the randomly chosen apple, and the 3 non-chosen apples are the other 3 letters, then all the combinations I wrote are eliminated from the set of possible outcomes.
The iPhone 17 is here, along with a very thin iPhone Air. There are three new Apple watches to tell you how you're feeling, and a pair of AirPods Pro 3 that can translate between languages.
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.
No. In bag B you can only know for sure that BBBB is gone.
But you also know BBBG is less likely than GGGB, despite them being equally likely before the test.
Alternatively, if you assign the tested apple as "apple 1" then it works as Barty suggests.
The iPhone 17 is here, along with a very thin iPhone Air. There are three new Apple watches to tell you how you're feeling, and a pair of AirPods Pro 3 that can translate between languages.
STEP 3: At this stage Scott et al note that the stated good apple has 100% chance of being good and mentally set it aside.
So, we are going to ask the boy to do the same: look, take one good apple out of the bag and physically set it aside.
This leaves us, in the bag: 3/7 chance of there being no good apples 3/7 chance of there being one good apple 1/7 chance of there being two good apples
Here, Scott claims there is a 50/50 chance of the remaining two apples being good. But he has selectively removed one good apple in his head, so it has biased the bag back towards bad apples in a way that Child B's random good apple did not.
The actual chance of picking a good apple from the last two on each dip is only 5/14 or 35.7%, not 50%.
But this is not what happens. We don't remove the good one. We pick one at random from the bag. The odds are as stated
3/7 chance of 1 good apple 3/7 chance of 2 good apples 1/7 chance of 3 good apples
Given those odds, what are the chances that the random apple you pick out of the bag is good?
Yes, we can do the calc without setting aside, and would normally do so.
Across the 7 chances above, there are 21 apples (7x3) and 12 of them are good (3x1+3x2+1x3), making 57%
The reason for splitting off the good apple is because that is what you do in claiming a 100% chance + a 50% chance + a 50% chance, making 66%. That 100% chance is literally a non-randomly split out good apple.
I'm doing the split to show what you actually get is 100% chance + 35% chance + 35% chance, (still making 57%)
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.
No. In bag B you can only know for sure that BBBB is gone.
In Bag B if the apple is chosen at random, and we assign apple 1 as the randomly chosen apple, and the 3 non-chosen apples are the other 3 letters, then all the combinations I wrote are eliminated from the set of possible outcomes.
When you pick a random apple and it's good, the only situation you can rule out for definite is BBBB. Forget numbering the apples.
Plenty of ways you can look at the voting intention of 16-17 year olds, but here's a fun one:
➡️ PE and Business Studies students are much more likely to vote Reform 🌍 The Green Party does best with those who enjoy Drama at school 🔶 Lib Dems do best with modern language fans https://x.com/edhodgsoned/status/1965428390732976179
Uh oh.
PE and Business Studies.
Tories meanwhile do best amongst those who loved Maths, like Rishi and Geography. Labour do best amongst those who liked English then Maths best
We do appreciate of course that these are just for a bit of fun and are based on tiny subsamples. No more accurate than VI by biscuit choice
Royalists like Bourbons.
While Republicans go for Garibaldi's.
Andrea Jenkyns is partial to a Lincoln biscuit
I would think something half baked would be the Reform choice.
Or a biscuit made from distilled rage and bits of flag
Or perhaps a Madeline in Remembrance of Things Past.
Nice (Treaty) biscuits for the Remainers.
The Reform lot surely go for Empire biscuits, renamed from Belgian biscuits renamed from German or LInzer biscuits.
The Apple Puzzle On a tree, half of the apples have holes made by wasps. • One boy picked 3 apples at random and said “at least one of mine has no holes.” • Another boy picked 4 apples similarly. He showed me one of them at random, and it had no holes. He put it back. If you may take just one apple from either boy’s bag, from which boy do you have the better chance of picking an apple without holes?
Let's number the apples physically, so child A has apples numbered 1-3, child B has apples numbered 1-4.
We will designated G as good, B as bad
Child A says, at least one of mine has no holes.
