So, yeah, I'll take door number two, and thank you for that extra 33%

>So, yeah, I'll take door number two, and thank you for that extra 33%

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monty_Hall_problem#Bayes.27_theorem
stayorswitch.com/
youtube.com/watch?v=-N_RZJUAQY4
twitter.com/AnonBabble

b8

If it isn't obvious to you that the chances of landing the car by switching are 2/3, GIVEN that the host's actions are completely scripted and you are aware it is the case that he has no choice but to open a door with a goat randomly regardless of your initial choice, BUT that it ISN'T necessarily 2/3 otherwise, you should immolate yourself.

yeah too bad op can't get any (you's), his plans have been foiled

What movie is this

Men who stare at goats

the part from home alone where marv turns into a skeleton

Monty Python's Hall

I think I'll stick with my first choice thanks

Enjoy your goat.

oh I will

A movie called "21" starring Kevin Spacey

>Actually I want door number 3

Ben Al-Afflecki

>and you are aware it is the case that he has no choice but to open a door with a goat randomly regardless of your initial choice

Retard, the whole point is that the host does not open a random door with a goat, but he opens a door with a goat among the two doors which you DID NOT choose.

It's 50%-50% if there's two doors, there's no way around it.

t.brainlet

...

>there are people on this board that somehow think changing doors helps

Every true intellectual realizes that it doesn't matter what you do

>They haven't used Bayes' rule to solve the Monty Hall problem

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monty_Hall_problem#Bayes.27_theorem

I knew Sup Forums was full of dunderheads, but damn...

stayorswitch.com/

Moron.

A scenario: A runaway trolley car is careening down a track. Five people stand in its path, unaware of the imminent threat. You stand at the intersection of two different tracks and could, if you chose to, divert the trolley onto another track where only one person would be killed. Do you divert the trolley, intentionally killing one to save five?

Make people play the game repeatedly with their own money on the line.

They're learn or they'll lose.

Damn. That was a good movie and I had completely forgotten it existed.

walk away and pretend I dindt see anything so im not legally at blame

I bet the passengers of the train would claim otherwise

youtube.com/watch?v=-N_RZJUAQY4

Try thinking of a situation where there are 1000 doors, and the host opens 998 of them after you pick one. Would you still want to go with your original choice?

the passengers had the choice to stop the train but didnt so they are now at blame

Why? I'm not responsible for anyone being on the racks and I didn't put the train on its course.

Trolley problems are ethical questions but legally you'd be liable if you made an action that resulted in someone dying, and only liable for inaction if action wouldn't cause a death.

So from a legal standpoint you're better off doing nothing.

racks = tracks

let's make it harder

Plausible deniability
>I was so overwhelmed by the impending catastrophe, I didn't even see the lever.

>let's make it harder

>kill just one person
or
>kill the most amount of people and do the totally sick loop-da-loop

...

Is it a crime to not save other people? Should it be?

...

i have never see a train do a loop-da-loop in my entire life

...

...

man i wish i was as cool as that guy. I only have 1 monitor

Me too, man ;_;