This makes no sense to me.

Your first random pick is 33%, I get that.

Host then picks one of the other two doors and reveals a goat, this means that the other two doors are 2/3, the remaining 66%.

The question then is: do you switch? Apparently you do.

I can't make sense of that. I can't wrap my head around how the host eliminating one door somehow makes it better for you to switch. The pick between stay or switch is still 50/50?

Can everything be boiled down to genetics and womb environment?

why do we even have electric engineering degrees, why not just call it computer science at this point

Anyone with any real, specific scientific expertise in any discipline, except for maybe the most obscure, uninteresting and useless ones, has seen the facts about their disciple butchered intentionally by a popsci journalist covering the same topic. With that knowledge it is possible to deduce that popsci coverage of all other disciplines is equally wrong and misleading. Knowing that all popsci coverage is intentionally misleading gives one the opportunity to monitor popsci to learn what not to believe in and to learn what wrong paths the misleaders are trying to lead you to. Monitoring popsci in this manner offers a very simple and quick way to get a large an detailed overview of all or nearly all of the most significant and impactful science that is unfurling at any moment in fields of science that you are not substantially familiar with. It takes less time and effort to keep up on all the other fields combined than it does my own using this technique, highly recommended.

income the mental gymnastics

.

is chess solved? we can't beat machines now

Judge my understanding of the Continuum Hypothesis. I tried to be more substantive this time.

>even traveling at many multiples the speed of light, it is not feasible to cross vast interstellar distances within a generation

This is related to the philosophy/foundations of mathematics, ok jannies.
So basically my thought goes like this:
So logic exists, but there's no reason for logic to exist, but it does anyways. Thus, a paradox.
I call it the existence principle, I'd totally name it after myself but I don't want to dox myself. The name fits because it also explains the existence of anything that can't be reduced, like axioms.
And basically you can use the negation of the idea and also say the negation exists.
So Enoch once said the only requirements for everything is the natural numbers, and the requirement for those by his theories are 1, 0, and infinity.
He says that none of these can exist without the other and are equally emergent from an idea of two things: Existence and absence, which itself comes only from existence since if there is absence then absence exists.
So I came up with the existence principle or existence paradox (since paradox is a cooler word).
Now here's why it's a perfect paradox: Itself requires the necessity it exists to exist. And that's it, we can't think further than that because it precedes reason.
What now?