Sure, 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.

>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.

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.

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.

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.

Yeah this doesn't seem causal.

>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.

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.

>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.

>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.

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

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.

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