All this talk about polling reminds me of an intriguing puzzle I devised from recent experiences with wasp-damaged apples. Anyone who is into the difficulties of polling and sampling may find it interesting. Please post your answers but don't spoil the fun by giving any reasoning or explanation yet: Two children pick apples from the same wasp-busy tree. Child A picks 3 apples and says: “At least one of mine has no wasp holes.” Child B picks 4 apples and shows you one that is definitely hole-free, then puts it back in the bag. You may take one apple from one child’s bag. From which bag do you have the better chance of getting an apple without holes — A’s or B’s?
Child A
I make it about 2.3 times more likely ...
Child A and Child B's statements are identical in effect, no?
There was a comment earlier on that “mandelson is obviously not guilty of anything, so people really did visit Epstein just for a good time, nothing naughty”
Er what? I presume this is based on the fact Mandelson is gay?
I’m absolutely not accusing Peter M of anything (I’m a fan, I wish he was prime minister rather than Skyr) but I’m not sure we can be so glibly certain of the innocence of anyone so closely associated with Epstein. Mandelson called Jeff his “best pal”
They seem to have had a shared interest in the company of the rich and influential. Beyond that is speculation.
The Apple Puzzle On a tree, half of the apples have holes made by wasps. • One boy picked 3 apples at random and said “at least one of mine has no holes.” • Another boy picked 4 apples similarly. He showed me one of them at random, and it had no holes. He put it back. If you may take just one apple from either boy’s bag, from which boy do you have the better chance of picking an apple without holes?
Emily Thornberry should be favourite. She wants to change the policy towards Israel which will be very popular in the Party (and the country) and she's one of the few with the legal background to explain how the Israeli leadership should be at the Hague.
If Cyclefree is around can she explain following her post to me on Sunday how following a load of Israeli flag wavers is the best way to to counter anti semitism when the Israelis are almost certainly guilty of genocide and ethnic cleansing. Sorry I didn't reply to your post to me on Sunday but I was out and missed it.
I will explain my Greville Jenner reference at another time. Suffice to say he claimed as president of the board of depuries to represent 'the Jewish community'. He possibly represented the Zionist community but there are many Jews who do NOT accept the BoD as a body who speaks for anyone other than Israel.
All this talk about polling reminds me of an intriguing puzzle I devised from recent experiences with wasp-damaged apples. Anyone who is into the difficulties of polling and sampling may find it interesting. Please post your answers but don't spoil the fun by giving any reasoning or explanation yet: Two children pick apples from the same wasp-busy tree. Child A picks 3 apples and says: “At least one of mine has no wasp holes.” Child B picks 4 apples and shows you one that is definitely hole-free, then puts it back in the bag. You may take one apple from one child’s bag. From which bag do you have the better chance of getting an apple without holes — A’s or B’s?
Child A
I make it about 2.3 times more likely ...
Child A and Child B's statements are identical in effect, no?
YouGov is consistently giving slightly lower readings for Reform compared to most other pollsters. I'd be interested to know why this might be.
TSE posted about it earlier. They weight down non voters from last time (which is a key Ref support source) Pretty much inverse mirror of FoN approach
Yes, because non-voters are habitual non-voters and habitual non-voters do not vote.
Except when they do which is why even Nigel Farage thought Remain won the Brexit referendum.
As thing stand, the next GE is going to play along very similar lines to the referendum. There is a party with momentum fuelled by a distrust of the status quo, it could be a mistake to discount those who say they’re going to vote for them
Indeed.
There is a reason to question Reform's chances and that is that Nigel Farage has never understood FPTP elections. That is why in previous guises he racked up lots of MEPs and hardly any MPs. Last year, Reform got more votes than the LibDems but Ed Davey has 15 times as many MPs (ironically for a party that claims to believe in proportional representation). Never mind the polls now; on votes last year, Reform is Britain's third party.
But Nigel Farage doesn't get it and doesn't listen to, well, anyone.
Is that the Nigel Farage who took a fringe party to the top of national polls TWICE, won several national elections, is the most feared and skilled political operator in the country, changed British history by enabling then winnng Brexit and is right now on course for an unprecedented victory in a general election?
That nigel Farage? Yeah. Stupid. Doesn’t understand elections
Fucksake the level of discourse on this forum
Learn to read. I said Farage does not understand FPTP elections; contrasted those with his success at European elections; and illustrated same with his taking Reform to be our third party in terms of votes but whose MPs could share a taxi.
The point is, which can even be discerned in your rant, that Farage is good at racking up votes but not in the targeted manner needed to win FPTP elections.
You don’t think he’s smart enough to work that out?
Farage hasn't historically been good at the game of "focus all your energies onto a handful of seats" which has historically given the LDs and various Nationalists a larger share of MPs than their national average vote would imply.
This only really makes much difference when you are small party and only going win a smallish number of seats. If Farage is going to win next time, he's got to pick up north of 300 seats. He won't achieve that just by delivering thousands of dodgy bar graphs in the hundred odd seats which are most favorable to Reform.
The main thing he is good at, and needs to keep doing is get people from "did not vote" to "Red". Hoover up the disaffected, bank the 60% of the Tories he's already stolen and he's home and dry.
“In the UK, unemployed foreigners who don't speak English are given some of the most sought after housing in London, ahead of English people, and without paying the cost.
I can't get over how absurd this is. Unemployed foreigners could live almost anywhere in the world, yet the system ensures they occupy what is among the most important housing in the world”
Only if they are refugees given leave to remain, we need to ensure they are genuinely in fear of their lives. Minorities at risk from the Taliban who helped western forces and Ukranians from the Russian occupied territories yes, others need to be reviewed
Obviously, all cases are reviewed. On 2021-3 data, countries of origin with high rates of acceptance (>90%) were Afghanistan, Eritrea, Syria and Sudan. It's hard to argue that people are genuinely in fear of their lives coming from those countries. On the other hand, for people coming from India, the acceptance rate was only 6%.
Yes though even Syria no longer has Assad in charge and is largely ISIS free now and those fleeing war in Sudan or repression in Eritrea could be housed in other African nations more suitable nearby
Yes, the make-up of who claims asylum in the UK changes considerably from year to year as wars and other problems around the world change the make-up of who is fleeing.
Those fleeing war in Sudan can be housed in other Africa countries nearby. There are about 7 million displaced people within Sudan. Over 4 million have fled the country. Numbers in other countries include...
South Sudan >1M Egypt 504k Chad 305k Ethiopia 70k Uganda 38k Jordan 6k Kenya 3-4k
There are around 18k Sudanese refugees in the UK. So, that's less than half a percent of people fleeing Sudan.
I have no time for Mandelson but it’s obvious he wouldn’t be interested in under age girls . So it’s a nothing burger . More questions should be aimed at Trump and his creepy birthday message .
Desperate lefty spin from you. Epstein could provide what ever his guests wanted, including one of Mandlesons favourite Waldof Salads. Why only one Waldorf Salad, why not all you can eat Waldorf Salad?
Because He’s on the luxury island, in the luxury residencies going “yum yum” - like Rayner, Mandleson cannot answer the questions coming his way, he will have to go.
There was a comment earlier on that “mandelson is obviously not guilty of anything, so people really did visit Epstein just for a good time, nothing naughty”
Er what? I presume this is based on the fact Mandelson is gay?
I’m absolutely not accusing Peter M of anything (I’m a fan, I wish he was prime minister rather than Skyr) but I’m not sure we can be so glibly certain of the innocence of anyone so closely associated with Epstein. Mandelson called Jeff his “best pal”
They seem to have had a shared interest in the company of the rich and influential. Beyond that is speculation.
There is a small flaw in the above theory. If you read the transcripts from some of Epstein’s victims….
The Apple Puzzle On a tree, half of the apples have holes made by wasps. • One boy picked 3 apples at random and said “at least one of mine has no holes.” • Another boy picked 4 apples similarly. He showed me one of them at random, and it had no holes. He put it back. If you may take just one apple from either boy’s bag, from which boy do you have the better chance of picking an apple without holes?
All this talk about polling reminds me of an intriguing puzzle I devised from recent experiences with wasp-damaged apples. Anyone who is into the difficulties of polling and sampling may find it interesting. Please post your answers but don't spoil the fun by giving any reasoning or explanation yet: Two children pick apples from the same wasp-busy tree. Child A picks 3 apples and says: “At least one of mine has no wasp holes.” Child B picks 4 apples and shows you one that is definitely hole-free, then puts it back in the bag. You may take one apple from one child’s bag. From which bag do you have the better chance of getting an apple without holes — A’s or B’s?
Child A
I make it about 2.3 times more likely ...
Child A and Child B's statements are identical in effect, no?
No. At least not to my mind.
Seems one is just proving the statement, in addition to making it.
Absent lying, which I assume is assumed. And notwithstanding the different numbers of apples.
So I would think it all comes down to the numbers. Rewriting:
Child A: At least 1/3 of my apples are good Child B: At least 1/4 of my apples are good
Assuming a fair distribution, we have to go with Child A.
I have no time for Mandelson but it’s obvious he wouldn’t be interested in under age girls . So it’s a nothing burger . More questions should be aimed at Trump and his creepy birthday message .
It's interesting that some people assume that Jeff and Ghizzy didn't/couldn't procure boys as well as girls for their 'best friends'
Their activities have been fairly well documented. Can you produce any examples of them procuring boys?
