Submitted by Equal_Caregiver_4909 t3_10prv76 in todayilearned
There's a secret to hiring someone who's lucky. Take half the resumes you get and throw them in the trash, cause you don't want to hire anyone so unlucky. The remaining half are the lucky ones, but if you want to hire someone REALLY lucky, you pull one out of the trash and hire them.
That must be how I got hired for my first after college job. My interview was terrible.
Just have to be better than the other candidates.
Or you know, it wasn't as bad as you thought
But if it’s a really shit job, then that person is actually really unlucky.
couldn't you just pick someone from the stack at random and then throw the rest out
That person would be lucky, but not very lucky. It's the whole "snatching victory from the jaws of defeat" angle that makes it.
but you're doing the same thing either way. unless their resume manages to catch your eye from the trash unexpectedly, maybe that's what you meant idk
The chance of picking one paper out of a stack is 1 / n (n is the number of papers).
The chance a piece of paper goes in the trash is 1/(.5n). The chance that piece is then picked out of the trash is then 1/(.5n) again. Multiply those and you get 1/(.25n^2).
So we can compare them to see if those are actually the same quantity.
1 / n < 1/(.25n^2)
n < .25n^2
4n < n^2
4 < n or n > 4
So if your stack has 4 or more pieces of paper in it, getting the paper out of the garbage is less likely (i.e. luckier) than just picking the paper out of the whole stack.
So let's say...10 papers.
Chance of any one to be picked blindly: 1/10.
Chance any one is discarded into the trash: 5/10 (not 1/5 as you said, it should be .5n/n, or just 50%).
Chance for any one paper being picked out of the trash: 1/5 (since there are 5 in the trash).
1/5 of 5/10 is 1/10. Which is the chance we started with by just picking at random.
So no. Getting the paper out of the garbage isn't less likely at all in your example. The only factor not included here is the likeliness that one is picked from the trash at all. Since, if this were an uncommon event, it would make chances lower. But since this experiment presumes doing so is already predetermined (since you've built this selection method purposely), it adds no rarity or value.
In fact, since you premeditated this, arguably the stack in the trash is less lucky since you already decided at the start you'd pick one of those.
A when A. In addition it is also apparent that being lucky causes boldness on its own and vice versa: a person who often succeeds is eager to try, someone who fails more than their share is going to be hesitant with even little risk.
A lifetime of things outside of my control going against me has certainly help mold me into an exceptionally cautious, risk averse person. No doubt.
Same, also anxiety filled.
I've dealt with anxiety and depression since I was a little kid also. I'm sure it all gets mixed together in the recipe to produce who I am.
Luck is when preparation meets opportunity!
That’s like saying fortune favours the fortunate
Because that's exactly what I'm saying.
[deleted]
Eating 4 leaf clovers, shaving dice, adjusting your SPECIAL stats
In my experience, fortunes favor the connected
It’s almost like fortune favors the fortunate.
And luck favors the prepared.
My personal flair on whatsapp for a long time has been 'fortunatos fortuna iuvat' - 'fortune favours the fortunate'.
It's just the way the world works. If you're born privileged you get more privileged. The lucky becomes luckier.
Right up there with "brevity is the soul of wit" coming from the biggest windbag in western drama
Or... 'to thine own self be true' being said by a weak sychophant who is very soon stabbed after saying it.
Or how "Some are born great, some achieve greatness, and some have greatness thrust upon 'em" is written as part of a prank letter for a character everyone loathes.
Or how “discretion is the better part of valor” Is used out of context.
Technically it wasn't supposed to be the last book as it's unfinished due to the author's death.
Huh, I wonder what was planned for later.
Probably the rest of Roman history up to that point. Virgil was writing an epic origin story for the Roman people. It's like a Roman version of Exodus, giving the people an awesome and coherent origin, instead of the mundane and messy real one.
Not sure about that. He was basing the work closely on The Odyssey and The Illiad, neither of which tells massive multi-generational tales (in fact, The Illiad doesn’t even cover the whole Trojan war - just the 9th year of it, of 10).
It was also written for Augustus, who claimed to be a descendant of Aeneas, and so character flaws in Aeneas can be seen as veiled criticisms of the current leader.
Ahh Aeneas, Dido’s bane
A bold rebirth and gold
/s
We have the general outline of the Roman myth of Aeneas from other sources. After the battle against Turnus, Aeneas goes on to found the city of Lavinium, the spiritual fatherland of the Roman people. Aeneas then lived there as King until his death, at which point Jupiter deified him under the name Indiges. His line would continue to rule the city of Lavinium and its surrounding lands, including Alba Longa, the birthplace of Romulus and Remus.
Virgil was really close to the end of the story, he just didn’t quite make it. The battle with Turnas was definitely the climax to the story of Aeneas, and the founding of Lavinium would’ve likely been the conclusion. For the story that Virgil was telling, it’s a very logical place to end his epic. It concretely places the house of Aeneas on the land of Latium, and connects his house to the Legacy of Rome.
Yet another warning for George RR Martin.
It was supposed to be the last book. The plan was for 6 books on Odyssey 2: Aquatic Boogaloo and then 6 books on Iliad 2: the Italyad.
The Aeneid is mostly finished. There are scenes missing here and there, and it should have more fleshed-out of an ending than "He killed the bad guy. The end." But for the most part Virgil was able to tell the story he wanted to tell.
It turns out the one thing fortune really hates is being told who fortune favors
<Narrator’s Voice> But fortune did not, in fact, favor the bold.
He should've boldly gone ...
He was surely wearing a red shirt.
Have to buy a ticket to win the lottery.
You can always find a winning lottery ticket on the ground. The likely hood is functionally zero either way
Matt Damon low-key being a literary scholar in that Crypto.com add
Wind resistance, on the other hand, favors the bald.
It favors the bold, not the foolish
Luckily Matt Damon said "brave" not "bold" so I'm going to invest my life savings in crypto now.
Fortune favors the bold
~ Leeroy Jenkins
Spoiler alert 🚨
I think is called irony.
So you're saying there's yet another popular expression that's been completely misused by culture at large? Those bitcoin ads with Matt Damon now seem to track appropriately...
Well, at least it worked for Benjamin Sisko.
“I took bold risks, and boy, were they bad.”
Sophocles (b. 496bce) pretty much said the same thing before that. "Fortune is not on the side of the faint-hearted."
[deleted]
[deleted]
English should update the saying and stop using a word that has lost its original meaning (bold=strong)... pretty much like Ivan the "terrible".
The Latin word in the saying is audentes, meaning "audacious", "daring", or "risky". The modern English usage of "bold" fits pretty well as a translation.
Bold is not a synonym for strong, like not at all, not sure I've ever heard of anyone using bold to describe someone powerful or strong, if thats your implication.
On the other hand, Turnus had an extremely successful life.
I suppose he was more of an itallic kind of guy
Matt Damon would disagree.
Fortune, in fact, did not favour the bold
Bad luck is still luck.
[deleted]
I thought that phrase was first said by a commander during the Pompeii eruption?
biskmater t1_j6m3lhl wrote
While there’s a certain element of truth to it, as in you miss every shot you don’t take. In my experience fortune favors the lucky.