On labours 'mad cap' scheme to insulate, double glaze and update heating in all UK homes by 2030 at a cost of 250 billion, 60 billion borrowed now but the rest coming from unidentified sources, you do have to wonder if they ever get out into the real world
The scheme will be free to everyone on benefits but they are 'kindly' offering interest free loans to everyone else. I assume this scheme will be mandatory, otherwise it will fall apart at the seams, so are they going to force homeowners to take out unwanted loans
I remember something similar being debated on here a year or two ago - and the point being made that many elderly people will not want unknown workmen coming into their homes creating a lot of mess etc.
In practice it would surely be almost impossible to make it compulsory - someone could just keep cancelling appointments. How could it be enforced - the Govt would have to go to Court to get a warrant to enter your property to do the work - are they really going to do that for millions of properties?
Question: Four draws, from a pack of 78 cards, what is the probability that the same card appears in each draw?
Answer: I'm going to make some simplifying assumptions here. I assume you don't care which is the "same card" beforehand. I assume that you don't replace the card once picked. OK, your draws will look like this (order not relevant)
Draw 1: * A,B,C. Probability p is 1.
Draw 2: * one of them must be A, B or C, * which is 1-(all of them must not be A,B nor C) * so p = 1-(75/78*74/77*73/76) * => p = 1-0.887599243 * => p = 0.112400757
Draw 3: * as draw 2 * so p = 0.112400757
Draw 4: * as draw 2 * so p = 0.112400757
So the probability p is 1*0.112400757*0.112400757*0.112400757 = 0.001420063 = 0.14% to two decimal places
NOTE * Please acknowledge receipt * This calculation might be bollocks. I have not checked it and I take no responsibility if it is right or wrong. Please ask other people to check it. If you want me to do a better calculation, please pay me.
lol. thanks very much!
Interesting.
Perhaps I didn't write my explanation very well. But the card is always replaced into the pack (it's a Tarot pack, that's how they work).
Let's say the card I got were these:
I do a traditional three card Tarot spread.
First spread, of a row of 3 cards, drawn from a totally shuffled pack of 78 cards:
Death Reversed, The Fool Upright, Magician Upright
i then replace all the cards, shuffle again, and draw 3 more cards from the pack of 78, and I get:
Lovers Reversed, The Fool Upright, Ace of Pentangles Reversed
Again the cards go back, pack is shuffled, next draw:
Fool Upright, Knight of Wands Reversed, 8 of Cups Reversed
Again the cards go back, pack is shuffled, next draw:
Fool Upright, Lovers Upright, King of Cups Reversed
I have now received the Fool Card, Upright, in four draw of 3 cards in sequence.
In my maths, which I believe is probably wrong, the chances of this happening are 1 in 140,608, or 0.00000711197%
The chance of getting any card four times in that way is surely (3 / 72) ^ 3
Interesting to note that the Separatist triad are not adverse to posting on a Welsh thread as they are on a Scottish thread.
Anyway, that's enough from me I've got a KFC coming to munch with the footie while we wait for Lewis's big race.
You are off your nut Briskin , as I tried to explain in simple language previously , some people work for a living and therefore are limited to the time they have to spend on the site, unlike yourself living a life of leisure at our expense.
A Conservative general election candidate in a key marginal seat wrote on social media that she believed people on the reality TV show Benefits Street needed “putting down”.
Francesca O’Brien, who was selected last month to stand in the target constituency of Gower, in south Wales, wrote a series of inflammatory comments about the Channel 4 programme on her Facebook page.
In posts that have since been deleted, she wrote in January 2014: “Benefit Street..anyone else watching this?? Wow, these people are unreal!!!”
In response to a friend’s comment, she wrote: “My blood is boiling, these people need putting down.”
In further comments under her post, O’Brien apparently endorsed a friend’s suggestion for “twat a tramp Tuesday” to “take your batts [sic] to the streets”.
This election comes down to just how good Boris is going to be and the last few weeks when Carrie will be alongside him apparently. She has taken six weeks off work, initially to campaign with conservative female candidates in individual marginal seats and then step in alongside Boris.
This will cause a 'stir' if it happens as the media will be enthralled with the important things in an election, like what Carrie is wearing but no doubt her strong green credentials. Indeed I believe this is where the fracking moratorium has come from
The question then will be one of how a presidential style campaign is received
Oh goodie. We're meant to be enthralled, are we, by policy being dictated by the PM's latest squeeze, an unelected person with no scientific credentials to her name......
True, Carrie has no scientific credentials. But, then, nor does Greta.
This election comes down to just how good Boris is going to be and the last few weeks when Carrie will be alongside him apparently. She has taken six weeks off work, initially to campaign with conservative female candidates in individual marginal seats and then step in alongside Boris.
This will cause a 'stir' if it happens as the media will be enthralled with the important things in an election, like what Carrie is wearing but no doubt her strong green credentials. Indeed I believe this is where the fracking moratorium has come from
The question then will be one of how a presidential style campaign is received
Oh goodie. We're meant to be enthralled, are we, by policy being dictated by the PM's latest squeeze, an unelected person with no scientific credentials to her name......
It is striking how autocratic Tory party policy making is. It is in the leaders gift, so if Carrie bends his ear on fracking, she gets her way. LDs, SNP and Labour do seem much more attached to party wide policy making. I am a bit surprised that Tories are so willing to accept it.
I am not sure that Carrie is wise to take such a role as the public partner, it does rather bring into prominence the PMs serial infidelity. There have been mistresses of PMs before, but usually decently discreet.
On these betting sites what does NOM mean? Does it mean no party that reaches 326 seats? It seems to me de facto majority is lower than 326 seats since one can count on SF not taking their seats.
There's also the speaker. A minimal, pass the Queen's Speech, majority is probably about 320-321 seats.
Question: Four draws, from a pack of 78 cards, what is the probability that the same card appears in each draw?
Answer: I'm going to make some simplifying assumptions here. I assume you don't care which is the "same card" beforehand. I assume that you don't replace the card once picked. OK, your draws will look like this (order not relevant)
Draw 1: * A,B,C. Probability p is 1.
Draw 2: * one of them must be A, B or C, * which is 1-(all of them must not be A,B nor C) * so p = 1-(75/78*74/77*73/76) * => p = 1-0.887599243 * => p = 0.112400757
Draw 3: * as draw 2 * so p = 0.112400757
Draw 4: * as draw 2 * so p = 0.112400757
So the probability p is 1*0.112400757*0.112400757*0.112400757 = 0.001420063 = 0.14% to two decimal places
NOTE * Please acknowledge receipt * This calculation might be bollocks. I have not checked it and I take no responsibility if it is right or wrong. Please ask other people to check it. If you want me to do a better calculation, please pay me.
I don't think Draws 3 and 4 are right because the card doesn't just have to be one of ABC, it also has to be the same one (or ones) of ABC that was found in Draw 2. In Draw 3 this is almost the same as the independent probability of only hitting (say) A, except that Draw 2 may have hit B and/or C as well.
This election comes down to just how good Boris is going to be and the last few weeks when Carrie will be alongside him apparently. She has taken six weeks off work, initially to campaign with conservative female candidates in individual marginal seats and then step in alongside Boris.
This will cause a 'stir' if it happens as the media will be enthralled with the important things in an election, like what Carrie is wearing but no doubt her strong green credentials. Indeed I believe this is where the fracking moratorium has come from
Gosh. It seems only yesterday she was throwing the crockery at him, the police were called and everyone wondered where he was going to spend the night.
I seem to remember we were all told it was an irrelevant side-issue then.
A Conservative general election candidate in a key marginal seat wrote on social media that she believed people on the reality TV show Benefits Street needed “putting down”.
Francesca O’Brien, who was selected last month to stand in the target constituency of Gower, in south Wales, wrote a series of inflammatory comments about the Channel 4 programme on her Facebook page.
In posts that have since been deleted, she wrote in January 2014: “Benefit Street..anyone else watching this?? Wow, these people are unreal!!!”
In response to a friend’s comment, she wrote: “My blood is boiling, these people need putting down.”
In further comments under her post, O’Brien apparently endorsed a friend’s suggestion for “twat a tramp Tuesday” to “take your batts [sic] to the streets”.
On labours 'mad cap' scheme to insulate, double glaze and update heating in all UK homes by 2030 at a cost of 250 billion, 60 billion borrowed now but the rest coming from unidentified sources, you do have to wonder if they ever get out into the real world
The scheme will be free to everyone on benefits but they are 'kindly' offering interest free loans to everyone else. I assume this scheme will be mandatory, otherwise it will fall apart at the seams, so are they going to force homeowners to take out unwanted loans
I remember something similar being debated on here a year or two ago - and the point being made that many elderly people will not want unknown workmen coming into their homes creating a lot of mess etc.
In practice it would surely be almost impossible to make it compulsory - someone could just keep cancelling appointments. How could it be enforced - the Govt would have to go to Court to get a warrant to enter your property to do the work - are they really going to do that for millions of properties?
Not that difficult.
The “loan” will automatically be taken via the tax system. So in effect it will be an extra tax - just dressed up. For pensioners it will be enforced as a compulsory charge against the home.
You will have to pay for it whether you want it or not. If you don’t let people in then to do the work - no bother. You’ll be paying for it anyway.
A Conservative general election candidate in a key marginal seat wrote on social media that she believed people on the reality TV show Benefits Street needed “putting down”.