Nothing in this country will change until we scrap the OBR which has the Treasury in chains.
Remember folks, we can't afford teachers but we can afford the poor economic results of the consequences of not enough teachers. We can't afford a functional criminal justice system but we can afford crime. Rinse and repeat at both local and national level.
If we want to spend more, raise taxes to pay for it. Or cut other spending.
We already have 100% debt to GDP. Interest spending exceeds that of education or criminal justice already and more borrowing will make that worse.
The OBR is only reporting on whether the government meets its own rules - it can change the rules if it wishes. In fact, the rules were last changed less than 12 months ago.
Silly to scapegoat the OBR.
We're chained to it politically. And you're right about debt - it's a real problem.
In business when you want to cut expenditure you usually invest. A new computer system to reduce opex. New fridges in a convenience store to cut energy bills. We need to *significantly* cut our operating expenses as a nation. We need to invest in new things to save us money but we can't do so because political stupidity and OBR rules.
We can't raise taxes without tanking economic output further. We can't keep borrowing to throw money on bonfires like the NHS. But to fix things like the NHS we need to invest a little more on the replacements to then save significantly.
Again I make the point - we already spend more by not spending the money than we save. You can't just cut the emergency spending created by the existing cuts - that will cost even more. So we need to borrow to invest, and gain the return on that investment. You know, capitalism.
Our problem is economic wazzockry and the OBR has become the knot at the heart of this.
I think (not sure) what you are saying is that we need to spend (a lot?) less operationally in order that the borrowing we already make (about £150 bn annually) is used on effective investment instead of borrowing to pay day to day bills and interest payments.
In what way is the OBR stopping the government adjusting its priorities in such a way?
And while increasing the use of borrowing for more effective investment, what and where are the operational cuts coming from? They have to be large.
We are all familiar with retail's great line 'The More You Spend the More You Save' but you need to cash this out in a bit of detail. I think this would be top of the liost of things the PM and the CoE would like to know.
I've thrown "scrap the OBR" as code for the way we do everything when it comes to budgets. Its politics at fault more than the OBR.
My point is this. We simultaneously have record spending on the NHS and cash-starved frontline services delivering medical care. The NHS is a bonfire and tipping more and more cash onto it cannot be the solution, when all that makes it way to the bottom is ash. We need to reform it and my broad concept is scrap much of the administrative structures.
In my old home town we had a choice of two GP practices run by two separate trusts. In the same health centre. With their own separate management teams. Duplication of administration. Same with my old school, now at the heart of a 9 school trust spending literal millions on management as they negotiate tiny deals with mega corps.
It will undoubtedly cost money to scrap all of these false market structures but will then save money. Just as training and hiring teachers will cost money short term then save as we need less temps and results improve. Same with actually giving councils the money to provide sufficient services so that emergency spend mopping up the mess can be saved - not cleaning drains etc.
Sane thing with migration. If we don't want Fillipino staff in the NHS then train people. If we don't want eastern European staff in hospitality then train people. Invest now in skills and training. If we want to put criminals in jail then invest in court capacity and new jails. But treasury orthodoxy backed by OBR reports say we can't afford these things, so Britain continues to crumble and fail.
Its absurd.
Do we have record spending on the NHS? No, it's lower than the two peak COVID-19 years. But, yes, apart from COVID-19, health spending has continually risen faster than inflation.
Why is this? (1) The population is ageing. Older people generate more healthcare costs. (2) Healthcare inflation runs higher than regular inflation, because we keep inventing new treatments, mainly drugs, which is also why life expectancy has continually risen since 1925. Saying, "The NHS is a bonfire and tipping more and more cash onto it cannot be the solution" is just wishful thinking. You're ignoring the reasons for increased spending.
That's not to say that reform is a bad idea or savings can't be made on administration. But don't fall into this lazy messaging that NHS costs are only higher because of inefficiencies.
A positive feedback loop. Medical advances are allowing people to live longer, but more old people are requiring care for chronic conditions. Do we get to the stage where we require compulsory euthanasia when someone is costing more to keep alive or pain free than they have contributed in taxes? Who makes that decision; the NHS or the Treasury?
There was a comment earlier on that “mandelson is obviously not guilty of anything, so people really did visit Epstein just for a good time, nothing naughty”
Er what? I presume this is based on the fact Mandelson is gay?
I’m absolutely not accusing Peter M of anything (I’m a fan, I wish he was prime minister rather than Skyr) but I’m not sure we can be so glibly certain of the innocence of anyone so closely associated with Epstein. Mandelson called Jeff his “best pal”
They seem to have had a shared interest in the company of the rich and influential. Beyond that is speculation.
There is a small flaw in the above theory. If you read the transcripts from some of Epstein’s victims….
I haven't. So as far as Maddison is concerned, it's just my pov, rather than a theory.
Emily Thornberry should be favourite. She wants to change the policy towards Israel which will be very popular in the Party (and the country) and she's one of the few with the legal background to explain how the Israeli leadership should be at the Hague.
If Cyclefree is around can she explain following her post to me on Sunday how following a load of Israeli flag wavers is the best way to to counter anti semitism when the Israelis are almost certainly guilty of genocide and ethnic cleansing. Sorry I didn't reply to your post to me on Sunday but I was out and missed it.
I will explain my Greville Jenner reference at another time. Suffice to say he claimed as president of the board of depuries to represent 'the Jewish community'. He possibly represented the Zionist community but there are many Jews who do NOT accept the BoD as a body who speaks for anyone other than Israel.
The problem I see at the moment is that any criticism of Israel seems to instantly result in people being attacked as anti-Semitic which while it silents some people now it’s creating a bigger long term issue
I have no time for Mandelson but it’s obvious he wouldn’t be interested in under age girls . So it’s a nothing burger . More questions should be aimed at Trump and his creepy birthday message .
Er, Epstein has also been accused of molesting boys
Again - I don’t think we can so easily exonerate anyone who was close to Epstein. That goes for left or right - Clinton or Trump. Or royal or famous or billionaire or whatever
All this talk about polling reminds me of an intriguing puzzle I devised from recent experiences with wasp-damaged apples. Anyone who is into the difficulties of polling and sampling may find it interesting. Please post your answers but don't spoil the fun by giving any reasoning or explanation yet: Two children pick apples from the same wasp-busy tree. Child A picks 3 apples and says: “At least one of mine has no wasp holes.” Child B picks 4 apples and shows you one that is definitely hole-free, then puts it back in the bag. You may take one apple from one child’s bag. From which bag do you have the better chance of getting an apple without holes — A’s or B’s?
Child A
I make it about 2.3 times more likely ...
Child A and Child B's statements are identical in effect, no?
No. At least not to my mind.
They clearly aren't, as one child is telling you something about his whole set, and the other is not (if you read the re-statement of the problem).
I have no time for Mandelson but it’s obvious he wouldn’t be interested in under age girls . So it’s a nothing burger . More questions should be aimed at Trump and his creepy birthday message .
It's interesting that some people assume that Jeff and Ghizzy didn't/couldn't procure boys as well as girls for their 'best friends'
Their activities have been fairly well documented. Can you produce any examples of them procuring boys?
They got away with it for far longer than you've known anything about it. How can you assume that they didn't?
“In the UK, unemployed foreigners who don't speak English are given some of the most sought after housing in London, ahead of English people, and without paying the cost.
I can't get over how absurd this is. Unemployed foreigners could live almost anywhere in the world, yet the system ensures they occupy what is among the most important housing in the world”
Only if they are refugees given leave to remain, we need to ensure they are genuinely in fear of their lives. Minorities at risk from the Taliban who helped western forces and Ukranians from the Russian occupied territories yes, others need to be reviewed
Obviously, all cases are reviewed. On 2021-3 data, countries of origin with high rates of acceptance (>90%) were Afghanistan, Eritrea, Syria and Sudan. It's hard to argue that people are genuinely in fear of their lives coming from those countries. On the other hand, for people coming from India, the acceptance rate was only 6%.
Yes though even Syria no longer has Assad in charge and is largely ISIS free now and those fleeing war in Sudan or repression in Eritrea could be housed in other African nations more suitable nearby
Yes, the make-up of who claims asylum in the UK changes considerably from year to year as wars and other problems around the world change the make-up of who is fleeing.
Those fleeing war in Sudan can be housed in other Africa countries nearby. There are about 7 million displaced people within Sudan. Over 4 million have fled the country. Numbers in other countries include...
South Sudan >1M Egypt 504k Chad 305k Ethiopia 70k Uganda 38k Jordan 6k Kenya 3-4k
There are around 18k Sudanese refugees in the UK. So, that's less than half a percent of people fleeing Sudan.
And how many of those would go home if the fighting stopped reasonably convincingly? Almost all from South Sudan, virtually none from the UK, I would wager. That's actually part of the problem - mixing up what's hopefully the short term displacement of refugees from a war zone, and long term asylum of people who are being persecuted by their governments. We should not be granting lifelong asylum to people who may well in 5 years be in a position to be sent home.
Can Reform win a General Election if they piss of the police and the police don’t like them? Nope.
Lodges up and down the land will prevent Reform from getting anywhere near the corridors of power.
Farage, like soooooo many PBers posting tonight, really don’t have a clue who the bourgeoisie who run this country really are.
