I don't think that Jeremy Corbyn has any problems with Jews who share his general world outlook, and indeed there is abundant evidence that he does not. I do think that Jeremy Corbyn has a problem with Jews who disagree with his general world outlook and that he has no sympathy or feeling for them or their concerns, and that he treats them as a hostile bloc to be defeated and isolated rather than to be understood.
Whether you call that anti-Semitism, I don't know. I think it's a subset of a way that he mentally otherises hostile groups (eg Tories).
I agree with this...Obviously then the big problem comes for Jezza in that the vast majority of Jews are supportive of Israel's right to exist. The Jews he doesn't mind are the ones that are often only culturally Jewish, very left wing and have massive hang-ups about the existence of a Jewish state.
Its a bit like saying I am definitely not Islamophobic, because I quite like Maajid Nawaz and Ayaan Hirsi Ali.
Half of my family are Jewish, and most of them have at best extremely mixed views about Israel and the UK (and US's) posture towards it. I'm not claiming that they're in the majority, but taking your viewpoint, it's as if they are somehow not properly Jewish. And in fact, according to your reasoning, by not falling in line they too are antisemetic.
The idea that you have to agree with a political position on Israel to be a true Jew (and that disagreeing with it is a form of bigotry) is extremely insidious, and is in fact the exact same conflation that true antisemites use when they imply that Israel's actions justify hatred of Jews.
That isn't what I said at all.
Okay, well could you explain? My reading was that his friendship with some Jews doesn't count because they have left wing views. Did you mean something else?
I can't see what you are misunderstanding here, but you are wrong. The probability of the second child's sex is 50/50 irrespective of the sex of the first. Furthermore, the chances of sequential dual coin tosses hh, ht, th, tt are 25% each. There is no outcome or group of outcomes for which the odds are 66%.
But am I wrong?
A random mother with 2 kids (which she is to me at first) could have issued in sequence BB BG GB GG. There is an equal 25% chance of each of these.
I know that one is B, so I can rule out only GG.
Leaving one of BB BG GB.
2 of those involve a G and 1 does not.
Ergo there is a 50/75 chance - 2/3 - that her other child is a G.
That is not Corbyn's position. He is a hard brexiteer that he needs for his policies. BINO would restrict him and we may as well remain
JC's position is Labour's position - CU and close SM alignment. A soft Brexit.
Where are getting your info on this 'hard brexit' policy that he supposedly has?
There's sometimes a difference between what Jeremy says and what Jeremy does, so a certain amount of confusion is only to be expected. For example, he was supposed to be campaigning for Remain during the Referendum, but his diffidence knew no bounds.
You cannot blame Big G or anybody else for being suspicious.
I said that the Jewish people that Jezza appears to be happy with fit the criteria of being anti-Israel, left wing and not particularly strict religiously e.g. The Jewdas mob.
Er, sure, but I thought from your analogy about Islamophobia you were also trying to make a point about whether or not Corbyn was antisemitic?
There are people who argue that the Queen herself is a traitor.
Of course, being the main pressure group/party that was responsible for promoting the foreign policy agenda of a hostile power and continue to remain uncritical of its despotic leader, UKIP/BNP are not in any way treacherous. No, of course not!
I can't see what you are misunderstanding here, but you are wrong. The probability of the second child's sex is 50/50 irrespective of the sex of the first. Furthermore, the chances of sequential dual coin tosses hh, ht, th, tt are 25% each. There is no outcome or group of outcomes for which the odds are 66%.
But am I wrong?
A random mother with 2 kids (which she is to me at first) could have issued in sequence BB BG GB GG. There is an equal 25% chance of each of these.
I know that one is B, so I can rule out only GG.
Leaving one of BB BG GB.
2 of those involve a G and 1 does not.
Ergo there is a 50/75 chance - 2/3 - that her other child is a G.
No?
As per the Meeks lemma downthread, the probability her other child is a girl is greater than 75%.
I can't see what you are misunderstanding here, but you are wrong. The probability of the second child's sex is 50/50 irrespective of the sex of the first. Furthermore, the chances of sequential dual coin tosses hh, ht, th, tt are 25% each. There is no outcome or group of outcomes for which the odds are 66%.
But am I wrong?
A random mother with 2 kids (which she is to me at first) could have issued in sequence BB BG GB GG. There is an equal 25% chance of each of these.
I know that one is B, so I can rule out only GG.
Leaving one of BB BG GB.
2 of those involve a G and 1 does not.
Ergo there is a 50/75 chance - 2/3 - that her other child is a G.
No?
There are two BBs. He might be either the first B or the second B.
I can't see what you are misunderstanding here, but you are wrong. The probability of the second child's sex is 50/50 irrespective of the sex of the first. Furthermore, the chances of sequential dual coin tosses hh, ht, th, tt are 25% each. There is no outcome or group of outcomes for which the odds are 66%.
But am I wrong?
A random mother with 2 kids (which she is to me at first) could have issued in sequence BB BG GB GG. There is an equal 25% chance of each of these.
I know that one is B, so I can rule out only GG.
Leaving one of BB BG GB.
2 of those involve a G and 1 does not.
Ergo there is a 50/75 chance - 2/3 - that her other child is a G.
No?
See my comment. There isn't an equal chance of BB BG GB. Making the (reasonable) assumption that her choice of which child to tell you about was made by some gender-neutral means, BB is twice as likely as the other two.
If someone shows you a picture and says "that's my son" and then tells you that she has two children, I'd estimate the probability is upwards of 75% that the other child is a girl because she might easily have said "that's my [eldest/youngest] son/that's one of my sons" instead if she had two sons. That option would not have been available if the other child is a girl.
I can't see what you are misunderstanding here, but you are wrong. The probability of the second child's sex is 50/50 irrespective of the sex of the first. Furthermore, the chances of sequential dual coin tosses hh, ht, th, tt are 25% each. There is no outcome or group of outcomes for which the odds are 66%.
