They didn't pick December 21st, they did the inverse in a way. The people who built it didn't use a calendar with December as a month if they had any sort of calendar at all.

What they did was use their knowledge of how daylight changes seasonally each year, which is something they could observe, to ensure that the sun would illuminate a chamber specifically during the Winter Solstice, which happens to be December 21st on our calendar.

> It has nothing to do with managing your money well, it's the supidest shit.

But it does. Getting into CC debt shows poor money management skills. Having access to credit and using it well shows you are trust worthy and institutions will be willing to lend you more money at cheaper rates.

Right, the OP was talking simple odds, but the thread shifted to talking about plane crashes I think we exit the realm where simple odds apply. It makes sense when we're talking about dice.

Credit cards just seem to be used fundamentally different in your country.

In Western countries it's expected that adults will have at least one credit card. So many things can be tied to that card. A big one is automatic bill payments. Not all can be tied to your bank account. So when you go to apply for a mortgage the bank is expecting you to already have a credit history. If you use your credit cards right it means you never miss a payment. Even better if you don't carry a large balance on them. The bank will see your payment history and can see how much of the credit card you are using. It then uses this info as part of its calculation on what kind of mortgage it's willing to offer you.

If you don't have a credit card the bank has no history to use in it's calculation. It has no idea how good or bad you are with other people's money. It's still possible to get a loan or mortgage without a credit history but it's harder. The bank will relay way more on the other information you give so often you will need a much better job or more assets for them to be confident that you will pay them back.

Having a credit card doesn't mean you are bad with money on its own. It's entirely based on how you use it. Normally when you first get a credit card it might be a secured one. These have very low limits and you need to pay into them before spending money. These are designed for people with no or poor credit to build up a good history. Once you have a history or a better one you should move to an unsecured card. This is what people think of when talking about credit cards. These have larger limits and you get a bill every month showing what you owe, your minimum payment, etc. To maintain a good score you don't need to fully pay off the balance. You need to make at least your minimum payment and it's good to maintain a low level of utilization. This means that if your limit is 10k, your balance is say 3.5k or maybe up to 5k. If you maintain a balance near 10k this is noted in your history. Some people really overreact to high utilization. It will make it harder to get more loans but it doesn't really lower your score. It more pauses it while you pay down the balance. However regardless of whether or not it's affecting your score is the fact that that balance is costing you a ton in interest. Bank loans usually have pretty low interest while credit cards are often 3-5 times higher.

(For OP or whoever is interested)

Note how electric and magnetic are (almost) interchangeable, each one induces the other in the same way. The only weirdness is the second rule by which magnetism might not have basic charges ("monopoles") in nature. Otherwise, we would replace (2) by the corresponding variant of (1) to account for free magnetic charges, and the symmetry of the 4 laws would be even more obvious.

Even deeper(?), the 4 equations are actually only one when one interprets magnetic as an imaginary variant of electric. This single equation is

∇F = μ_0 c J.

You kind of missed the point and just compounded on what I was saying- surely if the other engines and the control surfaces can compensate for the failed engine the rule you laid out makes even less sense?

Glad I could help ya figure something out! It's definitely a bit counterintuitive at first, and I once had the same confusion. Cheers!

Preventing excess fertilizer and other pollutants from entering waterways is the best way to ensure the water quality stays high. But

1. using less fertilizer and pesticides on plants and crops,
2. using organic and natural alternatives to chemicals when possible And
3. dispose of hazardous waste properly are other ways to prevent it

The odds of two planes crashing while flying in/out the same airport on the same day are far lower than the odds of a single plane crashing while flying in/out of that airport.

But.....

The odds of a plane crashing via that airport are not any lower after a plane has already crashed there, assuming in this hypothetical that plane crashes have specific odds and are not very complex events that are extremely hard to actually put "odds" on.

Great. Now I'm itchy, I yawned, I took a deep breath and I'm fucking stuck on Manual Breathing now.

It's not always true, events can be dependent

A liquid will absorb a portion of any gas it's exposed to, for example water on Earth will absorb gases from the air above it. It's just a natural process called "Boyle's Law", something we've learned from physics and chemistry.