This rules in (at equal probability): ggg, ggb, GBG, bgg, gbb, bgb, bbg
and rules out: Bbb
Shifts the probability of picking a good apple from 12/24 to 12/21 by removing the 3 bads option = 57.1%
We have not used the numbers.
Child B removes 1 apple from the bag, at random, and finds it is good. For the sake of argument we'll say apple 1 has been removed, though it works exactly the same if apples 2 or 3 or 4 are found to be good.
This rules in (at equal probability): Gggg, gggb, ggbg, gbgg, ggbb, gbgb, gbbg, gbbb
(Notice how much more has been ruled out by saying apple #1 of the 4 is good rather than one of the three apples is good)
Shifts the probability of picking a good apple from 32/64 to 20/32 by removing all the bad apple #1 options) = 62.5%
Another go.
So, we have agreement for Child B, I think, that when you randomly select the first apple and find it good, that doesn't change the 50/50 chance on the other apples.
What is in dispute is whether Child A is the same case. So, I'm going to do some prestidigitation with Child A.
STEP 1: He has 3 apples in a bag. The standard 50/50 probability distribution is:
1/8 chance of no good apples 3/8 chance of one good apple 3/8 chance of two good apples 1/8 chance of three good apples
STEP 2: Let's ask him to look and see if there is a good apple in the bag. This is no different from him proferring the information. He says yes.
This leaves us: 3/7 chance of 1 good apple 3/7 chance of 2 good apples 1/7 chance of 3 good apples
Note, we've created an asymmetry and there are slightly more good apples than bad apples.
STEP 3: At this stage Scott et al note that the stated good apple has 100% chance of being good and mentally set it aside.
So, we are going to ask the boy to do the same: look, take one good apple out of the bag and physically set it aside.
This leaves us, in the bag: 3/7 chance of there being no good apples 3/7 chance of there being one good apple 1/7 chance of there being two good apples
Here, Scott claims there is a 50/50 chance of each of the remaining two apples being good. But he has selectively removed one good apple in his head, so it has biased the bag back towards bad apples in a way that Child B's random good apple did not.
The actual chance of picking a good apple from the last two on each dip is only 5/14 or 35.7%, not 50%.
Plenty of ways you can look at the voting intention of 16-17 year olds, but here's a fun one:
➡️ PE and Business Studies students are much more likely to vote Reform 🌍 The Green Party does best with those who enjoy Drama at school 🔶 Lib Dems do best with modern language fans https://x.com/edhodgsoned/status/1965428390732976179
Uh oh.
PE and Business Studies.
Tories meanwhile do best amongst those who loved Maths, like Rishi and Geography. Labour do best amongst those who liked English then Maths best
We do appreciate of course that these are just for a bit of fun and are based on tiny subsamples. No more accurate than VI by biscuit choice
Royalists like Bourbons.
While Republicans go for Garibaldi's.
Andrea Jenkyns is partial to a Lincoln biscuit
I would think something half baked would be the Reform choice.
Or a biscuit made from distilled rage and bits of flag
Or perhaps a Madeline in Remembrance of Things Past.
Nice (Treaty) biscuits for the Remainers.
The Reform lot surely go for Empire biscuits, renamed from Belgian biscuits renamed from German or LInzer biscuits.
Plenty of ways you can look at the voting intention of 16-17 year olds, but here's a fun one:
➡️ PE and Business Studies students are much more likely to vote Reform 🌍 The Green Party does best with those who enjoy Drama at school 🔶 Lib Dems do best with modern language fans https://x.com/edhodgsoned/status/1965428390732976179
Uh oh.
PE and Business Studies.
Tories meanwhile do best amongst those who loved Maths, like Rishi and Geography. Labour do best amongst those who liked English then Maths best
We do appreciate of course that these are just for a bit of fun and are based on tiny subsamples. No more accurate than VI by biscuit choice
Royalists like Bourbons.
While Republicans go for Garibaldi's.
Andrea Jenkyns is partial to a Lincoln biscuit
I would think something half baked would be the Reform choice.
