Yes in a weird way, I take heart in knowing that America’s politics have been super fucked up for most of its history. I know that sounds odd but most people I know seem to think things have just suddenly turned bad recently. I think maybe they were born during a brief respite is all. And I do think that with the fuller context, the arc of history bends in the right direction, yes, albeit with famous latency.

It might be that there is pun at all about them calling it Dachau and that was the point. Oh we can’t use this cheeky nickname anymore? Fine, we’ll just refer to it as Dachau. Ban that.

I have a cat that looks exactly like this and is exactly as dumb.

if my own government was conducting mass surveillance on me I would be particularly furious at the betrayal. But I would also not support it conducting surveillance on foreigners either.

So no one then. I’m not trying to pin you here, just explain why it did indeed sound an awful lot like you were saying that. Conducting no surveillance is pretty much not having any intelligence operations. Are they supposed to wait by the phone for tips? This is where I was coming from. If you tell me you meant something different, I believe you, but this is how I got you wrong, and why I disagree if you thought you said nothing even remotely close.

If you must twist everything around in order to make it about the government and business screwing the employee, then you must.

I could just as easily say that the business has to pay employees more to make up for what they’re going to lose to payroll tax deductions so even the employee side tax is a tax on the business!

Or we could just be adults and admit that the government taxes the employee and the business both.

Yes and no. You’re right of course that part of pay is withheld and paid as tax, but that isn’t what I was referring to. There is an additional component, beyond what is withheld from employee pay, which is paid directly from the business to the state which the employee never sees. It’s a similar amount.

Yes, and businesses do also pay taxes on more than their profits. Payroll tax is a huge one.

To grasp it intuitively, I think of it like this.

With the first person, you have 1/365 chance the birthday will be on any given day.

Each person you add to that adds not just another person but also another day that can be a match.

After two people, you still don’t have a match but now you have two days. The third person can match either of those. That’s a lower bar than person #2 had to meet.

By the time the 15th person walks in, the question is: “what are the odds that you share any of these 15 days as your birthday.” And remember, it’s not that that person’s odds are 50%. It’s everything from the original 1/365 chance on up to that fifteenth person, cumulatively, that has a 50% change of a hit.

See how this already sounds a little more likely than just narrowing in on the final final result of two people having the same birthday? The way the problem is phrased makes it sounds like more of a bullseye than it truly is.

So I think part of it is just difficult to grasp intuitively, but it’s also phrased deliberately to throw off your intuition.

Chill, bro, I’m just joking!

You suck at math and we are lmao at your attempts to hide it.

If that was your idea of a joke, I’m afraid you have no idea what’s funny. More likely you are just attempting to laugh off your embarrassment.

Oh I was born with one of those. Also a bullshit detector, which is going off at your “I was joking” defense.

I think the point is not how quickly can someone Google it but can he actually explain it, because he brought it up in a situation where it doesn’t apply, meaning he doesn’t actually understand it (ie can’t explain it).

Hello - the birthday problem is interesting but it has no bearing on a simple percentage probability. The reason the odds of two people having the same birthday don’t rise linearly with the number of people is that every time you add someone to the set you also add a new possible birthday to match. You get to compare them to every other member of the group for a chance to match. You’re not just adding 1/365 each time, trying over and over to hit one date. You’re adding new dates to hit as you go.

This doesn’t apply in a simple probability like “0.6% of people have a micropenis so if you know 300 people, odds are you know one.” You really are just adding 0.6 every time you consider one more person in the set.

So… your comment is bullshit.

So does this apply to the problem: 0.6% of people have micropenis. How many friends do you need to have before you’ll know someone?

It doesn’t seem to, because there isn’t any element of comparing them between each other. It’s just a straight percentage chance.

As with all things, you can arrive at trustworthy estimates for things by surveying a sampling of people and then applying statistics. You don’t have to ask every person on earth. This is called the law of large numbers.

Also, they are defining micropenis as 2.6 inches so there are probably even more people who don’t meet this definition but would like more size.

They say in the article 0.6% of men. That sounds like a small number, but if you have around the usual 300 Facebook friends, then you know someone.

I love how 28 people agreed with me above, and 3 with you, yet you’ve drawn me off to the side yelling by myself at people who don’t care.

More “imagination work” I see LOL. Someone posted this on a discussion forum. I discussed it. If you are too fragile to handle this, you don’t belong here. That’s not gatekeeping, that’s just caring advice. Watch television instead (like your imaginary friends in the comic) where no one will ever challenge you with a complex thought. Or hell just draw more comics depicting people agreeing with you LMAO.

Please reply again because now your addled brain is officially entertaining us both.

The more I learn about this guy, the more amazed I am that his staffers stood up for him when he got fired. I guess they just hated the board more.

I know what you mean. It’s a pretty vague term though. You could argue that as soon as it enters the midsection of the bell curve at all, it’s “in the mainstream.” It doesn’t have to have captured a full 90% of the bell curve.