But am I wrong?
A random mother with 2 kids (which she is to me at first) could have issued in sequence BB BG GB GG. There is an equal 25% chance of each of these.
I know that one is B, so I can rule out only GG.
Leaving one of BB BG GB.
2 of those involve a G and 1 does not.
Ergo there is a 50/75 chance - 2/3 - that her other child is a G.
No?
There are two BBs. He might be either the first B or the second B.
What?! If I flip a coin twice, what's the chance I get two heads?
'All the changes of government have been predated by the opposition leader having substantially better ratings than the incumbent Prime Minister. '
That was not the case in 1970 when Heath defeated Wilson - nor in 1979 when Thatcher beat Callaghan. Also very unlikely to have been true in 1945 when Attlee triumphed.
The difference being that for all their faults, Heath, Thatcher and Attlee were not thicker than the average plank.
I see you have lost none of your normal objectivity.
No Audis have been produced for the last week as the sister plant in Hungary has gone on strike and stopped supplying engines. Strike is now over after Audi conceded an 18% pay rise.
Perhaps Jew hating is not universally regarded as an unalloyed good.
Do you really think he hates Jews?
No he doesn't. He's a socialist, and anti-Semitism is very rare among socialists. It is however, rife among Communists and Trotskyists, and he views the latter as allies.
It seems to be logical conundrum day on PB. If "He's a socialist, and anti-Semitism is very rare among socialists" is an argument, what about "He is a friend of Hamas, and anti-Semitism is very common among friends of Hamas"? In general, the more we know about an individual the less point in appealing to evidence about a group to which he appears to belong (and the larger the group the more pointless the argument). "Gentlemen of the jury, you have heard that the defendant Mr Sutcliffe is a mass murderer, but I put it to you that he is a Yorkshireman and mass-murdering is very rare among Yorkshiremen".
There's a bloke called Bayes who goes on about this.
I can't see what you are misunderstanding here, but you are wrong. The probability of the second child's sex is 50/50 irrespective of the sex of the first. Furthermore, the chances of sequential dual coin tosses hh, ht, th, tt are 25% each. There is no outcome or group of outcomes for which the odds are 66%.
But am I wrong?
A random mother with 2 kids (which she is to me at first) could have issued in sequence BB BG GB GG. There is an equal 25% chance of each of these.
I know that one is B, so I can rule out only GG.
Leaving one of BB BG GB.
2 of those involve a G and 1 does not.
Ergo there is a 50/75 chance - 2/3 - that her other child is a G.
No?
There are two BBs. He might be either the first B or the second B.
What?! If I flip a coin twice, what's the chance I get two heads?
Exactly the same as the chance of getting two tails, or a head and tail or a tail then a head. Each coin toss is a 50/50 and has no influence on the previous toss, or the tosser, if you excuse the expression.
That's what I thought, I was racking my brains for where the margin might be! The one son of God out of billions of conceptions maybe...
This one might be too easy for you brainboxes, but it has a nuance.
I was in Starbucks and got talking to this woman. Never met her before. Apropos of nothing she showed me a photo of a young man at his uni graduation. “That’s my son,” she announced, pride in her voice. I smiled and asked how many kids she had. “Two,” she replied. I nodded and went quiet for a moment because I was computing the probability that her other child was a daughter. Sort of bloke I am. Didn’t take me long to suss it out. It’s analogous to a sequential dual coin toss. So if I know that at least one is a son (which I do from the photo) there is a 2/3 chance that the sibling is female. I told her this. I said “So there is a 2 in 3 chance that you have a daughter,” and I explained the rationale. The woman was impressed. Things were looking promising here. Unfortunately I then got a little carried away. I jabbed a finger at the photo and barked out my next question. “Is he your eldest?” I demanded. She clammed up and refused to answer. And who could blame her. I was coming over like the gestapo. So I got up and left. Disappointed? Of course. But there is a silver lining. Due to asking that question and despite receiving no reply I was able to revise the probability that she has a daughter. It is no longer 2/3 it is 1/2 ... Or is it?
I don't think that Jeremy Corbyn has any problems with Jews who share his general world outlook, and indeed there is abundant evidence that he does not. I do think that Jeremy Corbyn has a problem with Jews who disagree with his general world outlook and that he has no sympathy or feeling for them or their concerns, and that he treats them as a hostile bloc to be defeated and isolated rather than to be understood.
Whether you call that anti-Semitism, I don't know. I think it's a subset of a way that he mentally otherises hostile groups (eg Tories).
I agree with this...Obviously then the big problem comes for Jezza in that the vast majority of Jews are supportive of Israel's right to exist. The Jews he doesn't mind are the ones that are often only culturally Jewish, very left wing and have massive hang-ups about the existence of a Jewish state.
Its a bit like saying I am definitely not Islamophobic, because I quite like Maajid Nawaz and Ayaan Hirsi Ali.
Half of my family are Jewish, and most of them have at best extremely mixed views about Israel and the UK (and US's) posture towards it. I'm not claiming that they're in the majority, but taking your viewpoint, it's as if they are somehow not properly Jewish. And in fact, according to your reasoning, by not falling in line they too are antisemetic.
The idea that you have to agree with a political position on Israel to be a true Jew (and that disagreeing with it is a form of bigotry) is extremely insidious, and is in fact the exact same conflation that true antisemites use when they imply that Israel's actions justify hatred of Jews.
That isn't what I said at all.
Okay, well could you explain? My reading was that his friendship with some Jews doesn't count because they have left wing views. Did you mean something else?
No, it isn't because they have left wing views. It is a specific criteria of people he appears comfortable with.
