If they really want to upset Banksy, cut out the piece of wall, and auction it to some billionaires.
Everybody knows who he / they are anyway. They have been caught on camera a number of times and I am sure if people can be bothered a bit of a game of follow the money will prove it.
If they really want to upset Banksy, cut out the piece of wall, and auction it to some billionaires.
I think a jury would be reluctant to convict. That would play out either as it not being proved that the mural was "damage" or as accepting an "honestly held belief" that HMCTS or whoever is in charge of the building would have consented to the "damage".
No jury will convict Banksy of criminal damage. If you want to stick it to him, sell his works to people he doesn’t like and use the money for purposes he doesn’t like.
They should remove it and sell it for charity.
Just paint it over, that'll annoy him and his fans.
We have been warned: Zia Yusuf @ZiaYusufUK · 7h Reform will transform the civil service from a bloated, failed organisation hostile to the interests of the British people into a lean, performant machine that makes our country proud. 🇬🇧
On the face of it, this doesn't sound like anything to be worried about. What do you see as problematic with it?
This is obvious by now, surely? It's about 97% likely to be pure BS. Reform are an incompetent policy-free slogan machine, hoping that fools will fall for it. I doubt if they even know what they mean themselves by "Civil Service", never mind what it actually means.
We have this exact cycle from Zia himself in Kent County Council. Lots of "we will save X Y and Z". But LTNs to be cut did not exist. Woke waste to be cut did not exist. "DEI jobs" hardly existed.
It was all public information, but the numpties of Reform, including Zia himself, did not do any homework. So then he rifled through last year's local papers and social media, to find some identified savings he could claim to have "identified". And made a serious of fake claims about it. Cue a public faceplant.
So what happens next? Well, in Derbyshire they cut half the adult education centres. They had time for a proper process, but waited until the last minute and tried to do an emergency decision.
But RefUK are such a fuckwit collective that they had to admit their action was unlawful.
Vote for a clown show, and you get a circus. I don't want a circus in my Council or Government.
Haha - you think the last or the current government are competent?
The last one - incompetent. The current one - too early to tell.
You thing a Farage Farrago would be less incompetent?
How did that work out in County Councils?
Far too early to tell.
Hmmmm.
Four months since the May elections.
Reform officials failure to obey the law and follow the rules, even on a basic level, says imo that we have plenty of evidence, without even getting into their attacks on scrutiny.
Just to take one, when the Chief Executive of Warwickshire refused to obey an attempted instruction by the leader of the minority Reform UK group, the minority Council Leader, to take down a flag and informed him of the correct procedure which required consent of the whole Council, his next step was to accuse her of being deliberate Civil Service obstructionism against his aims.
It was BS, but Farage still used it as an example in his conference speech.
Like Trump, they are trying to destroy checks, balances and scrutiny.
I think the poisonous nature of RefUK is out there in letters a mile high.
I'd prefer not to repeatedly call Reform UK politicians liars, but it is what they are.
@Cyclefree has provided chapter and verse about misconduct on the part of the "mainstream", over the course of sixty years. In the light of this, I don't think that your examples will generate the level of outrage that you think they should generate.
The IDF are out of control and seem to think they can do anything they like. And wtf is Starmer doing meeting the Israeli President tomorrow ?
Do you object to them slotting the leaders of Hamas? Those guys are pure evil. Corrupt Islamist murderers, who presumably planned October 7. Good riddance
If only Israel would restrict herself to surgical strikes like this
Too late now, you can't put the genocidal toothpaste back in the tube. Or the intestines back into blown up Palestinian kids.
We have been warned: Zia Yusuf @ZiaYusufUK · 7h Reform will transform the civil service from a bloated, failed organisation hostile to the interests of the British people into a lean, performant machine that makes our country proud. 🇬🇧
On the face of it, this doesn't sound like anything to be worried about. What do you see as problematic with it?
This is obvious by now, surely? It's about 97% likely to be pure BS. Reform are an incompetent policy-free slogan machine, hoping that fools will fall for it. I doubt if they even know what they mean themselves by "Civil Service", never mind what it actually means.
We have this exact cycle from Zia himself in Kent County Council. Lots of "we will save X Y and Z". But LTNs to be cut did not exist. Woke waste to be cut did not exist. "DEI jobs" hardly existed.
It was all public information, but the numpties of Reform, including Zia himself, did not do any homework. So then he rifled through last year's local papers and social media, to find some identified savings he could claim to have "identified". And made a serious of fake claims about it. Cue a public faceplant.
So what happens next? Well, in Derbyshire they cut half the adult education centres. They had time for a proper process, but waited until the last minute and tried to do an emergency decision.
But RefUK are such a fuckwit collective that they had to admit their action was unlawful.
Vote for a clown show, and you get a circus. I don't want a circus in my Council or Government.
Haha - you think the last or the current government are competent?
The last one - incompetent. The current one - too early to tell.
You thing a Farage Farrago would be less incompetent?
How did that work out in County Councils?
Far too early to tell.
Hmmmm.
Four months since the May elections.
Reform officials failure to obey the law and follow the rules, even on a basic level, says imo that we have plenty of evidence, without even getting into their attacks on scrutiny.
Just to take one, when the Chief Executive of Warwickshire refused to obey an attempted instruction by the leader of the minority Reform UK group, the minority Council Leader, to take down a flag and informed him of the correct procedure which required consent of the whole Council, his next step was to accuse her of being deliberate Civil Service obstructionism against his aims.
It was BS, but Farage still used it as an example in his conference speech.
Like Trump, they are trying to destroy checks, balances and scrutiny.
I think the poisonous nature of RefUK is out there in letters a mile high.
I'd prefer not to repeatedly call Reform UK politicians liars, but it is what they are.
If Labour and co want to win the next election they need to call Reform out every time they lie until it finally dawns on Reform supporters that they are being tricked by liars
The second bit might be tricky- persuading people that their understanding of the world isn't right is very difficult. And there will be lots of pain and not many thanks for those who try that persuading.
We have been warned: Zia Yusuf @ZiaYusufUK · 7h Reform will transform the civil service from a bloated, failed organisation hostile to the interests of the British people into a lean, performant machine that makes our country proud. 🇬🇧
On the face of it, this doesn't sound like anything to be worried about. What do you see as problematic with it?
This is obvious by now, surely? It's about 97% likely to be pure BS. Reform are an incompetent policy-free slogan machine, hoping that fools will fall for it. I doubt if they even know what they mean themselves by "Civil Service", never mind what it actually means.
We have this exact cycle from Zia himself in Kent County Council. Lots of "we will save X Y and Z". But LTNs to be cut did not exist. Woke waste to be cut did not exist. "DEI jobs" hardly existed.
It was all public information, but the numpties of Reform, including Zia himself, did not do any homework. So then he rifled through last year's local papers and social media, to find some identified savings he could claim to have "identified". And made a serious of fake claims about it. Cue a public faceplant.
So what happens next? Well, in Derbyshire they cut half the adult education centres. They had time for a proper process, but waited until the last minute and tried to do an emergency decision.
But RefUK are such a fuckwit collective that they had to admit their action was unlawful.
Vote for a clown show, and you get a circus. I don't want a circus in my Council or Government.
Haha - you think the last or the current government are competent?
The last one - incompetent. The current one - too early to tell.
You thing a Farage Farrago would be less incompetent?
How did that work out in County Councils?
Far too early to tell.
Hmmmm.
Four months since the May elections.
Reform officials failure to obey the law and follow the rules, even on a basic level, says imo that we have plenty of evidence, without even getting into their attacks on scrutiny.
Just to take one, when the Chief Executive of Warwickshire refused to obey an attempted instruction by the leader of the minority Reform UK group, the minority Council Leader, to take down a flag and informed him of the correct procedure which required consent of the whole Council, his next step was to accuse her of being deliberate Civil Service obstructionism against his aims.
It was BS, but Farage still used it as an example in his conference speech.
Like Trump, they are trying to destroy checks, balances and scrutiny.
I think the poisonous nature of RefUK is out there in letters a mile high.
I'd prefer not to repeatedly call Reform UK politicians liars, but it is what they are.
If Labour and co want to win the next election they need to call Reform out every time they lie until it finally dawns on Reform supporters that they are being tricked by liars
The second bit might be tricky- persuading people that their understanding of the world isn't right is very difficult. And there will be lots of pain and not many thanks for those who try that persuading.
We have been warned: Zia Yusuf @ZiaYusufUK · 7h Reform will transform the civil service from a bloated, failed organisation hostile to the interests of the British people into a lean, performant machine that makes our country proud. 🇬🇧
On the face of it, this doesn't sound like anything to be worried about. What do you see as problematic with it?
This is obvious by now, surely? It's about 97% likely to be pure BS. Reform are an incompetent policy-free slogan machine, hoping that fools will fall for it. I doubt if they even know what they mean themselves by "Civil Service", never mind what it actually means.
We have this exact cycle from Zia himself in Kent County Council. Lots of "we will save X Y and Z". But LTNs to be cut did not exist. Woke waste to be cut did not exist. "DEI jobs" hardly existed.
It was all public information, but the numpties of Reform, including Zia himself, did not do any homework. So then he rifled through last year's local papers and social media, to find some identified savings he could claim to have "identified". And made a serious of fake claims about it. Cue a public faceplant.
So what happens next? Well, in Derbyshire they cut half the adult education centres. They had time for a proper process, but waited until the last minute and tried to do an emergency decision.
But RefUK are such a fuckwit collective that they had to admit their action was unlawful.
Vote for a clown show, and you get a circus. I don't want a circus in my Council or Government.
Haha - you think the last or the current government are competent?
The last one - incompetent. The current one - too early to tell.
You thing a Farage Farrago would be less incompetent?
How did that work out in County Councils?
Far too early to tell.
Hmmmm.
Four months since the May elections.
Reform officials failure to obey the law and follow the rules, even on a basic level, says imo that we have plenty of evidence, without even getting into their attacks on scrutiny.
Just to take one, when the Chief Executive of Warwickshire refused to obey an attempted instruction by the leader of the minority Reform UK group, the minority Council Leader, to take down a flag and informed him of the correct procedure which required consent of the whole Council, his next step was to accuse her of being deliberate Civil Service obstructionism against his aims.
It was BS, but Farage still used it as an example in his conference speech.
Like Trump, they are trying to destroy checks, balances and scrutiny.
I think the poisonous nature of RefUK is out there in letters a mile high.
I'd prefer not to repeatedly call Reform UK politicians liars, but it is what they are.
If Labour and co want to win the next election they need to call Reform out every time they lie until it finally dawns on Reform supporters that they are being tricked by liars
as opposed to who. the Tories "we will get migration down to the tens of thousands"? or Labours "the vast majority of small boat crossings are women and children"? or "we will not need to raise taxes again"? Freebie Keir and three pad Rayner have no moral high ground to stand on. Perhaps you should try governing well instead.
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?
I don't understand why people are getting into calculations of probability to answer this.
If we assume, as we must, that (i) there are enough apples on the tree for that not to be a factor (ii) the first boy is telling the truth, then: - at least 1/3 of the first boy's apples has no holes; - at least 1/4 of the second boy's apples has no holes. If you can't see that "at least 1/3" is a better chance than "at least 1/4" then that's a bit worrying
I think this is a more complex example of the Monty Hall problem, though. Both sets are altered from random ones by the act of observation.
I don't think it is. In the Monty Hall problem, if we call door 1 the door you picked, then seeing what's behind one other particular door tells you that there is a greater chance than you first assumed that the unpicked unopened door has a car behind it. Here, even though in boy B's case you do get to see a particular apple, you don't get to track that apple so it's not more useful information than merely being told that at least one apple is good.
I think it is because he picked one at random from his 4. That is a more powerful "at least one is good" attribute compared to looking at all 4 and then making the (true) statement.
The remaining 3 remain a random selection unaffected by the removal - assuming it was a tree with many many apples rather than just a small number. Since in the latter case picking one at random that's good means the remainder is biased towards bad - like if you pick a red playing card from a randomly shuffled pack you leave a bias towards black in the remainder.
So I think ProRata has the best answer - you should pick B.
For Boy A you will have the following odds of picking a non-holed apple:
1/3 2/3 3/3
For Boy B it's
1/4 2/4 3/4 4/4
So for Boy A you have a 2/3 chance of having good odds. For Boy B it's only 2/4.
So I'd go for Boy A.
B has a certain G plus a random 3 reminder. This beats A's "at least one is good", I think.
The populist right doubled their vote in Norway yesterday, and very nearly won
This is a worldwide phenomenon. The UK will not be an exception
So Reform will get 30% and nearly win?
Actually quite a plausible outcome
If I had to bet on a result, I’d bet on a reform-Tory coalition government, with the Tories as the junior partner
But I wouldn’t bet much
Ref Tory coalition on the terms you say leading to a merger from which the Tories will try and extract as much dignity as possible - led by Nigel, new name, some sort of acknowledgement its a continuation of the 350 year old party
We have been warned: Zia Yusuf @ZiaYusufUK · 7h Reform will transform the civil service from a bloated, failed organisation hostile to the interests of the British people into a lean, performant machine that makes our country proud. 🇬🇧
On the face of it, this doesn't sound like anything to be worried about. What do you see as problematic with it?
This is obvious by now, surely? It's about 97% likely to be pure BS. Reform are an incompetent policy-free slogan machine, hoping that fools will fall for it. I doubt if they even know what they mean themselves by "Civil Service", never mind what it actually means.
We have this exact cycle from Zia himself in Kent County Council. Lots of "we will save X Y and Z". But LTNs to be cut did not exist. Woke waste to be cut did not exist. "DEI jobs" hardly existed.
It was all public information, but the numpties of Reform, including Zia himself, did not do any homework. So then he rifled through last year's local papers and social media, to find some identified savings he could claim to have "identified". And made a serious of fake claims about it. Cue a public faceplant.
So what happens next? Well, in Derbyshire they cut half the adult education centres. They had time for a proper process, but waited until the last minute and tried to do an emergency decision.
But RefUK are such a fuckwit collective that they had to admit their action was unlawful.
Vote for a clown show, and you get a circus. I don't want a circus in my Council or Government.
Haha - you think the last or the current government are competent?
The last one - incompetent. The current one - too early to tell.