Is this a serious comment or a parody?
Is that all you got Andy, attack the poster and call them a parody? This site knows I’m not a parody account, I’m cutting edge top drawer analysis, so often ahead of the game when at my best.
Farage & Co taking on the Lodges for populist support is brain dead. Zero chance of Farage government. Fact. And on topic.
All this talk about polling reminds me of an intriguing puzzle I devised from recent experiences with wasp-damaged apples. Anyone who is into the difficulties of polling and sampling may find it interesting. Please post your answers but don't spoil the fun by giving any reasoning or explanation yet: Two children pick apples from the same wasp-busy tree. Child A picks 3 apples and says: “At least one of mine has no wasp holes.” Child B picks 4 apples and shows you one that is definitely hole-free, then puts it back in the bag. You may take one apple from one child’s bag. From which bag do you have the better chance of getting an apple without holes — A’s or B’s?
Child A
I make it about 2.3 times more likely ...
Child A and Child B's statements are identical in effect, no?
No. At least not to my mind.
They clearly aren't, as one child is telling you something about his whole set, and the other is not (if you read the re-statement of the problem).
Wait, Child B is now showing one at random? So we've changed the problem?
I have no time for Mandelson but it’s obvious he wouldn’t be interested in under age girls . So it’s a nothing burger . More questions should be aimed at Trump and his creepy birthday message .
It's interesting that some people assume that Jeff and Ghizzy didn't/couldn't procure boys as well as girls for their 'best friends'
I’d like to see the back of Mandelson but I just don’t buy it . There surely would have been some evidence there and someone would have come forward.
The only person who has actually suffered - legally or financially - for his association with Epstein is Prince Andrew, ironically
I find it hard to believe he was the only dude guilty of accepting Epstein’s favours. So there will be others
4 apples. 1 definitely good. The remaining 3 each have a 50% chance of being good. So that is an overall probability of 62.5% of picking a good apple from the bag.
Meanwhile for Child A there is only a 50% probability.
All this talk about polling reminds me of an intriguing puzzle I devised from recent experiences with wasp-damaged apples. Anyone who is into the difficulties of polling and sampling may find it interesting. Please post your answers but don't spoil the fun by giving any reasoning or explanation yet: Two children pick apples from the same wasp-busy tree. Child A picks 3 apples and says: “At least one of mine has no wasp holes.” Child B picks 4 apples and shows you one that is definitely hole-free, then puts it back in the bag. You may take one apple from one child’s bag. From which bag do you have the better chance of getting an apple without holes — A’s or B’s?
Child A
I make it about 2.3 times more likely ...
Child A and Child B's statements are identical in effect, no?
No. At least not to my mind.
They clearly aren't, as one child is telling you something about his whole set, and the other is not (if you read the re-statement of the problem).
+1, child a has said something about his bag, child b had talked about an individual apple.
Everything else is supposition and I think it’s fair to say that child A has at least 1 good apple while child B has 1 decent apple and 3 bad ones given the lack of conment as to the quality of the other apples
I have no time for Mandelson but it’s obvious he wouldn’t be interested in under age girls . So it’s a nothing burger . More questions should be aimed at Trump and his creepy birthday message .
Er, Epstein has also been accused of molesting boys
Again - I don’t think we can so easily exonerate anyone who was close to Epstein. That goes for left or right - Clinton or Trump. Or royal or famous or billionaire or whatever
Agreed. It's notable, though, that one party is fairly consistently saying release all the evidence, and the other party, which has the power to do so, is saying 'nothing to see here'.
All this talk about polling reminds me of an intriguing puzzle I devised from recent experiences with wasp-damaged apples. Anyone who is into the difficulties of polling and sampling may find it interesting. Please post your answers but don't spoil the fun by giving any reasoning or explanation yet: Two children pick apples from the same wasp-busy tree. Child A picks 3 apples and says: “At least one of mine has no wasp holes.” Child B picks 4 apples and shows you one that is definitely hole-free, then puts it back in the bag. You may take one apple from one child’s bag. From which bag do you have the better chance of getting an apple without holes — A’s or B’s?
Child A
I make it about 2.3 times more likely ...
Child A and Child B's statements are identical in effect, no?
No. At least not to my mind.
They clearly aren't, as one child is telling you something about his whole set, and the other is not (if you read the re-statement of the problem).
Wait, Child B is now showing one at random? So we've changed the problem?
4 apples. 1 definitely good. The remaining 3 each have a 50% chance of being good. So that is an overall probability of 62.5% of picking a good apple from the bag.
Meanwhile for Child A there is only a 50% probability.
You are working on a 50% chance of the apple being good - that may not be the real odds
Emily Thornberry should be favourite. She wants to change the policy towards Israel which will be very popular in the Party (and the country) and she's one of the few with the legal background to explain how the Israeli leadership should be at the Hague.
If Cyclefree is around can she explain following her post to me on Sunday how following a load of Israeli flag wavers is the best way to to counter anti semitism when the Israelis are almost certainly guilty of genocide and ethnic cleansing. Sorry I didn't reply to your post to me on Sunday but I was out and missed it.
I will explain my Greville Jenner reference at another time. Suffice to say he claimed as president of the board of depuries to represent 'the Jewish community'. He possibly represented the Zionist community but there are many Jews who do NOT accept the BoD as a body who speaks for anyone other than Israel.
The problem I see at the moment is that any criticism of Israel seems to instantly result in people being attacked as anti-Semitic which while it silents some people now it’s creating a bigger long term issue
That is an Israeli ruse which is wearing very thin.
I have no time for Mandelson but it’s obvious he wouldn’t be interested in under age girls . So it’s a nothing burger . More questions should be aimed at Trump and his creepy birthday message .
Er, Epstein has also been accused of molesting boys
Again - I don’t think we can so easily exonerate anyone who was close to Epstein. That goes for left or right - Clinton or Trump. Or royal or famous or billionaire or whatever
Agreed. It's notable, though, that one party is fairly consistently saying release all the evidence, and the other party, which has the power to do so, is saying 'nothing to see here'.
Did Biden have the evidence?
Surely he would have released it if it fucked Trump?
All this talk about polling reminds me of an intriguing puzzle I devised from recent experiences with wasp-damaged apples. Anyone who is into the difficulties of polling and sampling may find it interesting. Please post your answers but don't spoil the fun by giving any reasoning or explanation yet: Two children pick apples from the same wasp-busy tree. Child A picks 3 apples and says: “At least one of mine has no wasp holes.” Child B picks 4 apples and shows you one that is definitely hole-free, then puts it back in the bag. You may take one apple from one child’s bag. From which bag do you have the better chance of getting an apple without holes — A’s or B’s?
Child A
I make it about 2.3 times more likely ...
Child A and Child B's statements are identical in effect, no?
No. At least not to my mind.
Seems one is just proving the statement, in addition to making it.
Absent lying, which I assume is assumed. And notwithstanding the different numbers of apples.
So I would think it all comes down to the numbers. Rewriting:
Child A: At least 1/3 of my apples are good Child B: At least 1/4 of my apples are good
Assuming a fair distribution, we have to go with Child A.
I chose Child B because he has proven that one apple is not damaged, while we only have Child A’s word that at least one of his is wasp damage free
I have no time for Mandelson but it’s obvious he wouldn’t be interested in under age girls . So it’s a nothing burger . More questions should be aimed at Trump and his creepy birthday message .
Desperate lefty spin from you. Epstein could provide what ever his guests wanted, including one of Mandlesons favourite Waldof Salads. Why only one Waldorf Salad, why not all you can eat Waldorf Salad?
Because He’s on the luxury island, in the luxury residencies going “yum yum” - like Rayner, Mandleson cannot answer the questions coming his way, he will have to go.
What lefty spin ?. I just said I would be happy to see Mandelson gone .
4 apples. 1 definitely good. The remaining 3 each have a 50% chance of being good. So that is an overall probability of 62.5% of picking a good apple from the bag.
Meanwhile for Child A there is only a 50% probability.
'Argentinians deliver electoral blow to Milei’s scandal-rocked government. President touted contest in Buenos Aires province – 40% of electorate – as ‘life or death battle’ but won only 34% of vote
Argentina’s president, Javier Milei, has suffered his worst electoral defeat since taking office, as he faces his administration’s most serious corruption scandal and signs that the economy is slowing.
In local legislative elections on Sunday for Buenos Aires province – home to almost 40% of the country’s electorate – the coalition led by the self-styled anarcho-capitalist was beaten by the opposition by 47% to 34%.'
The Apple Puzzle On a tree, half of the apples have holes made by wasps. • One boy picked 3 apples at random and said “at least one of mine has no holes.” • Another boy picked 4 apples similarly. He showed me one of them at random, and it had no holes. He put it back. If you may take just one apple from either boy’s bag, from which boy do you have the better chance of picking an apple without holes?
Ok if it's half the apples, then Boy B is the one to take it from.
Emily Thornberry should be favourite. She wants to change the policy towards Israel which will be very popular in the Party (and the country) and she's one of the few with the legal background to explain how the Israeli leadership should be at the Hague.
If Cyclefree is around can she explain following her post to me on Sunday how following a load of Israeli flag wavers is the best way to to counter anti semitism when the Israelis are almost certainly guilty of genocide and ethnic cleansing. Sorry I didn't reply to your post to me on Sunday but I was out and missed it.