The analogy with say Maajid Nawaz is that he is (as far as I know) still a practising Mulsim, but has a very niche (in the Muslim world) take on things i.e. Islam needs massive reformation and that many Muslim states need to radical overhauls on basic rights.
Tommy Robinson was happy to converse with Nawaz, but is very anti mainstream Islamic views.
Perhaps Jew hating is not universally regarded as an unalloyed good.
Do you really think he hates Jews?
No he doesn't. He's a socialist, and anti-Semitism is very rare among socialists. It is however, rife among Communists and Trotskyists, and he views the latter as allies.
It seems to be logical conundrum day on PB. If "He's a socialist, and anti-Semitism is very rare among socialists" is an argument, what about "He is a friend of Hamas, and anti-Semitism is very common among friends of Hamas"? In general, the more we know about an individual the less point in appealing to evidence about a group to which he appears to belong (and the larger the group the more pointless the argument). "Gentlemen of the jury, you have heard that the defendant Mr Sutcliffe is a mass murderer, but I put it to you that he is a Yorkshireman and mass-murdering is very rare among Yorkshiremen".
There's a bloke called Bayes who goes on about this.
Actually your initial 2/3 answer was wrong- or at least based on a strange unspoken assumption. If the conversation had opened with you asking "Do you have any boys?" or something equivalent, and her answering yes, then you'd be correct with your 2/3. But since it started with her showing you a photo of one child, you have to ask- what was the process that led to her picking that child to show you a photo of?
One possibility is that she really likes boys. No matter what combination of genders she happened to have in her children, she'd always choose to show you a picture of a boy if possible- only if they were all girls would she show you a picture of a girl. In that case, the chance is, as you reasoned, 2/3. But that's a weird assumption to make about this woman, isn't it?
Conversely, maybe she really likes girls, and would always show you a picture of a girl if possible. In that case the probability of her having a girl is 0, otherwise she'd have showed you one.
A more sensible, neutral assumption is that the way she picked the photo to show you was independent of gender. Maybe she'd always show you the picture of the eldest, maybe it was pretty much random which one happened to be on her mind. In that case, the probability of her having a girl is 0.5. This is analagous to how if you flip two coins, pick one of them at random to look at, and see that it's heads, the probability of the other one being tails is 0.5.
Nice one.
But OK I'm sat at a table and I flip first one coin, and cover it with my right hand, then flip a second coin and cover that one with my left hand. I then invite you into the room and you sit opposite me. I raise my right hand so you can see that coin - it's TAILS. You now have to assess the chances of it being also tails under my left hand.
I say that before answering you can ask me which coin I flipped first if you want to.
That's what I thought, I was racking my brains for where the margin might be! The one son of God out of billions of conceptions maybe...
Parthenogenesis is, I understand, theoretically now possible in humans though yet to be actually done so far as anyone knows.
Would a F -> M transsexual original daughter born of parthogenesis (Born Males can not result from parthogenesis I believe) violate the 100% probability as posed in the question ?
If memory serves, that is the exact plot of "Predestination" (2014, Ethan Hawke, Sarah Snook)
Sarah Wollaston has said that she would “probably” stand as an independent in a future election if she resigns the Conservative whip over Brexit. Wollaston said that she would resign from the Conservatives if the Government ended up heading for no deal, even if it was by default rather than by design.
Actually your initial 2/3 answer was wrong- or at least based on a strange unspoken assumption. If the conversation had opened with you asking "Do you have any boys?" or something equivalent, and her answering yes, then you'd be correct with your 2/3. But since it started with her showing you a photo of one child, you have to ask- what was the process that led to her picking that child to show you a photo of?
One possibility is that she really likes boys. No matter what combination of genders she happened to have in her children, she'd always choose to show you a picture of a boy if possible- only if they were all girls would she show you a picture of a girl. In that case, the chance is, as you reasoned, 2/3. But that's a weird assumption to make about this woman, isn't it?
Conversely, maybe she really likes girls, and would always show you a picture of a girl if possible. In that case the probability of her having a girl is 0, otherwise she'd have showed you one.
A more sensible, neutral assumption is that the way she picked the photo to show you was independent of gender. Maybe she'd always show you the picture of the eldest, maybe it was pretty much random which one happened to be on her mind. In that case, the probability of her having a girl is 0.5. This is analagous to how if you flip two coins, pick one of them at random to look at, and see that it's heads, the probability of the other one being tails is 0.5.
Nice one.
But OK I'm sat at a table and I flip first one coin, and cover it with my right hand, then flip a second coin and cover that one with my left hand. I then invite you into the room and you sit opposite me. I raise my right hand so you can see that coin - it's TAILS. You now have to assess the chances of it being also tails under my left hand.
I say that before answering you can ask me which coin I flipped first if you want to.
Do you want to?
This is exactly the same situation. To work out the probabilities I need to know what your process was for showing me that coin. Do you have a preference for showing me tails? Or heads? Or did you pick the coin to show me in a way that's independent of what sides were showing?
Either way, though, knowing which one you flipped first is irrelevant.
Sarah Wollaston has said that she would “probably” stand as an independent in a future election if she resigns the Conservative whip over Brexit. Wollaston said that she would resign from the Conservatives if the Government ended up heading for no deal, even if it was by default rather than by design.
The US has a President as Head of State, constitutionally May as PM is really the equivalent of Pelosi, leader of the largest party in the lower House so party intentions matter more than individual approval ratings here
Not for the purpose of predicting likely electoral outcomes.
Not necessarily, on personal approval ratings Callaghan would have beaten Thatcher in 1979
Not correct. Maggie went into GE1979 with positive MORI numbers while Callaghan was in in minus territory
I think it would be stupid to underestimate Corby.
Burnham, Cooper, Kendall, Smith, the Blairites, May and the Tory Manifesto writers all did.