You thing a Farage Farrago would be less incompetent?
How did that work out in County Councils?
Far too early to tell.
Hmmmm.
Four months since the May elections.
Reform officials failure to obey the law and follow the rules, even on a basic level, says imo that we have plenty of evidence, without even getting into their attacks on scrutiny.
Just to take one, when the Chief Executive of Warwickshire refused to obey an attempted instruction by the leader of the minority Reform UK group, the minority Council Leader, to take down a flag and informed him of the correct procedure which required consent of the whole Council, his next step was to accuse her of being deliberate Civil Service obstructionism against his aims.
It was BS, but Farage still used it as an example in his conference speech.
Like Trump, they are trying to destroy checks, balances and scrutiny.
I think the poisonous nature of RefUK is out there in letters a mile high.
I'd prefer not to repeatedly call Reform UK politicians liars, but it is what they are.
If Labour and co want to win the next election they need to call Reform out every time they lie until it finally dawns on Reform supporters that they are being tricked by liars
The second bit might be tricky- persuading people that their understanding of the world isn't right is very difficult. And there will be lots of pain and not many thanks for those who try that persuading.
But someone needs to try.
That was why I said continually calling Reform out - because you are going to have to do it multiple times before people pick up on the fact that everything reform says is based on a lie or multiple lies
We have been warned: Zia Yusuf @ZiaYusufUK · 7h Reform will transform the civil service from a bloated, failed organisation hostile to the interests of the British people into a lean, performant machine that makes our country proud. 🇬🇧
On the face of it, this doesn't sound like anything to be worried about. What do you see as problematic with it?
This is obvious by now, surely? It's about 97% likely to be pure BS. Reform are an incompetent policy-free slogan machine, hoping that fools will fall for it. I doubt if they even know what they mean themselves by "Civil Service", never mind what it actually means.
We have this exact cycle from Zia himself in Kent County Council. Lots of "we will save X Y and Z". But LTNs to be cut did not exist. Woke waste to be cut did not exist. "DEI jobs" hardly existed.
It was all public information, but the numpties of Reform, including Zia himself, did not do any homework. So then he rifled through last year's local papers and social media, to find some identified savings he could claim to have "identified". And made a serious of fake claims about it. Cue a public faceplant.
So what happens next? Well, in Derbyshire they cut half the adult education centres. They had time for a proper process, but waited until the last minute and tried to do an emergency decision.
But RefUK are such a fuckwit collective that they had to admit their action was unlawful.
Vote for a clown show, and you get a circus. I don't want a circus in my Council or Government.
Haha - you think the last or the current government are competent?
The last one - incompetent. The current one - too early to tell.
You thing a Farage Farrago would be less incompetent?
How did that work out in County Councils?
Far too early to tell.
Hmmmm.
Four months since the May elections.
Reform officials failure to obey the law and follow the rules, even on a basic level, says imo that we have plenty of evidence, without even getting into their attacks on scrutiny.
Just to take one, when the Chief Executive of Warwickshire refused to obey an attempted instruction by the leader of the minority Reform UK group, the minority Council Leader, to take down a flag and informed him of the correct procedure which required consent of the whole Council, his next step was to accuse her of being deliberate Civil Service obstructionism against his aims.
It was BS, but Farage still used it as an example in his conference speech.
Like Trump, they are trying to destroy checks, balances and scrutiny.
I think the poisonous nature of RefUK is out there in letters a mile high.
I'd prefer not to repeatedly call Reform UK politicians liars, but it is what they are.
If Labour and co want to win the next election they need to call Reform out every time they lie until it finally dawns on Reform supporters that they are being tricked by liars
as opposed to who. the Tories "we will get migration down to the tens of thousands"? or Labours "the vast majority of small boat crossings are women and children"? or "we will not need to raise taxes again"? Freebie Keir and three pad Rayner have no moral high ground to stand on. Perhaps you should try governing well instead.
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'.
The biggest cheerleader for full release is Marjorie Greene, MAGA icon.
We have been warned: Zia Yusuf @ZiaYusufUK · 7h Reform will transform the civil service from a bloated, failed organisation hostile to the interests of the British people into a lean, performant machine that makes our country proud. 🇬🇧
On the face of it, this doesn't sound like anything to be worried about. What do you see as problematic with it?
This is obvious by now, surely? It's about 97% likely to be pure BS. Reform are an incompetent policy-free slogan machine, hoping that fools will fall for it. I doubt if they even know what they mean themselves by "Civil Service", never mind what it actually means.
We have this exact cycle from Zia himself in Kent County Council. Lots of "we will save X Y and Z". But LTNs to be cut did not exist. Woke waste to be cut did not exist. "DEI jobs" hardly existed.
It was all public information, but the numpties of Reform, including Zia himself, did not do any homework. So then he rifled through last year's local papers and social media, to find some identified savings he could claim to have "identified". And made a serious of fake claims about it. Cue a public faceplant.
So what happens next? Well, in Derbyshire they cut half the adult education centres. They had time for a proper process, but waited until the last minute and tried to do an emergency decision.
But RefUK are such a fuckwit collective that they had to admit their action was unlawful.
Vote for a clown show, and you get a circus. I don't want a circus in my Council or Government.
Haha - you think the last or the current government are competent?
The last one - incompetent. The current one - too early to tell.
You thing a Farage Farrago would be less incompetent?
How did that work out in County Councils?
Far too early to tell.
Hmmmm.
Four months since the May elections.
Reform officials failure to obey the law and follow the rules, even on a basic level, says imo that we have plenty of evidence, without even getting into their attacks on scrutiny.
Just to take one, when the Chief Executive of Warwickshire refused to obey an attempted instruction by the leader of the minority Reform UK group, the minority Council Leader, to take down a flag and informed him of the correct procedure which required consent of the whole Council, his next step was to accuse her of being deliberate Civil Service obstructionism against his aims.
It was BS, but Farage still used it as an example in his conference speech.
Like Trump, they are trying to destroy checks, balances and scrutiny.
I think the poisonous nature of RefUK is out there in letters a mile high.
I'd prefer not to repeatedly call Reform UK politicians liars, but it is what they are.
If Labour and co want to win the next election they need to call Reform out every time they lie until it finally dawns on Reform supporters that they are being tricked by liars
The second bit might be tricky- persuading people that their understanding of the world isn't right is very difficult. And there will be lots of pain and not many thanks for those who try that persuading.
But someone needs to try.
That was why I said continually calling Reform out - because you are going to have to do it multiple times before people pick up on the fact that everything reform says is based on a lie or multiple lies
And the argument can only be advanced by those who are themselves honest.
I went out for a mile and a half walk earlier, up and down hill. Everything around my ankle is now sore, except the broken bone
I'm going to go for another walk this evening
I was told in my recent medical issues to listen to my body and it is generally good advice
Just take it at a pace that you are comfortable with
All the best for your recovery
I forgot to mention that I took a crutch with me on the walk. I carried it all the way except when I stopped for a chat with Andy from my old mail route, when I used it as a leaning post
It was a bit awkward doing my shopping in Waitrose with a basket in one hand and a crutch under the other arm
Rather excitingly we seem to be going LD in Marlborough - there's a new Gail's opening in the old Lloyd's Bank building
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?
I don't understand why people are getting into calculations of probability to answer this.
If we assume, as we must, that (i) there are enough apples on the tree for that not to be a factor (ii) the first boy is telling the truth, then: - at least 1/3 of the first boy's apples has no holes; - at least 1/4 of the second boy's apples has no holes. If you can't see that "at least 1/3" is a better chance than "at least 1/4" then that's a bit worrying
I think this is a more complex example of the Monty Hall problem, though. Both sets are altered from random ones by the act of observation.
I don't think it is. In the Monty Hall problem, if we call door 1 the door you picked, then seeing what's behind one other particular door tells you that there is a greater chance than you first assumed that the unpicked unopened door has a car behind it. Here, even though in boy B's case you do get to see a particular apple, you don't get to track that apple so it's not more useful information than merely being told that at least one apple is good.
I think it is because he picked one at random from his 4. That is a more powerful "at least one is good" attribute compared to looking at all 4 and then making the (true) statement.
The remaining 3 remain a random selection unaffected by the removal - assuming it was a tree with many many apples rather than just a small number. Since in the latter case picking one at random that's good means the remainder is biased towards bad - like if you pick a red playing card from a randomly shuffled pack you leave a bias towards black in the remainder.
So I think ProRata has the best answer - you should pick B.
For Boy A you will have the following odds of picking a non-holed apple:
1/3 2/3 3/3
For Boy B it's
1/4 2/4 3/4 4/4
So for Boy A you have a 2/3 chance of having good odds. For Boy B it's only 2/4.
So I'd go for Boy A.
B has a certain G plus a random 3 reminder. This beats A's "at least one is good", I think.
I went out for a mile and a half walk earlier, up and down hill. Everything around my ankle is now sore, except the broken bone
I'm going to go for another walk this evening
I was told in my recent medical issues to listen to my body and it is generally good advice
Just take it at a pace that you are comfortable with
All the best for your recovery
I forgot to mention that I took a crutch with me on the walk. I carried it all the way except when I stopped for a chat with Andy from my old mail route, when I used it as a leaning post
It was a bit awkward doing my shopping in Waitrose with a basket in one hand and a crutch under the other arm
Rather excitingly we seem to be going LD in Marlborough - there's a new Gail's opening in the old Lloyd's Bank building
My mobility is not the best and I find a shopping trolley very useful in the supermarket, rather than my walking stick
We have been warned: Zia Yusuf @ZiaYusufUK · 7h Reform will transform the civil service from a bloated, failed organisation hostile to the interests of the British people into a lean, performant machine that makes our country proud. 🇬🇧
On the face of it, this doesn't sound like anything to be worried about. What do you see as problematic with it?
This is obvious by now, surely? It's about 97% likely to be pure BS. Reform are an incompetent policy-free slogan machine, hoping that fools will fall for it. I doubt if they even know what they mean themselves by "Civil Service", never mind what it actually means.
We have this exact cycle from Zia himself in Kent County Council. Lots of "we will save X Y and Z". But LTNs to be cut did not exist. Woke waste to be cut did not exist. "DEI jobs" hardly existed.
It was all public information, but the numpties of Reform, including Zia himself, did not do any homework. So then he rifled through last year's local papers and social media, to find some identified savings he could claim to have "identified". And made a serious of fake claims about it. Cue a public faceplant.
So what happens next? Well, in Derbyshire they cut half the adult education centres. They had time for a proper process, but waited until the last minute and tried to do an emergency decision.
But RefUK are such a fuckwit collective that they had to admit their action was unlawful.
Vote for a clown show, and you get a circus. I don't want a circus in my Council or Government.
Haha - you think the last or the current government are competent?
The last one - incompetent. The current one - too early to tell.
You thing a Farage Farrago would be less incompetent?
How did that work out in County Councils?
Far too early to tell.
Hmmmm.
Four months since the May elections.
Reform officials failure to obey the law and follow the rules, even on a basic level, says imo that we have plenty of evidence, without even getting into their attacks on scrutiny.
Just to take one, when the Chief Executive of Warwickshire refused to obey an attempted instruction by the leader of the minority Reform UK group, the minority Council Leader, to take down a flag and informed him of the correct procedure which required consent of the whole Council, his next step was to accuse her of being deliberate Civil Service obstructionism against his aims.
It was BS, but Farage still used it as an example in his conference speech.
Like Trump, they are trying to destroy checks, balances and scrutiny.
I think the poisonous nature of RefUK is out there in letters a mile high.
I'd prefer not to repeatedly call Reform UK politicians liars, but it is what they are.
If Labour and co want to win the next election they need to call Reform out every time they lie until it finally dawns on Reform supporters that they are being tricked by liars
The second bit might be tricky- persuading people that their understanding of the world isn't right is very difficult. And there will be lots of pain and not many thanks for those who try that persuading.
But someone needs to try.
That was why I said continually calling Reform out - because you are going to have to do it multiple times before people pick up on the fact that everything reform says is based on a lie or multiple lies
The hard bit for the mainstream parties is their track record of non stop untruths puts them in no position to attack Reform on truth. If anything it only reminds voters that those crying "liar" have decades of mendacity behind them.
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 .
We already have tommorows front pages don’t we? The fuckmule coming Labours way over Epstein will be unstoppable. Telegraph and Mail finish both Angey and Mandy in the same seven days!
We have been warned: Zia Yusuf @ZiaYusufUK · 7h Reform will transform the civil service from a bloated, failed organisation hostile to the interests of the British people into a lean, performant machine that makes our country proud. 🇬🇧
On the face of it, this doesn't sound like anything to be worried about. What do you see as problematic with it?
This is obvious by now, surely? It's about 97% likely to be pure BS. Reform are an incompetent policy-free slogan machine, hoping that fools will fall for it. I doubt if they even know what they mean themselves by "Civil Service", never mind what it actually means.
We have this exact cycle from Zia himself in Kent County Council. Lots of "we will save X Y and Z". But LTNs to be cut did not exist. Woke waste to be cut did not exist. "DEI jobs" hardly existed.
It was all public information, but the numpties of Reform, including Zia himself, did not do any homework. So then he rifled through last year's local papers and social media, to find some identified savings he could claim to have "identified". And made a serious of fake claims about it. Cue a public faceplant.
So what happens next? Well, in Derbyshire they cut half the adult education centres. They had time for a proper process, but waited until the last minute and tried to do an emergency decision.
But RefUK are such a fuckwit collective that they had to admit their action was unlawful.
Vote for a clown show, and you get a circus. I don't want a circus in my Council or Government.
Haha - you think the last or the current government are competent?
The last one - incompetent. The current one - too early to tell.
You thing a Farage Farrago would be less incompetent?
How did that work out in County Councils?
Far too early to tell.
Hmmmm.
Four months since the May elections.
Reform officials failure to obey the law and follow the rules, even on a basic level, says imo that we have plenty of evidence, without even getting into their attacks on scrutiny.
Just to take one, when the Chief Executive of Warwickshire refused to obey an attempted instruction by the leader of the minority Reform UK group, the minority Council Leader, to take down a flag and informed him of the correct procedure which required consent of the whole Council, his next step was to accuse her of being deliberate Civil Service obstructionism against his aims.