Francesca O’Brien, who was selected last month to stand in the target constituency of Gower, in south Wales, wrote a series of inflammatory comments about the Channel 4 programme on her Facebook page.
In posts that have since been deleted, she wrote in January 2014: “Benefit Street..anyone else watching this?? Wow, these people are unreal!!!”
In response to a friend’s comment, she wrote: “My blood is boiling, these people need putting down.”
In further comments under her post, O’Brien apparently endorsed a friend’s suggestion for “twat a tramp Tuesday” to “take your batts [sic] to the streets”.
This election comes down to just how good Boris is going to be and the last few weeks when Carrie will be alongside him apparently. She has taken six weeks off work, initially to campaign with conservative female candidates in individual marginal seats and then step in alongside Boris.
This will cause a 'stir' if it happens as the media will be enthralled with the important things in an election, like what Carrie is wearing but no doubt her strong green credentials. Indeed I believe this is where the fracking moratorium has come from
Gosh. It seems only yesterday she was throwing the crockery at him, the police were called and everyone wondered where he was going to spend the night.
I seem to remember we were all told it was an irrelevant side-issue then.
They must have made up, much like a lot of couples
Perhaps I didn't write my explanation very well. But the card is always replaced into the pack (it's a Tarot pack, that's how they work).
Let's say the card I got were these:
I do a traditional three card Tarot spread.
First spread, of a row of 3 cards, drawn from a totally shuffled pack of 78 cards:
Death Reversed, The Fool Upright, Magician Upright
i then replace all the cards, shuffle again, and draw 3 more cards from the pack of 78, and I get:
Lovers Reversed, The Fool Upright, Ace of Pentangles Reversed
Again the cards go back, pack is shuffled, next draw:
Fool Upright, Knight of Wands Reversed, 8 of Cups Reversed
Again the cards go back, pack is shuffled, next draw:
Fool Upright, Lovers Upright, King of Cups Reversed
I have now received the Fool Card, Upright, in four draw of 3 cards in sequence.
In my maths, which I believe is probably wrong, the chances of this happening are 1 in 140,608, or 0.00000711197%
It might help the sums if you were interested in the probability of getting the Fool, Upright, 4 successive times. Otherwise you seem to be veering between caring that it is that particular card, or allowing it to be any card that is repeated.
Your calculation was, I think, (1 x 1) x (3/78 x 1/2) x (3/78 x 1/2) x (3/78 x 1/2) = 1/140,608
Now, if you are looking only for the Upright Fool, the first probability is wrong and should be the same as the others.
But if you do not care which of the three cards from the first draw is matched, then you need to multiply your figure by three (one for matching the first card, then same again for the second card, and once more for the third card of the original three).
Now, where it might get more complicated is if you then want to knock it down a bit to exclude 2 cards matching, or 3, or so on.
Health warning: I last studied probability decades ago.
I have now received the Fool Card, Upright, in four draw of 3 cards in sequence.
In my maths, which I believe is probably wrong, the chances of this happening are 1 in 140,608, or 0.00000711197%
The chance of getting any card four times in that way is surely (3 / 72) ^ 3
Or 0.007%
Unlikely, but not impossible.
How do we account for the difference between "Fool Upright" and "Fool Reversed", though? There's only one Fool in the deck of 78, but it sounds like Byronic cares which way up it comes out, which isn't usual in deck-of-cards probability questions and probably needs a factor of 2 putting in somewhere...
I have now received the Fool Card, Upright, in four draw of 3 cards in sequence.
In my maths, which I believe is probably wrong, the chances of this happening are 1 in 140,608, or 0.00000711197%
The chance of getting any card four times in that way is surely (3 / 72) ^ 3
Or 0.007%
Unlikely, but not impossible.
How do we account for the difference between "Fool Upright" and "Fool Reversed", though? There's only one Fool in the deck of 78, but it sounds like Byronic cares which way up it comes out, which isn't usual in deck-of-cards probability questions and probably needs a factor of 2 putting in somewhere...
This election comes down to just how good Boris is going to be and the last few weeks when Carrie will be alongside him apparently. She has taken six weeks off work, initially to campaign with conservative female candidates in individual marginal seats and then step in alongside Boris.
This will cause a 'stir' if it happens as the media will be enthralled with the important things in an election, like what Carrie is wearing but no doubt her strong green credentials. Indeed I believe this is where the fracking moratorium has come from
The question then will be one of how a presidential style campaign is received
Oh goodie. We're meant to be enthralled, are we, by policy being dictated by the PM's latest squeeze, an unelected person with no scientific credentials to her name......
True, Carrie has no scientific credentials. But, then, nor does Greta.
We should treat them both the same.
We should put Carrie on a boat in the middle of the Atlantic for a few weeks?
On these betting sites what does NOM mean? Does it mean no party that reaches 326 seats? It seems to me de facto majority is lower than 326 seats since one can count on SF not taking their seats.
There's also the speaker. A minimal, pass the Queen's Speech, majority is probably about 320-321 seats.
Yes but for betting purposes, as opposed to political purposes, you probably need to pretend Sinn Fein will take their seats. It might be best to study the rules of your particular bookmaker, who, if past experience is any guide, will not even have realised the ambiguity.
I have now received the Fool Card, Upright, in four draw of 3 cards in sequence.
In my maths, which I believe is probably wrong, the chances of this happening are 1 in 140,608, or 0.00000711197%
The chance of getting any card four times in that way is surely (3 / 72) ^ 3
Or 0.007%
Unlikely, but not impossible.
How do we account for the difference between "Fool Upright" and "Fool Reversed", though? There's only one Fool in the deck of 78, but it sounds like Byronic cares which way up it comes out, which isn't usual in deck-of-cards probability questions and probably needs a factor of 2 putting in somewhere...
I have now received the Fool Card, Upright, in four draw of 3 cards in sequence.
In my maths, which I believe is probably wrong, the chances of this happening are 1 in 140,608, or 0.00000711197%
The chance of getting any card four times in that way is surely (3 / 72) ^ 3
Or 0.007%
Unlikely, but not impossible.
How do we account for the difference between "Fool Upright" and "Fool Reversed", though? There's only one Fool in the deck of 78, but it sounds like Byronic cares which way up it comes out, which isn't usual in deck-of-cards probability questions and probably needs a factor of 2 putting in somewhere...
I don't believe that's truly random, because the way the tarot person puts cards into the deck and shuffles them will likely be the same every time.
I live in NE Bedfordshire, Alistair Burt's old constituency. It has always had an enormous Conservative majority, but Alistair was enormously well regarded, and people were distraught when he was booted out. I have just had the second set of Lib Dem campaign literature through my letterbox, and the Lib Dems have a strong presence on the local council. It would take an earthquake for the Conservatives to lose this seat, but earthquakes do happen; perhaps more to the point, if the Conservatives have to direct resources to a seat like this it takes resources away from other seats. Indeed the local Conservatives haven't even chose a candidate yet, or appeared to update their website
Boris has banned fracking to stop earthquakes.
Just sayin'.....
He hasn't ‘banned’ it, he has placed a moratorium on it. This of course had nothing to do with a looming election.
This election comes down to just how good Boris is going to be and the last few weeks when Carrie will be alongside him apparently. She has taken six weeks off work, initially to campaign with conservative female candidates in individual marginal seats and then step in alongside Boris.
This will cause a 'stir' if it happens as the media will be enthralled with the important things in an election, like what Carrie is wearing but no doubt her strong green credentials. Indeed I believe this is where the fracking moratorium has come from
The question then will be one of how a presidential style campaign is received
Oh goodie. We're meant to be enthralled, are we, by policy being dictated by the PM's latest squeeze, an unelected person with no scientific credentials to her name......
True, Carrie has no scientific credentials. But, then, nor does Greta.
We should treat them both the same.
We should put Carrie on a boat in the middle of the Atlantic for a few weeks?
The last-minute shifting of the COP25 conference from Santiago to Madrid is some Trump-level trolling
This election comes down to just how good Boris is going to be and the last few weeks when Carrie will be alongside him apparently. She has taken six weeks off work, initially to campaign with conservative female candidates in individual marginal seats and then step in alongside Boris.
This will cause a 'stir' if it happens as the media will be enthralled with the important things in an election, like what Carrie is wearing but no doubt her strong green credentials. Indeed I believe this is where the fracking moratorium has come from
The question then will be one of how a presidential style campaign is received
Oh goodie. We're meant to be enthralled, are we, by policy being dictated by the PM's latest squeeze, an unelected person with no scientific credentials to her name......
It is striking how autocratic Tory party policy making is. It is in the leaders gift, so if Carrie bends his ear on fracking, she gets her way. LDs, SNP and Labour do seem much more attached to party wide policy making. I am a bit surprised that Tories are so willing to accept it.
I am not sure that Carrie is wise to take such a role as the public partner, it does rather bring into prominence the PMs serial infidelity. There have been mistresses of PMs before, but usually decently discreet.
This election comes down to just how good Boris is going to be and the last few weeks when Carrie will be alongside him apparently. She has taken six weeks off work, initially to campaign with conservative female candidates in individual marginal seats and then step in alongside Boris.