I do think last time the mainstream media didn't think Corby could win and so he did benefit from little serious examination of his policies. He'll get more next critical examination time.
But, does serious examination of policies actually move many votes?
Most voters are not rational. They vote out of a combination of emotion and self-interest.
So, my guess is (especially if he is up against May or a Vanilla Tory), Corby could do it again.
The problem for the tories is there is a significant number of people who don’t feel the current globalised liberal economy works for them, hence brexit. Jezzas, like trump, the superficial message is attractive and the tories appear to zero new ideas while also unable to illustrate the benefits of the globalised capitalist system.
For the past 20 years, all the political parties and the media have been onboard the current system (give or take an extra bit of tax being redirected). But pro globalism, pro large scale immigration, etc etc etc, but stoke man doesn’t think it is doing much for them.
All else being equal, the next election would be a Tory slam dunk. The economy is recovering, austerity is easing off, unemployment is low, real wages are rising, and Labour is led by an incompetent lefty. It's the 1987 election but with Eric Heffer rather than Neil Kinnock.
Problem is that Brexit means that things are very much not equal.
I am not sure I agree. The fact so many people seem unfazed by a leader with all of jezzas baggage screams warning bells to me. Yes Maybot is crap, Tory paralysis because of brexit, but there is more going on.
I agree. First, the Tories are busily destroying their only USP.
Second, they have no policies for the JAMS. Labour does, however pie in the sky they may be.
Third, if Trump could be elected despite all his baggage, then Corbyn certainly can be, despite his.
Corbyn is very like Trump in many ways. The problems will be less to do with being elected and more with what he will be like in government where all the failings that have been identified ad nauseam will matter.
Trump is like Brexit, Boris or Farage not Corbyn, Sanders is the US equivalent of Corbyn
No, it isn't because they have left wing views. It is a specific criteria of people he appears comfortable with.
The analogy with say Maajid Nawaz is that he is (as far as I know) still a practising Mulsim, but has a very niche (in the Muslim world) take on things i.e. Islam needs massive reformation and that many Muslim states need to radical overhauls on basic rights.
Tommy Robinson was happy to converse with Nawaz, but is very anti mainstream Islamic views.
If I genuinely believed that Tommy Robinson cared only about those basic rights, and that once he knew somebody's view on those rights there'd be no extra marginal effect of knowing their race or religion on his attitude towards them, I'd conclude that he's not Islamophobic
(Well okay, it's a little tricky because "Islamophobic" is mostly about a religion, which can have actual official views, whereas "antisemitic" is mostly about an ethnicity, which can't. So for more accuracy, substitute in a word of your choice for "Islamophobic" which indicates bigotry against people rather than disagreement with religious institutions)
I note Jeremy Hunt today said that Brexit will be delayed. I note that yesterday I placed a bet that we would leave on time. I note that if one beats one's head repeatedly on a desk the effects manifest as pain, dizziness, and some blood.
I think it would be stupid to underestimate Corby.
Burnham, Cooper, Kendall, Smith, the Blairites, May and the Tory Manifesto writers all did.
I do think last time the mainstream media didn't think Corby could win and so he did benefit from little serious examination of his policies. He'll get more next critical examination time.
But, does serious examination of policies actually move many votes?
Most voters are not rational. They vote out of a combination of emotion and self-interest.
So, my guess is (especially if he is up against May or a Vanilla Tory), Corby could do it again.
The problem for the tories is there is a significant number of people who don’t feel the current globalised liberal economy works for them, hence brexit. Jezzas, like trump, the superficial message is attractive and the tories appear to zero new ideas while also unable to illustrate the benefits of the globalised capitalist system.
For the past 20 years, all the political parties and the media have been onboard the current system (give or take an extra bit of tax being redirected). But pro globalism, pro large scale immigration, etc etc etc, but stoke man doesn’t think it is doing much for them.
All else being equal, the next election would be a Tory slam dunk. The economy is recovering, austerity is easing off, unemployment is low, real wages are rising, and Labour is led by an incompetent lefty. It's the 1987 election but with Eric Heffer rather than Neil Kinnock.
Problem is that Brexit means that things are very much not equal.
I am not sure I agree. The fact so many people seem unfazed by a leader with all of jezzas baggage screams warning bells to me. Yes Maybot is crap, Tory paralysis because of brexit, but there is more going on.
I agree. First, the Tories are busily destroying their only USP.
Second, they have no policies for the JAMS. Labour does, however pie in the sky they may be.
Third, if Trump could be elected despite all his baggage, then Corbyn certainly can be, despite his.
Corbyn is very like Trump in many ways. The problems will be less to do with being elected and more with what he will be like in government where all the failings that have been identified ad nauseam will matter.
Trump is like Brexit, Boris or Farage not Corbyn, Sanders is the US equivalent of Corbyn
I don't think that Jeremy Corbyn has any problems with Jews who share his general world outlook, and indeed there is abundant evidence that he does not. I do think that Jeremy Corbyn has a problem with Jews who disagree with his general world outlook and that he has no sympathy or feeling for them or their concerns, and that he treats them as a hostile bloc to be defeated and isolated rather than to be understood.
Whether you call that anti-Semitism, I don't know. I think it's a subset of a way that he mentally otherises hostile groups (eg Tories).
I agree with this...Obviously then the big problem comes for Jezza in that the vast majority of Jews are supportive of Israel's right to exist. The Jews he doesn't mind are the ones that are often only culturally Jewish, very left wing and have massive hang-ups about the existence of a Jewish state.
Its a bit like saying I am definitely not Islamophobic, because I quite like Maajid Nawaz and Ayaan Hirsi Ali.
Half of my family are Jewish, and most of them have at best extremely mixed views about Israel and the UK (and US's) posture towards it. I'm not claiming that they're in the majority, but taking your viewpoint, it's as if they are somehow not properly Jewish. And in fact, according to your reasoning, by not falling in line they too are antisemetic.
