the fox

@Countryfox All I know is, if you go first, you have 75% chance of getting the cup with the bean. 2nd, it drops to 66.6 for him. And that's it, the one who picks 2nd can only pick once whilst the one who picks first, picks 2 times (assuming no one pick the empty cup yet). Plus side of going second is, you sacrifice 8.3℅ (dropping from 75% to 66.6%) in your probability of getting the cup with the bean in exchange for a 25℅ chance of the other guy picking up the empty cup and you winning without doing anything. 1-If the other guy picks the empty cup, there is no need for any probabilities because the other guy already lost. 2- country said that the cup is removed after being picked up so it becomes 3 possibilities and not 4. 3-More like 0.0825(8.3℅). You go first so you have a bigger margin of error. And sadly, I don't think it's the right way to calculate this. I'm not good at math but it seems (to me at least) that those calculations maybe are more suited to dice-roll probabilities and maybe some card games. Anything with consecutive-related mathematics. Honestly, I don't get the logic behind those calculations especially in this scenario. I'm not really sure on this . Plus, if the cups aren't taken after they are flipped and assuming that they get shuffled after every try, doesn't that mean the possibilities aren't changing? It's still 3 with a bean and 1 without. 75℅ is still the same. Maybe if we say "there are 4 cups, 1 with green beans, 1 with red beans, 1 with white beans, and one is empty. What are the chances of you pulling the red in your first try, the green in your second, no beans in the 3rd and the white in the 4th try?". Or " what are the chances of you not picking the empty cup after trying for 6 consecutive times) Like Country said, the cup with the beans get removed so if you go first, you have a 75% chance of moving instead of the 66.6% you get from being second (assuming the first guy didn't pick the empty cup which automatically gives you the win). Now, if you both got the cup with the bean inside, it leaves 2 cups, one with, and one without the beans. So it's 50% chance for the guy who picked first. The only deference (assuming no one had the empty cup before) is that the one who picked first picks last. IMO, because the cup gets removed and there is no consecutive order, it is turn-based, and the possibilities are very low, every try becomes its own insulated probability (or I'm just talking absolute nonsense here ) Waiting for someone who's better at maths than me to clear things up because it is too late and my head starting to heart.

Edit: some of those post aren't half as bad as the "my 3 year old said" ones

Time is in the eye of the beholder. A human with the physical ability to observe his surroundings at the speed of light, will be looking at nothing but stillness. At that speed, time has zero effect on him whilst everything and everyone else around him are effected. Like those superhero movies, it's not that the super fast hero is fighting against the speed of the bad guy, but he's fighting against the effect of time. by the way, I don't get how the bad guy's head didn't turn to dust after getting punched with a fist almost as fast as light. “If Superman’s fist was 300g and he could move at 99% the speed of light, his punch would be cable of punching at an energy 190,000,000,000,000,000 joules. That’s quadrillion. That’s 45 megatons of TNT. That’s 2,800 times more powerful than Hiroshima. The temperature of his punch would be 143,999,999,999,540.3 degrees Fahrenheit.” Imaging that much power condensed in that small of a space. So, in conclusion, because he IS the fastest man alive, The Flash is the GOAT and in theory, should wipe the floor with any other superhero. but he will still get beat by some nobody to hype-up Superman's "saving the day" once again. Thanks, DC. P.S: Superman is trash.

@ARTY_FOX the backlash MVP is receiving Sadly didn't watch it but I'm gonna watch Cain vs ngannou. Don't want to see anyone of them lose tbh. May the best man win.

I kinda get where Dana is coming from. The style is entertaining but the chances of him getting caught moving forward are very high. There are some heavy hands in the UFC and tbh, a fighter that loose isn't always a safe bet. From what I saw, he looks like a less-fluid but more explosive Silva. I knew little about him from what I've read in the MMA sub-reddit but he seems to be a fighter with a fan friendly style.