This will cause a 'stir' if it happens as the media will be enthralled with the important things in an election, like what Carrie is wearing but no doubt her strong green credentials. Indeed I believe this is where the fracking moratorium has come from
The question then will be one of how a presidential style campaign is received
Oh goodie. We're meant to be enthralled, are we, by policy being dictated by the PM's latest squeeze, an unelected person with no scientific credentials to her name......
True, Carrie has no scientific credentials. But, then, nor does Greta.
We should treat them both the same.
We should put Carrie on a boat in the middle of the Atlantic for a few weeks?
Back from mobile penury and no vanilla comments... anyone know the odds on ex-Tory Dorrell for Buckingham?
No odds available as far as I can see.
If you're itching to place a bet, I'm tempted to put my money on Spurs winning and four goals in the match this afternoon another bet on Son to score two at 18/1
Honestly if you cannot beat Everton you deserve to be relegated.
When the blood moon rises, and thunder strikes the bowels of a decrepit earth, Jupiter rising in Orion spells 2 score years of misfortune for Byronic starting with a lost bet for which he will have to cough up soon for,........
That doesn't sound right -- in a double-sized pack with Fool-R and Fool-U cards you could draw both in a single 3-card spread, but with a 78-card pack where orientation matters, once you've drawn Fool-R then it's not possible for another card in the same spread to be Fool-U...
I live in NE Bedfordshire, Alistair Burt's old constituency. It has always had an enormous Conservative majority, but Alistair was enormously well regarded, and people were distraught when he was booted out. I have just had the second set of Lib Dem campaign literature through my letterbox, and the Lib Dems have a strong presence on the local council. It would take an earthquake for the Conservatives to lose this seat, but earthquakes do happen; perhaps more to the point, if the Conservatives have to direct resources to a seat like this it takes resources away from other seats. Indeed the local Conservatives haven't even chose a candidate yet, or appeared to update their website
Boris has banned fracking to stop earthquakes.
Just sayin'.....
He hasn't ‘banned’ it, he has placed a moratorium on it. This of course had nothing to do with a looming election.
You think it is going to be reinstated? Not seeing it. These earthquakes can't be prevented or predicted. No fracking until one of those changes I'd say.
I live here and i can tell, however much malcolmg likes to pretend otherwise, the SNP are nowadays hated by many people in the NE and are going to get panned in Dec. Their incompetence in government, their corruption, their utter uselessness with regard to the whisky and fishing industries will all play against them.
Useless, lazy english journalists never come up here and ask people what WE actually think.
On labours 'mad cap' scheme to insulate, double glaze and update heating in all UK homes by 2030 at a cost of 250 billion, 60 billion borrowed now but the rest coming from unidentified sources, you do have to wonder if they ever get out into the real world
The scheme will be free to everyone on benefits but they are 'kindly' offering interest free loans to everyone else. I assume this scheme will be mandatory, otherwise it will fall apart at the seams, so are they going to force homeowners to take out unwanted loans
I remember something similar being debated on here a year or two ago - and the point being made that many elderly people will not want unknown workmen coming into their homes creating a lot of mess etc.
In practice it would surely be almost impossible to make it compulsory - someone could just keep cancelling appointments. How could it be enforced - the Govt would have to go to Court to get a warrant to enter your property to do the work - are they really going to do that for millions of properties?
Not that difficult.
The “loan” will automatically be taken via the tax system. So in effect it will be an extra tax - just dressed up. For pensioners it will be enforced as a compulsory charge against the home.
You will have to pay for it whether you want it or not. If you don’t let people in then to do the work - no bother. You’ll be paying for it anyway.
The proposal is actually for a loan FROM the Govt TO the householder. Not the other way round.
On labours 'mad cap' scheme to insulate, double glaze and update heating in all UK homes by 2030 at a cost of 250 billion, 60 billion borrowed now but the rest coming from unidentified sources, you do have to wonder if they ever get out into the real world
The scheme will be free to everyone on benefits but they are 'kindly' offering interest free loans to everyone else. I assume this scheme will be mandatory, otherwise it will fall apart at the seams, so are they going to force homeowners to take out unwanted loans
I remember something similar being debated on here a year or two ago - and the point being made that many elderly people will not want unknown workmen coming into their homes creating a lot of mess etc.
In practice it would surely be almost impossible to make it compulsory - someone could just keep cancelling appointments. How could it be enforced - the Govt would have to go to Court to get a warrant to enter your property to do the work - are they really going to do that for millions of properties?
No surprise and given how far the Spanish have gone to block a Catalan independence vote Boris has plenty of leeway to block any indyref2 while he is PM
On labours 'mad cap' scheme to insulate, double glaze and update heating in all UK homes by 2030 at a cost of 250 billion, 60 billion borrowed now but the rest coming from unidentified sources, you do have to wonder if they ever get out into the real world
The scheme will be free to everyone on benefits but they are 'kindly' offering interest free loans to everyone else. I assume this scheme will be mandatory, otherwise it will fall apart at the seams, so are they going to force homeowners to take out unwanted loans
I remember something similar being debated on here a year or two ago - and the point being made that many elderly people will not want unknown workmen coming into their homes creating a lot of mess etc.
In practice it would surely be almost impossible to make it compulsory - someone could just keep cancelling appointments. How could it be enforced - the Govt would have to go to Court to get a warrant to enter your property to do the work - are they really going to do that for millions of properties?
Not that difficult.
The “loan” will automatically be taken via the tax system. So in effect it will be an extra tax - just dressed up. For pensioners it will be enforced as a compulsory charge against the home.
You will have to pay for it whether you want it or not. If you don’t let people in then to do the work - no bother. You’ll be paying for it anyway.
The proposal is actually for a loan FROM the Govt TO the householder. Not the other way round.
I know that.
Everyone will get a “loan” in the form of a voucher or some such for the work to be done.
The “loan” will be repaid via the tax system either via PAYE or via council tax. Or an option to add it as a charge on your house.
They’ll not be giving out cash for people to get the work done. You get your voucher. You register with an approved panel to get the work done and wait in line.
You’ll pay for it whether you use the voucher or not. It’s a tax.
Question: Four draws, from a pack of 78 cards, what is the probability that the same card appears in each draw?
Answer: I'm going to make some simplifying assumptions here. I assume you don't care which is the "same card" beforehand. I assume that you don't replace the card once picked. OK, your draws will look like this (order not relevant)
Draw 1: * A,B,C. Probability p is 1.
Draw 2: * one of them must be A, B or C, * which is 1-(all of them must not be A,B nor C) * so p = 1-(75/78*74/77*73/76) * => p = 1-0.887599243 * => p = 0.112400757
Draw 3: * as draw 2 * so p = 0.112400757
Draw 4: * as draw 2 * so p = 0.112400757
So the probability p is 1*0.112400757*0.112400757*0.112400757 = 0.001420063 = 0.14% to two decimal places
NOTE * Please acknowledge receipt * This calculation might be bollocks. I have not checked it and I take no responsibility if it is right or wrong. Please ask other people to check it. If you want me to do a better calculation, please pay me.
I don't think Draws 3 and 4 are right because the card doesn't just have to be one of ABC, it also has to be the same one (or ones) of ABC that was found in Draw 2. In Draw 3 this is almost the same as the independent probability of only hitting (say) A, except that Draw 2 may have hit B and/or C as well.
All the inputs need doubling, because if Upright and Reversed are options for each of 78 cards that's 156 possibilities not 78.
edit sorry this is partly wrong and partly already discussed
I have worked with, investigated and interviewed many people like Boris. Getting the truth out of them is like trying to nail jelly to a wall.
I have absolutely no doubt that had Boris gone into the City he would have ended up being investigated by people like me. I am therefore completely immune to his charms, though I recognise that others aren't. Wholly untrustworthy, IMO. Note that untrustworthy people often have other talents. The pity of them is that if they had integrity they would not get themselves or others into trouble and could use their talents wisely and effectively. But I'm afraid that, for me, the lack of integrity is a big no-no.
It is probably naive - or touchingly hopeful - of me to believe, as I was told when I was a child, that your lies eventually catch up with you.
Whoever told you that as a child was ... err ... lying.
All the evidence of modern politics is that liars prosper enormously (see Blair, Clinton, Trump, Johnson).
Stodgy people without the facility of glib & charming mendacity are usually failures (Brown, May).
It is one of the reasons why I am braced for a Tory majority.
It is possible to be a person of integrity without being stodgy. May was not particularly truthful either - or Brown, come to that.
I still think trying to be a person of integrity is worth while and the only decent way to live your life, even if you fall short.
Who was the last totally honest politician to achieve high political office? I’m struggling to think of one. Callaghan or Home would come closest, but not necessarily close.
A few porkies for reason of state have been tolerated for some time. Here's Edward Gibbon writing in 1776.
"Falsehood and insincerity, unsuitable as they seem to the dignity of public transactions, offend us with a less degrading idea of meanness, than when they are found in the intercourse of private life. In the latter, they discover a want of courage; in the other, only a defect of power: and, as it is impossible for the most able statesmen to subdue millions of followers and enemies by their own personal strength, the world, under the name of policy, seems to have granted them a very liberal indulgence of craft and dissimulation."
This election comes down to just how good Boris is going to be and the last few weeks when Carrie will be alongside him apparently. She has taken six weeks off work, initially to campaign with conservative female candidates in individual marginal seats and then step in alongside Boris.