The idea that you have to agree with a political position on Israel to be a true Jew (and that disagreeing with it is a form of bigotry) is extremely insidious, and is in fact the exact same conflation that true antisemites use when they imply that Israel's actions justify hatred of Jews.
That isn't what I said at all.
Okay, well could you explain? My reading was that his friendship with some Jews doesn't count because they have left wing views. Did you mean something else?
I have finished reading a biography of Trotsky.
He was a Jew, but was not a practising Jew. There was some suggestion that he did not put himself forward as head of government post the revolution because of his awareness that being Jewish would not help consolidate the Bolshevik government.
He was extremely non nationalistic, was seeking a world wide communist revolution not just in Russia. But late in life he did accept the need for a homeland for the Jews.
Sarah Wollaston has said that she would “probably” stand as an independent in a future election if she resigns the Conservative whip over Brexit. Wollaston said that she would resign from the Conservatives if the Government ended up heading for no deal, even if it was by default rather than by design.
Survation also has voters narrowly opposing No Deal by 44% to 41% and supporting a shift to soft Brexit if the EU does not back down over the backstop by 40% to 35%
Is this the moment to bring up that 1.7% of people are born with an intersex condition? Or not...?
If the intersexuality does not prevent the person being a birth parent then no it doesn't matter, and the classification can be inferred from whether the person contributed a sperm or an egg.
If the intersexuality does prevent the person being a birth parent then the person would not be in the problem.
The exception is the final generation, as the final generation is not a parent.
The referendum wasn't just about economics, is that so hard to understand?
The referendum, or certainly the result was about anything one would like it to be, or so it seems. It was actually a simple binary question with no detail defined on either option. Sorry to mention the war, but it is very akin to the “working toward the Führer” principle, where people impose more and more extreme views on others because they convince themselves this is “working toward the Führer”/ "the will of the people", when it is, in fact, simply their own view. Perhaps we should call it “working toward the Brexit”
This is exactly the same situation. To work out the probabilities I need to know what your process was for showing me that coin. Do you have a preference for showing me tails? Or heads? Or did you pick the coin to show me in a way that's independent of what sides were showing?
OK, good point - let's take my process out of it.
Scenario as before but YOU choose which hand I lift. You go for my left hand and it is tails. And we will say you pick that one because you have left wing political views.
Now in that case, do you want to know which coin I flipped first before working out the chance of the coin under my right hand also being tails?
There are people who argue that the Queen herself is a traitor.
... and a lizard! There's some funny people around.
Arch-Brexiteer David Icke believes this, sorry, knows this. I wouldn't be surprised if there are a significant number of people who voted leave also believe it.
Sarah Wollaston has said that she would “probably” stand as an independent in a future election if she resigns the Conservative whip over Brexit. Wollaston said that she would resign from the Conservatives if the Government ended up heading for no deal, even if it was by default rather than by design.
I would think she's exactly the sort of person the Lib Dems should have attracted, back in the day when they were on 20-something in the polls. It would be a mighty coup if she could be tempted across.
I'm just too darned Bayesian to argue with the 2/3 probability - that's how I see it.
But who on earth flirts in Starbucks with pictures of their kids? "I just thought you should see how fertile I was 20 years ago" isn't one of my best chat up lines.
Is this the moment to bring up that 1.7% of people are born with an intersex condition? Or not...?
If the intersexuality does not prevent the person being a birth parent then no it doesn't matter, and the classification can be inferred from whether the person contributed a sperm or an egg.
If the intersexuality does prevent the person being a birth parent then the person would not be in the problem.
The exception is the final generation, as the final generation is not a parent.
That's right. The petition can't start until the appeal process is complete. Of course, groups can organise in preparation for the starting gun. I assume that there's some physical process that prevents against collecting names now e.g. it having to be done on papers which will only be issued once the six week period has begun?
You could extend that sleight of hand further. Britain could leave the EU on the 29th of March and set up a new pan-European body. Call it the European Unification. The rest of the continuation EU could leave the EU and and join the new EU. Referendum honoured. EU destroyed. Normal people can just get on with it.
There are two BBs. He might be either the first B or the second B.
Yes.
With order known our universe becomes BB BB BG GB
Moving the 2/3 to 1/2.
But what about the other thing I'm posing - bit in italics in original post.
If asking a question can elicit only 2 answers, and either possible answer has the same impact on what you are trying to work out, do you need to ask the question at all?
Sarah Wollaston has said that she would “probably” stand as an independent in a future election if she resigns the Conservative whip over Brexit. Wollaston said that she would resign from the Conservatives if the Government ended up heading for no deal, even if it was by default rather than by design.
I would think she's exactly the sort of person the Lib Dems should have attracted, back in the day when they were on 20-something in the polls. It would be a mighty coup if she could be tempted across.
I'm just too darned Bayesian to argue with the 2/3 probability - that's how I see it.
But who on earth flirts in Starbucks with pictures of their kids? "I just thought you should see how fertile I was 20 years ago" isn't one of my best chat up lines.
But she became an MP in a Tory/Lib Dem marginal precisely when the Lib Dems were doing well in Parliament and the polls!
She's also a complex character. Remember, she initially supported the Leave campaign and defected to Remain at the last minute. I like her in a lot of ways, but she's an independent-minded maverick who's hard to predict and defies easy categorisation. Were she a Lib Dem (or any other party) she'd still be defying the whip every five minutes.
There are two BBs. He might be either the first B or the second B.
Yes.
With order known our universe becomes BB BB BG GB
Moving the 2/3 to 1/2.
But what about the other thing I'm posing - bit in italics in original post.
If asking a question can elicit only 2 answers, and either possible answer has the same impact on what you are trying to work out, do you need to ask the question at all?