Or a biscuit made from distilled rage and bits of flag
Or perhaps a Madeline in Remembrance of Things Past.
Nice (Treaty) biscuits for the Remainers.
The Reform lot surely go for Empire biscuits, renamed from Belgian biscuits renamed from German or LInzer biscuits.
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.
No. In bag B you can only know for sure that BBBB is gone.
In Bag B if the apple is chosen at random, and we assign apple 1 as the randomly chosen apple, and the 3 non-chosen apples are the other 3 letters, then all the combinations I wrote are eliminated from the set of possible outcomes.
When you pick a random apple and it's good, the only situation you can rule out for definite is BBBB. Forget numbering the apples.
No, you don't, you eliminate far more with B.
That's why you get to 62.5% with B.
You can verify that by doing it as a decision tree instead. 1/4 choose same apple - odds of good = 100% 3/4 choose different apple - odds of good = 50% P (good) = 1/4 + 3/4 * 1/2 = 5/8
Going via combinations, eliminated are BBBB, BBBG, BBGB, BBGG, BGBB, BGBG, BGGB, BGGG Remaining are GBBB, GBBG, GBGB, GBGG, GGBB, GGBG, GGGB, GGGG
Of the 8 remaining combinations it is therefore 1/8 with 1/4 good 3/8 with 2/4 good 3/8 with 3/4 good 1/8 with 4/4 good
Isn't the null hypothesis that the apples all came from the same tree, and the children involved are equally completely untrained at apple-picking, so it doesn't matter which bag you pick from?
And if you don't want tears before bedtime, you should take one apple from each, to show that you don't have favourites?
Yes, but the children deliberately included wasp infested apples after picking them, and getting people to pick one. Surely the whole game is the front for a prank where the mark eats a wasp?
"And I would've gotten away with it, if it wasn't for you pesky kids!"
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.
No. In bag B you can only know for sure that BBBB is gone.
In Bag B if the apple is chosen at random, and we assign apple 1 as the randomly chosen apple, and the 3 non-chosen apples are the other 3 letters, then all the combinations I wrote are eliminated from the set of possible outcomes.
When you pick a random apple and it's good, the only situation you can rule out for definite is BBBB. Forget numbering the apples.
No, you don't, you eliminate far more with B.
That's why you get to 62.5% with B.
You can verify that by doing it as a decision tree instead. 1/4 choose same apple - odds of good = 100% 3/4 choose different apple - odds of good = 50% P (good) = 1/4 + 3/4 * 1/2 = 5/8
Going via combinations, eliminated are BBBB, BBBG, BBGB, BBGG, BGBB, BGBG, BGGB, BGGG Remaining are GBBB, GBBG, GBGB, GBGG, GGBB, GGBG, GGGB, GGGG
Of the 8 remaining combinations it is therefore 1/8 with 1/4 good 3/8 with 2/4 good 3/8 with 3/4 good 1/8 with 4/4 good
These young lads have been hanging around under the tree for ages. Good job Epstein isn't around.
One of them might discover gravity
Mavity. We are in an alternative universe now.
Was that ever resolved. I stopped watching the last season after the cartoon one,
...which is pretty much the definition of "getting out of the market at the top". Well, top-ish (the Story and the Engine was good) but the Interstellar Song Contest was uncomfortable and Wish World/Reality War was the worst ending of a series since Game Of Thrones. An ending so bad it may have killed the show.
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.
No. In bag B you can only know for sure that BBBB is gone.
In Bag B if the apple is chosen at random, and we assign apple 1 as the randomly chosen apple, and the 3 non-chosen apples are the other 3 letters, then all the combinations I wrote are eliminated from the set of possible outcomes.
When you pick a random apple and it's good, the only situation you can rule out for definite is BBBB. Forget numbering the apples.
No, you don't, you eliminate far more with B.
That's why you get to 62.5% with B.