This will cause a 'stir' if it happens as the media will be enthralled with the important things in an election, like what Carrie is wearing but no doubt her strong green credentials. Indeed I believe this is where the fracking moratorium has come from
The question then will be one of how a presidential style campaign is received
Oh goodie. We're meant to be enthralled, are we, by policy being dictated by the PM's latest squeeze, an unelected person with no scientific credentials to her name......
True, Carrie has no scientific credentials. But, then, nor does Greta.
We should treat them both the same.
Greta, however repeatedly asks people to listen to the scientists. Does Carrie?
On labours 'mad cap' scheme to insulate, double glaze and update heating in all UK homes by 2030 at a cost of 250 billion, 60 billion borrowed now but the rest coming from unidentified sources, you do have to wonder if they ever get out into the real world
The scheme will be free to everyone on benefits but they are 'kindly' offering interest free loans to everyone else. I assume this scheme will be mandatory, otherwise it will fall apart at the seams, so are they going to force homeowners to take out unwanted loans
I remember something similar being debated on here a year or two ago - and the point being made that many elderly people will not want unknown workmen coming into their homes creating a lot of mess etc.
In practice it would surely be almost impossible to make it compulsory - someone could just keep cancelling appointments. How could it be enforced - the Govt would have to go to Court to get a warrant to enter your property to do the work - are they really going to do that for millions of properties?
Not that difficult.
The “loan” will automatically be taken via the tax system. So in effect it will be an extra tax - just dressed up. For pensioners it will be enforced as a compulsory charge against the home.
You will have to pay for it whether you want it or not. If you don’t let people in then to do the work - no bother. You’ll be paying for it anyway.
The proposal is actually for a loan FROM the Govt TO the householder. Not the other way round.
I know that.
Everyone will get a “loan” in the form of a voucher or some such for the work to be done.
The “loan” will be repaid via the tax system either via PAYE or via council tax. Or an option to add it as a charge on your house.
They’ll not be giving out cash for people to get the work done. You get your voucher. You register with an approved panel to get the work done and wait in line.
You’ll pay for it whether you use the voucher or not. It’s a tax.
A warmth tax.
If you like.
OK, fine, no problem.
If it's as you state it's a certainty that millions won't bother with it and will just pay the "tax".
How well this goes down politically we'll have to wait and see - I can imagine it not being particularly popular!
I have worked with, investigated and interviewed many people like Boris. Getting the truth out of them is like trying to nail jelly to a wall.
I have absolutely no doubt that had Boris gone into the City he would have ended up being investigated by people like me. I am therefore completely immune to his charms, though I recognise that others aren't. Wholly untrustworthy, IMO. Note that untrustworthy people often have other talents. The pity of them is that if they had integrity they would not get themselves or others into trouble and could use their talents wisely and effectively. But I'm afraid that, for me, the lack of integrity is a big no-no.
It is probably naive - or touchingly hopeful - of me to believe, as I was told when I was a child, that your lies eventually catch up with you.
Whoever told you that as a child was ... err ... lying.
All the evidence of modern politics is that liars prosper enormously (see Blair, Clinton, Trump, Johnson).
Stodgy people without the facility of glib & charming mendacity are usually failures (Brown, May).
It is one of the reasons why I am braced for a Tory majority.
It is possible to be a person of integrity without being stodgy. May was not particularly truthful either - or Brown, come to that.
I still think trying to be a person of integrity is worth while and the only decent way to live your life, even if you fall short.
Who was the last totally honest politician to achieve high political office? I’m struggling to think of one. Callaghan or Home would come closest, but not necessarily close.
I don't know about total honesty. Major was OK. Thatcher didn't strike me as a fundamentally dishonest person, in the way that Boris does. Was Heath particularly dishonest?
I live here and i can tell, however much malcolmg likes to pretend otherwise, the SNP are nowadays hated by many people in the NE and are going to get panned in Dec. Their incompetence in government, their corruption, their utter uselessness with regard to the whisky and fishing industries will all play against them.
Useless, lazy english journalists never come up here and ask people what WE actually think.
You live 'here' do you? Are you sure you don't live 'there'?
I have worked with, investigated and interviewed many people like Boris. Getting the truth out of them is like trying to nail jelly to a wall.
I have absolutely no doubt that had Boris gone into the City he would have ended up being investigated by people like me. I am therefore completely immune to his charms, though I recognise that others aren't. Wholly untrustworthy, IMO. Note that untrustworthy people often have other talents. The pity of them is that if they had integrity they would not get themselves or others into trouble and could use their talents wisely and effectively. But I'm afraid that, for me, the lack of integrity is a big no-no.
It is probably naive - or touchingly hopeful - of me to believe, as I was told when I was a child, that your lies eventually catch up with you.
Whoever told you that as a child was ... err ... lying.
All the evidence of modern politics is that liars prosper enormously (see Blair, Clinton, Trump, Johnson).
Stodgy people without the facility of glib & charming mendacity are usually failures (Brown, May).
It is one of the reasons why I am braced for a Tory majority.
It is possible to be a person of integrity without being stodgy. May was not particularly truthful either - or Brown, come to that.
I still think trying to be a person of integrity is worth while and the only decent way to live your life, even if you fall short.
Who was the last totally honest politician to achieve high political office? I’m struggling to think of one. Callaghan or Home would come closest, but not necessarily close.
A few porkies for reason of state have been tolerated for some time. Here's Edward Gibbon writing in 1776.
"Falsehood and insincerity, unsuitable as they seem to the dignity of public transactions, offend us with a less degrading idea of meanness, than when they are found in the intercourse of private life. In the latter, they discover a want of courage; in the other, only a defect of power: and, as it is impossible for the most able statesmen to subdue millions of followers and enemies by their own personal strength, the world, under the name of policy, seems to have granted them a very liberal indulgence of craft and dissimulation."
On labours 'mad cap' scheme to insulate, double glaze and update heating in all UK homes by 2030 at a cost of 250 billion, 60 billion borrowed now but the rest coming from unidentified sources, you do have to wonder if they ever get out into the real world
The scheme will be free to everyone on benefits but they are 'kindly' offering interest free loans to everyone else. I assume this scheme will be mandatory, otherwise it will fall apart at the seams, so are they going to force homeowners to take out unwanted loans
I remember something similar being debated on here a year or two ago - and the point being made that many elderly people will not want unknown workmen coming into their homes creating a lot of mess etc.
In practice it would surely be almost impossible to make it compulsory - someone could just keep cancelling appointments. How could it be enforced - the Govt would have to go to Court to get a warrant to enter your property to do the work - are they really going to do that for millions of properties?
Not that difficult.
The “loan” will automatically be taken via the tax system. So in effect it will be an extra tax - just dressed up. For pensioners it will be enforced as a compulsory charge against the home.
You will have to pay for it whether you want it or not. If you don’t let people in then to do the work - no bother. You’ll be paying for it anyway.
The proposal is actually for a loan FROM the Govt TO the householder. Not the other way round.
I know that.
Everyone will get a “loan” in the form of a voucher or some such for the work to be done.
The “loan” will be repaid via the tax system either via PAYE or via council tax. Or an option to add it as a charge on your house.
They’ll not be giving out cash for people to get the work done. You get your voucher. You register with an approved panel to get the work done and wait in line.
You’ll pay for it whether you use the voucher or not. It’s a tax.
A warmth tax.
If you like.
Any compulsive element to it - and it will get bent out of shape by opponents in an election campaign. Ask Theresa May.
Without the compulsive element it won't be effective.
Question: Four draws, from a pack of 78 cards, what is the probability that the same card appears in each draw?
Answer: I'm going to make some simplifying assumptions here. I assume you don't care which is the "same card" beforehand. I assume that you don't replace the card once picked. OK, your draws will look like this (order not relevant)
Draw 1: * A,B,C. Probability p is 1.
Draw 2: * one of them must be A, B or C, * which is 1-(all of them must not be A,B nor C) * so p = 1-(75/78*74/77*73/76) * => p = 1-0.887599243 * => p = 0.112400757
Draw 3: * as draw 2 * so p = 0.112400757
Draw 4: * as draw 2 * so p = 0.112400757
So the probability p is 1*0.112400757*0.112400757*0.112400757 = 0.001420063 = 0.14% to two decimal places
NOTE * Please acknowledge receipt * This calculation might be bollocks. I have not checked it and I take no responsibility if it is right or wrong. Please ask other people to check it. If you want me to do a better calculation, please pay me.
lol. thanks very much!
Interesting.
Perhaps I didn't write my explanation very well. But the card is always replaced into the pack (it's a Tarot pack, that's how they work).
Let's say the card I got were these:
I do a traditional three card Tarot spread.
First spread, of a row of 3 cards, drawn from a totally shuffled pack of 78 cards:
Death Reversed, The Fool Upright, Magician Upright
i then replace all the cards, shuffle again, and draw 3 more cards from the pack of 78, and I get:
Lovers Reversed, The Fool Upright, Ace of Pentangles Reversed
Again the cards go back, pack is shuffled, next draw:
Fool Upright, Knight of Wands Reversed, 8 of Cups Reversed
Again the cards go back, pack is shuffled, next draw:
Fool Upright, Lovers Upright, King of Cups Reversed
I have now received the Fool Card, Upright, in four draw of 3 cards in sequence.
In my maths, which I believe is probably wrong, the chances of this happening are 1 in 140,608, or 0.00000711197%
Sorry I meant "For each draw I assume that you don't replace the card once picked".
