That is what Visual Heuristics mean. I thought it was pretty obvious.
Visual Heuristics is a term from graphic design so far as I'm aware. I wondered what on Earth you were on about and your numbers didn't make sense to me. I thought possibly you were mocking my own number crunching but I also thought maybe this is something I'm unfamiliar with. My own understanding of Probability caps out at some very basic use of Binomial Theorem so I asked for an explanation of where you were getting this stuff from.
I don't want to derail to bad here. But its not a pool of 50.
The UK stock = the USA stock. Its the same pool. They may have chipped in for 65 but they are both drawing from the same stockpile.
View attachment 5741762
link to UK Trident
FOIA
The US test in 2019 I believe happened because the UK fired a dud in 2016 and everyone freaked out. I am sure the one they fired in 2019 wasn't "randomly" selected and shipped. I am sure they picked the best of the bunch and went over it with a fine tooth comb months in advanced because they couldn't risk having another one fail in front of everyone.
No, no - this is interesting, thank you. I did try and do a little searching for how many missiles Bongland might have but it seemed a tricky question to answer so I reverted back to seeing that there'd been an order for 65 and said well, lets just use 50 as an example as it seems in the right ballpark. My main goal was to do some elementary arithmetic and show how unlikely it was that they just happened on the two dud missiles. The more missiles there are, the greater the probability of a higher
proportion of them being duds. The logic is fairly simple: the more missiles there are the less likely it is you happened on the only one or two missiles that were duds. So if you have two missiles, fire one and it's a dud this doesn't by itself mean the second is more or less likely to be a dud. It's still 50:50. But if you have a thousand missiles and test one and it's a dud, then probably many of your missiles are duds.
Though as you say, in the real world there are far more factors and I totally agree they wouldn't have just randomly selected one in 2019 (even though that would be how you
should do testing). Which probably means our nuclear missiles are in a terrible shape.
I'm pretty disappointed this isn't getting compared to Epstein to some degree.
Do we think it was definitely an assassination? I'm talking about Navalny of course - Epstein certainly was. Navalny was in his fifties and in prison. It's not inconceivable he might just die and if anything it's more to the benefit of Western warhawks than it is Putin for him to die. It's not like he was any kind of actual political threat. Though I'm of course not saying it couldn't be assassination. Just that the Western papers have all just taken it as an absolute given and foreign policy really shouldn't be determined on someone who may or may not have had an actual heart attack.
I unironiclly suffer from the tism so sarcasm is hard for me on Good day and unfortunately the internet makes it that much more difficult forgive me.
Don't worry about it, you're not the only one. I genuinely couldn't tell if Betonhaus was serious, not serious or making fun of me for doing some maths. Text lacks a lot of context cues.
was propped up by kolomoyskiy
