Here's my lifetime earnings from roulette over 20 years since I turned 21. I've been to the casino at least once a month, usually twice or thrice. I tracked my earnings for the month (blue and left axis), and my cumulative earnings over time (orange and right axis). I have a bachelor's in math and a PhD in physics. So I understand the math behind the gamblers fallacy, but yet was able to consistently over 20 years earn money at a constant rate. This constant rate of growth of earnings is my constant betting strategy.

The longest recorded streak at a casino in roulette is 32 reds about 80 years ago. Hasn't happened since. At a casino on any normal day, the longest streaks I've seen have been 8, which are expected to occur extremely rarely. On exceptional days I'll see a streak of 12. Once I saw a streak of 13 but that was an anomaly.

My strategy was to bet the minimum on whatever I wanted, I didn't care. I was waiting for a pattern. Once I saw a pattern of six in a row, I upped my bet to about 100 on the opposite color. If I saw a streak of 8 I bet 500 on the opposite color. If it hit 9 in a row I let it be and just go back to waiting for another pattern.

I'd repeat this process for at least three hours throughout a night, usually waiting for about five if I'm on a hot streak. So, /sci/ how does your gamblers fallacy explain this?

Why can't string theorists make falsifiable predictions?

Is this even a thing? Wtf.

What is the evolutionary advantage of excessive masturbation?

Look. I want to ask a question. It's probably a dumb question because I don't know a fucking thing about science, math, anything that takes actual fucking effort and rigor.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5l1KxgHH2Ek

Do time crystals disprove God?

That is my question. It is not a shitpost.

I'm an industrial engineer at Moderna and the other one of us is a process development engineer. I'm sure the same thing is happening with Pfizer-BioNTech. It was hard to put things together based on the small quantities of additions happening in manual step (highly unorthodox for a continuous process production). The explanation we got was highly sensitive trade secret adjuvants being added. Digging in deeper showed how sensitive it actually was.

Most people's understanding of this novel vaccine type is that it works as follows:
1. Make mRNA coding for S protein
2. Make lipid nanoparticle delivery system
3. Profit

How it actually works from what we've uncovered:
1. Make mRNA coding for S protein
2. Make mRNA coding for mutant versions of CYP19A1 and CDKN1B in smaller amounts
3. Make sure that while delivery system for (1) mostly ends up in liver, most of (2) ends up in the gonads
4. Make sure form and quantity of additive upregulating LINE-1 reverse transcription activity makes it hard to detect among legit adjuvants
5. Effects from (2) integrated by (4) are recessive; mildly oncogenic effects in vaccine recipients unlikely to be noticed for many years
6. (5) recessive but since most of population vaccinated, in next generation female offspring have premature ovarian failure

(6) coincides with poor people being obsoleted by AI and robotics, so we didn't have to dig for motivation.
We've taken precautions but fear for our safety. So far I don't think we've raised suspicion, but can't be sure. Not sure what to do. Avoiding taking the vaccine makes us prime suspects for this leak.

Is the science of racial IQ not accepted in mainstream society because it might lead to the ostracization of certain racial groups?

What you call science is not actually repeatable, verifiable, or testable. Independent entities cannot actually test most of your experiments because it is far too expensive. If I can't freely do those things you can't pretend that your institution is built on repeatability, verifiability, and testability.

>be a TA in Scientific Methods and Research
>undergrads repeat "correlation isn't causation" every lecture when prof asks them something
>they have a test where they have to demonstrate their understanding of experiment design
>they all confuse correlation and causation and can't explain why a paper that confuses the two is flawed
>when you ask them to explain how they understand the meaning of "correlation isn't causation" you get blank stares in return
Why does this happen repeatedly? Is this such a difficult concept? Why do people repeat this if they don't understand what does it mean?

Does pi only come into being as we calculate it?