It was BS, but Farage still used it as an example in his conference speech.
Like Trump, they are trying to destroy checks, balances and scrutiny.
I think the poisonous nature of RefUK is out there in letters a mile high.
I'd prefer not to repeatedly call Reform UK politicians liars, but it is what they are.
If Labour and co want to win the next election they need to call Reform out every time they lie until it finally dawns on Reform supporters that they are being tricked by liars
The second bit might be tricky- persuading people that their understanding of the world isn't right is very difficult. And there will be lots of pain and not many thanks for those who try that persuading.
But someone needs to try.
That was why I said continually calling Reform out - because you are going to have to do it multiple times before people pick up on the fact that everything reform says is based on a lie or multiple lies
And the argument can only be advanced by those who are themselves honest.
I think you'll find the argument can be advanced by anyone, honest or not.
What you mean is that the argument can only be advanced honestly, by those who are honest.
We have been warned: Zia Yusuf @ZiaYusufUK · 7h Reform will transform the civil service from a bloated, failed organisation hostile to the interests of the British people into a lean, performant machine that makes our country proud. 🇬🇧
On the face of it, this doesn't sound like anything to be worried about. What do you see as problematic with it?
This is obvious by now, surely? It's about 97% likely to be pure BS. Reform are an incompetent policy-free slogan machine, hoping that fools will fall for it. I doubt if they even know what they mean themselves by "Civil Service", never mind what it actually means.
We have this exact cycle from Zia himself in Kent County Council. Lots of "we will save X Y and Z". But LTNs to be cut did not exist. Woke waste to be cut did not exist. "DEI jobs" hardly existed.
It was all public information, but the numpties of Reform, including Zia himself, did not do any homework. So then he rifled through last year's local papers and social media, to find some identified savings he could claim to have "identified". And made a serious of fake claims about it. Cue a public faceplant.
So what happens next? Well, in Derbyshire they cut half the adult education centres. They had time for a proper process, but waited until the last minute and tried to do an emergency decision.
But RefUK are such a fuckwit collective that they had to admit their action was unlawful.
Vote for a clown show, and you get a circus. I don't want a circus in my Council or Government.
Haha - you think the last or the current government are competent?
The last one - incompetent. The current one - too early to tell.
You thing a Farage Farrago would be less incompetent?
How did that work out in County Councils?
Far too early to tell.
Hmmmm.
Four months since the May elections.
Reform officials failure to obey the law and follow the rules, even on a basic level, says imo that we have plenty of evidence, without even getting into their attacks on scrutiny.
Just to take one, when the Chief Executive of Warwickshire refused to obey an attempted instruction by the leader of the minority Reform UK group, the minority Council Leader, to take down a flag and informed him of the correct procedure which required consent of the whole Council, his next step was to accuse her of being deliberate Civil Service obstructionism against his aims.
It was BS, but Farage still used it as an example in his conference speech.
Like Trump, they are trying to destroy checks, balances and scrutiny.
I think the poisonous nature of RefUK is out there in letters a mile high.
I'd prefer not to repeatedly call Reform UK politicians liars, but it is what they are.
If Labour and co want to win the next election they need to call Reform out every time they lie until it finally dawns on Reform supporters that they are being tricked by liars
The second bit might be tricky- persuading people that their understanding of the world isn't right is very difficult. And there will be lots of pain and not many thanks for those who try that persuading.
But someone needs to try.
That was why I said continually calling Reform out - because you are going to have to do it multiple times before people pick up on the fact that everything reform says is based on a lie or multiple lies
But that's rational talk, centrist dad talk. There have already been a couple of sensible posters (and Leon) put up the "all the other parties are just as bad" defence. And used it as an attack line against the Uniparty.
It's not that degrees of badness is that complex a concept to grasp. But "you can't judge me because you're not perfect yourself" has always worked as a defence mechanism. Logically, it shouldn't, but it does.
I went out for a mile and a half walk earlier, up and down hill. Everything around my ankle is now sore, except the broken bone
I'm going to go for another walk this evening
I was told in my recent medical issues to listen to my body and it is generally good advice
Just take it at a pace that you are comfortable with
All the best for your recovery
I forgot to mention that I took a crutch with me on the walk. I carried it all the way except when I stopped for a chat with Andy from my old mail route, when I used it as a leaning post
It was a bit awkward doing my shopping in Waitrose with a basket in one hand and a crutch under the other arm
Rather excitingly we seem to be going LD in Marlborough - there's a new Gail's opening in the old Lloyd's Bank building
I just read this back and it isn't entirely clear that I didn't use the crutch for walking at all; I took it just in case..
OK yes I give in. Being told that on inspection "at least one apple is good" is less of an effect on probability than seeing that one picked at random is good.
Probability of picking good apple from first child: we know that out of 2^3 possible sequences the bag does not contain the sequence "3 bad apples". Probability of this bag's contents arising from a random selection would be (2^3-1)/2^3 = 7/8. So probability that each apple in this particular bag is good is not 1/2, but rather 1/2 divided by 7/8, i.e. 4/7
Probability of picking good apple from second child: we know the probability of one apple being good is 1/1 and the probability of each remaining apple being good is 1/2. Average is (1/1 + 1x3/2)/4 = 5/8
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'.
The biggest cheerleader for full release is Marjorie Greene, MAGA icon.
MTG probably believes that the list will be full of Jews, Democrats and Democrat Jews. She’s so MAGA she won’t believe any Republican/MAGA names on it, they will be a conspiracy by the Jews who are on the list.
We have been warned: Zia Yusuf @ZiaYusufUK · 7h Reform will transform the civil service from a bloated, failed organisation hostile to the interests of the British people into a lean, performant machine that makes our country proud. 🇬🇧
On the face of it, this doesn't sound like anything to be worried about. What do you see as problematic with it?
This is obvious by now, surely? It's about 97% likely to be pure BS. Reform are an incompetent policy-free slogan machine, hoping that fools will fall for it. I doubt if they even know what they mean themselves by "Civil Service", never mind what it actually means.
We have this exact cycle from Zia himself in Kent County Council. Lots of "we will save X Y and Z". But LTNs to be cut did not exist. Woke waste to be cut did not exist. "DEI jobs" hardly existed.
It was all public information, but the numpties of Reform, including Zia himself, did not do any homework. So then he rifled through last year's local papers and social media, to find some identified savings he could claim to have "identified". And made a serious of fake claims about it. Cue a public faceplant.
So what happens next? Well, in Derbyshire they cut half the adult education centres. They had time for a proper process, but waited until the last minute and tried to do an emergency decision.
But RefUK are such a fuckwit collective that they had to admit their action was unlawful.
Vote for a clown show, and you get a circus. I don't want a circus in my Council or Government.
Haha - you think the last or the current government are competent?
The last one - incompetent. The current one - too early to tell.
You thing a Farage Farrago would be less incompetent?
How did that work out in County Councils?
Far too early to tell.
Hmmmm.
Four months since the May elections.
Reform officials failure to obey the law and follow the rules, even on a basic level, says imo that we have plenty of evidence, without even getting into their attacks on scrutiny.
Just to take one, when the Chief Executive of Warwickshire refused to obey an attempted instruction by the leader of the minority Reform UK group, the minority Council Leader, to take down a flag and informed him of the correct procedure which required consent of the whole Council, his next step was to accuse her of being deliberate Civil Service obstructionism against his aims.
It was BS, but Farage still used it as an example in his conference speech.
Like Trump, they are trying to destroy checks, balances and scrutiny.
I think the poisonous nature of RefUK is out there in letters a mile high.
I'd prefer not to repeatedly call Reform UK politicians liars, but it is what they are.
If Labour and co want to win the next election they need to call Reform out every time they lie until it finally dawns on Reform supporters that they are being tricked by liars
The second bit might be tricky- persuading people that their understanding of the world isn't right is very difficult. And there will be lots of pain and not many thanks for those who try that persuading.
But someone needs to try.
That was why I said continually calling Reform out - because you are going to have to do it multiple times before people pick up on the fact that everything reform says is based on a lie or multiple lies
And the argument can only be advanced by those who are themselves honest.
I think you'll find the argument can be advanced by anyone, honest or not.
What you mean is that the argument can only be advanced honestly, by those who are honest.
Even that's not entirely true, because nobody is wholly honest. (I think I've mentioned before- one of the alarming things about living in the vicinity of really good people is realising that they have qualms about their behaviour that simply don't occur to us normals.)
If we accept that some sort of judgement of each other is allowed, the most we can hope for is better (but imperfect) judging worse.
We have been warned: Zia Yusuf @ZiaYusufUK · 7h Reform will transform the civil service from a bloated, failed organisation hostile to the interests of the British people into a lean, performant machine that makes our country proud. 🇬🇧
On the face of it, this doesn't sound like anything to be worried about. What do you see as problematic with it?
This is obvious by now, surely? It's about 97% likely to be pure BS. Reform are an incompetent policy-free slogan machine, hoping that fools will fall for it. I doubt if they even know what they mean themselves by "Civil Service", never mind what it actually means.
We have this exact cycle from Zia himself in Kent County Council. Lots of "we will save X Y and Z". But LTNs to be cut did not exist. Woke waste to be cut did not exist. "DEI jobs" hardly existed.
It was all public information, but the numpties of Reform, including Zia himself, did not do any homework. So then he rifled through last year's local papers and social media, to find some identified savings he could claim to have "identified". And made a serious of fake claims about it. Cue a public faceplant.
So what happens next? Well, in Derbyshire they cut half the adult education centres. They had time for a proper process, but waited until the last minute and tried to do an emergency decision.
But RefUK are such a fuckwit collective that they had to admit their action was unlawful.
Vote for a clown show, and you get a circus. I don't want a circus in my Council or Government.
Haha - you think the last or the current government are competent?
The last one - incompetent. The current one - too early to tell.
You thing a Farage Farrago would be less incompetent?
How did that work out in County Councils?
Far too early to tell.
Hmmmm.
Four months since the May elections.
Reform officials failure to obey the law and follow the rules, even on a basic level, says imo that we have plenty of evidence, without even getting into their attacks on scrutiny.
Just to take one, when the Chief Executive of Warwickshire refused to obey an attempted instruction by the leader of the minority Reform UK group, the minority Council Leader, to take down a flag and informed him of the correct procedure which required consent of the whole Council, his next step was to accuse her of being deliberate Civil Service obstructionism against his aims.
It was BS, but Farage still used it as an example in his conference speech.
Like Trump, they are trying to destroy checks, balances and scrutiny.
I think the poisonous nature of RefUK is out there in letters a mile high.
I'd prefer not to repeatedly call Reform UK politicians liars, but it is what they are.
If Labour and co want to win the next election they need to call Reform out every time they lie until it finally dawns on Reform supporters that they are being tricked by liars
The second bit might be tricky- persuading people that their understanding of the world isn't right is very difficult. And there will be lots of pain and not many thanks for those who try that persuading.
But someone needs to try.
That was why I said continually calling Reform out - because you are going to have to do it multiple times before people pick up on the fact that everything reform says is based on a lie or multiple lies
But that's rational talk, centrist dad talk. There have already been a couple of sensible posters (and Leon) put up the "all the other parties are just as bad" defence. And used it as an attack line against the Uniparty.
It's not that degrees of badness is that complex a concept to grasp. But "you can't judge me because you're not perfect yourself" has always worked as a defence mechanism. Logically, it shouldn't, but it does.
I'm wondering, is the problem that reality has a centrist dad bias?
We have been warned: Zia Yusuf @ZiaYusufUK · 7h Reform will transform the civil service from a bloated, failed organisation hostile to the interests of the British people into a lean, performant machine that makes our country proud. 🇬🇧
On the face of it, this doesn't sound like anything to be worried about. What do you see as problematic with it?
This is obvious by now, surely? It's about 97% likely to be pure BS. Reform are an incompetent policy-free slogan machine, hoping that fools will fall for it. I doubt if they even know what they mean themselves by "Civil Service", never mind what it actually means.
We have this exact cycle from Zia himself in Kent County Council. Lots of "we will save X Y and Z". But LTNs to be cut did not exist. Woke waste to be cut did not exist. "DEI jobs" hardly existed.
It was all public information, but the numpties of Reform, including Zia himself, did not do any homework. So then he rifled through last year's local papers and social media, to find some identified savings he could claim to have "identified". And made a serious of fake claims about it. Cue a public faceplant.
So what happens next? Well, in Derbyshire they cut half the adult education centres. They had time for a proper process, but waited until the last minute and tried to do an emergency decision.
But RefUK are such a fuckwit collective that they had to admit their action was unlawful.
Vote for a clown show, and you get a circus. I don't want a circus in my Council or Government.
Haha - you think the last or the current government are competent?
The last one - incompetent. The current one - too early to tell.
You thing a Farage Farrago would be less incompetent?
How did that work out in County Councils?
Far too early to tell.
Hmmmm.
Four months since the May elections.
Reform officials failure to obey the law and follow the rules, even on a basic level, says imo that we have plenty of evidence, without even getting into their attacks on scrutiny.
Just to take one, when the Chief Executive of Warwickshire refused to obey an attempted instruction by the leader of the minority Reform UK group, the minority Council Leader, to take down a flag and informed him of the correct procedure which required consent of the whole Council, his next step was to accuse her of being deliberate Civil Service obstructionism against his aims.
It was BS, but Farage still used it as an example in his conference speech.
Like Trump, they are trying to destroy checks, balances and scrutiny.
I think the poisonous nature of RefUK is out there in letters a mile high.
I'd prefer not to repeatedly call Reform UK politicians liars, but it is what they are.
@Cyclefree has provided chapter and verse about misconduct on the part of the "mainstream", over the course of sixty years. In the light of this, I don't think that your examples will generate the level of outrage that you think they should generate.
But it remains newsworthy when it's uncovered. In a Trumpite world (which is where Farage and Reform want to take us) it becomes one big shrug because nobody expects any better. That's worse.