The amount of overall gases a liquid absorbs is complicated, but has to do with pressure (for example, this is why soda and beer bubble like crazy when you open them, because you're removing the pressure in the can and the beer can't hold that much gas at room pressure) and the proportion of the gases dissolved is the same as the proportion of the gases in the air (again, using beer as our example, this is why carbonated beers are so bubbly but only for a short time [lots of CO2 in the beer, barely any in the air, hence it all wants to come out quickly] and why nitrogenated beers like Guinness don't bubble as much and stay bubbly for so long [lots of nitrogen in the, but also lots of nitrogen in the air, it doesn't have any place to go])

Ah I get it, thanks a lot. The lottery chances "resetting" after the first win actually makes sense to me.

I think that's where my head gets confused. If I saw a plane crash I'd think of it as "well there's no chance of two of that thing happening today!" Rather than " it's still just as likely to happen today."

So how to prevent this or clean up the water quality in a large amount of water?

Yours?

Using the credit card responsibly looks good to the bank. However you can also use it poorly which looks bad to the bank. So just having a credit card isn't enough. They look at how you are using it.

The odds that they win twice in a lifetime is much more unlikely than the odds they win once.

But after they won once, the odds of winning again are exactly the same as if they had never won.

Think of the dice example. There is a one in six chance of rolling a specific number. Rolling again, there is still a one in six chance of rolling that same number. The number of sides hasn't changed, the number you chose didn't magically disappear.

The odds only change if you bet that you will roll two in a row before the first roll, because you are now betting on both events before they happen, not on a single event happening. The events themselves have no influence on each other.

>example of this: the odds of rolling 6 6s is (1/6)5, but the odds of rolling 6 6s given that you already rolled 5 6s is (1/6).

Your example supports the previous assertion, though. The probability of 1/6 is the probability of only that final roll. There's no difference between "the odds after 5 sixes" and "the odds after zero rolls" and "the odds after 6000000 sixes in a row." It's not looking back at all.

[removed]

How does water gain dissolved oxygen does it come from photosynthesis?

Two problems -

1. Most of food consists of cells of some kind, either plant or animal. Freezing creates crystals that are like tiny knives that slice up the cells, with refreezing you'll progressively turn your food into unrecognizable mush.

2. Many microorganisms will start attacking the surface of our foods and growing the moment they can, by the time the food is thawed they might have the beginnings of a rocking colony. It's not a huge problem if you just cook it and eat it right then, but if you re-freeze it and then rethaw it they can start again with their bigger colony, increasing the chances of getting you sick.

Adding to this, humans have wider dynamic range than cameras; that is, we see a greater range from light to dark, and details in the shadow and light, whereas a camera clips bright areas as pure white and dark areas as pure black.

[deleted]

> Whether the die is weighted towards a 6 or not, the individual rolls are still independent from each other, merely the probabilities of the outcomes are different.

The rolls are, but provided you have any uncertainty about the underlying probabilities, your beliefs about those rolls (and your expectations about the future rolls, which is the exact same thing) should be updating with each roll.

For a simple example, imagine I have two coins. One is loaded to always land heads, the other is fair. I pull one of the two from a box at random, and I do not know which I pulled. I want to estimate the probability of my next flip being heads. It's 75% in this case (50% to be loaded * 100% if it's loaded + 50% to be fair * 50% if it's fair).

I flip the coin, and it lands heads. This is evidence in favor of me having the biased coin. Specifically, I should update my probability that the coin is biased (using Bayes' rule) to:

P(loaded | heads) = P(loaded and heads) / P(heads) = 0.5 / 0.75 = 2/3.

Now I want to estimate the probability of the next flip. There is now a 2-in-3 chance (or more properly, that is my correct Bayesian estimation of that probability) that I am holding a biased coin, so the probability of the next flip being heads is 5/6 (it's 2/3 * 1 + 1/3 * 1/2 = 2/3 + 1/6 = 5/6). This is not equal to my original 3/4, even though the flips themselves are IID, because their underlying distribution depends on an unknown parameter about which I am gaining information.

Fertilizer is basically "small creature food" and the algae and other micro-organisms eat it up and grow like crazy, sucking up all the oxygen from the water because they need to breathe too. They call this effect a "bloom", so the missing piece for you is the algae, they eat the food, they grow like crazy, they breathe up all the water-oxygen, everything else dies..