I will explain my Greville Jenner reference at another time. Suffice to say he claimed as president of the board of depuries to represent 'the Jewish community'. He possibly represented the Zionist community but there are many Jews who do NOT accept the BoD as a body who speaks for anyone other than Israel.
Thornberry's London-ness is a major handicap. I doubt she'll win.
All this talk about polling reminds me of an intriguing puzzle I devised from recent experiences with wasp-damaged apples. Anyone who is into the difficulties of polling and sampling may find it interesting. Please post your answers but don't spoil the fun by giving any reasoning or explanation yet: Two children pick apples from the same wasp-busy tree. Child A picks 3 apples and says: “At least one of mine has no wasp holes.” Child B picks 4 apples and shows you one that is definitely hole-free, then puts it back in the bag. You may take one apple from one child’s bag. From which bag do you have the better chance of getting an apple without holes — A’s or B’s?
Child A
I make it about 2.3 times more likely ...
Child A and Child B's statements are identical in effect, no?
No. At least not to my mind.
They clearly aren't, as one child is telling you something about his whole set, and the other is not (if you read the re-statement of the problem).
+1, child a has said something about his bag, child b had talked about an individual apple.
Everything else is supposition and I think it’s fair to say that child A has at least 1 good apple while child B has 1 decent apple and 3 bad ones given the lack of conment as to the quality of the other apples
Which is the 1 good apple and which are the 3 bad ones. See also, Reform MPs.
The Apple Puzzle On a tree, half of the apples have holes made by wasps. • One boy picked 3 apples at random and said “at least one of mine has no holes.” • Another boy picked 4 apples similarly. He showed me one of them at random, and it had no holes. He put it back. If you may take just one apple from either boy’s bag, from which boy do you have the better chance of picking an apple without holes?
More puzzling is how the wasps were trained to only go for half the apples?
Can someone smart (or someone stupid) explain what this Trump to Epstein card is supposed to mean? It's barely English.
That tends to support its authenticity.
I don't think its authenticity is seriously in question. I just want to understand wtf it's about. Enigmas based on age certainly don't sound good in context but that doesn't stop it being very odd wording.
I have no time for Mandelson but it’s obvious he wouldn’t be interested in under age girls . So it’s a nothing burger . More questions should be aimed at Trump and his creepy birthday message .
Er, Epstein has also been accused of molesting boys
Again - I don’t think we can so easily exonerate anyone who was close to Epstein. That goes for left or right - Clinton or Trump. Or royal or famous or billionaire or whatever
Agreed. It's notable, though, that one party is fairly consistently saying release all the evidence, and the other party, which has the power to do so, is saying 'nothing to see here'.
Did Biden have the evidence?
Surely he would have released it if it fucked Trump?
Not if it destroyed the Clintons. And lots of very wealthy Democrat donors. And other powerful people
That was Epstein’s dark genius. He made sure he ensnared left and right, royal and rich, so he was protected by the vast powerful network of the guilty
Indeed they’re still protecting each other now. Including, it seems, the most powerful man on earth
Emily Thornberry should be favourite. She wants to change the policy towards Israel which will be very popular in the Party (and the country) and she's one of the few with the legal background to explain how the Israeli leadership should be at the Hague.
If Cyclefree is around can she explain following her post to me on Sunday how following a load of Israeli flag wavers is the best way to to counter anti semitism when the Israelis are almost certainly guilty of genocide and ethnic cleansing. Sorry I didn't reply to your post to me on Sunday but I was out and missed it.
I will explain my Greville Jenner reference at another time. Suffice to say he claimed as president of the board of depuries to represent 'the Jewish community'. He possibly represented the Zionist community but there are many Jews who do NOT accept the BoD as a body who speaks for anyone other than Israel.
The problem I see at the moment is that any criticism of Israel seems to instantly result in people being attacked as anti-Semitic which while it silents some people now it’s creating a bigger long term issue
That is an Israeli ruse which is wearing very thin.
If my calling Benjamin Netanyahu an evil, genocidal warmonger makes me antisemitic, then I’m proud to be called antisemitic.
All this talk about polling reminds me of an intriguing puzzle I devised from recent experiences with wasp-damaged apples. Anyone who is into the difficulties of polling and sampling may find it interesting. Please post your answers but don't spoil the fun by giving any reasoning or explanation yet: Two children pick apples from the same wasp-busy tree. Child A picks 3 apples and says: “At least one of mine has no wasp holes.” Child B picks 4 apples and shows you one that is definitely hole-free, then puts it back in the bag. You may take one apple from one child’s bag. From which bag do you have the better chance of getting an apple without holes — A’s or B’s?
Child A
I make it about 2.3 times more likely ...
Child A and Child B's statements are identical in effect, no?
No. At least not to my mind.
They clearly aren't, as one child is telling you something about his whole set, and the other is not (if you read the re-statement of the problem).
+1, child a has said something about his bag, child b had talked about an individual apple.
Everything else is supposition and I think it’s fair to say that child A has at least 1 good apple while child B has 1 decent apple and 3 bad ones given the lack of conment as to the quality of the other apples
See the restated problem at 1.17. All we know is that child B has taken one of his four apples at random and shown it to us. Whereas child A...
All this talk about polling reminds me of an intriguing puzzle I devised from recent experiences with wasp-damaged apples. Anyone who is into the difficulties of polling and sampling may find it interesting. Please post your answers but don't spoil the fun by giving any reasoning or explanation yet: Two children pick apples from the same wasp-busy tree. Child A picks 3 apples and says: “At least one of mine has no wasp holes.” Child B picks 4 apples and shows you one that is definitely hole-free, then puts it back in the bag. You may take one apple from one child’s bag. From which bag do you have the better chance of getting an apple without holes — A’s or B’s?
OK, I'll bite. I'm going Child B
At this stage I'd taken it as a thought experiment, with no unambiguous right answer, rather than a probability puzzle, as there wasn't all the numerical information. My reasoning hinged not only on the possibility that Child A was lying or wrong, but that, even allowing for the fact that "at least" hinted at more than 1, that Child B had placed his apple in the top of the bag, and therefore I had a far better than a 1 in 4 chance of picking the same apple back out again.
In other news, I've just had my first mince pie of the season - Merry Christmas!
I don't believe in capital punishment, but I think a strong case could be made here.
Christmas starts for the supermarkets in mid-August. What many affluent, male PBers miss is that for many families, by which I mean many mums, Christmas starts in September (and in terms of savings such as Christmas clubs, back in January). Christmas is too important to be left to well-off blokes in a daze, caning their credit cards on the 24th.
That said, mince pies won't last but nor will hot cross buns on the next shelf.
The problem for mandelson is, surely, that if he was Epstein’s “best friend” he SAW something
He might be personally and completely innocent, but how can you become the best friend of this guy and not think “hold on, why is this private island full of underdressed 14 year old girls giving massages to wealthy men”?
Mandelson is far from stupid. He’s famously observant and astute. He didn’t see ANYTHING?
This is a tricky spot for Peter M. I see Starmer has come out to defend him…
All this talk about polling reminds me of an intriguing puzzle I devised from recent experiences with wasp-damaged apples. Anyone who is into the difficulties of polling and sampling may find it interesting. Please post your answers but don't spoil the fun by giving any reasoning or explanation yet: Two children pick apples from the same wasp-busy tree. Child A picks 3 apples and says: “At least one of mine has no wasp holes.” Child B picks 4 apples and shows you one that is definitely hole-free, then puts it back in the bag. You may take one apple from one child’s bag. From which bag do you have the better chance of getting an apple without holes — A’s or B’s?
Child A
I make it about 2.3 times more likely ...
Child A and Child B's statements are identical in effect, no?
No. At least not to my mind.
They clearly aren't, as one child is telling you something about his whole set, and the other is not (if you read the re-statement of the problem).
+1, child a has said something about his bag, child b had talked about an individual apple.
Everything else is supposition and I think it’s fair to say that child A has at least 1 good apple while child B has 1 decent apple and 3 bad ones given the lack of conment as to the quality of the other apples
See the restated problem at 1.17. All we know is that child B has taken one of his four apples at random and shown it to us. Whereas child A...
They're boys now. And we don't know if boy B would have shown us the apple if it was waspy
Emily Thornberry should be favourite. She wants to change the policy towards Israel which will be very popular in the Party (and the country) and she's one of the few with the legal background to explain how the Israeli leadership should be at the Hague.
If Cyclefree is around can she explain following her post to me on Sunday how following a load of Israeli flag wavers is the best way to to counter anti semitism when the Israelis are almost certainly guilty of genocide and ethnic cleansing. Sorry I didn't reply to your post to me on Sunday but I was out and missed it.
I will explain my Greville Jenner reference at another time. Suffice to say he claimed as president of the board of depuries to represent 'the Jewish community'. He possibly represented the Zionist community but there are many Jews who do NOT accept the BoD as a body who speaks for anyone other than Israel.
Thornberry's London-ness is a major handicap. I doubt she'll win.
I agree.
Another London Metropolitan elite Labour politician is the last thing they need
Burnham gives strong backing to Lucy Powell and he is seen as the Prince over the water
And on Mandelson - Starmer gives him his full backing
I have no time for Mandelson but it’s obvious he wouldn’t be interested in under age girls . So it’s a nothing burger . More questions should be aimed at Trump and his creepy birthday message .