Got a friend who's still a really big fan of the show and he tells me the latest. I stopped after season 7 (season 1 and 2 were great, Shane was my favorite character, the rest was inconsistent). I read a good part of the comics and the moment I found they made DRASTIC changes from the source material, I just dropped the show. Waste of time.

Of course not! I will give some to my brothers. But seriously, if there is a mine under the land that I, not WE, but I own, and it was worth 2 billions and 1 penny, I want the full 2 billion AND that 1 little, tiny, small amount that people call a "penny". (I know there are taxes, labour fees and all, but that's besides the point) I will do what I want with said (hypothetical) money. I can choose to buy a yacht or give as charity. Your fantasies about how could a socialist economy be great are just that, a fantasy. Neither capitalism or socialism are the perfect system because there is no such thing as " perfect economical system".

His family's favourite film is the Lion King so he named him after Simba's wife

With all do respect, I think many in here only watch City games and some MOTD highlights because no player seem to be good enough.

Is the commentary any good? Watched a highlight of MVP and he has some spida in him and blitzes like Woodley. He seems like a natural fighter (like JBJ, Izzy and Zabit). Think I would actually watch this and see.

Tbh bro, I've never watched a live bellator show. I was really tempted by some fights like the Chael vs Fedor fight or the Moose vs Rory but never really gave bellator an honesty try. I'm still upset about what happened to Whittaker. The card's grade just got nuked when he got hurt. Maybe I will watch the fights if I got time. Thanks for telling me

as a man from a nation that lived through and experienced what it means to live under the sword of a coloniser (France). It's not easy to live as a 2nd class citizen in your own land. There were all kind of crimes committed against my people and that's why I have such opinion. Algerians were forced to fight in WW1 and WW2 even though there were treaties that forbid forcing people of occupied countries to participate in such wars like those but were they implemented? I guess not. It was a Blood tax for the Algerians. Fight for France and freinds and gain your freedom. Do you mind guessing how France thanked the Algerians for participating in those wars, functioning as meat shields in the front lines? The massacre of the 8th of may 1945, that was the payment. Algerians peacefully protested after WW2 for freedom and said "hey, you were fighting for freedom and rights and all that... And you did promise so we thought that because we kinda helped a lot, we can get our land back...?". And boy was it the start of an open season on Algerians. Between 45-100 thousand people were killed and countless injured people. The French had a very colorful imagination and they used it against the Algerians. Crimes varied from public executions, burning people alive, dropping people from aeroplanes and of course, French soldiers gutting pregnant women and betting on the gender of the yet-to-be-born child. France to this day refuses to admit most of their crimes. They have seen Hitler as a threat to their plans and that's why they didn't mind much when Germany was first expanding. But the moment Hitler touched their food, the flame of righteousness, honer, pride and fairness magically lit the oh-so-big kind-heart of theirs. They didn't care much for Hitler's and Mussolini's ways of doing things until they were the ones effected. If there was an unoccupied 3rd world country that said countries weren't eyeing and Hitler went there and killed millions, do you think the USA, France..etc would've cared? They wouldn't because they've been doing the same thing for the longest time. In conclusion, I fail to find the smallest bit of empathy for such people, I don't think they are good people and I'm unapologetic about it.

For me, it shows that it was not exactly the "good vs evil" battle that you read in novels. Hitler was a nasty human but the nations who defeated him have their own rich history of ethnic/racial cleansing, colonising and stealing land, cultural deformation.. Etc.

The problem with socialism is the fact that humans are human. You can't control an individual's way of thinking or dictate his emotional state and how he feels towards the group. You can't force a human that way, you can't program him like that because he's not a machine. Socialism might be built on rational theory (for the most part), it is however, in need for rational practice. and here is where the human plays a part. I'm not a big fan of socialism nor am I an advocate for capitalism. All I'm saying is, there's no perfect system. You have to sacrifice a thing to get another.