Where did you get 140,608 from? It's not divisible by 78 nor 77.
I live here and i can tell, however much malcolmg likes to pretend otherwise, the SNP are nowadays hated by many people in the NE and are going to get panned in Dec. Their incompetence in government, their corruption, their utter uselessness with regard to the whisky and fishing industries will all play against them.
Useless, lazy english journalists never come up here and ask people what WE actually think.
They are probably afraid they'll run into someone like you.
Question: Four draws, from a pack of 78 cards, what is the probability that the same card * => p = 0.112400757
Draw 3: * as draw 2 * so p = 0.112400757
Draw is right or wrong. Please ask other people to check it. If you want me to do a better calculation, please pay me.
lol. thanks very much!
Interesting.
Perhaps I didn't write my explanation very well. But the card is always replaced into the pack (it's a Tarot pack, that's how they work).
Let's say the card I got were these:
I do a traditional three card Tarot spread.
First spread, of a row of 3 cards, drawn from a totally shuffled pack of 78 cards:
Death Reversed, The Fool Upright, Magician Upright
i then replace all the cards, shuffle again, and draw 3 more cards from the pack of 78, and I get:
Lovers Reversed, The Fool Upright, Ace of Pentangles Reversed
Again the cards go back, pack is shuffled, next draw:
Fool Upright, Knight of Wands Reversed, 8 of Cups Reversed
Again the cards go back, pack is shuffled, next draw:
Fool Upright, Lovers Upright, King of Cups Reversed
I have now received the Fool Card, Upright, in four draw of 3 cards in sequence.
In my maths, which I believe is probably wrong, the chances of this happening are 1 in 140,608, or 0.00000711197%
After the first draw you have three designated cards out of a deck of 78. It doesn’t matter which they are.
In the second draw, there is an 89% (just under) chance of getting three different cards, and just over an 11% chance of getting at least one card the same. There are very small chances of getting two or three cards the same, which I will ignore to simplify the maths.
In the third draw, run with the situation that you now have one designated card. The chance of it appearing again is just under 4%. In this circumstance you have another 4% chance of getting the same card again in the fourth draw.
The chance of getting the same card in all four draws is therefore about 0.017%. It’s actually marginally better than this because of the small chance of two of the cards from the second draw matching the first, increasing your chances at draw three. And so on.
Then we have the additional factor that cards can be upright or reversed. In the first draw it doesn’t matter - the chance of the same card being that way up in the next three draws is one in eight. Therefore the final percentage is somewhere not too far above 0.002%, or about one in 48000.
On labours 'mad cap' scheme to insulate, double glaze and update heating in all UK homes by 2030 at a cost of 250 billion, 60 billion borrowed now but the rest coming from unidentified sources, you do have to wonder if they ever get out into the real world
The scheme will be free to everyone on benefits but they are 'kindly' offering interest free loans to everyone else. I assume this scheme will be mandatory, otherwise it will fall apart at the seams, so are they going to force homeowners to take out unwanted loans
I
In practice it would surely be almost impossible to make it compulsory - someone could just keep cancelling appointments. How could it be enforced - the Govt would have to go to Court to get a warrant to enter your property to do the work - are they really going to do that for millions of properties?
Not that difficult.
The “loan” will automatically be taken via the tax system. So in effect it will be an extra tax - just dressed up. For pensioners it will be enforced as a compulsory charge against the home.
You will have to pay for it whether you want it or not. If you don’t let people in then to do the work - no bother. You’ll be paying for it anyway.
The proposal is actually for a loan FROM the Govt TO the householder. Not the other way round.
I know that.
Everyone will get a “loan” in the form of a voucher or some such for the work to be done.
The “loan” will be repaid via the tax system either via PAYE or via council tax. Or an option to add it as a charge on your house.
They’ll not be giving out cash for people to get the work done. You get your voucher. You register with an approved panel to get the work done and wait in line.
You’ll pay for it whether you use the voucher or not. It’s a tax.
A warmth tax.
If you like.
Any compulsive element to it - and it will get bent out of shape by opponents in an election campaign. Ask Theresa May.
Without the compulsive element it won't be effective.
An unnecessary mis-step by Labour?
Really depends if the media ask the right questions. And the Tories of course.
In a campaign the details won’t be precisely defined. If it ever came to pass that the policy was implemented then the 30-40% of the population who will be thoroughly pissed are not the 30-40% Corbyn is particularly interested in. At all. And they couldn’t do anything about it anyway if repayment enforced via HMRC.
It would have to be compulsory to work.
It would be dressed up with green credentials to pacify a few but it’s a revenue generator predominately paid for by people who won’t want or need it.
"Some people will be unionists before anything else, there's nothing wrong with that anymore than someone being nationalists first. Can't say I'd expect much of it though."
I'd expect tory gains in Scotland - Kezia here telling it like it is.
I live in Scotland. I got a targeted Scot Tory Instagram advert telling me all about Corbyn's Indyref 2 stance and that the Scottish Tories were the only ones standing up to the SNP. Not strictly true (aren't the Lib Dems standing up to them too?), but very, very good targeting.
Pastor in a Gospel Megachurch in Louisiana with a largely African American congregation tweets that Democrats should not vote for Buttigieg as he is in a gay marriage
I hope Con MPs don't vote for Laing such that Hoyle gets eliminated in 3rd place and then Harman beats Laing with Lab vote solid for Harman in run-off vs Laing.
Hoyle is by miles the best option and Con MPs should vote for Hoyle.
Question: Four draws, from a pack of 78 cards, what is the probability that the same card appears in each draw?
Answer: I'm going to make some simplifying assumptions here. I assume you don't care which is the "same card" beforehand. I assume that you don't replace the card once picked. OK, your draws will look like this (order not relevant)
Draw 1: * A,B,C. Probability p is 1.
Draw 2: * one of them must be A, B or C, * which is 1-(all of them must not be A,B nor C) * so p = 1-(75/78*74/77*73/76) * => p = 1-0.887599243 * => p = 0.112400757
Draw 3: * as draw 2 * so p = 0.112400757
Draw 4: * as draw 2 * so p = 0.112400757
So the probability p is 1*0.112400757*0.112400757*0.112400757 = 0.001420063 = 0.14% to two decimal places
NOTE * Please acknowledge receipt * This calculation might be bollocks. I have not checked it and I take no responsibility if it is right or wrong. Please ask other people to check it. If you want me to do a better calculation, please pay me.
lol. thanks very much!
Interesting.
Perhaps I didn't write my explanation very well. But the card is always replaced into the pack (it's a Tarot pack, that's how they work).
Let's say the card I got were these:
I do a traditional three card Tarot spread.
First spread, of a row of 3 cards, drawn from a totally shuffled pack of 78 cards:
Death Reversed, The Fool Upright, Magician Upright
i then replace all the cards, shuffle again, and draw 3 more cards from the pack of 78, and I get:
Lovers Reversed, The Fool Upright, Ace of Pentangles Reversed
Again the cards go back, pack is shuffled, next draw:
Fool Upright, Knight of Wands Reversed, 8 of Cups Reversed
Again the cards go back, pack is shuffled, next draw:
Fool Upright, Lovers Upright, King of Cups Reversed
I have now received the Fool Card, Upright, in four draw of 3 cards in sequence.
In my maths, which I believe is probably wrong, the chances of this happening are 1 in 140,608, or 0.00000711197%
Sorry I meant "For each draw I assume that you don't replace the card once picked".
Where did you get 140,608 from? It's not divisible by 78 nor 77.
The maths for this is sufficiently convoluted that the final answer isn’t going to divide by anything in particular.
We should draft in Scott_P with his excellent Monty haul problem insights.
Like how to spell Hall, for example...
Alas, I used the term of the classic Role Playing Game problem of giving players too much loot rather than the name of the famois probabalistic puzzler.
I hope Con MPs don't vote for Laing such that Hoyle gets eliminated in 3rd place and then Harman beats Laing with Lab vote solid for Harman in run-off vs Laing.
Hoyle is by miles the best option and Con MPs should vote for Hoyle.
Laing would beat Harman in a run-off, Con and DUP MPs would vote for Laing over Harman (though running the Epping campaign with Eleanor as Speaker and Labour and the LDs by convention thus standing down their candidates in Epping Forest leaving a straight fight with the Brexit Party candidate would make things complicated over the next few weeks)
Increasingly there are no safe seats. Politics is just too volatile. Maybe not this time, but the joyous day will come when the blues lose their grip on their safe seats.
Perhaps when Labour come to their senses
Going to be a long wait then
The Tories have held Horsham continuously since 1880, and won it at every General Election since 1868 (interrupted by two by-election defeats).
How’s that for a long wait for change?
As a former Horshamite, I can tell you we'd happily elect a donkey with a blue rosette, and in the case of the now ennobled Lord Maude, we did so for many years.
I live here and i can tell, however much malcolmg likes to pretend otherwise, the SNP are nowadays hated by many people in the NE and are going to get panned in Dec. Their incompetence in government, their corruption, their utter uselessness with regard to the whisky and fishing industries will all play against them.
Useless, lazy english journalists never come up here and ask people what WE actually think.
They are probably afraid they'll run into someone like you.
When all they do is ask shouty, dreary, entitled middle class nats like you.