Er, Epstein has also been accused of molesting boys
Again - I don’t think we can so easily exonerate anyone who was close to Epstein. That goes for left or right - Clinton or Trump. Or royal or famous or billionaire or whatever
Agreed. It's notable, though, that one party is fairly consistently saying release all the evidence, and the other party, which has the power to do so, is saying 'nothing to see here'.
Did Biden have the evidence?
Surely he would have released it if it fucked Trump?
Not if it destroyed the Clintons. And lots of very wealthy Democrat donors. And other powerful people
That was Epstein’s dark genius. He made sure he ensnared left and right, royal and rich, so he was protected by the vast powerful network of the guilty
Indeed they’re still protecting each other now. Including, it seems, the most powerful man on earth
Yes Biden couldn’t release evidence just implicating Trump as then there would have been calls to release everything so they kept it under wraps . I expect there’s a lot of dirt on a lot of people which will never be released .
The Apple Puzzle On a tree, half of the apples have holes made by wasps. • One boy picked 3 apples at random and said “at least one of mine has no holes.” • Another boy picked 4 apples similarly. He showed me one of them at random, and it had no holes. He put it back. If you may take just one apple from either boy’s bag, from which boy do you have the better chance of picking an apple without holes?
More puzzling is how the wasps were trained to only go for half the apples?
A good example of confounding factors in statistical analysis.
All this talk about polling reminds me of an intriguing puzzle I devised from recent experiences with wasp-damaged apples. Anyone who is into the difficulties of polling and sampling may find it interesting. Please post your answers but don't spoil the fun by giving any reasoning or explanation yet: Two children pick apples from the same wasp-busy tree. Child A picks 3 apples and says: “At least one of mine has no wasp holes.” Child B picks 4 apples and shows you one that is definitely hole-free, then puts it back in the bag. You may take one apple from one child’s bag. From which bag do you have the better chance of getting an apple without holes — A’s or B’s?
Child A
I make it about 2.3 times more likely ...
Child A and Child B's statements are identical in effect, no?
No. At least not to my mind.
They clearly aren't, as one child is telling you something about his whole set, and the other is not (if you read the re-statement of the problem).
+1, child a has said something about his bag, child b had talked about an individual apple.
Everything else is supposition and I think it’s fair to say that child A has at least 1 good apple while child B has 1 decent apple and 3 bad ones given the lack of conment as to the quality of the other apples
See the restated problem at 1.17. All we know is that child B has taken one of his four apples at random and shown it to us. Whereas child A...
They're boys now. And we don't know if boy B would have shown us the apple if it was waspy
If we do this a thousand times and boy B has good apples every time he picks at random then his apples are probably a better bet than boy A's word
I have no time for Mandelson but it’s obvious he wouldn’t be interested in under age girls . So it’s a nothing burger . More questions should be aimed at Trump and his creepy birthday message .
Er, Epstein has also been accused of molesting boys
Again - I don’t think we can so easily exonerate anyone who was close to Epstein. That goes for left or right - Clinton or Trump. Or royal or famous or billionaire or whatever
Agreed. It's notable, though, that one party is fairly consistently saying release all the evidence, and the other party, which has the power to do so, is saying 'nothing to see here'.
Did Biden have the evidence?
Surely he would have released it if it fucked Trump?
Not if it destroyed the Clintons. And lots of very wealthy Democrat donors. And other powerful people
That was Epstein’s dark genius. He made sure he ensnared left and right, royal and rich, so he was protected by the vast powerful network of the guilty
Indeed they’re still protecting each other now. Including, it seems, the most powerful man on earth
Yes Biden couldn’t release evidence just implicating Trump as then there would have been calls to release everything so they kept it under wraps . I expect there’s a lot of dirt on a lot of people which will never be released .
Yes, absolutely. That’s what happened and it’s still happening now
All this talk about polling reminds me of an intriguing puzzle I devised from recent experiences with wasp-damaged apples. Anyone who is into the difficulties of polling and sampling may find it interesting. Please post your answers but don't spoil the fun by giving any reasoning or explanation yet: Two children pick apples from the same wasp-busy tree. Child A picks 3 apples and says: “At least one of mine has no wasp holes.” Child B picks 4 apples and shows you one that is definitely hole-free, then puts it back in the bag. You may take one apple from one child’s bag. From which bag do you have the better chance of getting an apple without holes — A’s or B’s?
Child A
I make it about 2.3 times more likely ...
Child A and Child B's statements are identical in effect, no?
No. At least not to my mind.
They clearly aren't, as one child is telling you something about his whole set, and the other is not (if you read the re-statement of the problem).
Wait, Child B is now showing one at random? So we've changed the problem?
You also have to cover the possibility that Child A is lying.
Since we're not told the percentage of bad apples on the tree, it can't possibly be that the 4 and 3 matter. Either it's always equal, or we should always pick the smaller or larger number. I.e the problem with 2 and 1 apples, or 500 and 499 apples must have the same answer, if not the same numerical margin.
All this talk about polling reminds me of an intriguing puzzle I devised from recent experiences with wasp-damaged apples. Anyone who is into the difficulties of polling and sampling may find it interesting. Please post your answers but don't spoil the fun by giving any reasoning or explanation yet: Two children pick apples from the same wasp-busy tree. Child A picks 3 apples and says: “At least one of mine has no wasp holes.” Child B picks 4 apples and shows you one that is definitely hole-free, then puts it back in the bag. You may take one apple from one child’s bag. From which bag do you have the better chance of getting an apple without holes — A’s or B’s?
OK, I'll bite. I'm going Child B
At this stage I'd taken it as a thought experiment, with no unambiguous right answer, rather than a probability puzzle, as there wasn't all the numerical information. My reasoning hinged not only on the possibility that Child A was lying or wrong, but that, even allowing for the fact that "at least" hinted at more than 1, that Child B had placed his apple in the top of the bag, and therefore I had a far better than a 1 in 4 chance of picking the same apple back out again.
I think, like the Monty Hall problem, it depends on what child B knows just before showing his apple. Did he pick an apple at random, then discover it was wasp-free, or did he know in advance that it would be clean?
The problem for mandelson is, surely, that if he was Epstein’s “best friend” he SAW something
He might be personally and completely innocent, but how can you become the best friend of this guy and not think “hold on, why is this private island full of underdressed 14 year old girls giving massages to wealthy men”?
Mandelson is far from stupid. He’s famously observant and astute. He didn’t see ANYTHING?
This is a tricky spot for Peter M. I see Starmer has come out to defend him…
You're assuming, though, that he doesn't call everyone his best friend, as meaningless flattery.
It's not, to put it mildly, a good look. At all. But I don't think we can imply stuff that we can't state for certain, as that might get this site in trouble.
All this talk about polling reminds me of an intriguing puzzle I devised from recent experiences with wasp-damaged apples. Anyone who is into the difficulties of polling and sampling may find it interesting. Please post your answers but don't spoil the fun by giving any reasoning or explanation yet: Two children pick apples from the same wasp-busy tree. Child A picks 3 apples and says: “At least one of mine has no wasp holes.” Child B picks 4 apples and shows you one that is definitely hole-free, then puts it back in the bag. You may take one apple from one child’s bag. From which bag do you have the better chance of getting an apple without holes — A’s or B’s?
Child A
I make it about 2.3 times more likely ...
Child A and Child B's statements are identical in effect, no?
No. At least not to my mind.
They clearly aren't, as one child is telling you something about his whole set, and the other is not (if you read the re-statement of the problem).
Wait, Child B is now showing one at random? So we've changed the problem?
You also have to cover the possibility that Child A is lying.
I think truth-telling is generally assumed in these problems, absent mention in the statement.
Ref Emily Thornberry. Yet another North London Lawyer aside, the Hermer faction will work hard to stop her as if she wins there would be a lot of pressure on Starmer to make her AG (which she was expected to get last year anyway)
Chaos in London as thousands of people try a cycle commute for the first time.
I'm likely to have to walk from King's Cross to Waterloo tomorrow. It's not much more than 2 miles, I don't have too much luggage, and it's downhill. Obs buses exist, but I expect they will be rammed
The problem for mandelson is, surely, that if he was Epstein’s “best friend” he SAW something
He might be personally and completely innocent, but how can you become the best friend of this guy and not think “hold on, why is this private island full of underdressed 14 year old girls giving massages to wealthy men”?
Mandelson is far from stupid. He’s famously observant and astute. He didn’t see ANYTHING?
This is a tricky spot for Peter M. I see Starmer has come out to defend him…
You're assuming, though, that he doesn't call everyone his best friend, as meaningless flattery.
It's not, to put it mildly, a good look. At all. But I don't think we can imply stuff that we can't state for certain, as that might get this site in trouble.
All this talk about polling reminds me of an intriguing puzzle I devised from recent experiences with wasp-damaged apples. Anyone who is into the difficulties of polling and sampling may find it interesting. Please post your answers but don't spoil the fun by giving any reasoning or explanation yet: Two children pick apples from the same wasp-busy tree. Child A picks 3 apples and says: “At least one of mine has no wasp holes.” Child B picks 4 apples and shows you one that is definitely hole-free, then puts it back in the bag. You may take one apple from one child’s bag. From which bag do you have the better chance of getting an apple without holes — A’s or B’s?