You can verify that by doing it as a decision tree instead. 1/4 choose same apple - odds of good = 100% 3/4 choose different apple - odds of good = 50% P (good) = 1/4 + 3/4 * 1/2 = 5/8
Going via combinations, eliminated are BBBB, BBBG, BBGB, BBGG, BGBB, BGBG, BGGB, BGGG Remaining are GBBB, GBBG, GBGB, GBGG, GGBB, GGBG, GGGB, GGGG
Of the 8 remaining combinations it is therefore 1/8 with 1/4 good 3/8 with 2/4 good 3/8 with 3/4 good 1/8 with 4/4 good
And for A? Surely the same applies? But with one fewer apples. 1/3 choose the same apple. Odds good 100 percent. 2/3 choose different. 50 percent. Etc
No, for A the child could choose any possible good outcome, the 'same' apple doesn't exist since they're making an informed choice not a random choice.
The original set of outcomes, pre-reveal was
BBB, BBG, BGB, BGG, GBB, GBG, GGB, GGG
Now in B they always showed the 1st letter, but in this set they can show any of them. So they might show the 1st, 2nd or 3rd apple depending upon outcomes unlike in B.
We've only eliminated BBB, all other combinations remain.
Yes we know 1 apple is 100%, but the not chosen apples are no longer 50% since they may have been not chosen as a result of being bad unlike the good one, which was not a factor in B.
I wonder if he’ll feel the same if Bilbao gets bombed in 2029
I know it's frivolous and wrong but when Doha is attacked my first thought is of all the UK immigrants who moved there because it is tax free and nice and safe and nothing like the nightmare of Broken Britain. They turned their back on this country. Don't let them return.
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.
To continue in A there are the following outcome sets
1/7 - 3 good, both non-chosen apples are good 3/7 - 2 good, 1 non-chosen apple is good, 1 non-chosen apple is bad 3/7 - 1 good, both non-chosen apples are bad.
Probability of choosing the revealed apple is 1/3 - 100% chance of good Probability of choosing an alternative apples is 2/3 - 1/7 + 3/7 * 1/2 chance of being good = 5/14 chance of being good, or ~35.7%
The non-chosen apples ceased to be 50% the moment their state became involved in whether they were chosen or not, unlike B where their state was irrelevant.
Plenty of ways you can look at the voting intention of 16-17 year olds, but here's a fun one:
➡️ PE and Business Studies students are much more likely to vote Reform 🌍 The Green Party does best with those who enjoy Drama at school 🔶 Lib Dems do best with modern language fans https://x.com/edhodgsoned/status/1965428390732976179
Uh oh.
PE and Business Studies.
Tories meanwhile do best amongst those who loved Maths, like Rishi and Geography. Labour do best amongst those who liked English then Maths best
We do appreciate of course that these are just for a bit of fun and are based on tiny subsamples. No more accurate than VI by biscuit choice
Royalists like Bourbons.
While Republicans go for Garibaldi's.
Andrea Jenkyns is partial to a Lincoln biscuit
I would think something half baked would be the Reform choice.
Or a biscuit made from distilled rage and bits of flag
Or perhaps a Madeline in Remembrance of Things Past.
Nice (Treaty) biscuits for the Remainers.
The Reform lot surely go for Empire biscuits, renamed from Belgian biscuits renamed from German or LInzer biscuits.
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. The Quataris were holding police talks. The Americans and the Israelis had been attending the previous week
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.
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 :
Re Blickling Hall, one of the nicest days out I ever had was spent partly there with a friend from Norwicxh and partly in the pub opposite where I imgested an excellent ploughman's and summerfruit pudding for afters - perhaps the best pub food I have ever had. At least then, the the tradition of decent trad food remained. We went off to Burgh Castle afterwards to see the Roman fortress.
Getting messages from across the Labour Party tonight. Still a way to go till Thursday’s deadline. But very strong feeling Lucy Powell on course for the nominations. Concern within No.10 Bridget Phillipson doesn’t have a much larger lead. One MP texts, “Powell’s going to do it”.
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
Expect him to last for all of 5 minutes, he is another centre right PM proposing spending cuts in a parliament where the left have most seats and want to tax the rich instead.
