>>29013562
40:%

>>29013562
fuck ya mudda

>>29013568
Actually it's 2/5ths...

>>29013562
>WILL drastically lower insurance premiums
Congrats, you failed the test.

iq has nothing to do with driving. imagine typing all this shit based on a false premise, couldnt be me.

I'm smart but I'm a shit driver

>>29013562
If it's all yellow then it is 100% chance the next is yellow and if it's the yellow-grey then it makes it 0%. The third box is automatically discarded. This means 50% chance the next is yellow.

>>29013562
This isn't an IQ test it is a subservience to the group perception test.

>>29013678
The group is going to tell you that you failed the test, even though you are logically and technically correct.

File: images (75).jpg (19 KB, 511x391)

19 KB JPG

>>29013669
>Literal room temp iq
>clean record
People smarter than me can't really be acting so stupid, can they? Or am I actually smarter than them? I can't be smarter than them because they manage to have good jobs and make lots of money. What gives?

>>29013725
Shut up furfaggot.

File: GOVOIHYB.jpg (27 KB, 480x360)

27 KB JPG

>>29013728
Blow it out your ass.

>>29013731
you`re*

>>29013678
Two out of three possible gold balls you pulled are from Box 1. One out of three possible gold balls you pulled is from Box 2.Out of the three gold balls you could have possibly pulled, how many of those three are from Box 1?

>>29013713
>t. double digit iq $39,000/year clockie

>>29013780
Assuming the choice was entirely at random, due to there being 3 gold 3 silver, you had a 50% chance of picking a gold ball. That there are three boxes is entirely irrelevant to the reality of the odds. You had six choices at a 50/50 chance and now you have the odds of your next ball from the same box being a 50/50 chance.

That's reality.

>>29013731
Doule gip

>>29013783
>you had a 50% chance of picking a gold ball.
Incorrect. Ball 1 and ball 2 from Box 1 are separate, distinct balls that either of which can be chosen. The gold ball in box 2 results in a losing condition, and there is only one way to be in box 2 (lose) if you're already holding a gold ball.

>That there are three boxes is entirely irrelevant to the reality of the odds.
Partially correct, but what does that have to do with 2/3?

>You had six choices at a 50/50 chance and now you have the odds of your next ball from the same box being a 50/50 chance.
You are already holding a gold ball. There are three ways you could have possibly grabbed a gold ball. Two of those ways are from Box 1. Here's an easier option for you: Suppose you have two boxes - Box 1 has 1000000000000000000000000 gold balls and Box 2 has 99999999999999999 silver balls and one gold ball. You choose a box and you remove a gold ball. What is the probability that you are in Box 1?

>>29013790
shut up jew

>>29013790
The game's only question is
>the odds of your next pick being gold
With the conditions already being set, that you picked a gold ball first,
The only solution to process is your ODDS OF THE NEXT PICK BEING GOLD
Which, given the set condition and first pick result, is now 1/2.

Trying to process this from a whole odds mathematical approach is a failure of interpreting the logic given to you.
This is not a statistics class quiz. This is not programming a solver for the full odds of all conditions. This is not the Monty Hall problem (which itself is a fallacy of a different type)
There is one question, there is a hard set first result, the answer is 50/50.

>>29013799
>ODDS OF THE NEXT PICK BEING GOLD
Is it possible to pick a second gold ball from Box 2? Explain.

>With the conditions already being set, that you picked a gold ball first,
You have already chosen either Ball 1, Ball 2, or Ball 3.

>The only solution to process is your ODDS OF THE NEXT PICK BEING GOLD
If you picked...
Ball 1: the other ball is Ball 2 and you're in Box 1.
Ball 2: the other ball is Ball 1 and you're in Box 1.
Ball 3: the other ball is silver and you're in Box 2.

>Trying to process this from a whole odds mathematical approach is a failure of interpreting the logic given to you.
Its a funny way of saying "I DONT UNDERSTAND AAAAAAAA"
>This is not a statistics class quiz. This is not programming a solver for the full odds of all conditions.
No need because I wrote it out above, but if you want to see that I can show you and prove it
>This is not the Monty Hall problem (which itself is a fallacy of a different type)
lol explain

>>29013811
you're a fake gay retard who wouldn't qualify for a drivers license

>>29013799
>>29013790
if you map it out it's 2/3

the monty hall problem is dumber and involves dumb gotchas about re-doing your selection and is always told as a dumb story with extra context to intentionally obsfucate the problem, this is straight up just a list of possibilities of even chance

left to right lets call em balls 1 through 4
pick 1, you get 2 next. gold
pick 2, you get 1 next. gold
pick 3, you get 4 next. LOSER UR A LOSER BABY WANNA BOTTLE A BIG DIRT BOTTLE
(pick 4 or the other box wasnt an option)

and desu this is already a bit of a troll question since why even mention the box with two silver balls if it's not part of the premise?
intuitively it's "one box win one box lose" but the question is phrased poorly

>>29013669
I'm a great driver, but retarded

>>29013811
>>29013814
Samefagging low IQ busrider. End your life.