Child A
I make it about 2.3 times more likely ...
Child A and Child B's statements are identical in effect, no?
No. At least not to my mind.
They clearly aren't, as one child is telling you something about his whole set, and the other is not (if you read the re-statement of the problem).
+1, child a has said something about his bag, child b had talked about an individual apple.
Everything else is supposition and I think it’s fair to say that child A has at least 1 good apple while child B has 1 decent apple and 3 bad ones given the lack of conment as to the quality of the other apples
See the restated problem at 1.17. All we know is that child B has taken one of his four apples at random and shown it to us. Whereas child A...
They're boys now. And we don't know if boy B would have shown us the apple if it was waspy
I'm assuming the boys can't lie. Though, tbf, that is also a problem (albeit a less significant one than here) in polling.
Chaos in London as thousands of people try a cycle commute for the first time.
I'm likely to have to walk from King's Cross to Waterloo tomorrow. It's not much more than 2 miles, I don't have too much luggage, and it's downhill. Obs buses exist, but I expect they will be rammed
Last time there was a strike I walked from London Bridge to Marylebone.
It’s one way to discover your shoes can give you blisters
I have no time for Mandelson but it’s obvious he wouldn’t be interested in under age girls . So it’s a nothing burger . More questions should be aimed at Trump and his creepy birthday message .
Er, Epstein has also been accused of molesting boys
Again - I don’t think we can so easily exonerate anyone who was close to Epstein. That goes for left or right - Clinton or Trump. Or royal or famous or billionaire or whatever
Agreed. It's notable, though, that one party is fairly consistently saying release all the evidence, and the other party, which has the power to do so, is saying 'nothing to see here'.
Did Biden have the evidence?
Surely he would have released it if it fucked Trump?
Not if it destroyed the Clintons. And lots of very wealthy Democrat donors. And other powerful people
That was Epstein’s dark genius. He made sure he ensnared left and right, royal and rich, so he was protected by the vast powerful network of the guilty
Indeed they’re still protecting each other now. Including, it seems, the most powerful man on earth
Yes Biden couldn’t release evidence just implicating Trump as then there would have been calls to release everything so they kept it under wraps . I expect there’s a lot of dirt on a lot of people which will never be released .
But also bizarre behaviour by Trump to make a big deal out of it.
I have no time for Mandelson but it’s obvious he wouldn’t be interested in under age girls . So it’s a nothing burger . More questions should be aimed at Trump and his creepy birthday message .
It's interesting that some people assume that Jeff and Ghizzy didn't/couldn't procure boys as well as girls for their 'best friends'
Their activities have been fairly well documented. Can you produce any examples of them procuring boys?
They got away with it for far longer than you've known anything about it. How can you assume that they didn't?
I'm not assuming anything. I'm asking for some evidence.
The Apple Puzzle On a tree, half of the apples have holes made by wasps. • One boy picked 3 apples at random and said “at least one of mine has no holes.” • Another boy picked 4 apples similarly. He showed me one of them at random, and it had no holes. He put it back. If you may take just one apple from either boy’s bag, from which boy do you have the better chance of picking an apple without holes?
Thanks for this. I go for child A, 57% probability of getting a good apple vs 53% with child B.
All this talk about polling reminds me of an intriguing puzzle I devised from recent experiences with wasp-damaged apples. Anyone who is into the difficulties of polling and sampling may find it interesting. Please post your answers but don't spoil the fun by giving any reasoning or explanation yet: Two children pick apples from the same wasp-busy tree. Child A picks 3 apples and says: “At least one of mine has no wasp holes.” Child B picks 4 apples and shows you one that is definitely hole-free, then puts it back in the bag. You may take one apple from one child’s bag. From which bag do you have the better chance of getting an apple without holes — A’s or B’s?
Child A
I make it about 2.3 times more likely ...
Child A and Child B's statements are identical in effect, no?
No. At least not to my mind.
They clearly aren't, as one child is telling you something about his whole set, and the other is not (if you read the re-statement of the problem).
Wait, Child B is now showing one at random? So we've changed the problem?
You also have to cover the possibility that Child A is lying.
I think truth-telling is generally assumed in these problems, absent mention in the statement.
However we haven't been told that they both pick apples from the tree at random.
Also the conditions given by Child A and Child B are different - one tells you, and the other shows you. This tells me on this occasion we should consider lying separately
Since we're not told the percentage of bad apples on the tree, it can't possibly be that the 4 and 3 matter. Either it's always equal, or we should always pick the smaller or larger number. I.e the problem with 2 and 1 apples, or 500 and 499 apples must have the same answer, if not the same numerical margin.
I have no time for Mandelson but it’s obvious he wouldn’t be interested in under age girls . So it’s a nothing burger . More questions should be aimed at Trump and his creepy birthday message .
Er, Epstein has also been accused of molesting boys
Again - I don’t think we can so easily exonerate anyone who was close to Epstein. That goes for left or right - Clinton or Trump. Or royal or famous or billionaire or whatever
Agreed. It's notable, though, that one party is fairly consistently saying release all the evidence, and the other party, which has the power to do so, is saying 'nothing to see here'.
Did Biden have the evidence?
Surely he would have released it if it fucked Trump?
Not if it destroyed the Clintons. And lots of very wealthy Democrat donors. And other powerful people
That was Epstein’s dark genius. He made sure he ensnared left and right, royal and rich, so he was protected by the vast powerful network of the guilty
Indeed they’re still protecting each other now. Including, it seems, the most powerful man on earth
Yes Biden couldn’t release evidence just implicating Trump as then there would have been calls to release everything so they kept it under wraps . I expect there’s a lot of dirt on a lot of people which will never be released .
But also bizarre behaviour by Trump to make a big deal out of it.
Yes, MAGA was fueled by talk of releasing the files, and now they are in meltdown cos it didn't happen
The problem for mandelson is, surely, that if he was Epstein’s “best friend” he SAW something
He might be personally and completely innocent, but how can you become the best friend of this guy and not think “hold on, why is this private island full of underdressed 14 year old girls giving massages to wealthy men”?
Mandelson is far from stupid. He’s famously observant and astute. He didn’t see ANYTHING?
This is a tricky spot for Peter M. I see Starmer has come out to defend him…
You're assuming, though, that he doesn't call everyone his best friend, as meaningless flattery.
It's not, to put it mildly, a good look. At all. But I don't think we can imply stuff that we can't state for certain, as that might get this site in trouble.
I’m not implying anything. I’m just agreeing with you that the optics are very bad
The telegraph has this
“One Labour MP privately told The Telegraph that the ambassador should resign over the revelations, but Mr Streeting warned against making people “guilty by association” but also suggested Lord Mandelson would have more to say on the matter””
Chaos in London as thousands of people try a cycle commute for the first time.
I'm likely to have to walk from King's Cross to Waterloo tomorrow. It's not much more than 2 miles, I don't have too much luggage, and it's downhill. Obs buses exist, but I expect they will be rammed
If it’s any help I got an uber today, and it came in minutes and didn’t cost more than normal (to my surprise)
I have no time for Mandelson but it’s obvious he wouldn’t be interested in under age girls . So it’s a nothing burger . More questions should be aimed at Trump and his creepy birthday message .
Er, Epstein has also been accused of molesting boys
Again - I don’t think we can so easily exonerate anyone who was close to Epstein. That goes for left or right - Clinton or Trump. Or royal or famous or billionaire or whatever
Agreed. It's notable, though, that one party is fairly consistently saying release all the evidence, and the other party, which has the power to do so, is saying 'nothing to see here'.
Did Biden have the evidence?
Surely he would have released it if it fucked Trump?
Not if it destroyed the Clintons. And lots of very wealthy Democrat donors. And other powerful people
That was Epstein’s dark genius. He made sure he ensnared left and right, royal and rich, so he was protected by the vast powerful network of the guilty
Indeed they’re still protecting each other now. Including, it seems, the most powerful man on earth
Yes Biden couldn’t release evidence just implicating Trump as then there would have been calls to release everything so they kept it under wraps . I expect there’s a lot of dirt on a lot of people which will never be released .
Yes, absolutely. That’s what happened and it’s still happening now
Except that we know that Biden kept a rather greater distance from Justice Department decisions than does Trump.
4 apples. 1 definitely good. The remaining 3 each have a 50% chance of being good. So that is an overall probability of 62.5% of picking a good apple from the bag.
Meanwhile for Child A there is only a 50% probability.
If you take it as pure maths and trust that at least 1 of his apples is good, then you've ruled out the permutation where all 3 are bad and left the other 7 permutations where at least one is good.
I think overall that gives you a 12/21 chance of picking a good apple from child A, so about 57%.
Agreeing on the 62.5% on child B, that still, to me, makes B the better bet.
Chaos in London as thousands of people try a cycle commute for the first time.
I'm likely to have to walk from King's Cross to Waterloo tomorrow. It's not much more than 2 miles, I don't have too much luggage, and it's downhill. Obs buses exist, but I expect they will be rammed
If it’s any help I got an uber today, and it came in minutes and didn’t cost more than normal (to my surprise)
It's an option. But Russell Square is about half way, and there are some nice pubs round there for a break. I'd rather spend money on beer than on taxis
I have no time for Mandelson but it’s obvious he wouldn’t be interested in under age girls . So it’s a nothing burger . More questions should be aimed at Trump and his creepy birthday message .