I went out for a mile and a half walk earlier, up and down hill. Everything around my ankle is now sore, except the broken bone
I'm going to go for another walk this evening
I was told in my recent medical issues to listen to my body and it is generally good advice
Just take it at a pace that you are comfortable with
All the best for your recovery
I forgot to mention that I took a crutch with me on the walk. I carried it all the way except when I stopped for a chat with Andy from my old mail route, when I used it as a leaning post
It was a bit awkward doing my shopping in Waitrose with a basket in one hand and a crutch under the other arm
Rather excitingly we seem to be going LD in Marlborough - there's a new Gail's opening in the old Lloyd's Bank building
Mrs. F has mobility issues and uses a trolley for support, as Big G said. Does Marlborough have a Greggs? If so, you could be going Reform.
O/T, but I see that my firm has paid out £550,000 in Inheritance Tax over the past 12 months, and £480,000 in Stamp Duty. Solicitors' firms must collect a huge amount of tax.
Thank you for your answers. As ProRata says you should pick one from child B's bad, where you know the one from 4 that is randomly selected is clean, not from child A's bag where you know at least one of the three is clean. In the first case (A) there is a 4/7 (57.1%) chance of getting a clean apple, in the second case (B) 5/8 (62.5%). The answer is counter-intuitive and may infuriate some. However I think it is of some relevance for opinion polling, in that it is not just what information you know but how you know it that matters.
We have been warned: Zia Yusuf @ZiaYusufUK · 7h Reform will transform the civil service from a bloated, failed organisation hostile to the interests of the British people into a lean, performant machine that makes our country proud. 🇬🇧
On the face of it, this doesn't sound like anything to be worried about. What do you see as problematic with it?
This is obvious by now, surely? It's about 97% likely to be pure BS. Reform are an incompetent policy-free slogan machine, hoping that fools will fall for it. I doubt if they even know what they mean themselves by "Civil Service", never mind what it actually means.
We have this exact cycle from Zia himself in Kent County Council. Lots of "we will save X Y and Z". But LTNs to be cut did not exist. Woke waste to be cut did not exist. "DEI jobs" hardly existed.
It was all public information, but the numpties of Reform, including Zia himself, did not do any homework. So then he rifled through last year's local papers and social media, to find some identified savings he could claim to have "identified". And made a serious of fake claims about it. Cue a public faceplant.
So what happens next? Well, in Derbyshire they cut half the adult education centres. They had time for a proper process, but waited until the last minute and tried to do an emergency decision.
But RefUK are such a fuckwit collective that they had to admit their action was unlawful.
Vote for a clown show, and you get a circus. I don't want a circus in my Council or Government.
Haha - you think the last or the current government are competent?
The last one - incompetent. The current one - too early to tell.
You thing a Farage Farrago would be less incompetent?
How did that work out in County Councils?
Far too early to tell.
Hmmmm.
Four months since the May elections.
Reform officials failure to obey the law and follow the rules, even on a basic level, says imo that we have plenty of evidence, without even getting into their attacks on scrutiny.
Just to take one, when the Chief Executive of Warwickshire refused to obey an attempted instruction by the leader of the minority Reform UK group, the minority Council Leader, to take down a flag and informed him of the correct procedure which required consent of the whole Council, his next step was to accuse her of being deliberate Civil Service obstructionism against his aims.
It was BS, but Farage still used it as an example in his conference speech.
Like Trump, they are trying to destroy checks, balances and scrutiny.
I think the poisonous nature of RefUK is out there in letters a mile high.
I'd prefer not to repeatedly call Reform UK politicians liars, but it is what they are.
If Labour and co want to win the next election they need to call Reform out every time they lie until it finally dawns on Reform supporters that they are being tricked by liars
The second bit might be tricky- persuading people that their understanding of the world isn't right is very difficult. And there will be lots of pain and not many thanks for those who try that persuading.
But someone needs to try.
That was why I said continually calling Reform out - because you are going to have to do it multiple times before people pick up on the fact that everything reform says is based on a lie or multiple lies
But that's rational talk, centrist dad talk. There have already been a couple of sensible posters (and Leon) put up the "all the other parties are just as bad" defence. And used it as an attack line against the Uniparty.
It's not that degrees of badness is that complex a concept to grasp. But "you can't judge me because you're not perfect yourself" has always worked as a defence mechanism. Logically, it shouldn't, but it does.
I'm wondering, is the problem that reality has a centrist dad bias?
That’s because we centrist dads are rooted in reality, while the rest of you are away with the fairies.
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.
No, I'm sticking to mine. The difference, as I see it, is that child A has confirmed "one of my apples" giving the 7 permutations.
Child B has randomly pulled "one specific apple" that now has 100% chance of being good. Let's suspend that at the point where the apple is out of the bag and consider the probabilities on the 3 remaining apples. Still 50/50 for each of them, no, 8 permutations. Now, put the apple back in - nothing changes, that specific apple remains good, not just "one of my apples".
I don't see what difference it makes that Child B has showed you his good apple, as long as Child A's statement can be assumed to be trustworthy. Once Child B puts his apple back in the bag, you're in the same position as Child A but with one more apple. So the maths become:
Child A: 1 in 3 chance of getting the known good apple, 2 in 3 chance of getting one of the others - which have a 50/50 chance of being good - therefore 1 in 3 plus half of 2 in 3 therefore 1 in 3 plus 1 in 3 therefore a 2 in 3 chance of getting a good apple
Child B: 1 in 4 chance of getting the known good apple, 3 in 4 chance of getting one of the others - which have a 50/50 chance of being good - therefore 1 in 4 plus half of 3 in 4 therefore 1 in 4 plus 1.5 in 4 i.e. 3 in 8 therefore 2 in 8 plus 3 in 8 therefore a 5 in 8 chance of getting a good apple
2 in 3 = 67%, 5 in 8 = 62.5% chance. Therefore Child A gives you a better chance of a good apple.
But please carry on trying to convince me that the reverse is true, because I'd love to be wrong on this - I really like counterintuitive statistics.
Thing is, B has picked an apple from his bag of 4 *at random* and it was good. A has looked at all 3 and on that basis has made his "at least one is good" statement. There is a difference there, I think, and ProRata's calc adjusts for this.
Unfortunately we're talking about this on a nested thread on which the original wording has been lost!
Instinctively though I don't think that matters. We've got to a starting place where what we know is A: 1 good, 2 unknown and B: 1 good, 3 unknown. We know both come from an (as far as we know) the same population where 50% are good - so it's not like polling where there are differences between the populations.
I still think it's A, but I'm not dug in about this.
We have been warned: Zia Yusuf @ZiaYusufUK · 7h Reform will transform the civil service from a bloated, failed organisation hostile to the interests of the British people into a lean, performant machine that makes our country proud. 🇬🇧
On the face of it, this doesn't sound like anything to be worried about. What do you see as problematic with it?
This is obvious by now, surely? It's about 97% likely to be pure BS. Reform are an incompetent policy-free slogan machine, hoping that fools will fall for it. I doubt if they even know what they mean themselves by "Civil Service", never mind what it actually means.
We have this exact cycle from Zia himself in Kent County Council. Lots of "we will save X Y and Z". But LTNs to be cut did not exist. Woke waste to be cut did not exist. "DEI jobs" hardly existed.
It was all public information, but the numpties of Reform, including Zia himself, did not do any homework. So then he rifled through last year's local papers and social media, to find some identified savings he could claim to have "identified". And made a serious of fake claims about it. Cue a public faceplant.
So what happens next? Well, in Derbyshire they cut half the adult education centres. They had time for a proper process, but waited until the last minute and tried to do an emergency decision.
But RefUK are such a fuckwit collective that they had to admit their action was unlawful.
Vote for a clown show, and you get a circus. I don't want a circus in my Council or Government.
Haha - you think the last or the current government are competent?
The last one - incompetent. The current one - too early to tell.
You thing a Farage Farrago would be less incompetent?
How did that work out in County Councils?
Far too early to tell.
Hmmmm.
Four months since the May elections.
Reform officials failure to obey the law and follow the rules, even on a basic level, says imo that we have plenty of evidence, without even getting into their attacks on scrutiny.
Just to take one, when the Chief Executive of Warwickshire refused to obey an attempted instruction by the leader of the minority Reform UK group, the minority Council Leader, to take down a flag and informed him of the correct procedure which required consent of the whole Council, his next step was to accuse her of being deliberate Civil Service obstructionism against his aims.
It was BS, but Farage still used it as an example in his conference speech.
Like Trump, they are trying to destroy checks, balances and scrutiny.
I think the poisonous nature of RefUK is out there in letters a mile high.
I'd prefer not to repeatedly call Reform UK politicians liars, but it is what they are.
If Labour and co want to win the next election they need to call Reform out every time they lie until it finally dawns on Reform supporters that they are being tricked by liars
The second bit might be tricky- persuading people that their understanding of the world isn't right is very difficult. And there will be lots of pain and not many thanks for those who try that persuading.
But someone needs to try.
That was why I said continually calling Reform out - because you are going to have to do it multiple times before people pick up on the fact that everything reform says is based on a lie or multiple lies
But that's rational talk, centrist dad talk. There have already been a couple of sensible posters (and Leon) put up the "all the other parties are just as bad" defence. And used it as an attack line against the Uniparty.
It's not that degrees of badness is that complex a concept to grasp. But "you can't judge me because you're not perfect yourself" has always worked as a defence mechanism. Logically, it shouldn't, but it does.
O/T, but I see that my firm has paid out £550,000 in Inheritance Tax over the past 12 months, and £480,000 in Stamp Duty. Solicitors' firms must collect a huge amount of tax.
Wait till you see how much the partners will need to pay.
We have been warned: Zia Yusuf @ZiaYusufUK · 7h Reform will transform the civil service from a bloated, failed organisation hostile to the interests of the British people into a lean, performant machine that makes our country proud. 🇬🇧
On the face of it, this doesn't sound like anything to be worried about. What do you see as problematic with it?
This is obvious by now, surely? It's about 97% likely to be pure BS. Reform are an incompetent policy-free slogan machine, hoping that fools will fall for it. I doubt if they even know what they mean themselves by "Civil Service", never mind what it actually means.
We have this exact cycle from Zia himself in Kent County Council. Lots of "we will save X Y and Z". But LTNs to be cut did not exist. Woke waste to be cut did not exist. "DEI jobs" hardly existed.
It was all public information, but the numpties of Reform, including Zia himself, did not do any homework. So then he rifled through last year's local papers and social media, to find some identified savings he could claim to have "identified". And made a serious of fake claims about it. Cue a public faceplant.
So what happens next? Well, in Derbyshire they cut half the adult education centres. They had time for a proper process, but waited until the last minute and tried to do an emergency decision.
But RefUK are such a fuckwit collective that they had to admit their action was unlawful.
Vote for a clown show, and you get a circus. I don't want a circus in my Council or Government.
Haha - you think the last or the current government are competent?
The last one - incompetent. The current one - too early to tell.
You thing a Farage Farrago would be less incompetent?
How did that work out in County Councils?
Far too early to tell.
Hmmmm.
Four months since the May elections.
Reform officials failure to obey the law and follow the rules, even on a basic level, says imo that we have plenty of evidence, without even getting into their attacks on scrutiny.
Just to take one, when the Chief Executive of Warwickshire refused to obey an attempted instruction by the leader of the minority Reform UK group, the minority Council Leader, to take down a flag and informed him of the correct procedure which required consent of the whole Council, his next step was to accuse her of being deliberate Civil Service obstructionism against his aims.
It was BS, but Farage still used it as an example in his conference speech.
Like Trump, they are trying to destroy checks, balances and scrutiny.
I think the poisonous nature of RefUK is out there in letters a mile high.
I'd prefer not to repeatedly call Reform UK politicians liars, but it is what they are.
If Labour and co want to win the next election they need to call Reform out every time they lie until it finally dawns on Reform supporters that they are being tricked by liars
The second bit might be tricky- persuading people that their understanding of the world isn't right is very difficult. And there will be lots of pain and not many thanks for those who try that persuading.
But someone needs to try.
That was why I said continually calling Reform out - because you are going to have to do it multiple times before people pick up on the fact that everything reform says is based on a lie or multiple lies
But that's rational talk, centrist dad talk. There have already been a couple of sensible posters (and Leon) put up the "all the other parties are just as bad" defence. And used it as an attack line against the Uniparty.
It's not that degrees of badness is that complex a concept to grasp. But "you can't judge me because you're not perfect yourself" has always worked as a defence mechanism. Logically, it shouldn't, but it does.
Your "bad" and other people's "bad" will differ, hence degrees of badness vary dependent on where you stand on the political spectrum.
I was mildly amused as every Labourite on R4 this morning was trying to emphasisie how working class they and the party were. I await Lady Nugee telling us how she flies the English flag and has a whippet to go with her flat cap.
We have been warned: Zia Yusuf @ZiaYusufUK · 7h Reform will transform the civil service from a bloated, failed organisation hostile to the interests of the British people into a lean, performant machine that makes our country proud. 🇬🇧
On the face of it, this doesn't sound like anything to be worried about. What do you see as problematic with it?
This is obvious by now, surely? It's about 97% likely to be pure BS. Reform are an incompetent policy-free slogan machine, hoping that fools will fall for it. I doubt if they even know what they mean themselves by "Civil Service", never mind what it actually means.
We have this exact cycle from Zia himself in Kent County Council. Lots of "we will save X Y and Z". But LTNs to be cut did not exist. Woke waste to be cut did not exist. "DEI jobs" hardly existed.
It was all public information, but the numpties of Reform, including Zia himself, did not do any homework. So then he rifled through last year's local papers and social media, to find some identified savings he could claim to have "identified". And made a serious of fake claims about it. Cue a public faceplant.
So what happens next? Well, in Derbyshire they cut half the adult education centres. They had time for a proper process, but waited until the last minute and tried to do an emergency decision.
But RefUK are such a fuckwit collective that they had to admit their action was unlawful.
Vote for a clown show, and you get a circus. I don't want a circus in my Council or Government.
Haha - you think the last or the current government are competent?
The last one - incompetent. The current one - too early to tell.
You thing a Farage Farrago would be less incompetent?
How did that work out in County Councils?
Far too early to tell.
Hmmmm.
Four months since the May elections.
Reform officials failure to obey the law and follow the rules, even on a basic level, says imo that we have plenty of evidence, without even getting into their attacks on scrutiny.
