New on LowEndTalk? Please Register and read our Community Rules.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
Comments
Are your vision receptacles not spherical?
How am I supposed to see them? Its not like they're hot swappable.
Anything is hot swappable if you're brave
this
because most people think using their TV sets and not brains
So, close, right?
That makes the difference larger, meaning if none of those 38K died in car accident, some would eventually die from covid.
They're 100% hot swappable. Closing your eyes is the same as taking the bad HDD out of service, then remove and replace spectacles and finally reopen eyes.
Whatever it is, anything + anything else is more than just one of the two. Everything that has a statistical probability of killing you each day, adding a new one to the list is noteworthy.
I got vaccine 5 months ago. But since July, my dermatitis becomes quite frequent, like happening every month, one last at least 2 weeks. It used to be once in 3-4 months. I don't blame the vaccine, perhaps its my bad hygiene, poor diet, and surroundings that trigger the allergy reaction.
I hate this. I dont mind having itchy skins on my butt, but why the fuk it happens on my face.
Ever connected resistors in parallel or capicators in series
Only on LET lol. I'm right. If you have a 1% chance of dying on any given day from A, and a 1% chance of dying on any given day from B, you have a 2% chance of dying on any given day from either A or B.
Substitute the variables however you like I don't care lol. If it's such a complicated concept I'm going to need a white paper on my desk by Tuesday.
Only because I am free and love to go off topic:
The probability of someone with covid and dying from an accident are still less than that of a person dying with either covid or an accident
Further reading:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conditional_probability
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayes'_theorem
Wait you mean nothing is static and everything has potential modifiers? Fuck everything I knew is a lie. Up is down, right is left, I need someone to wipe my ass now I've been rendered useless 🤣
Numbers change if you introduce modifiers, mind blown lol. Next up, if you add 1 to 5+5 the answer is no longer 10! Is this magic!?
Do whatever you need to change the percentages to your liking, the concept still fits. For christ's sake this is why I don't post on Reddit lol
I really need to stop posting random shit otherwise @jar might sue me for making him delusional
Okay so if this is a proper dispute of my theory, tell me how I'd be wrong to suggest that this corrected concept should be able to prove that each new virus which can end in fatality, if added to the world and no others removed, decreases the chance an individual has to die on a day to day basis.
This to say, the more different factors that could kill someone, simplified into the the average chance that they could kill someone on a given day, the less chance an individual has to die each day that a new factor is introduced. I know it's an oversimplification but I post on the toilet, not to be confused with a peer reviewed white paper.
All the concept seems to me to prove is that the percentage chance of any one factor killing you is a variable relative to other variables, but not that adding new risk factors doesn't increase total risk. By that logic risk management should be all about combining a maximum number of risks to reduce the total risk. More risks, less risk. More threats, less chance of being a victim. More ways to die, less chance you'll die. Doesn't fit my brain. Someone fix me if I'm broken lol
Nothing wrong with it I was just shit posting.
As long as both factors are independent like it should always be greater then either of two. I actually wrote 5 paragraph long explanation of independent probabilities and how it differs form term mutually exclusive but then I realised
I dont care
Okay you've restored my sanity ♥️
Still waiting for my 5G installation
Woo this thread in page two now , I'm glade it entertain some of you,
But why all of you misunderstood me that much I'm not Anti Vaxxer, and not religious person, and not conspiracy theorist .
maybe I could not explain my idea right since I'm not native English speaker(not big excuse) but there is some sensitive subject in local culture about vaccine, I can't fully understand .
Sorry to disappointing all of you guys, but look for your prey somewhere else.
Have you? Not sure what point you were making...
I don't think that's true, given the odds of everything that can kill you each day adds up over 100%. Or does it?
Or that because one death prevents the occurance of a second death, it can't be 1%+1% but some number >1% and <2%?
Or do all potential chances of dying have to add up to 100% so that every new potential way to be killed just decreases the previous potential ways?
Any car analogies?
LowEndStaticians?
I think his point is that two resistors in parallel (or capacitors in series) makes it less resistance (or capacity) for that matter.
one could argue though that other values in that calculation will increase it's math in physics still, so you'd get something more with two anyway, maybe just not of what you think that would be ^^
actually an interesting analogy to think about. both are right.