Three prisoners, A, B, and C, are in separate cells and sentenced to death. The governor has selected one of them at random to be pardoned. The warden knows which one is pardoned, but is not allowed to tell. Prisoner A begs the warden to let him know the identity of one of the two who are going to be executed. "If B is to be pardoned, give me C's name. If C is to be pardoned, give me B's name. And if I'm to be pardoned, secretly flip a coin to decide whether to name B or C."
The warden tells A that B is to be executed. Prisoner A is pleased because he believes that his probability of surviving has gone up from 1/3 to 1/2, as it is now between him and C. Prisoner A secretly tells C the news, who reasons that A's chance of being pardoned is unchanged at 1/3, but he is pleased because his own chance has gone up to 2/3. Which prisoner is correct?
from a perspective of evolutionary psychology, whats the reason for antisocial behavior being selected for, and intelligence being selected against? is female sexual selection actually dysgenic?
>Global Warming """"""studies""""" have 100% replication failure
An investigation by the UK scientific journal Nature published on 8 January 2020, found that eight James Cook University (JCU) studies on the effect of climate change on coral reef fish, one of which was authored by the JCU educated discredited scientist Oona Lönnstedt, had a 100 percent replication failure and thus none of the findings of the original eight studies were found to be correct. Concerns raised about a study Lönnstedt published while at JCU between 2010 and 2014 included an improbable number of lionfish claimed to have been used in this study, and images of 50 fish provided which appeared to include multiple images of some biological specimens, and two images that had been flipped making two fish appear to be four.[ Lönnstedt had also been found guilty of fabricating data underpinning a study at Uppsala University in Sweden following her departure from JCU in Queensland, Australia.[271] The study was subsequently retracted. https://www.science.org/content/article/can-you-spot-duplicates-critics-say-these-photos-lionfish-point-fraud >Can you spot the duplicates? Critics say these photos of lionfish point to fraud >Collage was meant to dispel doubts about Global Warming study by disgraced Swedish researcher https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/ex-judge-investigate-controversial-marine-research >Jurist to investigate controversial marine research. Australian university scrutinises former student’s research record, as whistleblowers refute ocean acidification theory https://www.spectator.com.au/2020/01/something-smells-fishy-at-jcu/ >Something smells fishy at JCU https://joannenova.com.au/2019/01/fake-science-on-fake-fish-from-james-cook-uni/ >Fake science on fake fish from James Cook Uni? >Third World Science with First World Funding
>Be me >Want to do uni and do my own homework alone >Don't want to socialize >>>Professor has to make every assignment "group project"
I end up making all "group projects" solo. >Mfw. you now HAVE to make groups of 2.
Why the fuck do they do this? I have to pick new topics for next semester and it makes me want to avoid those topics like the plague.
In this problem, the force F is applied to M, and there is friction between m and M. In the solution to the problem they claim that friction between m and M is ?*g(m+M). How the fuck is this possible? Shouldn't the friction just be ?*mg? Why does the mass of the big mass matter?