Just to take one, when the Chief Executive of Warwickshire refused to obey an attempted instruction by the leader of the minority Reform UK group, the minority Council Leader, to take down a flag and informed him of the correct procedure which required consent of the whole Council, his next step was to accuse her of being deliberate Civil Service obstructionism against his aims.
It was BS, but Farage still used it as an example in his conference speech.
Like Trump, they are trying to destroy checks, balances and scrutiny.
I think the poisonous nature of RefUK is out there in letters a mile high.
I'd prefer not to repeatedly call Reform UK politicians liars, but it is what they are.
If Labour and co want to win the next election they need to call Reform out every time they lie until it finally dawns on Reform supporters that they are being tricked by liars
The second bit might be tricky- persuading people that their understanding of the world isn't right is very difficult. And there will be lots of pain and not many thanks for those who try that persuading.
But someone needs to try.
That was why I said continually calling Reform out - because you are going to have to do it multiple times before people pick up on the fact that everything reform says is based on a lie or multiple lies
But that's rational talk, centrist dad talk. There have already been a couple of sensible posters (and Leon) put up the "all the other parties are just as bad" defence. And used it as an attack line against the Uniparty.
It's not that degrees of badness is that complex a concept to grasp. But "you can't judge me because you're not perfect yourself" has always worked as a defence mechanism. Logically, it shouldn't, but it does.
no it is quite simple. if everyone is going to lie when it suits them, people will pick using a different standard. We only lie to you sometimes is not the win you think it is. Labour are in power. All they need to do is a half decent job to get back in.
We have been warned: Zia Yusuf @ZiaYusufUK · 7h Reform will transform the civil service from a bloated, failed organisation hostile to the interests of the British people into a lean, performant machine that makes our country proud. 🇬🇧
On the face of it, this doesn't sound like anything to be worried about. What do you see as problematic with it?
This is obvious by now, surely? It's about 97% likely to be pure BS. Reform are an incompetent policy-free slogan machine, hoping that fools will fall for it. I doubt if they even know what they mean themselves by "Civil Service", never mind what it actually means.
We have this exact cycle from Zia himself in Kent County Council. Lots of "we will save X Y and Z". But LTNs to be cut did not exist. Woke waste to be cut did not exist. "DEI jobs" hardly existed.
It was all public information, but the numpties of Reform, including Zia himself, did not do any homework. So then he rifled through last year's local papers and social media, to find some identified savings he could claim to have "identified". And made a serious of fake claims about it. Cue a public faceplant.
So what happens next? Well, in Derbyshire they cut half the adult education centres. They had time for a proper process, but waited until the last minute and tried to do an emergency decision.
But RefUK are such a fuckwit collective that they had to admit their action was unlawful.
Vote for a clown show, and you get a circus. I don't want a circus in my Council or Government.
Haha - you think the last or the current government are competent?
The last one - incompetent. The current one - too early to tell.
You thing a Farage Farrago would be less incompetent?
How did that work out in County Councils?
Far too early to tell.
Hmmmm.
Four months since the May elections.
Reform officials failure to obey the law and follow the rules, even on a basic level, says imo that we have plenty of evidence, without even getting into their attacks on scrutiny.
Just to take one, when the Chief Executive of Warwickshire refused to obey an attempted instruction by the leader of the minority Reform UK group, the minority Council Leader, to take down a flag and informed him of the correct procedure which required consent of the whole Council, his next step was to accuse her of being deliberate Civil Service obstructionism against his aims.
It was BS, but Farage still used it as an example in his conference speech.
Like Trump, they are trying to destroy checks, balances and scrutiny.
I think the poisonous nature of RefUK is out there in letters a mile high.
I'd prefer not to repeatedly call Reform UK politicians liars, but it is what they are.
If Labour and co want to win the next election they need to call Reform out every time they lie until it finally dawns on Reform supporters that they are being tricked by liars
The second bit might be tricky- persuading people that their understanding of the world isn't right is very difficult. And there will be lots of pain and not many thanks for those who try that persuading.
But someone needs to try.
That was why I said continually calling Reform out - because you are going to have to do it multiple times before people pick up on the fact that everything reform says is based on a lie or multiple lies
The hard bit for the mainstream parties is their track record of non stop untruths puts them in no position to attack Reform on truth. If anything it only reminds voters that those crying "liar" have decades of mendacity behind them.
It might be hard but it has to be attempted. Not as the only strand of attack, as one of them.
We have been warned: Zia Yusuf @ZiaYusufUK · 7h Reform will transform the civil service from a bloated, failed organisation hostile to the interests of the British people into a lean, performant machine that makes our country proud. 🇬🇧
On the face of it, this doesn't sound like anything to be worried about. What do you see as problematic with it?
This is obvious by now, surely? It's about 97% likely to be pure BS. Reform are an incompetent policy-free slogan machine, hoping that fools will fall for it. I doubt if they even know what they mean themselves by "Civil Service", never mind what it actually means.
We have this exact cycle from Zia himself in Kent County Council. Lots of "we will save X Y and Z". But LTNs to be cut did not exist. Woke waste to be cut did not exist. "DEI jobs" hardly existed.
It was all public information, but the numpties of Reform, including Zia himself, did not do any homework. So then he rifled through last year's local papers and social media, to find some identified savings he could claim to have "identified". And made a serious of fake claims about it. Cue a public faceplant.
So what happens next? Well, in Derbyshire they cut half the adult education centres. They had time for a proper process, but waited until the last minute and tried to do an emergency decision.
But RefUK are such a fuckwit collective that they had to admit their action was unlawful.
Vote for a clown show, and you get a circus. I don't want a circus in my Council or Government.
Haha - you think the last or the current government are competent?
The last one - incompetent. The current one - too early to tell.
You thing a Farage Farrago would be less incompetent?
How did that work out in County Councils?
Far too early to tell.
Hmmmm.
Four months since the May elections.
Reform officials failure to obey the law and follow the rules, even on a basic level, says imo that we have plenty of evidence, without even getting into their attacks on scrutiny.
Just to take one, when the Chief Executive of Warwickshire refused to obey an attempted instruction by the leader of the minority Reform UK group, the minority Council Leader, to take down a flag and informed him of the correct procedure which required consent of the whole Council, his next step was to accuse her of being deliberate Civil Service obstructionism against his aims.
It was BS, but Farage still used it as an example in his conference speech.
Like Trump, they are trying to destroy checks, balances and scrutiny.
I think the poisonous nature of RefUK is out there in letters a mile high.
I'd prefer not to repeatedly call Reform UK politicians liars, but it is what they are.
If Labour and co want to win the next election they need to call Reform out every time they lie until it finally dawns on Reform supporters that they are being tricked by liars
The second bit might be tricky- persuading people that their understanding of the world isn't right is very difficult. And there will be lots of pain and not many thanks for those who try that persuading.
But someone needs to try.
That was why I said continually calling Reform out - because you are going to have to do it multiple times before people pick up on the fact that everything reform says is based on a lie or multiple lies
I think you need something more concrete. Just saying they lie doesn't seem to work. It didn't against Trump! I think you need to link Reform UK to specific failings. You link Farage to Trump, who is largely disliked in the UK. You say specific things have failed (Reform's DOGE). You say Farage spends all his time in the US and Reform UK councillors keep resigning, play to that concern that Farage is lazy, that the party is unprepared for government. You say their spending plans don't add up. You link Reform UK to the thugs and criminals involved in protests.
We have been warned: Zia Yusuf @ZiaYusufUK · 7h Reform will transform the civil service from a bloated, failed organisation hostile to the interests of the British people into a lean, performant machine that makes our country proud. 🇬🇧
On the face of it, this doesn't sound like anything to be worried about. What do you see as problematic with it?
This is obvious by now, surely? It's about 97% likely to be pure BS. Reform are an incompetent policy-free slogan machine, hoping that fools will fall for it. I doubt if they even know what they mean themselves by "Civil Service", never mind what it actually means.
We have this exact cycle from Zia himself in Kent County Council. Lots of "we will save X Y and Z". But LTNs to be cut did not exist. Woke waste to be cut did not exist. "DEI jobs" hardly existed.
It was all public information, but the numpties of Reform, including Zia himself, did not do any homework. So then he rifled through last year's local papers and social media, to find some identified savings he could claim to have "identified". And made a serious of fake claims about it. Cue a public faceplant.
So what happens next? Well, in Derbyshire they cut half the adult education centres. They had time for a proper process, but waited until the last minute and tried to do an emergency decision.
But RefUK are such a fuckwit collective that they had to admit their action was unlawful.
Vote for a clown show, and you get a circus. I don't want a circus in my Council or Government.
Haha - you think the last or the current government are competent?
The last one - incompetent. The current one - too early to tell.
You thing a Farage Farrago would be less incompetent?
How did that work out in County Councils?
Far too early to tell.
Hmmmm.
Four months since the May elections.
Reform officials failure to obey the law and follow the rules, even on a basic level, says imo that we have plenty of evidence, without even getting into their attacks on scrutiny.
Just to take one, when the Chief Executive of Warwickshire refused to obey an attempted instruction by the leader of the minority Reform UK group, the minority Council Leader, to take down a flag and informed him of the correct procedure which required consent of the whole Council, his next step was to accuse her of being deliberate Civil Service obstructionism against his aims.
It was BS, but Farage still used it as an example in his conference speech.
Like Trump, they are trying to destroy checks, balances and scrutiny.
I think the poisonous nature of RefUK is out there in letters a mile high.
I'd prefer not to repeatedly call Reform UK politicians liars, but it is what they are.
If Labour and co want to win the next election they need to call Reform out every time they lie until it finally dawns on Reform supporters that they are being tricked by liars
The second bit might be tricky- persuading people that their understanding of the world isn't right is very difficult. And there will be lots of pain and not many thanks for those who try that persuading.
But someone needs to try.
That was why I said continually calling Reform out - because you are going to have to do it multiple times before people pick up on the fact that everything reform says is based on a lie or multiple lies
But that's rational talk, centrist dad talk. There have already been a couple of sensible posters (and Leon) put up the "all the other parties are just as bad" defence. And used it as an attack line against the Uniparty.
It's not that degrees of badness is that complex a concept to grasp. But "you can't judge me because you're not perfect yourself" has always worked as a defence mechanism. Logically, it shouldn't, but it does.
Your "bad" and other people's "bad" will differ, hence degrees of badness vary dependent on where you stand on the political spectrum.
I was mildly amused as every Labourite on R4 this morning was trying to emphasisie how working class they and the party were. I await Lady Nugee telling us how she flies the English flag and has a whippet to go with her flat cap.
Just imagine if she had a Jack Russell and took it ratting in the House of Commons. Between politicians and journalists, it would catch hundreds!
We have been warned: Zia Yusuf @ZiaYusufUK · 7h Reform will transform the civil service from a bloated, failed organisation hostile to the interests of the British people into a lean, performant machine that makes our country proud. 🇬🇧
On the face of it, this doesn't sound like anything to be worried about. What do you see as problematic with it?
This is obvious by now, surely? It's about 97% likely to be pure BS. Reform are an incompetent policy-free slogan machine, hoping that fools will fall for it. I doubt if they even know what they mean themselves by "Civil Service", never mind what it actually means.
We have this exact cycle from Zia himself in Kent County Council. Lots of "we will save X Y and Z". But LTNs to be cut did not exist. Woke waste to be cut did not exist. "DEI jobs" hardly existed.
It was all public information, but the numpties of Reform, including Zia himself, did not do any homework. So then he rifled through last year's local papers and social media, to find some identified savings he could claim to have "identified". And made a serious of fake claims about it. Cue a public faceplant.
So what happens next? Well, in Derbyshire they cut half the adult education centres. They had time for a proper process, but waited until the last minute and tried to do an emergency decision.
But RefUK are such a fuckwit collective that they had to admit their action was unlawful.
Vote for a clown show, and you get a circus. I don't want a circus in my Council or Government.
Haha - you think the last or the current government are competent?
The last one - incompetent. The current one - too early to tell.
You thing a Farage Farrago would be less incompetent?
How did that work out in County Councils?
Far too early to tell.
Hmmmm.
Four months since the May elections.
Reform officials failure to obey the law and follow the rules, even on a basic level, says imo that we have plenty of evidence, without even getting into their attacks on scrutiny.
Just to take one, when the Chief Executive of Warwickshire refused to obey an attempted instruction by the leader of the minority Reform UK group, the minority Council Leader, to take down a flag and informed him of the correct procedure which required consent of the whole Council, his next step was to accuse her of being deliberate Civil Service obstructionism against his aims.
It was BS, but Farage still used it as an example in his conference speech.
Like Trump, they are trying to destroy checks, balances and scrutiny.
I think the poisonous nature of RefUK is out there in letters a mile high.
I'd prefer not to repeatedly call Reform UK politicians liars, but it is what they are.
If Labour and co want to win the next election they need to call Reform out every time they lie until it finally dawns on Reform supporters that they are being tricked by liars
The second bit might be tricky- persuading people that their understanding of the world isn't right is very difficult. And there will be lots of pain and not many thanks for those who try that persuading.
But someone needs to try.
That was why I said continually calling Reform out - because you are going to have to do it multiple times before people pick up on the fact that everything reform says is based on a lie or multiple lies
The hard bit for the mainstream parties is their track record of non stop untruths puts them in no position to attack Reform on truth. If anything it only reminds voters that those crying "liar" have decades of mendacity behind them.
It might be hard but it has to be attempted. Not as the only strand of attack, as one of them.
I cant see it working. It simply shows how desperate the mainstreamers are to nobble Farage, Voters are beyond expecting truth from politcians, Spin is running out of spin.
I went out for a mile and a half walk earlier, up and down hill. Everything around my ankle is now sore, except the broken bone
I'm going to go for another walk this evening
I was told in my recent medical issues to listen to my body and it is generally good advice
Just take it at a pace that you are comfortable with
All the best for your recovery
I forgot to mention that I took a crutch with me on the walk. I carried it all the way except when I stopped for a chat with Andy from my old mail route, when I used it as a leaning post
It was a bit awkward doing my shopping in Waitrose with a basket in one hand and a crutch under the other arm
Rather excitingly we seem to be going LD in Marlborough - there's a new Gail's opening in the old Lloyd's Bank building
Mrs. F has mobility issues and uses a trolley for support, as Big G said. Does Marlborough have a Greggs? If so, you could be going Reform.