Question: Four draws, from a pack of 78 cards, what is the probability that the same card * => p = 0.112400757
Draw 3: * as draw 2 * so p = 0.112400757
Draw is right or wrong. Please ask other people to check it. If you want me to do a better calculation, please pay me.
lol. thanks very much!
Interesting.
Perhaps I didn't write my explanation very well. But the card is always replaced into the pack (it's a Tarot pack, that's how they work).
Let's say the card I got were these:
I do a traditional three card Tarot spread.
First spread, of a row of 3 cards, drawn from a totally shuffled pack of 78 cards:
Death Reversed, The Fool Upright, Magician Upright
i then replace all the cards, shuffle again, and draw 3 more cards from the pack of 78, and I get:
Lovers Reversed, The Fool Upright, Ace of Pentangles Reversed
Again the cards go back, pack is shuffled, next draw:
Fool Upright, Knight of Wands Reversed, 8 of Cups Reversed
Again the cards go back, pack is shuffled, next draw:
Fool Upright, Lovers Upright, King of Cups Reversed
I have now received the Fool Card, Upright, in four draw of 3 cards in sequence.
In my maths, which I believe is probably wrong, the chances of this happening are 1 in 140,608, or 0.00000711197%
After the first draw you have three designated cards out of a deck of 78. It doesn’t matter which they are.
In the second draw, there is an 89% (just under) chance of getting three different cards, and just over an 11% chance of getting at least one card the same. There are very small chances of getting two or three cards the same, which I will ignore to simplify the maths.
In the third draw, run with the situation that you now have one designated card. The chance of it appearing again is just under 4%. In this circumstance you have another 4% chance of getting the same card again in the fourth draw.
The chance of getting the same card in all four draws is therefore about 0.017%. It’s actually marginally better than this because of the small chance of two of the cards from the second draw matching the first, increasing your chances at draw three. And so on.
Then we have the additional factor that cards can be upright or reversed. In the first draw it doesn’t matter - the chance of the same card being that way up in the next three draws is one in eight. Therefore the final percentage is somewhere not too far above 0.002%, or about one in 48000.
My calculation agrees with 0.017 per cent.
It is 78 * ( 1/78 + 77/78*1/77 + 77/78*76/77*1/76)^4
The quantity in brackets is the probability of drawing The Fool Upright in one draw. Raise to the power of 4.
I live here and i can tell, however much malcolmg likes to pretend otherwise, the SNP are nowadays hated by many people in the NE and are going to get panned in Dec. Their incompetence in government, their corruption, their utter uselessness with regard to the whisky and fishing industries will all play against them.
Useless, lazy english journalists never come up here and ask people what WE actually think.
They are probably afraid they'll run into someone like you.
When all they do is ask shouty, dreary, entitled middle class nats like you.
Christ, are we bored with you lot up here.
The idea that Nats are over represented in media coverage of Scotland is hilarious.
I hope Con MPs don't vote for Laing such that Hoyle gets eliminated in 3rd place and then Harman beats Laing with Lab vote solid for Harman in run-off vs Laing.
Hoyle is by miles the best option and Con MPs should vote for Hoyle.
Laing would beat Harman in a run-off, Con and DUP MPs would vote for Laing over Harman (though running the Epping campaign with Eleanor as Speaker and Labour and the LDs by convention thus standing down their candidates in Epping Forest leaving a straight fight with the Brexit Party candidate would make things complicated over the next few weeks)
The question is how many mps are going to be there. Most are on the campaign trail
I live here and i can tell, however much malcolmg likes to pretend otherwise, the SNP are nowadays hated by many people in the NE and are going to get panned in Dec. Their incompetence in government, their corruption, their utter uselessness with regard to the whisky and fishing industries will all play against them.
Useless, lazy english journalists never come up here and ask people what WE actually think.
They are probably afraid they'll run into someone like you.
When all they do is ask shouty, dreary, entitled middle class nats like you.
I live here and i can tell, however much malcolmg likes to pretend otherwise, the SNP are nowadays hated by many people in the NE and are going to get panned in Dec. Their incompetence in government, their corruption, their utter uselessness with regard to the whisky and fishing industries will all play against them.
Useless, lazy english journalists never come up here and ask people what WE actually think.
They are probably afraid they'll run into someone like you.
When all they do is ask shouty, dreary, entitled middle class nats like you.
Christ, are we bored with you lot up here.
The idea that Nats are over represented in media coverage of Scotland is hilarious.
The London media mistake the SNP for "Scotland"and hang on their every word.
Question: Four draws, from a pack of 78 cards, what is the probability that the same card * => p = 0.112400757
Draw 3: * as draw 2 * so p = 0.112400757
Draw is right or wrong. Please ask other people to check it. If you want me to do a better calculation, please pay me.
lol. thanks very much!
Interesting.
Perhaps I didn't write my explanation very well. But the card is always replaced into the pack (it's a Tarot pack, that's how they work).
Let's say the card I got were these:
I do a traditional three card Tarot spread.
First spread, of a row of 3 cards, drawn from a totally shuffled pack of 78 cards:
Death Reversed, The Fool Upright, Magician Upright
i then replace all the cards, shuffle again, and draw 3 more cards from the pack of 78, and I get:
Lovers Reversed, The Fool Upright, Ace of Pentangles Reversed
Again the cards go back, pack is shuffled, next draw:
Fool Upright, Knight of Wands Reversed, 8 of Cups Reversed
Again the cards go back, pack is shuffled, next draw:
Fool Upright, Lovers Upright, King of Cups Reversed
I have now received the Fool Card, Upright, in four draw of 3 cards in sequence.
In my maths, which I believe is probably wrong, the chances of this happening are 1 in 140,608, or 0.00000711197%
After the first draw you have three designated cards out of a deck of 78. It doesn’t matter which they are.
In the second draw, there is an 89% (just under) chance of getting three different cards, and just over an 11% chance of getting at least one card the same. There are very small chances of getting two or three cards the same, which I will ignore to simplify the maths.
In the third draw, run with the situation that you now have one designated card. The chance of it appearing again is just under 4%. In this circumstance you have another 4% chance of getting the same card again in the fourth draw.
The chance of getting the same card in all four draws is therefore about 0.017%. It’s actually marginally better than this because of the small chance of two of the cards from the second draw matching the first, increasing your chances at draw three. And so on.
Then we have the additional factor that cards can be upright or reversed. In the first draw it doesn’t matter - the chance of the same card being that way up in the next three draws is one in eight. Therefore the final percentage is somewhere not too far above 0.002%, or about one in 48000.
I don't believe that the "right way" up bit will be truly random, as the tarot reader will presumably follow the same process every time for returning cards to the deck and shuffling them.
Your analysis of the second draw is spot on - I missed that there were more opportunities to get a same card.
I live here and i can tell, however much malcolmg likes to pretend otherwise, the SNP are nowadays hated by many people in the NE and are going to get panned in Dec. Their incompetence in government, their corruption, their utter uselessness with regard to the whisky and fishing industries will all play against them.
Useless, lazy english journalists never come up here and ask people what WE actually think.
They are probably afraid they'll run into someone like you.
When all they do is ask shouty, dreary, entitled middle class nats like you.
I hope Con MPs don't vote for Laing such that Hoyle gets eliminated in 3rd place and then Harman beats Laing with Lab vote solid for Harman in run-off vs Laing.
Hoyle is by miles the best option and Con MPs should vote for Hoyle.
Laing would beat Harman in a run-off, Con and DUP MPs would vote for Laing over Harman (though running the Epping campaign with Eleanor as Speaker and Labour and the LDs by convention thus standing down their candidates in Epping Forest leaving a straight fight with the Brexit Party candidate would make things complicated over the next few weeks)
The question is how many mps are going to be there. Most are on the campaign trail
There will be a full house for the Speaker vote on Monday, most MPs will have been in their constituencies this weekend but the campaign proper does not start until Parliament is dissolved on Wednesday
I hope Con MPs don't vote for Laing such that Hoyle gets eliminated in 3rd place and then Harman beats Laing with Lab vote solid for Harman in run-off vs Laing.
Hoyle is by miles the best option and Con MPs should vote for Hoyle.
Laing would beat Harman in a run-off, Con and DUP MPs would vote for Laing over Harman (though running the Epping campaign with Eleanor as Speaker and Labour and the LDs by convention thus standing down their candidates in Epping Forest leaving a straight fight with the Brexit Party candidate would make things complicated over the next few weeks)
The question is how many mps are going to be there. Most are on the campaign trail
There will be a full house for the Speaker vote, most MPs will have been in their constituencies this weekend but the campaign proper does not start until Parliament is dissolved on Wednesday
I live here and i can tell, however much malcolmg likes to pretend otherwise, the SNP are nowadays hated by many people in the NE and are going to get panned in Dec. Their incompetence in government, their corruption, their utter uselessness with regard to the whisky and fishing industries will all play against them.
Useless, lazy english journalists never come up here and ask people what WE actually think.
They are probably afraid they'll run into someone like you.
When all they do is ask shouty, dreary, entitled middle class nats like you.
Christ, are we bored with you lot up here.
The idea that Nats are over represented in media coverage of Scotland is hilarious.
"We" are definitely over-represented if I count as a "nat". Like many others I'm on the fence when it comes to independence. Anyway, I don't live in Scotland any more, so I have the mercy of not having any chance of running into planky mcplankface.