Er, Epstein has also been accused of molesting boys
Again - I don’t think we can so easily exonerate anyone who was close to Epstein. That goes for left or right - Clinton or Trump. Or royal or famous or billionaire or whatever
Agreed. It's notable, though, that one party is fairly consistently saying release all the evidence, and the other party, which has the power to do so, is saying 'nothing to see here'.
Did Biden have the evidence?
Surely he would have released it if it fucked Trump?
Not if it destroyed the Clintons. And lots of very wealthy Democrat donors. And other powerful people
That was Epstein’s dark genius. He made sure he ensnared left and right, royal and rich, so he was protected by the vast powerful network of the guilty
Indeed they’re still protecting each other now. Including, it seems, the most powerful man on earth
Yes Biden couldn’t release evidence just implicating Trump as then there would have been calls to release everything so they kept it under wraps . I expect there’s a lot of dirt on a lot of people which will never be released .
But also bizarre behaviour by Trump to make a big deal out of it.
Yes, MAGA was fueled by talk of releasing the files, and now they are in meltdown cos it didn't happen
They would clearly implicate Trump, in my opinion
The most outrageous thing about the Epstein Scandal is that looks like they will, basically, all get away with it. Except for Epstein and Maxwell and the latter will likely get an “early release for being so cooperative”
In other news, I've just had my first mince pie of the season - Merry Christmas!
I don't believe in capital punishment, but I think a strong case could be made here.
Christmas starts for the supermarkets in mid-August. What many affluent, male PBers miss is that for many families, by which I mean many mums, Christmas starts in September (and in terms of savings such as Christmas clubs, back in January). Christmas is too important to be left to well-off blokes in a daze, caning their credit cards on the 24th.
That said, mince pies won't last but nor will hot cross buns on the next shelf.
Very much so.when my Nan, Mum and Aunt were with us (all now gone and missed very very much) the family Xmas grapevine began by the end of school summer holidays at the latest - who's coming, what do the kids want, where is everyone staying, which family are older married kids with this year, bits being put away. Add to that Mum every year, all year, made up shoeboxes of xmas gifts for charity. The top of the wardrobe in my old bedroom was stacked high with tinselled boxes. My festive obsession comes from them. Nanny would never take her little silver artificial tree down until Valentines day. My ex at Uni first met my Nan when she came to stay with me over the second weekend in January (12th and 13th from memory) before we headed back to University. She was treated to a full Xmas party and tea at Nans little council house. She thought we were all rather cute and totally barking mad. She looked good in a paper hat pissed up on dessert wine though. Sigh.
I have no time for Mandelson but it’s obvious he wouldn’t be interested in under age girls . So it’s a nothing burger . More questions should be aimed at Trump and his creepy birthday message .
It's interesting that some people assume that Jeff and Ghizzy didn't/couldn't procure boys as well as girls for their 'best friends'
Their activities have been fairly well documented. Can you produce any examples of them procuring boys?
They got away with it for far longer than you've known anything about it. How can you assume that they didn't?
I'm not assuming anything. I'm asking for some evidence.
I don't have any, but I was responding to a comment that said Mandy wouldn't be interested in underage girls
If I wanted to get influence over influential people by using sex traps, I'd employ girls and boys
Chaos in London as thousands of people try a cycle commute for the first time.
I'm likely to have to walk from King's Cross to Waterloo tomorrow. It's not much more than 2 miles, I don't have too much luggage, and it's downhill. Obs buses exist, but I expect they will be rammed
Last time there was a strike I walked from London Bridge to Marylebone.
It’s one way to discover your shoes can give you blisters
My everyday trainers are running shoes, I bought a pair in black for the purpose. Indeed I did parkrun in them on Saturday, it stops me having to take an extra pair of shoes when travelling. So that shouldn't be a problem
The mandelson birthday message to Epstein is also *awkward*
What is the “wonderful secret” he shared with his “best pal” Epstein who he also “loved”?
I rather dismissed this earlier today. But on examination I think Mandelson could be in trouble
The "wonderful secret" is in the Trump letter.
This is Mandelson. “Once upon a time, an intelligent, sharp-witted man they call ‘mysterious’ parachuted into my life … you would spend many hours just waiting for him to turn up … And often, no sooner were you used to having him around, you would suddenly be alone again … Leaving you with some ‘interesting’ friends to entertain instead … Or just some dogs* to keep you company (he wasn’t always so keen on them) … But then he would parachute back in … Very occasionally, taking you by surprise in some far off places … Or in one of his glorious homes he likes to share with his friends (yum yum) … But wherever he is in the world, he remains my best pal!”
*Mandelson had, I think, two labradors at the time.
I have no time for Mandelson but it’s obvious he wouldn’t be interested in under age girls . So it’s a nothing burger . More questions should be aimed at Trump and his creepy birthday message .
It's interesting that some people assume that Jeff and Ghizzy didn't/couldn't procure boys as well as girls for their 'best friends'
Their activities have been fairly well documented. Can you produce any examples of them procuring boys?
They got away with it for far longer than you've known anything about it. How can you assume that they didn't?
I'm not assuming anything. I'm asking for some evidence.
I don't have any, but I was responding to a comment that said Mandy wouldn't be interested in underage girls
If I wanted to get influence over influential people by using sex traps, I'd employ girls and boys
Yes. If you want kompromat you make sure the menu is varied
Chaos in London as thousands of people try a cycle commute for the first time.
It was horrific this morning. So many cyclists and so little basic road sense. I expect the ride home to be even worse.
A very large proportion of Londoners have never driven a car, and are now zipping about on bikes. I can tell instantly if someone has a driving licence by the way they cycle (and vice versa with drivers).
I would never want to compromise the freedom that cycling offers but I think we need to look more closely at how the Dutch and Danish deal with this. London's transformation into a cycling city has happened extraordinarily quickly. 1.3 million journeys per day.
The Apple Puzzle On a tree, half of the apples have holes made by wasps. • One boy picked 3 apples at random and said “at least one of mine has no holes.” • Another boy picked 4 apples similarly. He showed me one of them at random, and it had no holes. He put it back. If you may take just one apple from either boy’s bag, from which boy do you have the better chance of picking an apple without holes?
First up we'll assume the number of apples is very large, so taking away an apple with holes or no holes doesn't affect the underlying odds of the next apple. The question gets trickier if there are a small (Say 20) number of apples on the tree. We will also assume child A is telling the truth !
3 holes are eliminated by the boy's statement. So that probability is eliminated from the space.
HHN, HNH, NHH, NNH, NHN, HNN, NNN.
Probability of getting an apple with no holes = Count(N)/Total = 12/21 = 4/7
Similar can be ascertained from the 4 apple boy. Except the 4 hole space is eliminated
NHHH, HNHH, HHNH, HHHN (1 no hole case) HNNN, NHNN, NNHN, NNNH (3 no hole case) NNNN (4 no hole case) NNHH, NHNH, NHHN, HNNH, HNHN, HHNN (2 no hole case)
Count(N) = (4 + 3*4 + 4 + 2*6) = 32 Total = 60
=32/60 = 8/15
Since 4/7 > 8/15 you're slightly better off going for the first boy's bag - which makes intuitive sense - having information about one apple amongst three is more than the information you have received about one apple amongst four.
The mandelson birthday message to Epstein is also *awkward*
What is the “wonderful secret” he shared with his “best pal” Epstein who he also “loved”?
I rather dismissed this earlier today. But on examination I think Mandelson could be in trouble
The "wonderful secret" is in the Trump letter.
This is Mandelson. “Once upon a time, an intelligent, sharp-witted man they call ‘mysterious’ parachuted into my life … you would spend many hours just waiting for him to turn up … And often, no sooner were you used to having him around, you would suddenly be alone again … Leaving you with some ‘interesting’ friends to entertain instead … Or just some dogs* to keep you company (he wasn’t always so keen on them) … But then he would parachute back in … Very occasionally, taking you by surprise in some far off places … Or in one of his glorious homes he likes to share with his friends (yum yum) … But wherever he is in the world, he remains my best pal!”
*Mandelson had, I think, two labradors at the time.
Wait, what? Is that Mandelson’s actual message to Epstein?!
I have no time for Mandelson but it’s obvious he wouldn’t be interested in under age girls . So it’s a nothing burger . More questions should be aimed at Trump and his creepy birthday message .
It's interesting that some people assume that Jeff and Ghizzy didn't/couldn't procure boys as well as girls for their 'best friends'
Their activities have been fairly well documented. Can you produce any examples of them procuring boys?
They got away with it for far longer than you've known anything about it. How can you assume that they didn't?
I'm not assuming anything. I'm asking for some evidence.
I don't have any, but I was responding to a comment that said Mandy wouldn't be interested in underage girls
If I wanted to get influence over influential people by using sex traps, I'd employ girls and boys
Yes. If you want kompromat you make sure the menu is varied
I wonder what the thematic instructions, if any, were for those asked to contribute to this Birthday book.
4 apples. 1 definitely good. The remaining 3 each have a 50% chance of being good. So that is an overall probability of 62.5% of picking a good apple from the bag.
Meanwhile for Child A there is only a 50% probability.
If you take it as pure maths and trust that at least 1 of his apples is good, then you've ruled out the permutation where all 3 are bad and left the other 7 permutations where at least one is good.