We have a Gregg's. I know where it is; close enough to the sorting office for it to be rather popular for breakfast among the posties
I've never eaten anything of theirs, but did once get bought a horrible coffee. I think I'd rather go to Gail's
We have been warned: Zia Yusuf @ZiaYusufUK · 7h Reform will transform the civil service from a bloated, failed organisation hostile to the interests of the British people into a lean, performant machine that makes our country proud. 🇬🇧
On the face of it, this doesn't sound like anything to be worried about. What do you see as problematic with it?
This is obvious by now, surely? It's about 97% likely to be pure BS. Reform are an incompetent policy-free slogan machine, hoping that fools will fall for it. I doubt if they even know what they mean themselves by "Civil Service", never mind what it actually means.
We have this exact cycle from Zia himself in Kent County Council. Lots of "we will save X Y and Z". But LTNs to be cut did not exist. Woke waste to be cut did not exist. "DEI jobs" hardly existed.
It was all public information, but the numpties of Reform, including Zia himself, did not do any homework. So then he rifled through last year's local papers and social media, to find some identified savings he could claim to have "identified". And made a serious of fake claims about it. Cue a public faceplant.
So what happens next? Well, in Derbyshire they cut half the adult education centres. They had time for a proper process, but waited until the last minute and tried to do an emergency decision.
But RefUK are such a fuckwit collective that they had to admit their action was unlawful.
Vote for a clown show, and you get a circus. I don't want a circus in my Council or Government.
Haha - you think the last or the current government are competent?
The last one - incompetent. The current one - too early to tell.
You thing a Farage Farrago would be less incompetent?
How did that work out in County Councils?
Far too early to tell.
Hmmmm.
Four months since the May elections.
Reform officials failure to obey the law and follow the rules, even on a basic level, says imo that we have plenty of evidence, without even getting into their attacks on scrutiny.
Just to take one, when the Chief Executive of Warwickshire refused to obey an attempted instruction by the leader of the minority Reform UK group, the minority Council Leader, to take down a flag and informed him of the correct procedure which required consent of the whole Council, his next step was to accuse her of being deliberate Civil Service obstructionism against his aims.
It was BS, but Farage still used it as an example in his conference speech.
Like Trump, they are trying to destroy checks, balances and scrutiny.
I think the poisonous nature of RefUK is out there in letters a mile high.
I'd prefer not to repeatedly call Reform UK politicians liars, but it is what they are.
If Labour and co want to win the next election they need to call Reform out every time they lie until it finally dawns on Reform supporters that they are being tricked by liars
The second bit might be tricky- persuading people that their understanding of the world isn't right is very difficult. And there will be lots of pain and not many thanks for those who try that persuading.
But someone needs to try.
That was why I said continually calling Reform out - because you are going to have to do it multiple times before people pick up on the fact that everything reform says is based on a lie or multiple lies
But that's rational talk, centrist dad talk. There have already been a couple of sensible posters (and Leon) put up the "all the other parties are just as bad" defence. And used it as an attack line against the Uniparty.
It's not that degrees of badness is that complex a concept to grasp. But "you can't judge me because you're not perfect yourself" has always worked as a defence mechanism. Logically, it shouldn't, but it does.
Your "bad" and other people's "bad" will differ, hence degrees of badness vary dependent on where you stand on the political spectrum.
I was mildly amused as every Labourite on R4 this morning was trying to emphasisie how working class they and the party were. I await Lady Nugee telling us how she flies the English flag and has a whippet to go with her flat cap.
Just imagine if she had a Jack Russell and took it ratting in the House of Commons. Between politicians and journalists, it would catch hundreds!
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…
Just exploited girls?
None of the Rich exploiters enjoyed Oysters and Snails at the same banquet? Along with all you can eat Waldorf Salad?
As for after dinner discussion, about the biggest storms of the last century, Didn’t Aunty Gertrude Epstein always say: a blow is a blow is a blow, at the end of the day? And as for the caving enthusiasts boast about all the tightest holes they’ve been in - where they went down with a Mars bar that ended up flat as a pancake when they came out. 🤷♀️
The people advising Starmer to tie himself to Mandy are idiots. Simply put, whenever you are defending someone, you own the awkward questions too. Now Starmer must answer the same questions that are put to Mandy, that’s what defending brings.
We have been warned: Zia Yusuf @ZiaYusufUK · 7h Reform will transform the civil service from a bloated, failed organisation hostile to the interests of the British people into a lean, performant machine that makes our country proud. 🇬🇧
On the face of it, this doesn't sound like anything to be worried about. What do you see as problematic with it?
This is obvious by now, surely? It's about 97% likely to be pure BS. Reform are an incompetent policy-free slogan machine, hoping that fools will fall for it. I doubt if they even know what they mean themselves by "Civil Service", never mind what it actually means.
We have this exact cycle from Zia himself in Kent County Council. Lots of "we will save X Y and Z". But LTNs to be cut did not exist. Woke waste to be cut did not exist. "DEI jobs" hardly existed.
It was all public information, but the numpties of Reform, including Zia himself, did not do any homework. So then he rifled through last year's local papers and social media, to find some identified savings he could claim to have "identified". And made a serious of fake claims about it. Cue a public faceplant.
So what happens next? Well, in Derbyshire they cut half the adult education centres. They had time for a proper process, but waited until the last minute and tried to do an emergency decision.
But RefUK are such a fuckwit collective that they had to admit their action was unlawful.
Vote for a clown show, and you get a circus. I don't want a circus in my Council or Government.
Haha - you think the last or the current government are competent?
The last one - incompetent. The current one - too early to tell.
You thing a Farage Farrago would be less incompetent?
How did that work out in County Councils?
Far too early to tell.
Hmmmm.
Four months since the May elections.
Reform officials failure to obey the law and follow the rules, even on a basic level, says imo that we have plenty of evidence, without even getting into their attacks on scrutiny.
Just to take one, when the Chief Executive of Warwickshire refused to obey an attempted instruction by the leader of the minority Reform UK group, the minority Council Leader, to take down a flag and informed him of the correct procedure which required consent of the whole Council, his next step was to accuse her of being deliberate Civil Service obstructionism against his aims.
It was BS, but Farage still used it as an example in his conference speech.
Like Trump, they are trying to destroy checks, balances and scrutiny.
I think the poisonous nature of RefUK is out there in letters a mile high.
I'd prefer not to repeatedly call Reform UK politicians liars, but it is what they are.
If Labour and co want to win the next election they need to call Reform out every time they lie until it finally dawns on Reform supporters that they are being tricked by liars
The second bit might be tricky- persuading people that their understanding of the world isn't right is very difficult. And there will be lots of pain and not many thanks for those who try that persuading.
But someone needs to try.
That was why I said continually calling Reform out - because you are going to have to do it multiple times before people pick up on the fact that everything reform says is based on a lie or multiple lies
I think you need something more concrete. Just saying they lie doesn't seem to work. It didn't against Trump! I think you need to link Reform UK to specific failings. You link Farage to Trump, who is largely disliked in the UK. You say specific things have failed (Reform's DOGE). You say Farage spends all his time in the US and Reform UK councillors keep resigning, play to that concern that Farage is lazy, that the party is unprepared for government. You say their spending plans don't add up. You link Reform UK to the thugs and criminals involved in protests.
How are you going to link Farage to Palestine Action ?
Is it? Why? If the BBC is to be neutral, it needs to give coverage to insurgent parties as well as the established ones. Ignoring current opinion polls, Reform got more votes than the Lib Dems in the last election
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?
I don't understand why people are getting into calculations of probability to answer this.
If we assume, as we must, that (i) there are enough apples on the tree for that not to be a factor (ii) the first boy is telling the truth, then: - at least 1/3 of the first boy's apples has no holes; - at least 1/4 of the second boy's apples has no holes. If you can't see that "at least 1/3" is a better chance than "at least 1/4" then that's a bit worrying
I think this is a more complex example of the Monty Hall problem, though. Both sets are altered from random ones by the act of observation.
I don't think it is. In the Monty Hall problem, if we call door 1 the door you picked, then seeing what's behind one other particular door tells you that there is a greater chance than you first assumed that the unpicked unopened door has a car behind it. Here, even though in boy B's case you do get to see a particular apple, you don't get to track that apple so it's not more useful information than merely being told that at least one apple is good.
I think it is because he picked one at random from his 4. That is a more powerful "at least one is good" attribute compared to looking at all 4 and then making the (true) statement.
The remaining 3 remain a random selection unaffected by the removal - assuming it was a tree with many many apples rather than just a small number. Since in the latter case picking one at random that's good means the remainder is biased towards bad - like if you pick a red playing card from a randomly shuffled pack you leave a bias towards black in the remainder.
So I think ProRata has the best answer - you should pick B.
For Boy A you will have the following odds of picking a non-holed apple:
1/3 2/3 3/3
For Boy B it's
1/4 2/4 3/4 4/4
So for Boy A you have a 2/3 chance of having good odds. For Boy B it's only 2/4.
So I'd go for Boy A.
B has a certain G plus a random 3 reminder. This beats A's "at least one is good", I think.
A has 1 good 2 unknown, B has 1 good 3 unknown
Apples and pears though (boom boom!)
B has a specific one picked at random good plus 3 unknown. A has viewed all 3 and said "at least one is good".
We have been warned: Zia Yusuf @ZiaYusufUK · 7h Reform will transform the civil service from a bloated, failed organisation hostile to the interests of the British people into a lean, performant machine that makes our country proud. 🇬🇧
On the face of it, this doesn't sound like anything to be worried about. What do you see as problematic with it?
This is obvious by now, surely? It's about 97% likely to be pure BS. Reform are an incompetent policy-free slogan machine, hoping that fools will fall for it. I doubt if they even know what they mean themselves by "Civil Service", never mind what it actually means.
We have this exact cycle from Zia himself in Kent County Council. Lots of "we will save X Y and Z". But LTNs to be cut did not exist. Woke waste to be cut did not exist. "DEI jobs" hardly existed.
It was all public information, but the numpties of Reform, including Zia himself, did not do any homework. So then he rifled through last year's local papers and social media, to find some identified savings he could claim to have "identified". And made a serious of fake claims about it. Cue a public faceplant.
So what happens next? Well, in Derbyshire they cut half the adult education centres. They had time for a proper process, but waited until the last minute and tried to do an emergency decision.
But RefUK are such a fuckwit collective that they had to admit their action was unlawful.
Vote for a clown show, and you get a circus. I don't want a circus in my Council or Government.
Haha - you think the last or the current government are competent?
The last one - incompetent. The current one - too early to tell.
You thing a Farage Farrago would be less incompetent?
How did that work out in County Councils?
Far too early to tell.
Hmmmm.
Four months since the May elections.
Reform officials failure to obey the law and follow the rules, even on a basic level, says imo that we have plenty of evidence, without even getting into their attacks on scrutiny.
Just to take one, when the Chief Executive of Warwickshire refused to obey an attempted instruction by the leader of the minority Reform UK group, the minority Council Leader, to take down a flag and informed him of the correct procedure which required consent of the whole Council, his next step was to accuse her of being deliberate Civil Service obstructionism against his aims.
It was BS, but Farage still used it as an example in his conference speech.
Like Trump, they are trying to destroy checks, balances and scrutiny.
I think the poisonous nature of RefUK is out there in letters a mile high.
I'd prefer not to repeatedly call Reform UK politicians liars, but it is what they are.
If Labour and co want to win the next election they need to call Reform out every time they lie until it finally dawns on Reform supporters that they are being tricked by liars
The second bit might be tricky- persuading people that their understanding of the world isn't right is very difficult. And there will be lots of pain and not many thanks for those who try that persuading.
But someone needs to try.
That was why I said continually calling Reform out - because you are going to have to do it multiple times before people pick up on the fact that everything reform says is based on a lie or multiple lies
But that's rational talk, centrist dad talk. There have already been a couple of sensible posters (and Leon) put up the "all the other parties are just as bad" defence. And used it as an attack line against the Uniparty.
It's not that degrees of badness is that complex a concept to grasp. But "you can't judge me because you're not perfect yourself" has always worked as a defence mechanism. Logically, it shouldn't, but it does.
no it is quite simple. if everyone is going to lie when it suits them, people will pick using a different standard. We only lie to you sometimes is not the win you think it is. Labour are in power. All they need to do is a half decent job to get back in.
"We lie, we graft and we grift, but Reform are worse" is an argument, certainly, but probably not a winning argument.
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.
No, I'm sticking to mine. The difference, as I see it, is that child A has confirmed "one of my apples" giving the 7 permutations.
Child B has randomly pulled "one specific apple" that now has 100% chance of being good. Let's suspend that at the point where the apple is out of the bag and consider the probabilities on the 3 remaining apples. Still 50/50 for each of them, no, 8 permutations. Now, put the apple back in - nothing changes, that specific apple remains good, not just "one of my apples".
I don't see what difference it makes that Child B has showed you his good apple, as long as Child A's statement can be assumed to be trustworthy. Once Child B puts his apple back in the bag, you're in the same position as Child A but with one more apple. So the maths become:
Child A: 1 in 3 chance of getting the known good apple, 2 in 3 chance of getting one of the others - which have a 50/50 chance of being good - therefore 1 in 3 plus half of 2 in 3 therefore 1 in 3 plus 1 in 3 therefore a 2 in 3 chance of getting a good apple
Child B: 1 in 4 chance of getting the known good apple, 3 in 4 chance of getting one of the others - which have a 50/50 chance of being good - therefore 1 in 4 plus half of 3 in 4 therefore 1 in 4 plus 1.5 in 4 i.e. 3 in 8 therefore 2 in 8 plus 3 in 8 therefore a 5 in 8 chance of getting a good apple
2 in 3 = 67%, 5 in 8 = 62.5% chance. Therefore Child A gives you a better chance of a good apple.
But please carry on trying to convince me that the reverse is true, because I'd love to be wrong on this - I really like counterintuitive statistics.
Thing is, B has picked an apple from his bag of 4 *at random* and it was good. A has looked at all 3 and on that basis has made his "at least one is good" statement. There is a difference there, I think, and ProRata's calc adjusts for this.