Macron is just naive thinking a non centre left PM can get anything through
The National Assembly has more right wing than left wing deputies, but neither side is close to a majority.
Call me old fashioned but calling Epstein 'best pal' is quite permissible. Epstein'd business model was strictly female so nothing to interest Mandy
No, it wasn’t. Read the victim testimony.
That 'Birthday Book' is gruesome. Mandelson should go. Trump should go.
It is hard to read the content and not conclude that those around him knew (or should have known) exactly what was going on even if they weren’t directly involved.
That line about a young girl being “depreciated”…
Yuck.
And I’m usually the first to defend the most ill-judged of banter. I make all sort of poor taste jokes. But that?!
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.
Were there any collateral casualties? You know, Filipinos, Indians, British ex-Pats.
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 .
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
Wrong, all the outcomes for B as apple 1 are eliminated, since apple 1 was chosen randomly.
BBBB is eliminated, but BGGG is also eliminated. All possible combinations involving that apple are eliminated.
Not the case for A, since A the apple wasn't chosen randomly.
Expect him to last for all of 5 minutes, he is another centre right PM proposing spending cuts in a parliament where the left have most seats and want to tax the rich instead.
Macron is just naive thinking a non centre left PM can get anything through
The National Assembly has more right wing than left wing deputies, but neither side is close to a majority.
Three equalish blocs, who hate each other. Almost impossible to manage.
Whatever path any government takes, it's got two thirds of the deputies against it. A system with the brakes of a Bugatti and the engine of a 2CV.
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 .
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 .
Controversial opinion (not my own). If Hamas were in London for a peace conference then attacking them is morally wrong. If they are living there while directing terror against Israel then that changes things. Ultimately to bring conflict to an amend you have to talk to your enemy. And they may be very unsavoury. But you need to do it. So there needs to somewhere that it can happen
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?
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.
Have the Telegraph also mentioned PM Johnson's alleged billion pound NHS contract with Peter Thiel?
TBF, LBC have been trailing the Johnson story all day, not a titter from the BBC, who after Davie suggested to the Commons Committee that they messed up on leftist propaganda errors like Gary Lineker, the Hamas film and Bob Vylan. Perhaps they need to balance the narrative by fully endorsing Farage.
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….
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.
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.
Have the Telegraph also mentioned PM Johnson's alleged billion pound NHS contract with Peter Thiel?
TBF, LBC have been trailing the Johnson story all day, not a titter from the BBC, who after Davie suggested to the Commons Committee that they messed up on leftist propaganda errors like Gary Lineker, the Hamas film and Bob Vylan. Perhaps they need to balance the narrative by fully endorsing Farage.
Boris is all over the Guardian and that is a separate issue to Mandelson who is across the media and is our US Ambassador
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.
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.
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 .
If we were offering safe harbour to Hamas leadership to live here and direct the war from here then yes, of course it does.
Which is why we don't do that.
Qatar made their bed by choosing to host Hamas - and not for peace talks, they've hosted them for 13 years. They could expel them if they don't want to be a legitimate target.
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.
Now I have been advocating since October 7th 2023 that Mossad would be perfectly entitled to take out the Hamas bad guys in Doha like Daniel Craig, Eric Bana and their team did in the film Munich. Taking out some blocks of flats with Popeye and Delilah in Doha wasn't what I had in mind.
When Israel claims a precision strike it doesn't mean it just gets the guys in the one room. As an illustration if Hamas were having their meeting in a Sheraton conference room, it doesn't take out the conference room, it takes down the whole hotel.
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.
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.
Now I have been advocating since October 7th 2023 that Mossad would be perfectly entitled to take out the Hamas bad guys in Doha like Daniel Craig, Eric Bana and their team did in the film Munich. Taking out some blocks of flats with Popeye and Delilah in Doha wasn't what I had in mind.
When Israel claims a precision strike it doesn't mean it just gets the guys in the one room. As an illustration if Hamas were having their meeting in a Sheraton conference room, it doesn't take out the conference room, it takes down the whole hotel.
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.
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.
Jaffas, surely?
