# Gstamsharp

#
**Gstamsharp**
t1_jd9ie9a wrote

Reply to comment by **Lraejones** in **ELI5: Why do English speakers switch Japanese names to have the family name last, but not Korean names?** by **JorWat**

>Vietnamese on the other hand

Oh, that's easy. It's whichever name isn't Nguyen.

An exaggeration, of course, but it is true a whopping 40% of the time.

#
**Gstamsharp**
t1_jd93td1 wrote

Reply to comment by **imminentmailing463** in **ELI5: Why do English speakers switch Japanese names to have the family name last, but not Korean names?** by **JorWat**

That last bit sounds very plausible. Since the end of WWII we've had a very close relationship with Japan with a ton of cultural exchange. Americans are just more familiar with both Japanese naming customs and the sound of which names are given vs familial.

#
**Gstamsharp**
t1_jd6w5sv wrote

Reply to comment by **Daniel5343** in **All out of eggs :(** by **bozzywayne**

They've been dropping really fast. From two weeks ago to last week they dropped from over $4 to like under $3 at the Aldi around here.

#
**Gstamsharp**
t1_jcr3ool wrote

In Perry I hadn't seen a single one until last summer. In neighboring Cumberland they were *everywhere* with zero mitigation in place. I'm sure they'll be out here in abundance this year. Guess I should buy bigger stomping boots.

#
**Gstamsharp**
t1_jbes0zz wrote

Reply to comment by **UterineTemple** in **Oral hygiene, mouthwash usage and cardiovascular mortality during 18.8 years of follow-up - oral hygiene self-care OHS was associated with a 51% reduction in the risk of CVD mortality (hazard ratio [HR] 0.49 [0.28-0.85]; p = 0.01).** by **Meatrition**

Yeah this doesn't seem causal.

#
**Gstamsharp**
t1_jaewst6 wrote

Reply to comment by **spicymato** in **ELI5: why does/doesn’t probability increase when done multiple times?** by **Reason-Local**

>If the ask is about the probability of rolling a sequence and you've already rolled some, then you can't ignore what's been rolled so far.

This is *exactly* what you do. If you want to know the probability of rolling 6 6s in a row, you calculate it for that. If you've rolled 3 out of 6 and want to know the probability of making it to 6 straight, you do the very basic 6 - 3 = 3, and then crunch the probability for only 3 rolls, because *you are only actually calculating the probability of 3 rolls.*

Your "preservation of information" is a simple subtraction. It's not some mystical connection influencing future rolls. All those future rolls are still *entirely independent* of the ones you've already made.

The probability of rolling the same on 6 dice, and the probability of rolling 3 of the same having already rolled 3 are identical, because you're still rolling 6 dice.

The probability of rolling 3 *more* of the same after *any arbitrary amount* is **not** the same question. This is where your confusion is coming from. Here, you only need the probability of 3 rolls, no matter how many you've rolled previously.

#
**Gstamsharp**
t1_jacan52 wrote

Reply to comment by **spicymato** in **ELI5: why does/doesn’t probability increase when done multiple times?** by **Reason-Local**

It's trivial *because* they're independent. Bayes theorem applies to dependent events. Dice rolling *isn't* dependent. You're talking in circles to justify using incorrect logic.

"The 1998 Superbowl championship isn't related to how many Doritos I ate yesterday, *but if it was* here's how I'd twist this logic diagram to explain it."

That's what you're doing here.

#
**Gstamsharp**
t1_jab4xlc wrote

Reply to comment by **spicymato** in **ELI5: why does/doesn’t probability increase when done multiple times?** by **Reason-Local**

>However, the probability of rolling 6 6s in a row varies based on the prior events.

I mean, sort of, but that's not what you're actually calculating.

>After 5 6s are rolled, the final roll is still a 1/6 event, but after, say, 3 6s, the probability is (1/6)3.

Yes, but no. That's still just the odds of rolling 3 in a row. That calculation does not care about or consider the previous 3 rolls at all. It's indistinguishable from just checking the probability of 3 rolls, because that's all it's doing.

You're not wrong in removing the previous 3 rolls from the calculation, but that's *exactly* what they mean by "only looking forward." You literally need to ignore the earlier rolls to calculate the future outcome. You don't look back.

#
**Gstamsharp**
t1_ja9kqlz wrote

**spicymato** in **ELI5: why does/doesn’t probability increase when done multiple times?** by **Reason-Local**

>example of this: the odds of rolling 6 6s is (1/6)5, but the odds of rolling 6 6s given that you already rolled 5 6s is (1/6).

Your example supports the previous assertion, though. The probability of 1/6 *is* the probability of only that final roll. There's no difference between "the odds after 5 sixes" and "the odds after zero rolls" and "the odds after 6000000 sixes in a row." It's not looking back at all.

#
**Gstamsharp**
t1_j64le8m wrote

Reply to **Multiple Residents of Bucks and Montgomery Counties Charged with RICO and Other Crimes** by **IamSauerKraut**

Fking RICO! It's never RICO. And when it is actually RICO, someone is going to jail for a thousand years.

#
**Gstamsharp**
t1_ixnsd0f wrote

Reply to comment by **Fine_With_It_All** in **Keystone Collections trying to screw me for taxes I don't even owe** by **AdamFeigs**

At which point you'd sue the preparer for damages and forever ruin their reputation. Most would be happy to fix this and keep their names off of there public docket.

#
**Gstamsharp**
t1_ixmoohi wrote

Reply to comment by **AdamFeigs** in **Keystone Collections trying to screw me for taxes I don't even owe** by **AdamFeigs**

Your preparer is usually liable for errors and is insured to cover the risk. Contact them about this.

Gstamsharpt1_jdn4yzp wroteReply to comment by

dirtyoldman20inDozens of York County properties will be underwater if Pa. energy project is approvedbyAggravating_Foot_528Sure, but if you put solar on the roof of every new structure, or heck, the roofs of the existing buildings in the city, you wouldn't need to build the destructive supplemental power supplies in the first place.