Unfortunately we're talking about this on a nested thread on which the original wording has been lost!
Instinctively though I don't think that matters. We've got to a starting place where what we know is A: 1 good, 2 unknown and B: 1 good, 3 unknown. We know both come from an (as far as we know) the same population where 50% are good - so it's not like polling where there are differences between the populations.
I still think it's A, but I'm not dug in about this.
I had it like that at first - but when you factor in that B picked one *at random* and it was good this changes things. And the puzzle setter agrees, I now see. ProRata wins the sports car and the weekend in Las Vegas. Everyone else gets DustyBin.
We have been warned: Zia Yusuf @ZiaYusufUK · 7h Reform will transform the civil service from a bloated, failed organisation hostile to the interests of the British people into a lean, performant machine that makes our country proud. 🇬🇧
On the face of it, this doesn't sound like anything to be worried about. What do you see as problematic with it?
This is obvious by now, surely? It's about 97% likely to be pure BS. Reform are an incompetent policy-free slogan machine, hoping that fools will fall for it. I doubt if they even know what they mean themselves by "Civil Service", never mind what it actually means.
We have this exact cycle from Zia himself in Kent County Council. Lots of "we will save X Y and Z". But LTNs to be cut did not exist. Woke waste to be cut did not exist. "DEI jobs" hardly existed.
It was all public information, but the numpties of Reform, including Zia himself, did not do any homework. So then he rifled through last year's local papers and social media, to find some identified savings he could claim to have "identified". And made a serious of fake claims about it. Cue a public faceplant.
So what happens next? Well, in Derbyshire they cut half the adult education centres. They had time for a proper process, but waited until the last minute and tried to do an emergency decision.
But RefUK are such a fuckwit collective that they had to admit their action was unlawful.
Vote for a clown show, and you get a circus. I don't want a circus in my Council or Government.
Haha - you think the last or the current government are competent?
The last one - incompetent. The current one - too early to tell.
You thing a Farage Farrago would be less incompetent?
How did that work out in County Councils?
Far too early to tell.
Hmmmm.
Four months since the May elections.
Reform officials failure to obey the law and follow the rules, even on a basic level, says imo that we have plenty of evidence, without even getting into their attacks on scrutiny.
Just to take one, when the Chief Executive of Warwickshire refused to obey an attempted instruction by the leader of the minority Reform UK group, the minority Council Leader, to take down a flag and informed him of the correct procedure which required consent of the whole Council, his next step was to accuse her of being deliberate Civil Service obstructionism against his aims.
It was BS, but Farage still used it as an example in his conference speech.
Like Trump, they are trying to destroy checks, balances and scrutiny.
I think the poisonous nature of RefUK is out there in letters a mile high.
I'd prefer not to repeatedly call Reform UK politicians liars, but it is what they are.
If Labour and co want to win the next election they need to call Reform out every time they lie until it finally dawns on Reform supporters that they are being tricked by liars
The second bit might be tricky- persuading people that their understanding of the world isn't right is very difficult. And there will be lots of pain and not many thanks for those who try that persuading.
But someone needs to try.
That was why I said continually calling Reform out - because you are going to have to do it multiple times before people pick up on the fact that everything reform says is based on a lie or multiple lies
The hard bit for the mainstream parties is their track record of non stop untruths puts them in no position to attack Reform on truth. If anything it only reminds voters that those crying "liar" have decades of mendacity behind them.
It might be hard but it has to be attempted. Not as the only strand of attack, as one of them.
I cant see it working. It simply shows how desperate the mainstreamers are to nobble Farage, Voters are beyond expecting truth from politcians, Spin is running out of spin.
Well that puts us in USA territory. So I hope you're wrong.
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.
No, I'm sticking to mine. The difference, as I see it, is that child A has confirmed "one of my apples" giving the 7 permutations.
Child B has randomly pulled "one specific apple" that now has 100% chance of being good. Let's suspend that at the point where the apple is out of the bag and consider the probabilities on the 3 remaining apples. Still 50/50 for each of them, no, 8 permutations. Now, put the apple back in - nothing changes, that specific apple remains good, not just "one of my apples".
I don't see what difference it makes that Child B has showed you his good apple, as long as Child A's statement can be assumed to be trustworthy. Once Child B puts his apple back in the bag, you're in the same position as Child A but with one more apple. So the maths become:
Child A: 1 in 3 chance of getting the known good apple, 2 in 3 chance of getting one of the others - which have a 50/50 chance of being good - therefore 1 in 3 plus half of 2 in 3 therefore 1 in 3 plus 1 in 3 therefore a 2 in 3 chance of getting a good apple
Child B: 1 in 4 chance of getting the known good apple, 3 in 4 chance of getting one of the others - which have a 50/50 chance of being good - therefore 1 in 4 plus half of 3 in 4 therefore 1 in 4 plus 1.5 in 4 i.e. 3 in 8 therefore 2 in 8 plus 3 in 8 therefore a 5 in 8 chance of getting a good apple
2 in 3 = 67%, 5 in 8 = 62.5% chance. Therefore Child A gives you a better chance of a good apple.
But please carry on trying to convince me that the reverse is true, because I'd love to be wrong on this - I really like counterintuitive statistics.
Thing is, B has picked an apple from his bag of 4 *at random* and it was good. A has looked at all 3 and on that basis has made his "at least one is good" statement. There is a difference there, I think, and ProRata's calc adjusts for this.
Unfortunately we're talking about this on a nested thread on which the original wording has been lost!
Instinctively though I don't think that matters. We've got to a starting place where what we know is A: 1 good, 2 unknown and B: 1 good, 3 unknown. We know both come from an (as far as we know) the same population where 50% are good - so it's not like polling where there are differences between the populations.
I still think it's A, but I'm not dug in about this.
I had it like that at first - but when you factor in that B picked one *at random* and it was good this changes things. And the puzzle setter agrees, I now see. ProRata wins the sports car and the weekend in Las Vegas. Everyone else gets DustyBin.
No it doesn't - it just means Child B won the odds when he pulled his apple out.
Now you can regard bag B as either a 50% chance (4 apples, unknown chance of any one being good) or 62.5% (4 apples, 1 known to be good, 3 unknown) but neither of those odds beat the minimum 66% chance that bag A offers of (3 apples, 1 good, 2 unknown)
The curious bit here is how long we've spent on a betting site discussing what is a relatively simple probability question and why some people seem to think that option B has better odds than A.
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.
Yes, that's my view. Fascinated to hear if I'm wrong because it would be so counter-intuitive.
Not got time to read all this, but anyway, my final conclusion was:
If I got to pick one from child B by touch, one would be slightly warmer because it had just been handled.
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.
No, I'm sticking to mine. The difference, as I see it, is that child A has confirmed "one of my apples" giving the 7 permutations.
Child B has randomly pulled "one specific apple" that now has 100% chance of being good. Let's suspend that at the point where the apple is out of the bag and consider the probabilities on the 3 remaining apples. Still 50/50 for each of them, no, 8 permutations. Now, put the apple back in - nothing changes, that specific apple remains good, not just "one of my apples".
I don't see what difference it makes that Child B has showed you his good apple, as long as Child A's statement can be assumed to be trustworthy. Once Child B puts his apple back in the bag, you're in the same position as Child A but with one more apple. So the maths become:
Child A: 1 in 3 chance of getting the known good apple, 2 in 3 chance of getting one of the others - which have a 50/50 chance of being good - therefore 1 in 3 plus half of 2 in 3 therefore 1 in 3 plus 1 in 3 therefore a 2 in 3 chance of getting a good apple
Child B: 1 in 4 chance of getting the known good apple, 3 in 4 chance of getting one of the others - which have a 50/50 chance of being good - therefore 1 in 4 plus half of 3 in 4 therefore 1 in 4 plus 1.5 in 4 i.e. 3 in 8 therefore 2 in 8 plus 3 in 8 therefore a 5 in 8 chance of getting a good apple
2 in 3 = 67%, 5 in 8 = 62.5% chance. Therefore Child A gives you a better chance of a good apple.
But please carry on trying to convince me that the reverse is true, because I'd love to be wrong on this - I really like counterintuitive statistics.
Thing is, B has picked an apple from his bag of 4 *at random* and it was good. A has looked at all 3 and on that basis has made his "at least one is good" statement. There is a difference there, I think, and ProRata's calc adjusts for this.
Unfortunately we're talking about this on a nested thread on which the original wording has been lost!
Instinctively though I don't think that matters. We've got to a starting place where what we know is A: 1 good, 2 unknown and B: 1 good, 3 unknown. We know both come from an (as far as we know) the same population where 50% are good - so it's not like polling where there are differences between the populations.
I still think it's A, but I'm not dug in about this.
I had it like that at first - but when you factor in that B picked one *at random* and it was good this changes things. And the puzzle setter agrees, I now see. ProRata wins the sports car and the weekend in Las Vegas. Everyone else gets DustyBin.
No it doesn't - it just means Child B won the odds when he pulled his apple out.
Now you can regard bag B as either a 50% chance (4 apples, unknown chance of any one being good) or 62.5% (4 apples, 1 known to be good, 3 unknown) but neither of those odds beat the minimum 66% chance that bag A offers of (3 apples, 1 good, 2 unknown)
The curious bit here is how long we've spent on a betting site discussing what is a relatively simple probability question and why some people seem to think that option B has better odds than A.
Getting a good one at random changes the probability distribution of the whole set.
If the first random choice is good it becomes more likely that there were 3 or 4 good ones to start with.
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.
No, I'm sticking to mine. The difference, as I see it, is that child A has confirmed "one of my apples" giving the 7 permutations.
Child B has randomly pulled "one specific apple" that now has 100% chance of being good. Let's suspend that at the point where the apple is out of the bag and consider the probabilities on the 3 remaining apples. Still 50/50 for each of them, no, 8 permutations. Now, put the apple back in - nothing changes, that specific apple remains good, not just "one of my apples".
I don't see what difference it makes that Child B has showed you his good apple, as long as Child A's statement can be assumed to be trustworthy. Once Child B puts his apple back in the bag, you're in the same position as Child A but with one more apple. So the maths become:
Child A: 1 in 3 chance of getting the known good apple, 2 in 3 chance of getting one of the others - which have a 50/50 chance of being good - therefore 1 in 3 plus half of 2 in 3 therefore 1 in 3 plus 1 in 3 therefore a 2 in 3 chance of getting a good apple
Child B: 1 in 4 chance of getting the known good apple, 3 in 4 chance of getting one of the others - which have a 50/50 chance of being good - therefore 1 in 4 plus half of 3 in 4 therefore 1 in 4 plus 1.5 in 4 i.e. 3 in 8 therefore 2 in 8 plus 3 in 8 therefore a 5 in 8 chance of getting a good apple
2 in 3 = 67%, 5 in 8 = 62.5% chance. Therefore Child A gives you a better chance of a good apple.
But please carry on trying to convince me that the reverse is true, because I'd love to be wrong on this - I really like counterintuitive statistics.
Thing is, B has picked an apple from his bag of 4 *at random* and it was good. A has looked at all 3 and on that basis has made his "at least one is good" statement. There is a difference there, I think, and ProRata's calc adjusts for this.
Unfortunately we're talking about this on a nested thread on which the original wording has been lost!
Instinctively though I don't think that matters. We've got to a starting place where what we know is A: 1 good, 2 unknown and B: 1 good, 3 unknown. We know both come from an (as far as we know) the same population where 50% are good - so it's not like polling where there are differences between the populations.
I still think it's A, but I'm not dug in about this.
I had it like that at first - but when you factor in that B picked one *at random* and it was good this changes things. And the puzzle setter agrees, I now see. ProRata wins the sports car and the weekend in Las Vegas. Everyone else gets DustyBin.
No it doesn't - it just means Child B won the odds when he pulled his apple out.
Now you can regard bag B as either a 50% chance (4 apples, unknown chance of any one being good) or 62.5% (4 apples, 1 known to be good, 3 unknown) but neither of those odds beat the minimum 66% chance that bag A offers of (3 apples, 1 good, 2 unknown)
The curious bit here is how long we've spent on a betting site discussing what is a relatively simple probability question and why some people seem to think that option B has better odds than A.
Some of this occurs in all organisations. These sorts of things happen in the private sector, they happen in the third sector. Life is complicated. So, yes, put in the work streamlining processes etc. There's no magic solution here.
I had a minor stroke a couple of weeks ago and was very impressed by the reaction and follow-up by the local hospital - detailed feedback to the GP were followed up a day later by a call from the consultant to resolve pending queries that I had. There was no sense of any hurry in my putting the questions during the call. Some aspects of the NHS are weighed down by procedural complexity abd waiting lists, but if something is urgent they really get their skates on.
The immigration issue was also very starkly clear - 90% of the staff were clearly not of UK descent, and the system would instantly collapse without immigrants and the next generation of immigrants.
1) Sorry to hear that Nick - customary understatement there but even a minor stroke isn't minor! Hope you're on the mend. 2) Glad the NHS treated you well. Your experience matches mine: in an emergency, the NHS is at its best. And the standard of care the NHS provides is often very good. The standard of customer service however is poor. It feels like the easier problem to solve, yet we never have. 3) The NHS would collapse without immigrants - this itself seems a bit of a flashing warning light? Ideally, we should be training our own population to do medical work - this isn't low-grade Brits-won't-do-it work, surely?
1) Yes, thanks - feel back to normal, though cautious about it! I had a major stroke 15 months ago - total loss of memory etc. - so restrained about celebrating the minor one, but the treatment seems to be keeping off anything worse. I was semi-retired with lots of translation work, but AI has encroached to the point that the remaining work is really badly-paid (an interesting warning to anyone choosing a profession - don't become a translator), and actually I don't need it, so I'm fully retired now, remarried a few months ago, and living a life of idle pleasure. 2)-3) agreed! I suppose that budget-setters will always prioritise doctors and nurses over bureaucrats, but a smooth service needs bureaucrats too.
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.
No, I'm sticking to mine. The difference, as I see it, is that child A has confirmed "one of my apples" giving the 7 permutations.
Child B has randomly pulled "one specific apple" that now has 100% chance of being good. Let's suspend that at the point where the apple is out of the bag and consider the probabilities on the 3 remaining apples. Still 50/50 for each of them, no, 8 permutations. Now, put the apple back in - nothing changes, that specific apple remains good, not just "one of my apples".