I don't think that's right. There's still a 1/4 chance of BB. (before knowing we can eliminate GG, 1/3 after) If you insist on the split, there's 1/8 chance (1/6 after) that you are looking at the eldest son of BB, and 1/8 (1/6 after) that you're looking at the younger son in BB. Still adds up to 2/3 chance of a female.
Perhaps Jew hating is not universally regarded as an unalloyed good.
Do you really think he hates Jews?
No he doesn't. He's a socialist, and anti-Semitism is very rare among socialists. It is however, rife among Communists and Trotskyists, and he views the latter as allies.
It seems to be logical conundrum day on PB. If "He's a socialist, and anti-Semitism is very rare among socialists" is an argument, what about "He is a friend of Hamas, and anti-Semitism is very common among friends of Hamas"? In general, the more we know about an individual the less point in appealing to evidence about a group to which he appears to belong (and the larger the group the more pointless the argument). "Gentlemen of the jury, you have heard that the defendant Mr Sutcliffe is a mass murderer, but I put it to you that he is a Yorkshireman and mass-murdering is very rare among Yorkshiremen".
There's a bloke called Bayes who goes on about this.
That's a sharp oint, Ishmael, and well made. It's why Corbyn's posturing makes it perfectly reasonable to ask the anti-Semitism question.
Whilst however it is virtually impossible to reconcile socialism and anti-Semitism it is not impossible to be a friendly towards yet averse to anti-Semitism.
Sarah Wollaston has said that she would “probably” stand as an independent in a future election if she resigns the Conservative whip over Brexit. Wollaston said that she would resign from the Conservatives if the Government ended up heading for no deal, even if it was by default rather than by design.
I would think she's exactly the sort of person the Lib Dems should have attracted, back in the day when they were on 20-something in the polls. It would be a mighty coup if she could be tempted across.
I'm just too darned Bayesian to argue with the 2/3 probability - that's how I see it.
But who on earth flirts in Starbucks with pictures of their kids? "I just thought you should see how fertile I was 20 years ago" isn't one of my best chat up lines.
But she became an MP in a Tory/Lib Dem marginal precisely when the Lib Dems were doing well in Parliament and the polls!
She's also a complex character. Remember, she initially supported the Leave campaign and defected to Remain at the last minute. I like her in a lot of ways, but she's an independent-minded maverick who's hard to predict and defies easy categorisation. Were she a Lib Dem (or any other party) she'd still be defying the whip every five minutes.
I like to think the Lib Dems are a good fit for independent-minded mavericks!
Yes, it'll be delayed until post-appeal. She'll cynically hang on as long as she can for the salary.
I think that the recall is very, very likely to succeed if her appeal fails. The North Antrim one was only 0.6% short of success, and that was with the DUP standing behind Ian Paisley Jnr (Labour say Onsanya should resign or be recalled); with misconduct which was serious but not criminally so; and with little prospect of the by-election changing anything (Paisley had a whopping 40% cushion, and DUP supporters upset about his conduct were not upset enough to consider voting Sinn Fein).
I can't see what you are misunderstanding here, but you are wrong. The probability of the second child's sex is 50/50 irrespective of the sex of the first. Furthermore, the chances of sequential dual coin tosses hh, ht, th, tt are 25% each. There is no outcome or group of outcomes for which the odds are 66%.
But am I wrong?
A random mother with 2 kids (which she is to me at first) could have issued in sequence BB BG GB GG. There is an equal 25% chance of each of these.
I know that one is B, so I can rule out only GG.
Leaving one of BB BG GB.
2 of those involve a G and 1 does not.
Ergo there is a 50/75 chance - 2/3 - that her other child is a G.
No?
No. With the information you now have, the probability of BB has risen to 50%. It's like an accumulator bet on horses: if you have backed Ishmael's Pride and Kinabalu's Champion (both at evens) and Ishmael's Pride has already won his race, the chance of your double completing has risen from 25% to 50%. It is spurious to treat the pre-race odds of 25-75 as still applicable when the first leg has already come home.
Incidentally, I was one of the students who greatly preferred abstract maths to applied maths. A question about A, B, C etc. was easier to tackle than one about apples, pears and oranges, as I had to understand the analogy as well as working out the logic. That's what led to to do point-set topology in my PhD rather than any kind of applied maths.
The vox-pop I heard had people incensed she was still claiming her MPs salarty whilst inside. One guy said he had an urgent matter to discuss with his MP - did he have to wait for visiting hours at the local nick?
I can't see what you are misunderstanding here, but you are wrong. The probability of the second child's sex is 50/50 irrespective of the sex of the first. Furthermore, the chances of sequential dual coin tosses hh, ht, th, tt are 25% each. There is no outcome or group of outcomes for which the odds are 66%.
But am I wrong?
A random mother with 2 kids (which she is to me at first) could have issued in sequence BB BG GB GG. There is an equal 25% chance of each of these.
I know that one is B, so I can rule out only GG.
Leaving one of BB BG GB.
2 of those involve a G and 1 does not.
Ergo there is a 50/75 chance - 2/3 - that her other child is a G.
No?
There are two BBs. He might be either the first B or the second B.
What?! If I flip a coin twice, what's the chance I get two heads?
Exactly the same as the chance of getting two tails, or a head and tail or a tail then a head. Each coin toss is a 50/50 and has no influence on the previous toss, or the tosser, if you excuse the expression.
There's sometimes a difference between what Jeremy says and what Jeremy does, so a certain amount of confusion is only to be expected. For example, he was supposed to be campaigning for Remain during the Referendum, but his diffidence knew no bounds.
You cannot blame Big G or anybody else for being suspicious.
OK fair point. But as regards Brexit, his policy and actions are consistent. He wants a Brexit but not a hard one. He whipped in favour of the Cooper amendment.
