that one really weird thing on your mind that is making you laugh your ass off

Birb

 

Might want to watch this with headphones, it's loud with lots of cursing.

 

The spaceship knows where it is, because it knows where it isn't.

(Explaining how to calculate potential orbital trajectories... accurately but poorly.)

 

Spoilers for a random episode of Grimm?

Spoiler

So I'm channel surfing and I ran across this show Grimm, which I know very little about, other than it's supernatural.

I watched for a while as mostly regular cop stuff happened for a long time as I was more and more confused, then they walked into a church and a ton of people turned into sheep. It's been nothing but weird German(?) Words since. Might try to get into it proper XD

 

Science truly is beautiful.
Parrots love playing tablet games, and it's helping researchers understand them (phys.org)

 

Favorite part of the article:
Last year, the team showed a group of parrots how to video call one another, finding that the birds both overwhelmingly enjoyed the activity and could make the calls themselves, when given the option.

 

Wow. Aside from being cute and interesting to read about, that sounds like it could genuinely improve pet parrots' quality of life. They have incredibly high social needs that most people aren't prepared to meet, don't they?

 

Going through the pre k Sunday school lesson for tomorrow, and it starts randomly referencing a character called Hamilton who is apparently a king? It's implied that this is a puppet or stuffed animal of some kind and has never come up before or since

 

helpless, despairing laughter at this entire thread about NYC's new business advice chatbot(?!)

EDIT: I like watching it type out its links in Markdown, one character at a time

 

I like the one where it told someone that in order to get a license to wash dogs, they need to hunt down every single dog in New York City and give them rabies vaccines.

 

The fact it says 'murger' only adds to the effect, to be quite honest.

 

https://youtube.com/shorts/0gtTd4DWYs8?si=G-3bQm5h4lHvZpnm

 

https://youtube.com/shorts/hlcEm6p2n40?si=cg8x-yzqagigQOr6

 

Spoiler: Large image

The Wikipedia Talk pages for the Monty Hall problem article.

 

Some more fun facts!

• For anyone wondering about the contents of the entry titled OH MY GOD!!!:

Holy cow. I went camping this weekend and I woke up in the tent in 33 degree F. cold trembling in a cold sweat, having a nightmare about goats and shiny cars and numbered doors and a genetic-cross monster whose body was that of a water buffalo and the head was that of Thomas Bayes, and everyone was throwing food about and nobody knew whether everything or anything is random or predetermined and people were capriciously changing their minds in the middle of the game conditionally and unconditionally, and I decided that I would just run off and try to re-read "Kant's Critique of Pure Reason", and then maybe shoot myself. That might be easier. :o) Worldrimroamer (talk) 02:04, 15 December 2009 (UTC)​

• That screenshot is just one page of the Talk:Monty Hall Problem archive. At the time those topics were posted, there were 13 total. By the end of this particular conflict there were 23, at least 15 of which consisted mostly or entirely of the same protracted argument.

• A year into this, the article's talk page was permanently restructured in a desperate attempt to keep it on-topic:

This talk page is actually for talking about changes to the article, not for talking about the ins and outs of the Monty Hall problem or probability theory or the meaning of what a "bag" is. […] See Talk:Monty Hall problem/Arguments and Talk:Monty Hall problem/FAQ, both linked from the header at the top of this page. -- Rick Block (talk) 02:07, 13 February 2009 (UTC)​

• At time of writing, only eight other Wikipedia articles have necessitated a separate "/Arguments" Talk page. These include 0.999..., Gödel's incompleteness theorems, and Armenian genocide.

• The dispute lasted for over two years in total before being brought before Wikipedia's Arbitration Committee. Parties to the dispute included your typical Someone Is Wrong On The Internet types; an admin who had effectively "adopted" the page and was attempting to mediate the dispute while participating in it; and multiple subject-matter experts, including a well-known statistician who, as a result of the dispute, published two papers on the Monty Hall problem which were then used as references for the article.

• Evidence presented in the case included numerous lengthy explanations of the conflict; even lengthier explanations of the problem itself; no less than four "irreconcilable views" of what the dispute was even about; one assertion that the conflict was "a matter of religion, of 'belief', not about the 'correctness'"; a 12-row table; a decision tree; a Ruby script demonstrating the Monty Hall problem, contributed by a random passerby who just thought it was neat; and the following quote:

"Glkanter asks why I haven't responded about his "Is The Contestant Aware?" question. Why should I? Glkanter has repeatedly demonstrated a complete lack of comprehension of nearly everything I've ever said. It's like trying to explain something to a cat. At some point you just have to give up. However, I'll give it another go. Meow, meeeow, meow, meowww. I'm not sure I have that quite right since I don't speak cat, but it's probably about as comprehensible to him as anything else I could say. - Rick Block (talk) 01:53, 4 December 2009 (UTC)"​

• The ultimate outcome:

• One editor banned from Wikipedia for a year and barred indefinitely from editing or discussing any topic related to the Monty Hall problem
• Another editor (an expert on the subject) barred from editing or discussing the article for a year
• The admin who'd acted as de facto "owner" of the page restricted to one edit reversion on it per day
• Another expert (the one who'd published papers) not sanctioned but told to stay mindful of conflicts of interest when referencing his own work
• The Monty Hall problem was officially designated a "contentious topic" meriting a stricter approach from moderators, and remained so for the next 3½ years​

• A glance at the Talk page archives suggests that after the ruling, the unbanned parties immediately resumed disagreeing. (Whether the argument ended sometime in the past 13 years or continues to this day is left as a question for the reader.)

• The actual point of contention: how much weight should be given to the well-known, layperson-friendly solutions cited in popular literature vs. later, more complex and technically-correct solutions based in advanced probability theory.

 

... do those later more complex solutions give a different answer?

 

My impression is that it's, like, more of a subtle distinction in the correct way to understand the problem than an "actually the opposite is true"? But I'll be honest, the moment I wander into the endless pages of debate, my eyes glaze over.

 

https://youtube.com/shorts/Ner2oAJJqrU?si=Q4SHkO9pA-yQg8oS