Not sure if any of you have heard but it was announced a short time ago on the STV news that Ross Thomson has indicated he will not defend Aberdeen South in view of the smutty allegations against him by the young Glasgow Labour MP Paul Sweeney. Depending on who the new Tory candidate will be, I suspect a better chance of Conservative Hold.
I live here and i can tell, however much malcolmg likes to pretend otherwise, the SNP are nowadays hated by many people in the NE and are going to get panned in Dec. Their incompetence in government, their corruption, their utter uselessness with regard to the whisky and fishing industries will all play against them.
Useless, lazy english journalists never come up here and ask people what WE actually think.
They are probably afraid they'll run into someone like you.
When all they do is ask shouty, dreary, entitled middle class nats like you.
Christ, are we bored with you lot up here.
The idea that Nats are over represented in media coverage of Scotland is hilarious.
It's hilarious to you because you reside perpetually in an echo chamber of nationalist outrage. That's why PB is good for all of us - it exposes us to a different persective.
Not sure if any of you have heard but it was announced a short time ago on the STV news that Ross Thomson has indicated he will not defend Aberdeen South in view of the smutty allegations against him by the young Glasgow Labour MP Paul Sweeney. Depending on who the new Tory candidate will be, I suspect a better chance of Conservative Hold.
Perhaps the wrong choice of words under the circumstances.
I live here and i can tell, however much malcolmg likes to pretend otherwise, the SNP are nowadays hated by many people in the NE and are going to get panned in Dec. Their incompetence in government, their corruption, their utter uselessness with regard to the whisky and fishing industries will all play against them.
Useless, lazy english journalists never come up here and ask people what WE actually think.
They are probably afraid they'll run into someone like you.
When all they do is ask shouty, dreary, entitled middle class nats like you.
Christ, are we bored with you lot up here.
The idea that Nats are over represented in media coverage of Scotland is hilarious.
The London media mistake the SNP for "Scotland"and hang on their every word.
The local media know better.
Not even faintly true. We hear a lot about Nicola Sturgeon and Ruth Davidson. And, lately, Jo Swinson. In recent years we've seen frequent "interventions" from a prominent former Labour politician. It all seems pretty balanced to me, but presumably that's exactly the problem you have with it. You're angry that the "enemy" get any say at all.
Thanks for all the intriguing answers. I am glad the maths is fiendish, as that excuses my inability to work it out. Though I gave it a go.
FWIW - and this is the woowoo, nonsensical subjective bit, so feel free to ignore, the repeated card was a major Arcana card with remarkable relevance to my dilemma.
Just getting it once, and upright (also significant), was enough to make me and my partner go Ooooh, that's the important card.
We then did another spread, and drew the card, and there it was again. Wow. Quite weird.
After the third draw, finding our card AGAIN in the spread, we looked at each other in bewilderment, and not a little agitation.
We then laid the spread again, and there it was again. I nearly hurled the haunted pack out of the window.
I hope Con MPs don't vote for Laing such that Hoyle gets eliminated in 3rd place and then Harman beats Laing with Lab vote solid for Harman in run-off vs Laing.
Hoyle is by miles the best option and Con MPs should vote for Hoyle.
Laing would beat Harman in a run-off, Con and DUP MPs would vote for Laing over Harman (though running the Epping campaign with Eleanor as Speaker and Labour and the LDs by convention thus standing down their candidates in Epping Forest leaving a straight fight with the Brexit Party candidate would make things complicated over the next few weeks)
The question is how many mps are going to be there. Most are on the campaign trail
Surely Tory MP's will be on a 3 line whip to make sure its Hoyle. If not they are bonkers.
I live here and i can tell, however much malcolmg likes to pretend otherwise, the SNP are nowadays hated by many people in the NE and are going to get panned in Dec. Their incompetence in government, their corruption, their utter uselessness with regard to the whisky and fishing industries will all play against them.
Useless, lazy english journalists never come up here and ask people what WE actually think.
They are probably afraid they'll run into someone like you.
When all they do is ask shouty, dreary, entitled middle class nats like you.
Christ, are we bored with you lot up here.
Nat? Errr ok, plank.
Numpty.
As i say, Christ are we bored with you lot.
You ok, hun? Has something happened today in the NE to get you all steamed up?
Increasingly there are no safe seats. Politics is just too volatile. Maybe not this time, but the joyous day will come when the blues lose their grip on their safe seats.
Perhaps when Labour come to their senses
Going to be a long wait then
The Tories have held Horsham continuously since 1880, and won it at every General Election since 1868 (interrupted by two by-election defeats).
How’s that for a long wait for change?
As a former Horshamite, I can tell you we'd happily elect a donkey with a blue rosette, and in the case of the now ennobled Lord Maude, we did so for many years.
Change to what.... all of the alternatives are unthinkable.
Pastor in a Gospel Megachurch in Louisiana with a largely African American congregation tweets that Democrats should not vote for Buttigieg as he is in a gay marriage
The amusing bit, of course, is that Buttigieg is geniunely a Christian, unlike the current incumbent of the White House, and I suspect a personally moral man. Buttigieg has also served his country in Afghanistan, which he did by choice, not by the draft.
The Democrats win when the have young, articulate (perhaps even inexperienced) candidates: Obama, Clinton, JFK, even Carter in 76.
They win when they have candidates who are blank slates onto which voters can project their own hopes.
I think it's clear who that candidate is.
Now, he win and he might not. But there's probably quite a strong intersection between those people who wouldn't vote for a black candidate and those who wouldn't vote for a gay one.
I live here and i can tell, however much malcolmg likes to pretend otherwise, the SNP are nowadays hated by many people in the NE and are going to get panned in Dec. Their incompetence in government, their corruption, their utter uselessness with regard to the whisky and fishing industries will all play against them.
Useless, lazy english journalists never come up here and ask people what WE actually think.
They are probably afraid they'll run into someone like you.
When all they do is ask shouty, dreary, entitled middle class nats like you.
Christ, are we bored with you lot up here.
The idea that Nats are over represented in media coverage of Scotland is hilarious.
It's hilarious to you because you reside perpetually in an echo chamber of nationalist outrage. That's why PB is good for all of us - it exposes us to a different persective.
The SNP have totally lost touch with how disliked they have become here.
Everything noo, malcomg , Alistair etc parrot on PB about Westminster, is how people increasingly feel here about the second-rate preening clowns and goons in Holyrood.
(Completely separately, I would rather see Trump re-elected. Because it should be him who has to deal with the economic consequences of tariffs and reigniting the US debt and consumption bubble.)
A Conservative general election candidate in a key marginal seat wrote on social media that she believed people on the reality TV show Benefits Street needed “putting down”.
Francesca O’Brien, who was selected last month to stand in the target constituency of Gower, in south Wales, wrote a series of inflammatory comments about the Channel 4 programme on her Facebook page.
In posts that have since been deleted, she wrote in January 2014: “Benefit Street..anyone else watching this?? Wow, these people are unreal!!!”
In response to a friend’s comment, she wrote: “My blood is boiling, these people need putting down.”
In further comments under her post, O’Brien apparently endorsed a friend’s suggestion for “twat a tramp Tuesday” to “take your batts [sic] to the streets”.
I expect more of these as candidates Facebook, Instagram and twitter posts going back years are scrutinised by the media and other parties. Given the rushed election a lot of parties will be selecting in a rush with limited time to do full background and history checks.
Everyone has said or done something they might be ashamed of or embarrassed about going public. Before social media you were less likely to get found out as it wasn’t recorded for ever more to be dug up later! Even a stupid drunken tweet only up for minutes which you later regretted and deleted.
Why would anyone want to become an MP in the current toxic climate?
(Completely separately, I would rather see Trump re-elected. Because it should be him who has to deal with the economic consequences of tariffs and reigniting the US debt and consumption bubble.)
Are you not mistaking him for someone who would care?
Thanks for all the intriguing answers. I am glad the maths is fiendish, as that excuses my inability to work it out. Though I gave it a go.
FWIW - and this is the woowoo, nonsensical subjective bit, so feel free to ignore, the repeated card was a major Arcana card with remarkable relevance to my dilemma.
Just getting it once, and upright (also significant), was enough to make me and my partner go Ooooh, that's the important card.
We then did another spread, and drew the card, and there it was again. Wow. Quite weird.
After the third draw, finding our card AGAIN in the spread, we looked at each other in bewilderment, and not a little agitation.
We then laid the spread again, and there it was again. I nearly hurled the haunted pack out of the window, and into the rain.
I think psychics and tarot cards should be avoided, because even if you believe they read something from you, what they read is surely that you have enough anxiety about your future to consult tarot cards and psychics for reassurance. So the outcome you get from them will never be good.
I hope Con MPs don't vote for Laing such that Hoyle gets eliminated in 3rd place and then Harman beats Laing with Lab vote solid for Harman in run-off vs Laing.
Hoyle is by miles the best option and Con MPs should vote for Hoyle.
Laing would beat Harman in a run-off, Con and DUP MPs would vote for Laing over Harman (though running the Epping campaign with Eleanor as Speaker and Labour and the LDs by convention thus standing down their candidates in Epping Forest leaving a straight fight with the Brexit Party candidate would make things complicated over the next few weeks)
The question is how many mps are going to be there. Most are on the campaign trail
Surely Tory MP's will be on a 3 line whip to make sure its Hoyle. If not they are bonkers.
I think he'll be supported by quite a few in Labour too.
