I bet it will get cleared up in a day or so ;)

No. You are jumping up, but also moving sideways at a speed basically equal relative to the Earth's rotation.

You are already moving at that speed, as is everything around you, including the air (assuming no wind), so from your perspective, all the motion is up/down.

Yes, thank you. OP's takeaway is the same as the people that think having "haters" means you are "doing it right."

Maybe you are. Maybe you're just a self centered ass.

Generic prescription Ibuprofen is generally cheaper than even the store brands. It was probably 4 dollars for this, and it's quadruple strength.

Definitely going to at least one of these games, lol.

Me want be there now.

A lot of plants are very "unique" looking in structure and flower.

Cannabis leaves aren't actually all that unique looking. Many completely unrelated plants have similar shaped leaves. The Japanese maple is a popular one.

And yes, as far as we know, only cannabis naturally produces THC in any measurable quantity.

Without discounting the shit that women go through at the hands of men, all of those besides pregnancy many men go through as well, just not as frequently and reported even less.

People can be assholes.

https://youtu.be/I1wHDY4DGRI

The one I had is gone, so trying to find it now.

Don't forget Tucker Carlson talking about Vaporeon being the most fuckable Pokemon.

Edit: https://youtu.be/I1wHDY4DGRI

I know I'm old, but is "throwback" really the new "throwaway"?

There wouldn't be those next two albums without Creep.

Creep was definitely a thing when it came out. And as Patrice O'Neal pointed out, that guitar chugga does something to white people.

I only brought it up because the guy I'm talking about was specifically talking about it in terms of simple odds, not arguing the fact that air travel is a very complex thing.

It was very much an application of the gambler's fallacy to a real world event, one that has extremely hard to quantify odds with countless variables to begin with.

Glad I could help ya figure something out! It's definitely a bit counterintuitive at first, and I once had the same confusion. Cheers!

The odds of two planes crashing while flying in/out the same airport on the same day are far lower than the odds of a single plane crashing while flying in/out of that airport.

But.....

The odds of a plane crashing via that airport are not any lower after a plane has already crashed there, assuming in this hypothetical that plane crashes have specific odds and are not very complex events that are extremely hard to actually put "odds" on.

The odds that they win twice in a lifetime is much more unlikely than the odds they win once.

But after they won once, the odds of winning again are exactly the same as if they had never won.

Think of the dice example. There is a one in six chance of rolling a specific number. Rolling again, there is still a one in six chance of rolling that same number. The number of sides hasn't changed, the number you chose didn't magically disappear.

The odds only change if you bet that you will roll two in a row before the first roll, because you are now betting on both events before they happen, not on a single event happening. The events themselves have no influence on each other.

Barring outside influences, and assuming the odds are static, like dice, exactly the same as one plane crashing there, once one already has.

Again, this was a discussion about theoretical simple odds. The real world isn't a coin flip, and like you pointed out the odds may be weighted in ways you don't know. But yeah, this was about him thinking that a die landing on six made it less likely to land on six again.

Yes, but that was not the conversation we were having.

And the grounding of whole fleets based on one event immediately after it has happened without reason to think it was a flaw in the design of the aircraft itself is not exactly common. When a plane overshoots the runway on landing due to pilot error, they don't ground entire fleets of that airframe.

Planes crashing is very complex thing and the "odds" are as well. It's not remotely static like dice.

That part was also part of the conversation I had with the guy in trying to explain the concept of odds to him.

Again, this discussion was very much about simple odds, not the complex odds of all the multiple factors. Dude even ironically used the words "gambler's fallacy" to describe what he thought I was doing by saying that one outcome does not effect the next.

In the real world, yes, there are connections between complex events like plane crashes, and the "odds" aren't static like dice.

See my other response.

But also think that there are all sorts of reasons planes crash, and all sorts of planes. A plane crashing at a large airport often does not significantly slow air traffic outside that directly impaired by the use of that runway or airport, depending on severity.

Or it could go down as everyone involved is now being more cautious.

I forget the exact scenario that inspired the conversation, but the person I was arguing with was definitely talking about the "odds" in the context of simple odds in the manner of "if a one in a million chance thing just happened, it's now probably closer to one in two million it happens again."

Odds only change when directly linked.

So if you are gambling on a dice roll and you bet that it will land on six, it's a one in six chance. If it does, and you bet on six again, the odds are still just one in six.

To change the odds, you would need to bet that it lands on six twice, because now you have linked the two rolls before they happen.

In the case of the plane crash, the odds of two planes crashing for independent reasons on the same day, involving the same airport, are much higher than a single plane crashing. Unfortunately for our hypothetical travellers, one plane already crashed, bringing the odds back down to the standard single-event odds.

I remember arguing with someone about this regarding seeing a plane crash at an airport and then getting on another plane. Others were talking about how they wouldn't get on their own flight after seeing that. This person said that it would make them feel safer, because "what are the odds that two planes crash on the same day?" I said they weren't getting on two planes though, they were getting on one, and the odds of one plane crashing didn't change when another crashed (of course assuming that all plane flights are equal).

The irrational mind sees a plane crash and goes "Fuck that, I'm not getting on a plane now, it's likely to crash."

The rational mind says "what are the odds of two planes crashing?"

The reality is somewhere in between. The chance was always there, but it didn't go up or down simply because this event occured.

The law doesn't work that way though. Gotta argue it to the letter.

If a fetus is a person with rights separate from the mother, then it should not be able to be jailed for her crimes.