Can we reformulate the question in terms of the Count of Olives?
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.
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.
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.
Now I have been advocating since October 7th 2023 that Mossad would be perfectly entitled to take out the Hamas bad guys in Doha like Daniel Craig, Eric Bana and their team did in the film Munich. Taking out some blocks of flats with Popeye and Delilah in Doha wasn't what I had in mind.
When Israel claims a precision strike it doesn't mean it just gets the guys in the one room. As an illustration if Hamas were having their meeting in a Sheraton conference room, it doesn't take out the conference room, it takes down the whole hotel.
Taking out a hotel > taking out a city.
6 people dead != an entire hotel taken out.
Taking out a hotel does rather imply you are happy to kill innocent guests stay at the hotel...
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.
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.
Now I have been advocating since October 7th 2023 that Mossad would be perfectly entitled to take out the Hamas bad guys in Doha like Daniel Craig, Eric Bana and their team did in the film Munich. Taking out some blocks of flats with Popeye and Delilah in Doha wasn't what I had in mind.
When Israel claims a precision strike it doesn't mean it just gets the guys in the one room. As an illustration if Hamas were having their meeting in a Sheraton conference room, it doesn't take out the conference room, it takes down the whole hotel.
Taking out a hotel > taking out a city.
6 people dead != an entire hotel taken out.
Taking out a hotel does rather imply you are happy to kill innocent guests stay at the hotel...
Have the Telegraph also mentioned PM Johnson's alleged billion pound NHS contract with Peter Thiel?
TBF, LBC have been trailing the Johnson story all day, not a titter from the BBC, who after Davie suggested to the Commons Committee that they messed up on leftist propaganda errors like Gary Lineker, the Hamas film and Bob Vylan. Perhaps they need to balance the narrative by fully endorsing Farage.
Boris is all over the Guardian and that is a separate issue to Mandelson who is across the media and is our US Ambassador
No one reads the Guardian!
I think the Mandelson association with Epstein is vile. Mandelson is Ambassador because of his close relationship with Trump (which is equally vile).
Starmer will look a right knob in the Whitehouse if he sacks Mandy when Trump says the whole Epstein story is a fictitious Democrat hatchet job. Although Andrew Marr did say tonight that Trump has tired of Mandelson.
Anyway we all know Boris wouldn't do the things the Guardian are accusing him of, would he?
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
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.
Now I have been advocating since October 7th 2023 that Mossad would be perfectly entitled to take out the Hamas bad guys in Doha like Daniel Craig, Eric Bana and their team did in the film Munich. Taking out some blocks of flats with Popeye and Delilah in Doha wasn't what I had in mind.
When Israel claims a precision strike it doesn't mean it just gets the guys in the one room. As an illustration if Hamas were having their meeting in a Sheraton conference room, it doesn't take out the conference room, it takes down the whole hotel.
Taking out a hotel > taking out a city.
6 people dead != an entire hotel taken out.
Taking out a hotel does rather imply you are happy to kill innocent guests stay at the hotel...
Taking out 6 people does rather imply it was well targeted against 1 room as Mexicanpete advocated for rather than levelling an entire hotel.
Pretty small hotel otherwise to only have 6 fatalities.
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.
The method of selection is irrelevant - once you know the state of 1 apple the remaining possibilities go from 2^x to 2^x-1 as you now have 1 known apple and x-1 unknown apples...
For a betting site, I do find the inability to see that you've been intentionally mislead interesting...
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.
Now I have been advocating since October 7th 2023 that Mossad would be perfectly entitled to take out the Hamas bad guys in Doha like Daniel Craig, Eric Bana and their team did in the film Munich. Taking out some blocks of flats with Popeye and Delilah in Doha wasn't what I had in mind.
When Israel claims a precision strike it doesn't mean it just gets the guys in the one room. As an illustration if Hamas were having their meeting in a Sheraton conference room, it doesn't take out the conference room, it takes down the whole hotel.
Taking out a hotel > taking out a city.
6 people dead != an entire hotel taken out.