I think overall that gives you a 12/21 chance of picking a good apple from child A, so about 57%.
Agreeing on the 62.5% on child B, that still, to me, makes B the better bet.
I think you are right on child A but off on child B. Basically, both children have shown the same thing: they have at least one good apple. That rules out the permutation where all apples are bad. That biases the probability of getting a good apple higher, above the basic 50% of the underlying distribution. The size of that bias goes down as the number of apples goes up. With one apple, the bias is worth 50pp: if you know the one apple in the bag is good then your chance of getting a good apple is 100%. With a million apples in the bag, knowing that at least one is good has no effect because the chances of the bag containing no good apples is zero, and so the bias is effectively zero. So you are better off picking from the bag with fewer apples.
4 apples. 1 definitely good. The remaining 3 each have a 50% chance of being good. So that is an overall probability of 62.5% of picking a good apple from the bag.
Meanwhile for Child A there is only a 50% probability.
If you take it as pure maths and trust that at least 1 of his apples is good, then you've ruled out the permutation where all 3 are bad and left the other 7 permutations where at least one is good.
I think overall that gives you a 12/21 chance of picking a good apple from child A, so about 57%.
Agreeing on the 62.5% on child B, that still, to me, makes B the better bet.
B has the same "at least one good" attribute and has 4 apples, which is more than 3. Keeping that attribute, as the number of apples increases towards (Big Number) it trends downwards towards a 50% probability that you'll pick a good one. Therefore the probability for B will be less than the probability for A.
So I'd go with A - with the proviso that A is telling the truth and that saying "at least one" doesn't imply "only one".
Comments
Beyond that is speculation.
If Cyclefree is around can she explain following her post to me on Sunday how following a load of Israeli flag wavers is the best way to to counter anti semitism when the Israelis are almost certainly guilty of genocide and ethnic cleansing. Sorry I didn't reply to your post to me on Sunday but I was out and missed it.
I will explain my Greville Jenner reference at another time. Suffice to say he claimed as president of the board of depuries to represent 'the Jewish community'. He possibly represented the Zionist community but there are many Jews who do NOT accept the BoD as a body who speaks for anyone other than Israel.
This only really makes much difference when you are small party and only going win a smallish number of seats. If Farage is going to win next time, he's got to pick up north of 300 seats. He won't achieve that just by delivering thousands of dodgy bar graphs in the hundred odd seats which are most favorable to Reform.
The main thing he is good at, and needs to keep doing is get people from "did not vote" to "Red". Hoover up the disaffected, bank the 60% of the Tories he's already stolen and he's home and dry.
Those fleeing war in Sudan can be housed in other Africa countries nearby. There are about 7 million displaced people within Sudan. Over 4 million have fled the country. Numbers in other countries include...
South Sudan >1M
Egypt 504k
Chad 305k
Ethiopia 70k
Uganda 38k
Jordan 6k
Kenya 3-4k
There are around 18k Sudanese refugees in the UK. So, that's less than half a percent of people fleeing Sudan.
Because He’s on the luxury island, in the luxury residencies going “yum yum” - like Rayner, Mandleson cannot answer the questions coming his way, he will have to go.
You blocked me
Fucking snowflake
Absent lying, which I assume is assumed. And notwithstanding the different numbers of apples.
So I would think it all comes down to the numbers. Rewriting:
Child A: At least 1/3 of my apples are good
Child B: At least 1/4 of my apples are good
Assuming a fair distribution, we have to go with Child A.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-04-21/epstein-accused-of-sexual-abuse-by-male-teen-intern-in-lawsuit
Again - I don’t think we can so easily exonerate anyone who was close to Epstein. That goes for left or right - Clinton or Trump. Or royal or famous or billionaire or whatever
Farage & Co taking on the Lodges for populist support is brain dead. Zero chance of Farage government. Fact.
And on topic.
I find it hard to believe he was the only dude guilty of accepting Epstein’s favours. So there will be others
4 apples. 1 definitely good. The remaining 3 each have a 50% chance of being good. So that is an overall probability of 62.5% of picking a good apple from the bag.
Meanwhile for Child A there is only a 50% probability.
Everything else is supposition and I think it’s fair to say that child A has at least 1 good apple while child B has 1 decent apple and 3 bad ones given the lack of conment as to the quality of the other apples
It's notable, though, that one party is fairly consistently saying release all the evidence, and the other party, which has the power to do so, is saying 'nothing to see here'.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/sep/09/racist-mob-menacing-refugee-children-far-right
Who's in the Epstein 'birthday book'?
https://news.sky.com/video/share-13427449
Surely he would have released it if it fucked Trump?
That was Epstein’s dark genius. He made sure he ensnared left and right, royal and rich, so he was protected by the vast powerful network of the guilty
Indeed they’re still protecting each other now. Including, it seems, the most powerful man on earth
All we know is that child B has taken one of his four apples at random and shown it to us.
Whereas child A...
That said, mince pies won't last but nor will hot cross buns on the next shelf.
He might be personally and completely innocent, but how can you become the best friend of this guy and not think “hold on, why is this private island full of underdressed 14 year old girls giving massages to wealthy men”?
Mandelson is far from stupid. He’s famously observant and astute. He didn’t see ANYTHING?
This is a tricky spot for Peter M. I see Starmer has come out to defend him…
Another London Metropolitan elite Labour politician is the last thing they need
Burnham gives strong backing to Lucy Powell and he is seen as the Prince over the water
And on Mandelson - Starmer gives him his full backing
ETA damn! Scooped by limping BlancheLivermore.
It's not, to put it mildly, a good look. At all.
But I don't think we can imply stuff that we can't state for certain, as that might get this site in trouble.
Though, tbf, that is also a problem (albeit a less significant one than here) in polling.
It’s one way to discover your shoes can give you blisters
What is the “wonderful secret” he shared with his “best pal” Epstein who he also “loved”?
I rather dismissed this earlier today. But on examination I think Mandelson could be in trouble
Also the conditions given by Child A and Child B are different - one tells you, and the other shows you. This tells me on this occasion we should consider lying separately
See the restated problem at 1.17.
The telegraph has this
“One Labour MP privately told The Telegraph that the ambassador should resign over the revelations, but Mr Streeting warned against making people “guilty by association” but also suggested Lord Mandelson would have more to say on the matter””
I think overall that gives you a 12/21 chance of picking a good apple from child A, so about 57%.
Agreeing on the 62.5% on child B, that still, to me, makes B the better bet.
The most outrageous thing about the Epstein Scandal is that looks like they will, basically, all get away with it. Except for Epstein and Maxwell and the latter will likely get an “early release for being so cooperative”
My festive obsession comes from them. Nanny would never take her little silver artificial tree down until Valentines day. My ex at Uni first met my Nan when she came to stay with me over the second weekend in January (12th and 13th from memory) before we headed back to University. She was treated to a full Xmas party and tea at Nans little council house. She thought we were all rather cute and totally barking mad. She looked good in a paper hat pissed up on dessert wine though.
Sigh.
If I wanted to get influence over influential people by using sex traps, I'd employ girls and boys
Another problem for Starmer looms no matter he has given him a vote of confidence
This is Mandelson.
“Once upon a time, an intelligent, sharp-witted man they call ‘mysterious’ parachuted into my life … you would spend many hours just waiting for him to turn up … And often, no sooner were you used to having him around, you would suddenly be alone again … Leaving you with some ‘interesting’ friends to entertain instead … Or just some dogs* to keep you company (he wasn’t always so keen on them) … But then he would parachute back in … Very occasionally, taking you by surprise in some far off places … Or in one of his glorious homes he likes to share with his friends (yum yum) … But wherever he is in the world, he remains my best pal!”
*Mandelson had, I think, two labradors at the time.
Doha explosion targets Hamas officials
I would never want to compromise the freedom that cycling offers but I think we need to look more closely at how the Dutch and Danish deal with this. London's transformation into a cycling city has happened extraordinarily quickly. 1.3 million journeys per day.
We will also assume child A is telling the truth !
H for hole, N for no hole.
3 Apples : Probability spaces:
3 Holes : 3H, (1/8)
2 Holes: HHN, HNH, NHH (3/8)
1 Hole: NNH, NHN, HNN (3/8)
0 Holes: 3N (1/8)
3 holes are eliminated by the boy's statement. So that probability is eliminated from the space.
HHN, HNH, NHH, NNH, NHN, HNN, NNN.
Probability of getting an apple with no holes = Count(N)/Total = 12/21 = 4/7
Similar can be ascertained from the 4 apple boy. Except the 4 hole space is eliminated
NHHH, HNHH, HHNH, HHHN (1 no hole case)
HNNN, NHNN, NNHN, NNNH (3 no hole case)
NNNN (4 no hole case)
NNHH, NHNH, NHHN, HNNH, HNHN, HHNN (2 no hole case)
Count(N) = (4 + 3*4 + 4 + 2*6) = 32
Total = 60
=32/60 = 8/15
Since 4/7 > 8/15 you're slightly better off going for the first boy's bag - which makes intuitive sense - having information about one apple amongst three is more than the information you have received about one apple amongst four.
If so, that’s very not good
Not getting my second preference.
So I'd go with A - with the proviso that A is telling the truth and that saying "at least one" doesn't imply "only one".