So IMO the suspicion of him on this particular issue at this particular time is not well founded.
I can't see what you are misunderstanding here, but you are wrong. The probability of the second child's sex is 50/50 irrespective of the sex of the first. Furthermore, the chances of sequential dual coin tosses hh, ht, th, tt are 25% each. There is no outcome or group of outcomes for which the odds are 66%.
But am I wrong?
A random mother with 2 kids (which she is to me at first) could have issued in sequence BB BG GB GG. There is an equal 25% chance of each of these.
I know that one is B, so I can rule out only GG.
Leaving one of BB BG GB.
2 of those involve a G and 1 does not.
Ergo there is a 50/75 chance - 2/3 - that her other child is a G.
No?
There are two BBs. He might be either the first B or the second B.
What?! If I flip a coin twice, what's the chance I get two heads?
Exactly the same as the chance of getting two tails, or a head and tail or a tail then a head. Each coin toss is a 50/50 and has no influence on the previous toss, or the tosser, if you excuse the expression.
There are two BBs. He might be either the first B or the second B.
Yes.
With order known our universe becomes BB BB BG GB
Moving the 2/3 to 1/2.
But what about the other thing I'm posing - bit in italics in original post.
If asking a question can elicit only 2 answers, and either possible answer has the same impact on what you are trying to work out, do you need to ask the question at all?
Don't think you can have 2 x BB as an option. Knowing first is a boy you only have 2 choices for second one so it is 50%
It is only "his" policy because it is the policy agreed at the NEC. All his duplicitous actions suggest that he would like a hard Brexit, not just because it would release him from the Thatcherite aspects of EU competition and trading rules, but also because the chaos that he hopes will ensue after a hard Brexit will sucker the British people into thinking socialism is the answer to the problem. It could, of course, really be because he is even thicker than I think he is, and he hasn't got a fucking clue what is going on.
On his intellect: I don't go with 'thick' but, OK, I do ideally like my PMs and LOTOs to be a little cleverer than I suspect that Jeremy is. Still, he's made the best of himself, and surely this is admirable. Would we rather a lazy charlatan like Boris Johnson, clever as he is, in a position of leadership and power? Rhetorical question.
On Brexit: A bum rap IMO. His policy (CU and SM) and his actions (e.g. supporting the Cooper amendment) are not evidence of a desire to have a hard-one.
It is only "his" policy because it is the policy agreed at the NEC. All his duplicitous actions suggest that he would like a hard Brexit, not just because it would release him from the Thatcherite aspects of EU competition and trading rules, but also because the chaos that he hopes will ensue after a hard Brexit will sucker the British people into thinking socialism is the answer to the problem. It could, of course, really be because he is even thicker than I think he is, and he hasn't got a fucking clue what is going on.
On his intellect: I don't go with 'thick' but, OK, I do ideally like my PMs and LOTOs to be a little cleverer than I suspect that Jeremy is. Still, he's made the best of himself, and surely this is admirable. Would we rather a lazy charlatan like Boris Johnson, clever as he is, in a position of leadership and power? Rhetorical question.
On Brexit: A bum rap IMO. His policy (CU and SM) and his actions (e.g. supporting the Cooper amendment) are not evidence of a desire to have a hard-one.
It's simpler than than. His policy is to oppose anything which the tories want, whilst not tying himself to commit to anything himself. Thats the entire point of his 'tests' and some neublous 'new' customs union.
It is only "his" policy because it is the policy agreed at the NEC. All his duplicitous actions suggest that he would like a hard Brexit, not just because it would release him from the Thatcherite aspects of EU competition and trading rules, but also because the chaos that he hopes will ensue after a hard Brexit will sucker the British people into thinking socialism is the answer to the problem. It could, of course, really be because he is even thicker than I think he is, and he hasn't got a fucking clue what is going on.
On his intellect: I don't go with 'thick' but, OK, I do ideally like my PMs and LOTOs to be a little cleverer than I suspect that Jeremy is. Still, he's made the best of himself, and surely this is admirable. Would we rather a lazy charlatan like Boris Johnson, clever as he is, in a position of leadership and power? Rhetorical question.
On Brexit: A bum rap IMO. His policy (CU and SM) and his actions (e.g. supporting the Cooper amendment) are not evidence of a desire to have a hard-one.
However, his not disciplining the front benchers who rebelled tends in that direction.
Thanks to people who indulged my starbucks probability offering. No single definitive correct answer even though it's maths. People who are truly great at maths (who do not include me) know this, of course.
@ Slackbladder - Yes, I agree. Labour's number one priority is not to help the Tories out of this mess.
Comments
A random mother with 2 kids (which she is to me at first) could have issued in sequence BB BG GB GG. There is an equal 25% chance of each of these.
I know that one is B, so I can rule out only GG.
Leaving one of BB BG GB.
2 of those involve a G and 1 does not.
Ergo there is a 50/75 chance - 2/3 - that her other child is a G.
No?
You cannot blame Big G or anybody else for being suspicious.
Or not...?
https://www.faz.net/aktuell/wirtschaft/unternehmen/trotz-streik-ende-weiteres-audi-werk-steht-still-16017678.html
There's a bloke called Bayes who goes on about this.
The analogy with say Maajid Nawaz is that he is (as far as I know) still a practising Mulsim, but has a very niche (in the Muslim world) take on things i.e. Islam needs massive reformation and that many Muslim states need to radical overhauls on basic rights.
Tommy Robinson was happy to converse with Nawaz, but is very anti mainstream Islamic views.
Review of case considered by politician - must be difficult to be dispassionate. Wonder if Law Society have a review of her fitness to practise.
But OK I'm sat at a table and I flip first one coin, and cover it with my right hand, then flip a second coin and cover that one with my left hand. I then invite you into the room and you sit opposite me. I raise my right hand so you can see that coin - it's TAILS. You now have to assess the chances of it being also tails under my left hand.
