Regular trial jury duty is super easy to get out of. Just answer the questions wrong and they'll strike you most of the time. You don't want to outright lie about facts, but when they ask something like "can you fairly apply the law as instructed, and set aside your own notions of the law" or something to that affect, just say no, you don't think you can. Tell them you don't trust big government. You're probably getting booted.

But what are the chances that two different planes will crash at the same airport in one day?

As others have explained you specify lbf or lbm to distinguish force vs mass. You use a reference assumption about the gravitational “force” to convert weight to mass.

If you want your mind really blown, know that gravity isn’t really a force. Weight is a lie!

Please read this entire message

Your submission has been removed for the following reason(s):

Questions about a business or a group's motivation are not allowed on ELI5. These are usually either straightforward, or known only to the organisations involved, leading to speculation (Rule 2).

If you would like this removal reviewed, please read the detailed rules first. If you believe this submission was removed erroneously, please use this form and we will review your submission.

If a die rolled the same 1000 times in a row, than practically it is far more likely that the die is rigged. But the way that probability theory is discussed wouldn't account for such a thing that isn't specifically mentioned in the problem presented. A real life situation has many more variables than a hypothetical one.

Would you personally brush off the one quintillion consecutive throws if the die was determined to be fair by a team of scientists? Then another quintillion? And if someone now gave you the chance to bet on the next outcome, which would you choose? I argue that if you are rational you would bet that the streak continues. But mathematically you shouldn't change your bet, and you should ignore the two quintillion consecutive throws up until this point, right? Do you see the problem here?

Record profits came from record sales. Many are predicting a really bad run for the economy which means less demand. Less demand for stuff means less of that stuff being made which means you don't want to pay people to not make stuff.

My company made record profits this year!

People who help fund my company now expect us to make similar profits next year.

But it looks like we probably won't because it's harder to make money.

So let's cut costs like labor (layoffs) so those savings go into our next year's profits!

"But what about the year after?"

"I can't hear you over the sound of my golden parachute deploying!"

Suppose you are a company that makes widgets. You make 1000 widgets a month and sell them at the market price, which is determined by many other companies which make widgets as well and the demand for widgets in the world at large.

Now suppose something happens that disrupts the supply chain leading up to your making widgets. There is less of the raw ingredients you need to make widgets available, or they are more difficult to acquire, and your costs increase somewhat as a result. Overall widget production may drop as well. For your company however you keep making 1000 widgets per month but you pay a bit more in material costs.

The demand for widgets though hasn't dropped off. Now those who want widgets need to compete to obtain them, pushing the price to be higher. When you go to sell your 1000 widgets at the market price that price may have increased more than your costs to produce them, meaning your overall profit is higher than before!

But it is still harder to obtain your materials to make widgets and looking forward the same problems that caused the disruption in widget materials supply look like they might cause a downturn in your business in the future. You forecast that in the coming months or years you are only going to be able to sell 750 widgets. In response you start to lay off some of your employees.

The result is that you make record profits then turn around and lay off employees, looking on the surface like a cartoon villain.

Blood alcohol limits are .05 in Aus, .08 in most of the USA.

You are correct. I should have said at least 1 six. But the logic still holds for the types of arguments people try to make about 9 non-6s in a row, so the 10th must have a higher probability, but in-fact it doesn't.

This is the basis of the "trick" question that many people fail to get.

An astronaut takes off on a trip as a twenty year old. What is the farthest that he can he travel before he turns 30?

It would be helpful if you could give a few examples. Then we can better explain

If the die is fair the odds don't change. The historical information is irrelevant as the die has no memory.

A long string of rolling the same number may indicate the die is not fair, in a non-hypothetical situation.

Sorry, only read the title. Still leaving this here, might be useful for some.

[removed]

[removed]

When you eat, your body notices and hurries along the food you ate in the past to make room for it. With spicy food in particular, it hurries a lot, which means the large intestine doesn't get enough time to absorb enough water: that's why it's runny even though those particular feces don't contain the spicy food.

I'm not sure I can. Every physical analogy is going to be expanding into a medium.

It's also not really "expanding into nothing." The coordinate plane of space is itself expanding, full stop. It's not expanding into anything (or nothing).

It's a fact that you just have to decide you're ok with, without a relatable model to compare it with.

Is that the one video of the Tesla driver? I’m pretty sure that was in Toronto.

Any examples we can better explain?

Dice have no memory. What happened in previous rolls in no way affects the outcome of future rolls. The odds of rolling a six don't change to "make up" for not rolling a six in a while.

Aye. Two ways of looking at it.

Time is slowed down so much that no time passes.

An equal statement is that the length of the path in front of photon is contracted to down to zero length so it isn't really going anywhere.

The cooker is done once all the water is boiled off
Since the cooker heats the combined mass of eggs and water, with more eggs it takes longer to before the water boils off, so you need less water to cook for the same time

[deleted]