I think it’s from “The Founder” about the guy who turned McDonald’s into a national chain.

I love that extension

You should still be able to navigate to those posts by changing the link to old.reddit.com. But I assume that will go away at some point too.

https://archive.org/details/huasipungovillag00icaz

The rich guy comes in, forces the poor locals to build the road, and then keeps the profits from all of the new labor he is able to exploit.

It’s insane. And any attempt to argue against it is shut down immediately. This post (https://mkorostoff.github.io/1-pixel-wealth/?v=3) is one of the most digestible things I’ve seen for the scale at which those people hoard wealth. It’s so easy to follow and understand how the world could be better if those people didn’t exist. But anyone I try talking to says “oh I’m not going to read all that” or “scrolling through that will take too long” …which is exactly the fucking point. And this is from 4 years ago! Their wealth has only increased while our buying power has gone down.

At step 3. Where the rich person forces conditions onto you and takes most of your production. That is immoral. Especially if he has the resources for both to survive with less effort just by not being selfish

Thick as a Brick

He thought a “horse bath” was just a quick rinse off in the sink. He was inadvertently teaching ESL elementary school kids the phrase “whore’s bath” which, while it is technically just a quick rinse in the sink, there is definitely different connotation.

I made this comment about a year ago: https://midwest.social/comment/6247683

“A friend of mine is a non-native English speaker. He teaches at an elementary school and works with ‘English as a second language’ students. He casually mentioned that he always tells his students to take a ‘horse bath’ in the bathroom sink after recess if needed. He was traumatized when I told him that he’d misheard that phrase for his entire adult life.”

Another recommendation for Dreaming Spanish!

Just like it’s been approved for the past year.

Have you thought of trying to pick up another language? Started learning Spanish 4 years ago and now I can go on vacation and have conversations with locals. Also, I’m more interested in their local history because I can read it/listen to it in Spanish and practice the language at the same time.

Thank you! I should’ve linked to it. The actual text does a much better job of answering OP than my attempt to summarize it.

Especially in the US, where both parties are globally “right” in both political and financial aspects, a lot of time claiming to be a centrist means that you like capitalism and bombing other countries but you support LGBT causes and are pro-choice. I think, online and especially on lemmy, that the vocal left-wing voices (correctly) see this still as aiding the right but being too cowardly to admit it.

This also ties back to the MLK quote about the ‘white centrist’ being the biggest obstacle to his movement, because they may say the right things and appear to be helpful but take no action for the movement. By staying centrist and trying to meet in the middle, would lend credibility to the voices on the other side.

The original draft probably said “nearly a 300% increase” and then the editor didn’t know the difference between percent increase and basic multiplication.

Right, isn’t that the point of the question? What old time things did we do for one reason (cloven hooves) that turned out to be right for completely different reasons (health and safety)

In the original the possibilities for a prize behind the doors 1,2,3 are:

A) YNN B) NYN C) NNY

In (A) - A.1 you choose door 1 and then stay, you win A.2 you choose door 1 and switch, you lose A.3 you choose door 2 and stay, you lose A.4 You choose door 2 and switch, you win A.5 you choose door 3 and stay, you lose A.6 you choose door 3 and switch, you win

By staying, you lose in 2 of 3 cases (A.3 and A.5)

By switching you only lose in 1 case (A.2)

It works out for (B) and © the same way. You have a 2/3rds chance of winning if you switch and a 1/3rd chance of winning if you don’t.

This isn’t a trick or anything, the math is pretty clear and you can actually write out all the scenarios and count it up yourself. It’s just a little counterintuitive because we aren’t used to thinking in terms of conditional probabilities this way.

Another way to think about it is the probability of losing. If the contestant loses, it means that they picked correctly on their first choice and then swapped. This will happen 1/3rd of the games, because there is a 1 in 3 chance of picking correctly the first time. So, if you have a 1/3rd chance of losing by swapping, then it follows that you have a 2/3rds chance of winning by swapping (choosing incorrectly at the start and then switching to the correct door)

Do you know the third door is never correct? Because then the probability doesn’t change.

Scenario 1: You chose 1/2 at first with a 50% chance of being correct, I introduce a 3rd door (but it isn’t a legit possibility), so the actual choice for you is still 50/50 (between doors 1 and 2)

Scenario 2: If you think it’s possible that 3 could be correct (but it actually never is) then, no, you wouldn’t want to switch. By staying with your first choice has a 50% chance of winning, by switching it only has a 33% chance. But there’s no way to know this ahead of time (because as soon as you know you shouldn’t switch bc 3 is the wrong door, then you’re back in scenario 1)

Scenario 3: For completeness, let’s say the 3rd door can be correct sometimes. Then it doesn’t matter if you switch or not. It’s a 33% chance of winning either way. If there is a chance it can be correct, then your first choice doesn’t matter at all and the second choice is the ‘real’ choice bc that’s the only time you’re able to choose from all real possibilities.

The only reason that the Monty Hall problem changes probability in the second choice is because you are provided more information before the switch (that the opened door is absolutely not the one with the prize)

Agreed. And I’ve never read anything quite like The Savage Detectives. His short stories are great too, and you can find a lot of them online published by the New Yorker.

Yes, it’s the same concept. The same math/logic behind it doesn’t change. You’re choosing 1/3 or you are choosing 2/3 and I’ll tell you which of the two is incorrect. It’s just easier to visualize with 100 doors instead.

I’m not sure I’m following the other angle…there are 3 correct possibilities at the start but I can only choose 2? Or there are 2 possibilities and then you introduce a 3rd door that is never correct?