I don't see what difference it makes that Child B has showed you his good apple, as long as Child A's statement can be assumed to be trustworthy. Once Child B puts his apple back in the bag, you're in the same position as Child A but with one more apple. So the maths become:
Child A: 1 in 3 chance of getting the known good apple, 2 in 3 chance of getting one of the others - which have a 50/50 chance of being good - therefore 1 in 3 plus half of 2 in 3 therefore 1 in 3 plus 1 in 3 therefore a 2 in 3 chance of getting a good apple
Child B: 1 in 4 chance of getting the known good apple, 3 in 4 chance of getting one of the others - which have a 50/50 chance of being good - therefore 1 in 4 plus half of 3 in 4 therefore 1 in 4 plus 1.5 in 4 i.e. 3 in 8 therefore 2 in 8 plus 3 in 8 therefore a 5 in 8 chance of getting a good apple
2 in 3 = 67%, 5 in 8 = 62.5% chance. Therefore Child A gives you a better chance of a good apple.
But please carry on trying to convince me that the reverse is true, because I'd love to be wrong on this - I really like counterintuitive statistics.
Thing is, B has picked an apple from his bag of 4 *at random* and it was good. A has looked at all 3 and on that basis has made his "at least one is good" statement. There is a difference there, I think, and ProRata's calc adjusts for this.
Unfortunately we're talking about this on a nested thread on which the original wording has been lost!
Instinctively though I don't think that matters. We've got to a starting place where what we know is A: 1 good, 2 unknown and B: 1 good, 3 unknown. We know both come from an (as far as we know) the same population where 50% are good - so it's not like polling where there are differences between the populations.
I still think it's A, but I'm not dug in about this.
I had it like that at first - but when you factor in that B picked one *at random* and it was good this changes things. And the puzzle setter agrees, I now see. ProRata wins the sports car and the weekend in Las Vegas. Everyone else gets DustyBin.
No it doesn't - it just means Child B won the odds when he pulled his apple out.
Now you can regard bag B as either a 50% chance (4 apples, unknown chance of any one being good) or 62.5% (4 apples, 1 known to be good, 3 unknown) but neither of those odds beat the minimum 66% chance that bag A offers of (3 apples, 1 good, 2 unknown)
The curious bit here is how long we've spent on a betting site discussing what is a relatively simple probability question and why some people seem to think that option B has better odds than A.
Getting a good one at random changes the probability distribution of the whole set.
If the first random choice is good it becomes more likely that there were 3 or 4 good ones to start with.
I'll run it through a spreadsheet later.
First one is easy. There were 8 ways to pick 3 but one scenario (all bad) has been eliminated. Leaves 12 good choices out of 21 permutations = 57%
Second one is slightly longer (maybe unnecessarily) There are 16 ways to pick 4 apples and thus 32 ways to pick one good apple at random out of the 64 equally likely permutations.
Of these 32 ways to randomly choose a good one:
0 come from an outcome of 4 bad (1 x 0) 4 come from an outcome of 3 bad and 1 good (4 x 1) 12 come from an outcome of 2 good and 2 bad (6 x 2) 12 come from an outcome of 3 good and 1 bad (4 x 3) 4 come from an outcome of 4 good ( 1 x 4)
Choosing from these gives a total probability of (4 * 1 + 12 * 2 + 12 * 3 + 4 * 4) / (32 * 4) = 62.5%
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.
No, I'm sticking to mine. The difference, as I see it, is that child A has confirmed "one of my apples" giving the 7 permutations.
Child B has randomly pulled "one specific apple" that now has 100% chance of being good. Let's suspend that at the point where the apple is out of the bag and consider the probabilities on the 3 remaining apples. Still 50/50 for each of them, no, 8 permutations. Now, put the apple back in - nothing changes, that specific apple remains good, not just "one of my apples".
I don't see what difference it makes that Child B has showed you his good apple, as long as Child A's statement can be assumed to be trustworthy. Once Child B puts his apple back in the bag, you're in the same position as Child A but with one more apple. So the maths become:
Child A: 1 in 3 chance of getting the known good apple, 2 in 3 chance of getting one of the others - which have a 50/50 chance of being good - therefore 1 in 3 plus half of 2 in 3 therefore 1 in 3 plus 1 in 3 therefore a 2 in 3 chance of getting a good apple
Child B: 1 in 4 chance of getting the known good apple, 3 in 4 chance of getting one of the others - which have a 50/50 chance of being good - therefore 1 in 4 plus half of 3 in 4 therefore 1 in 4 plus 1.5 in 4 i.e. 3 in 8 therefore 2 in 8 plus 3 in 8 therefore a 5 in 8 chance of getting a good apple
2 in 3 = 67%, 5 in 8 = 62.5% chance. Therefore Child A gives you a better chance of a good apple.
But please carry on trying to convince me that the reverse is true, because I'd love to be wrong on this - I really like counterintuitive statistics.
Thing is, B has picked an apple from his bag of 4 *at random* and it was good. A has looked at all 3 and on that basis has made his "at least one is good" statement. There is a difference there, I think, and ProRata's calc adjusts for this.
Unfortunately we're talking about this on a nested thread on which the original wording has been lost!
Instinctively though I don't think that matters. We've got to a starting place where what we know is A: 1 good, 2 unknown and B: 1 good, 3 unknown. We know both come from an (as far as we know) the same population where 50% are good - so it's not like polling where there are differences between the populations.
I still think it's A, but I'm not dug in about this.
I had it like that at first - but when you factor in that B picked one *at random* and it was good this changes things. And the puzzle setter agrees, I now see. ProRata wins the sports car and the weekend in Las Vegas. Everyone else gets DustyBin.
No it doesn't - it just means Child B won the odds when he pulled his apple out.
Now you can regard bag B as either a 50% chance (4 apples, unknown chance of any one being good) or 62.5% (4 apples, 1 known to be good, 3 unknown) but neither of those odds beat the minimum 66% chance that bag A offers of (3 apples, 1 good, 2 unknown)
The curious bit here is how long we've spent on a betting site discussing what is a relatively simple probability question and why some people seem to think that option B has better odds than A.
Getting a good one at random changes the probability distribution of the whole set.
If the first random choice is good it becomes more likely that there were 3 or 4 good ones to start with.
I'll run it through a spreadsheet later.
First one is easy. There were 8 ways to pick 3 but one scenario (all bad) has been eliminated. Leaves 12 good choices out of 21 permutations = 57%
Second one is slightly longer (maybe unnecessarily) There are 16 ways to pick 4 apples and thus 32 ways to pick one good apple at random out of the 64 equally likely permutations.
Of these 32 ways to randomly choose a good one:
0 come from an outcome of 4 bad (1 x 0) 4 come from an outcome of 3 bad and 1 good (4 x 1) 12 come from an outcome of 2 good and 2 bad (6 x 2) 12 come from an outcome of 3 good and 1 bad (4 x 3) 4 come from an outcome of 4 good ( 1 x 4)
Choosing from these gives a total probability of (4 * 1 + 12 * 2 + 12 * 3 + 4 * 4) / (32 * 4) = 62.5%
Option a, correct 57% 2^3 permutations, 1 eliminated, so 7 3 scenarios 1/3 3 scenarios 2/3 1 scenario 3/3 4/7
Option b is 53% 2^4 permutations, 1 eliminated, so 15. 4 scenarios 1/4 6 scenarios 2/4 4 scenarios 3/4 1 scenario 4/4 8/15
Comments
Don’t overdo it!
Just take it at a pace that you are comfortable with
All the best for your recovery
Or the intestines back into blown up Palestinian kids.
But someone needs to try.
If I had to bet on a result, I’d bet on a reform-Tory coalition government, with the Tories as the junior partner
But I wouldn’t bet much
“The boats are mainly full of women and children”
Israel should have sanctions placed on it , including the football team kicked out of World Cup qualifying .
It was a bit awkward doing my shopping in Waitrose with a basket in one hand and a crutch under the other arm
Rather excitingly we seem to be going LD in Marlborough - there's a new Gail's opening in the old Lloyd's Bank building
INtuitively, always A. Because we know there is one apple already and we only have to pick from three, compared to one and four respectively.
A proof?
Assume p is the probability of picking a whole apple from the tree, at random.
We know that there is one whole apple in A's bag. The probability of the second apple being whole is p, ditto third.
Total probability of picking one apple and finding it is whole is (1 + 2p)/3
On the same logic,
Total probability of picking one apple out of B is (1+3p)/4
Ratio of probabilities A:B is
4 (1+2p): 3(1+3p)
= 4 + 8p: 3 +9p
As p is always less than unity A has a higher probability.
End cases:
p is near zero - which makes sense as it gives a 4:3 ratio.
p is near unity - trends to 12:12 which also makes sense.
A more realistic figure is 0.5 in which case it is 8:7.5 which sounds about right. But I'm not well up on Bayesian logic ...
Pleased to hear you are right behind it. 😈
What you mean is that the argument can only be advanced honestly, by those who are honest.
It's not that degrees of badness is that complex a concept to grasp. But "you can't judge me because you're not perfect yourself" has always worked as a defence mechanism. Logically, it shouldn't, but it does.
Probability of picking good apple from first child:
we know that out of 2^3 possible sequences the bag does not contain the sequence "3 bad apples". Probability of this bag's contents arising from a random selection would be (2^3-1)/2^3 = 7/8. So probability that each apple in this particular bag is good is not 1/2, but rather 1/2 divided by 7/8, i.e. 4/7
Probability of picking good apple from second child:
we know the probability of one apple being good is 1/1 and the probability of each remaining apple being good is 1/2. Average is (1/1 + 1x3/2)/4 = 5/8
5/8 > 4/7 so go with second child.
This is a never ending conflict with no realistic compromise in sight
So depressing
If we accept that some sort of judgement of each other is allowed, the most we can hope for is better (but imperfect) judging worse.
Kinda poignant
And STILL beautiful
Does Marlborough have a Greggs? If so, you could be going Reform.
As ProRata says you should pick one from child B's bad, where you know the one from 4 that is randomly selected is clean, not from child A's bag where you know at least one of the three is clean.
In the first case (A) there is a 4/7 (57.1%) chance of getting a clean apple, in the second case (B) 5/8 (62.5%).
The answer is counter-intuitive and may infuriate some. However I think it is of some relevance for opinion polling, in that it is not just what information you know but how you know it that matters.
Instinctively though I don't think that matters. We've got to a starting place where what we know is A: 1 good, 2 unknown and B: 1 good, 3 unknown. We know both come from an (as far as we know) the same population where 50% are good - so it's not like polling where there are differences between the populations.
I still think it's A, but I'm not dug in about this.
https://x.com/reformexposed/status/1965025370648035723/
(Apologies if that is a repost. I'm not familiar with this Councillor.)
https://www.echo-news.co.uk/news/25450404.basildon-reform-councillor-arrested-stalking/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actually
I was mildly amused as every Labourite on R4 this morning was trying to emphasisie how working class they and the party were. I await Lady Nugee telling us how she flies the English flag and has a whippet to go with her flat cap.
@LibDems
It's clear to everyone the BBC is giving Nigel Farage and Reform far too much coverage. It is dangerous and it has to stop."
https://x.com/LibDems/status/1965399385505661322
I've never eaten anything of theirs, but did once get bought a horrible coffee. I think I'd rather go to Gail's
None of the Rich exploiters enjoyed Oysters and Snails at the same banquet? Along with all you can eat Waldorf Salad?
As for after dinner discussion, about the biggest storms of the last century, Didn’t Aunty Gertrude Epstein always say: a blow is a blow is a blow, at the end of the day? And as for the caving enthusiasts boast about all the tightest holes they’ve been in - where they went down with a Mars bar that ended up flat as a pancake when they came out. 🤷♀️
The people advising Starmer to tie himself to Mandy are idiots. Simply put, whenever you are defending someone, you own the awkward questions too. Now Starmer must answer the same questions that are put to Mandy, that’s what defending brings.
B has a specific one picked at random good plus 3 unknown. A has viewed all 3 and said "at least one is good".
That needs to start with a clear critique of where the last two governments have gone wrong and what they would do differently.
Farage and Reform have such a clear critique, but I'm blowed if I know what the Lib Dems think.
NEW THREAD
Now you can regard bag B as either a 50% chance (4 apples, unknown chance of any one being good) or 62.5% (4 apples, 1 known to be good, 3 unknown) but neither of those odds beat the minimum 66% chance that bag A offers of (3 apples, 1 good, 2 unknown)
The curious bit here is how long we've spent on a betting site discussing what is a relatively simple probability question and why some people seem to think that option B has better odds than A.
OT Ive just heard that Israel have bombed Qatar. Is it true?
If I got to pick one from child B by touch, one would be slightly warmer because it had just been handled.
So I'd pick that one.
What we don't have is an economic market for such a plane.
If the first random choice is good it becomes more likely that there were 3 or 4 good ones to start with.
I'll run it through a spreadsheet later.
2)-3) agreed! I suppose that budget-setters will always prioritise doctors and nurses over bureaucrats, but a smooth service needs bureaucrats too.
Leaves 12 good choices out of 21 permutations = 57%
Second one is slightly longer (maybe unnecessarily)
There are 16 ways to pick 4 apples and thus 32 ways to pick one good apple at random out of the 64 equally likely permutations.
Of these 32 ways to randomly choose a good one:
0 come from an outcome of 4 bad (1 x 0)
4 come from an outcome of 3 bad and 1 good (4 x 1)
12 come from an outcome of 2 good and 2 bad (6 x 2)
12 come from an outcome of 3 good and 1 bad (4 x 3)
4 come from an outcome of 4 good ( 1 x 4)
Choosing from these gives a total probability of
(4 * 1 + 12 * 2 + 12 * 3 + 4 * 4) / (32 * 4) = 62.5%
2^3 permutations, 1 eliminated, so 7
3 scenarios 1/3
3 scenarios 2/3
1 scenario 3/3
4/7
Option b is 53%
2^4 permutations, 1 eliminated, so 15.
4 scenarios 1/4
6 scenarios 2/4
4 scenarios 3/4
1 scenario 4/4
8/15