Question: Four draws, from a pack of 78 cards, what is the probability that the same card * => p = 0.112400757
Draw 3: * as draw 2 * so p = 0.112400757
Draw is right or wrong. Please ask other people to check it. If you want me to do a better calculation, please pay me.
lol. thanks very much!
I have now received the Fool Card, Upright, in four draw of 3 cards in sequence.
In my maths, which I believe is probably wrong, the chances of this happening are 1 in 140,608, or 0.00000711197%
After the first draw you have three designated cards out of a deck of 78. It doesn’t matter which they are.
In the second draw, there is an 89% (just under) chance of getting three different cards, and just over an 11% chance of getting at least one card the same. There are very small chances of getting two or three cards the same, which I will ignore to simplify the maths.
In the third draw, run with the situation that you now have one designated card. The chance of it appearing again is just under 4%. In this circumstance you have another 4% chance of getting the same card again in the fourth draw.
The chance of getting the same card in all four draws is therefore about 0.017%. It’s actually marginally better than this because of the small chance of two of the cards from the second draw matching the first, increasing your chances at draw three. And so on.
Then we have the additional factor that cards can be upright or reversed. In the first draw it doesn’t matter - the chance of the same card being that way up in the next three draws is one in eight. Therefore the final percentage is somewhere not too far above 0.002%, or about one in 48000.
I don't believe that the "right way" up bit will be truly random, as the tarot reader will presumably follow the same process every time for returning cards to the deck and shuffling them.
Your analysis of the second draw is spot on - I missed that there were more opportunities to get a same card.
If the cards are simply collected off the table and added to the pack, held the same way around, then cards are never going to get turned round in the first place.
After the first deal, we are only interested in the three cards on the table - how the rest of the pack is held doesn’t matter.
Either they are picked up the same way - in which case they won’t change direction - or their orientation is somehow randomised (by mixing them about) - in which case the one in eight is the best estimate of getting four deals (edit/of one of those cards) with the same orientation.
Comments
In practice it would surely be almost impossible to make it compulsory - someone could just keep cancelling appointments. How could it be enforced - the Govt would have to go to Court to get a warrant to enter your property to do the work - are they really going to do that for millions of properties?
Or 0.007%
Unlikely, but not impossible.
A Conservative general election candidate in a key marginal seat wrote on social media that she believed people on the reality TV show Benefits Street needed “putting down”.
Francesca O’Brien, who was selected last month to stand in the target constituency of Gower, in south Wales, wrote a series of inflammatory comments about the Channel 4 programme on her Facebook page.
In posts that have since been deleted, she wrote in January 2014: “Benefit Street..anyone else watching this?? Wow, these people are unreal!!!”
In response to a friend’s comment, she wrote: “My blood is boiling, these people need putting down.”
In further comments under her post, O’Brien apparently endorsed a friend’s suggestion for “twat a tramp Tuesday” to “take your batts [sic] to the streets”.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/nov/03/tory-candidate-francesca-obrien-wrote-people-benefits-street-should-be-put-down
We should treat them both the same.
I am not sure that Carrie is wise to take such a role as the public partner, it does rather bring into prominence the PMs serial infidelity. There have been mistresses of PMs before, but usually decently discreet.
I seem to remember we were all told it was an irrelevant side-issue then.
The “loan” will automatically be taken via the tax system. So in effect it will be an extra tax - just dressed up. For pensioners it will be enforced as a compulsory charge against the home.
You will have to pay for it whether you want it or not. If you don’t let people in then to do the work - no bother. You’ll be paying for it anyway.
Your calculation was, I think, (1 x 1) x (3/78 x 1/2) x (3/78 x 1/2) x (3/78 x 1/2) = 1/140,608
Now, if you are looking only for the Upright Fool, the first probability is wrong and should be the same as the others.
But if you do not care which of the three cards from the first draw is matched, then you need to multiply your figure by three (one for matching the first card, then same again for the second card, and once more for the third card of the original three).
Now, where it might get more complicated is if you then want to knock it down a bit to exclude 2 cards matching, or 3, or so on.
Health warning: I last studied probability decades ago.
Useless, lazy english journalists never come up here and ask people what WE actually think.
Everyone will get a “loan” in the form of a voucher or some such for the work to be done.
The “loan” will be repaid via the tax system either via PAYE or via council tax. Or an option to add it as a charge on your house.
They’ll not be giving out cash for people to get the work done. You get your voucher. You register with an approved panel to get the work done and wait in line.
You’ll pay for it whether you use the voucher or not. It’s a tax.
A warmth tax.
If you like.
edit sorry this is partly wrong and partly already discussed
"Falsehood and insincerity, unsuitable as they seem to the dignity of public transactions, offend us with a less degrading idea of meanness, than when they are found in the intercourse of private life. In the latter, they discover a want of courage; in the other, only a defect of power: and, as it is impossible for the most able statesmen to subdue millions of followers and enemies by their own personal strength, the world, under the name of policy, seems to have granted them a very liberal indulgence of craft and dissimulation."
If it's as you state it's a certainty that millions won't bother with it and will just pay the "tax".
How well this goes down politically we'll have to wait and see - I can imagine it not being particularly popular!
Without the compulsive element it won't be effective.
An unnecessary mis-step by Labour?
Where did you get 140,608 from? It's not divisible by 78 nor 77.
In the second draw, there is an 89% (just under) chance of getting three different cards, and just over an 11% chance of getting at least one card the same. There are very small chances of getting two or three cards the same, which I will ignore to simplify the maths.
In the third draw, run with the situation that you now have one designated card. The chance of it appearing again is just under 4%. In this circumstance you have another 4% chance of getting the same card again in the fourth draw.
The chance of getting the same card in all four draws is therefore about 0.017%. It’s actually marginally better than this because of the small chance of two of the cards from the second draw matching the first, increasing your chances at draw three. And so on.
Then we have the additional factor that cards can be upright or reversed. In the first draw it doesn’t matter - the chance of the same card being that way up in the next three draws is one in eight. Therefore the final percentage is somewhere not too far above 0.002%, or about one in 48000.
In a campaign the details won’t be precisely defined. If it ever came to pass that the policy was implemented then the 30-40% of the population who will be thoroughly pissed are not the 30-40% Corbyn is particularly interested in. At all. And they couldn’t do anything about it anyway if repayment enforced via HMRC.
It would have to be compulsory to work.
It would be dressed up with green credentials to pacify a few but it’s a revenue generator predominately paid for by people who won’t want or need it.
Never call it 'The Scottish Play'! Always call it 'killing nationalism stone dead'.
https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2019/11/03/megachurch-pastor-democrats-reject-pete-buttigieg-not-time-gay-president/
https://twitter.com/BishopPMorton/status/1190599704876322816?s=20
Hoyle is by miles the best option and Con MPs should vote for Hoyle.
I retire, disgraced. Behind one door out of 3.
You owe this strange intelligence? or why
Upon this blasted heath you stop our way
With such prophetic greeting?
Christ, are we bored with you lot up here.
It is 78 * ( 1/78 + 77/78*1/77 + 77/78*76/77*1/76)^4
The quantity in brackets is the probability of drawing The Fool Upright in one draw. Raise to the power of 4.
However it can be any card, so multiply by 78.
The answer is as IanB2 states.
The local media know better.
Your analysis of the second draw is spot on - I missed that there were more opportunities to get a same card.
As i say, Christ are we bored with you lot.
It is utterly, wonderfully barmy.
Anyway, I don't live in Scotland any more, so I have the mercy of not having any chance of running into planky mcplankface.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/2019/11/01/corbyns-war-wealth-bereft-logic/
Thanks for all the intriguing answers. I am glad the maths is fiendish, as that excuses my inability to work it out. Though I gave it a go.
FWIW - and this is the woowoo, nonsensical subjective bit, so feel free to ignore, the repeated card was a major Arcana card with remarkable relevance to my dilemma.
Just getting it once, and upright (also significant), was enough to make me and my partner go Ooooh, that's the important card.
We then did another spread, and drew the card, and there it was again. Wow. Quite weird.
After the third draw, finding our card AGAIN in the spread, we looked at each other in bewilderment, and not a little agitation.
We then laid the spread again, and there it was again. I nearly hurled the haunted pack out of the window.
Has something happened today in the NE to get you all steamed up?
The Democrats win when the have young, articulate (perhaps even inexperienced) candidates: Obama, Clinton, JFK, even Carter in 76.
They win when they have candidates who are blank slates onto which voters can project their own hopes.
I think it's clear who that candidate is.
Now, he win and he might not. But there's probably quite a strong intersection between those people who wouldn't vote for a black candidate and those who wouldn't vote for a gay one.
Everything noo, malcomg , Alistair etc parrot on PB about Westminster, is how people increasingly feel here about the second-rate preening clowns and goons in Holyrood.
Everyone has said or done something they might be ashamed of or embarrassed about going public. Before social media you were less likely to get found out as it wasn’t recorded for ever more to be dug up later! Even a stupid drunken tweet only up for minutes which you later regretted and deleted.
Why would anyone want to become an MP in the current toxic climate?
After the first deal, we are only interested in the three cards on the table - how the rest of the pack is held doesn’t matter.
Either they are picked up the same way - in which case they won’t change direction - or their orientation is somehow randomised (by mixing them about) - in which case the one in eight is the best estimate of getting four deals (edit/of one of those cards) with the same orientation.