Taking out a hotel does rather imply you are happy to kill innocent guests stay at the hotel...
Taking out 6 people does rather imply it was well targeted against 1 room as Mexicanpete advocated for rather than levelling an entire hotel.
Pretty small hotel otherwise to only have 6 fatalities.
91 died at the King David Hotel in 1946. Brits, Arabs and Jews.
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.
Now I have been advocating since October 7th 2023 that Mossad would be perfectly entitled to take out the Hamas bad guys in Doha like Daniel Craig, Eric Bana and their team did in the film Munich. Taking out some blocks of flats with Popeye and Delilah in Doha wasn't what I had in mind.
When Israel claims a precision strike it doesn't mean it just gets the guys in the one room. As an illustration if Hamas were having their meeting in a Sheraton conference room, it doesn't take out the conference room, it takes down the whole hotel.
Taking out a hotel > taking out a city.
6 people dead != an entire hotel taken out.
Taking out a hotel does rather imply you are happy to kill innocent guests stay at the hotel...
Taking out 6 people does rather imply it was well targeted against 1 room as Mexicanpete advocated for rather than levelling an entire hotel.
Pretty small hotel otherwise to only have 6 fatalities.
In addition to the six bad guys how many collateral casualties were there? Have collateral casualties occurred and have they been lost in the reporting of the dead bad guys?
Comments
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/sep/09/trump-epstein-photo-check-woman?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other
I do hope the "protect our children" protestors are planning something to mark the State visit.
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.
The all bad outcome is 2^-3 or 1/8
7/8 outcomes remain, so very little information gained.
1/7 all good - 100% chance of good.
3/7 2 good - 2/3 chance of good
3/7 1 good - 1/3 chance of good
P (good) = 1/7 + 3/7 * 2/3 + 3/7 * 1/3 = 4/7 or approximately 57%
In bag B there is a 1/4 chance you choose the same good apple, all others are 50%
So 1/4 + 3/4 * 1/2 = 5/8 = 62.5%
Choose Bag B
Good job Epstein isn't around.
However, Mandelson is a serious problem for Starmer and if it hadn't been for Doha he would be leading the news
@wired.com
The iPhone 17 is here, along with a very thin iPhone Air. There are three new Apple watches to tell you how you're feeling, and a pair of AirPods Pro 3 that can translate between languages.
https://bsky.app/profile/wired.com/post/3lygjckjxoa2g
Alternatively, if you assign the tested apple as "apple 1" then it works as Barty suggests.
Across the 7 chances above, there are 21 apples (7x3) and 12 of them are good (3x1+3x2+1x3), making 57%
The reason for splitting off the good apple is because that is what you do in claiming a 100% chance + a 50% chance + a 50% chance, making 66%. That 100% chance is literally a non-randomly split out good apple.
I'm doing the split to show what you actually get is 100% chance + 35% chance + 35% chance, (still making 57%)
https://www.facebook.com/reel/597594730045627 and also in my Granny's baking recipe book.
https://chatgpt.com/share/68c08ad0-4370-8013-94f6-9f9f660cc227
tldr; "Pick from the second boy."
https://xkcd.com/356
That's why you get to 62.5% with B.
You can verify that by doing it as a decision tree instead.
1/4 choose same apple - odds of good = 100%
3/4 choose different apple - odds of good = 50%
P (good) = 1/4 + 3/4 * 1/2 = 5/8
Going via combinations, eliminated are BBBB, BBBG, BBGB, BBGG, BGBB, BGBG, BGGB, BGGG
Remaining are GBBB, GBBG, GBGB, GBGG, GGBB, GGBG, GGGB, GGGG
Of the 8 remaining combinations it is therefore
1/8 with 1/4 good
3/8 with 2/4 good
3/8 with 3/4 good
1/8 with 4/4 good
P (good) = 1/8 * 1/4 + 3/8 * 2/4 + 3/8 * 3/4 + 1/8 * 4/4 = 5/8 = 62.5%
... It was some time ago
The original set of outcomes, pre-reveal was
BBB, BBG, BGB, BGG, GBB, GBG, GGB, GGG
Now in B they always showed the 1st letter, but in this set they can show any of them. So they might show the 1st, 2nd or 3rd apple depending upon outcomes unlike in B.