I say that before answering you can ask me which coin I flipped first if you want to.
Do you want to?
Sarah Wollaston has said that she would “probably” stand as an independent in a future election if she resigns the Conservative whip over Brexit. Wollaston said that she would resign from the Conservatives if the Government ended up heading for no deal, even if it was by default rather than by design.
https://order-order.com/2019/01/31/wollaston-probably-stand-independent/
It has exacerbated division in this country, and is set to do so in Ireland too.
Probability teasers are in fact a great way to break the ice with women in Starbucks.
Either way, though, knowing which one you flipped first is irrelevant.
re Irish Lobby
https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/newton-emerson-can-irish-america-throw-a-spanner-in-the-works-of-brexit-1.3776331
https://www.ipsos.com/ipsos-mori/en-uk/british-public-opinion-march-1979
(Well okay, it's a little tricky because "Islamophobic" is mostly about a religion, which can have actual official views, whereas "antisemitic" is mostly about an ethnicity, which can't. So for more accuracy, substitute in a word of your choice for "Islamophobic" which indicates bigotry against people rather than disagreement with religious institutions)
I note that yesterday I placed a bet that we would leave on time.
I note that if one beats one's head repeatedly on a desk the effects manifest as pain, dizziness, and some blood.
Dammit...
Labour 39%
Tories 38%
LDs 9%
UKIP 4%
https://mobile.twitter.com/britainelects/status/1090935574813462528
Electoral Calculus gives Tories 287, Labour 284, LDs 17.
So Tories largest party but Corbyn likely PM
https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/cgi-bin/usercode.py?CON=38&LAB=39&LIB=9&UKIP=4&Green=2&NewLAB=&TVCON=&TVLAB=&TVLIB=&TVUKIP=&TVGreen=&SCOTCON=&SCOTLAB=&SCOTLIB=&SCOTUKIP=&SCOTGreen=&SCOTNAT=&display=AllChanged&regorseat=(none)&boundary=2017
Result
4th ODI (D/N), India tour of New Zealand at Hamilton, Jan 31 2019
India
92
New Zealand
93/2 (14.4/50 ov, target 93)
New Zealand won by 8 wickets (with 212 balls remaining)
QTWTAIN :
Margin Teams Scorecard
272 balls Sri Lanka (37–1) beat Canada (36) Scorecard
He was a Jew, but was not a practising Jew. There was some suggestion that he did not put himself forward as head of government post the revolution because of his awareness that being Jewish would not help consolidate the Bolshevik government.
He was extremely non nationalistic, was seeking a world wide communist revolution not just in Russia. But late in life he did accept the need for a homeland for the Jews.
https://mobile.twitter.com/MSmithsonPB/status/1090935102232846336
https://www.peterboroughtoday.co.uk/news/crime/peterborough-mp-fiona-onasanya-s-sentence-could-be-increased-as-attorney-general-starts-review-1-8791518
Shark on UK plates highlights trade in endangered species
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-47044101
If the intersexuality does prevent the person being a birth parent then the person would not be in the problem.
The exception is the final generation, as the final generation is not a parent.
There's some funny people around.
https://twitter.com/BBCNormanS/status/1090952724047450118
Scenario as before but YOU choose which hand I lift. You go for my left hand and it is tails. And we will say you pick that one because you have left wing political views.
Now in that case, do you want to know which coin I flipped first before working out the chance of the coin under my right hand also being tails?
I'm just too darned Bayesian to argue with the 2/3 probability - that's how I see it.
But who on earth flirts in Starbucks with pictures of their kids? "I just thought you should see how fertile I was 20 years ago" isn't one of my best chat up lines.
Oh yeah, we voted for them.
With order known our universe becomes BB BB BG GB
Moving the 2/3 to 1/2.
But what about the other thing I'm posing - bit in italics in original post.
If asking a question can elicit only 2 answers, and either possible answer has the same impact on what you are trying to work out, do you need to ask the question at all?
She's also a complex character. Remember, she initially supported the Leave campaign and defected to Remain at the last minute. I like her in a lot of ways, but she's an independent-minded maverick who's hard to predict and defies easy categorisation. Were she a Lib Dem (or any other party) she'd still be defying the whip every five minutes.
Whilst however it is virtually impossible to reconcile socialism and anti-Semitism it is not impossible to be a friendly towards yet averse to anti-Semitism.
I think that the recall is very, very likely to succeed if her appeal fails. The North Antrim one was only 0.6% short of success, and that was with the DUP standing behind Ian Paisley Jnr (Labour say Onsanya should resign or be recalled); with misconduct which was serious but not criminally so; and with little prospect of the by-election changing anything (Paisley had a whopping 40% cushion, and DUP supporters upset about his conduct were not upset enough to consider voting Sinn Fein).
Incidentally, I was one of the students who greatly preferred abstract maths to applied maths. A question about A, B, C etc. was easier to tackle than one about apples, pears and oranges, as I had to understand the analogy as well as working out the logic. That's what led to to do point-set topology in my PhD rather than any kind of applied maths.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=X1uJD1O3L08
IF she decides she wants to go for one - please just assume that - will her party IYO allow her to do it?
So IMO the suspicion of him on this particular issue at this particular time is not well founded.
On Brexit: A bum rap IMO. His policy (CU and SM) and his actions (e.g. supporting the Cooper amendment) are not evidence of a desire to have a hard-one.
@ Slackbladder - Yes, I agree. Labour's number one priority is not to help the Tories out of this mess.
Actually, if you do pop back here at some point, I would be interested in your view on this -
If TM decides she wants to go for a snap election - IF she decides that - do you think that her party would let her do it?
Shouldn’t it be “advises”?
Or is he mansplaining