We've only eliminated BBB, all other combinations remain.
Yes we know 1 apple is 100%, but the not chosen apples are no longer 50% since they may have been not chosen as a result of being bad unlike the good one, which was not a factor in B.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/lord-mandelson-called-epstein-best-35874898
I know it's frivolous and wrong but when Doha is attacked my first thought is of all the UK immigrants who moved there because it is tax free and nice and safe and nothing like the nightmare of Broken Britain. They turned their back on this country. Don't let them return.
https://bsky.app/profile/jwsidders.bsky.social/post/3lyfw4ae7qc2d
Astonishing performance given who was not there.
1/7 - 3 good, both non-chosen apples are good
3/7 - 2 good, 1 non-chosen apple is good, 1 non-chosen apple is bad
3/7 - 1 good, both non-chosen apples are bad.
Probability of choosing the revealed apple is 1/3 - 100% chance of good
Probability of choosing an alternative apples is 2/3 - 1/7 + 3/7 * 1/2 chance of being good = 5/14 chance of being good, or ~35.7%
The non-chosen apples ceased to be 50% the moment their state became involved in whether they were chosen or not, unlike B where their state was irrelevant.
You're the stupid one who thinks people at war are safe if they step foot in a third party state. Not the law.
I've never dared go back.
@DPJHodges
Getting messages from across the Labour Party tonight. Still a way to go till Thursday’s deadline. But very strong feeling Lucy Powell on course for the nominations. Concern within No.10 Bridget Phillipson doesn’t have a much larger lead. One MP texts, “Powell’s going to do it”.
The probability is 2^{n-1)/(2^n -1) tending to 50% as n increases
That line about a young girl being “depreciated”…
Yuck.
And I’m usually the first to defend the most ill-judged of banter. I make all sort of poor taste jokes. But that?!
Epstein brokered billion pound deal with Mandelson
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/09/09/mandelson-billion-pound-deal-epstein/
BBBB is eliminated, but BGGG is also eliminated. All possible combinations involving that apple are eliminated.
Not the case for A, since A the apple wasn't chosen randomly.
Whatever path any government takes, it's got two thirds of the deputies against it. A system with the brakes of a Bugatti and the engine of a 2CV.
Ultimately to bring conflict to an amend you have to talk to your enemy. And they may be very unsavoury. But you need to do it. So there needs to somewhere that it can happen
At some point, surely it must dawn even on a raging narcissist like him that just maybe the PMs aren't the ones at fault?
You know, like Qatar did…
They're not only there for a peace conference.
TBF, LBC have been trailing the Johnson story all day, not a titter from the BBC, who after Davie suggested to the Commons Committee that they messed up on leftist propaganda errors like Gary Lineker, the Hamas film and Bob Vylan. Perhaps they need to balance the narrative by fully endorsing Farage.
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.
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.
Which is why we don't do that.
Qatar made their bed by choosing to host Hamas - and not for peace talks, they've hosted them for 13 years. They could expel them if they don't want to be a legitimate target.
When Israel claims a precision strike it doesn't mean it just gets the guys in the one room. As an illustration if Hamas were having their meeting in a Sheraton conference room, it doesn't take out the conference room, it takes down the whole hotel.
6 people dead != an entire hotel taken out.
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.
I think the Mandelson association with Epstein is vile. Mandelson is Ambassador because of his close relationship with Trump (which is equally vile).
Starmer will look a right knob in the Whitehouse if he sacks Mandy when Trump says the whole Epstein story is a fictitious Democrat hatchet job. Although Andrew Marr did say tonight that Trump has tired of Mandelson.
Anyway we all know Boris wouldn't do the things the Guardian are accusing him of, would he?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Swedish_war_of_1810–1812
Pretty small hotel otherwise to only have 6 fatalities.
For a betting site, I do find the inability to see that you've been intentionally mislead interesting...