File: 29013824.png (5 KB, 360x106)

5 KB PNG

>>29013815
>and desu this is already a bit of a troll question since why even mention the box with two silver balls if it's not part of the premise?
its a dutiful retard filter

>>29013820

>>29013815
>>29013820
more fake gay retards who can't drive how amazing

the next ball will be blue because it's a shell game trick

>>29013562
> The answer is 2/3 by the way

hori shiet, this is either giga retardation or nerdsnipe...

if you have already picked up 1 gold ball, it means the box with 2 silver balls is eliminated, because you are supposed to take from the >same< box again and only 2 boxes contain gold balls.

given both remaining boxes, you subtract 1 gold ball as that is what you already pulled out. whats left?
1 gold ball and 1 silver ball. thats the only 2 options left.

so the odds of getting 1 gold ball on the 2nd grab from the same box is 1/2 = 50%

>>29013725
smart people can do dumbass shit and be poor and stupid people can be successful and get rich

>>29017181
>if you have already picked up 1 gold ball, it means the box with 2 silver balls is eliminated, because you are supposed to take from the >same< box again and only 2 boxes contain gold balls.
Correct.

>given both remaining boxes, you subtract 1 gold ball as that is what you already pulled out. whats left?
In Box 1, another gold ball.
In Box 2, a silver ball.

>1 gold ball and 1 silver ball. thats the only 2 options left.
Correct.

>so the odds of getting 1 gold ball on the 2nd grab from the same box is 1/2 = 50%
Incorrect. There are three ways to take a gold ball the first time. Two of those three balls are located in Box 1. Therefore, you have a 2/3 chance of being in Box 1 if you pulled a Gold Ball first. That is to say, you have a 2/3 chance of pulling another gold ball because:

Pulling another gold ball means and can only mean that you have pulled a ball from Box 1. There are two ways to pull a gold ball from box 1 and only one way to pull a gold ball from box 2.

>>29013562
It used to be that some states did this.
It was called a "driving exam".
It consisted of a written test where you had to demonstrate knowledge of rules of the road and right-of-way and braking distance.
Then there was a road skills test, where you had to demonstrate certain critical skills (reverse in a straight line, hill start, three-point turn, parallel parking) as well as good car control.
Drivers education used to be required.
I think the only way people learn to drive anymore is from watching NASCAR.
It's like the only thing they seem to understand about driving is that if they are in front of you, that makes them better than you.

Croatia already does this.

>>29013562
It's 1/2. You know you either got the box on left or middle, but you don't know which. If you got box on left, your chance of getting gold is 100%. If you got middle, your chance is 0%. This averages to 50% or 1/2


y'all really are some brainlets if you had to think about this.

>>29018211
> Incorrect. There are three ways to take a gold ball the first time

what first time? the question asserts the "first time" has already occurred, is in the past and thus irrelevant for the evaluation of the current odds of pulling another gold ball.

my evaluation holds true. you should do an IQ test post the results here :D

>>29018267
>what first time? the question asserts the "first time" has already occurred, is in the past and thus irrelevant for the evaluation of the current odds of pulling another gold ball.
What's your fucking point lmao
There are three ways in which the starting condition asserted by the question could have happened. Does that make you feel any better or do you want to play the semantics game to hide your frustration with not understanding this?

>>29018264
Not how it works. Suppose there are 1000 gold balls in the first box and 1 gold/ 999 silver in the second box. Is it still 50/50? And if so, are you somebody who believes lottery odds are 50/50 because you either win or dont?

File: Screenshot From 2026-07-1(...).png (98 KB, 1920x892)

98 KB PNG

>>29013562
It's about 2/3rds.

>>29018264
Maybe with your caveman logic, Grok. Mathematically the odds are 66%.

File: ok.png (1.57 MB, 768x1024)

1.57 MB PNG

Let this thread by a reminder. A good portion of the opinions on cars you see on /o/ come from people who will confidently disagree with bayes theorem.

>>29018425
if your first pick is a gold ball?
yes because you're picking between the boxes, not the balls, smoothbrain

>>29018634
Based retard. Live your truth, king.

>>29018634
Yes, IF you picked a box that was not #3 and IF the first ball you picked was gold, 2 out of 3 times you run this experiment you would have chosen Box 1 given that your first pick was a gold ball because you are twice as likely (100% vs. 50%) to grab a gold ball from Box 1 than Box 2. Of the three possible balls (which is where the 3 comes from), two of them (which is where the 2 comes from) are located in Box 1. Had you chosen Box 2, you would have been just as likely to have picked a silver ball first, invalidating the setup. However, if you chose Box 1, the setup cannot be invalidated at this step, and you can continue to evaluate whether you are in Box 1 or Box 2 based on whether or not the next ball is gold. It will be a gold ball approximately 66% of the time because you will have chosen Box 1 ~66% of the time

>>29018699
You're retarded.

>>29018474
Look he did exactly what I said not to do.
You have to include the start condition in OP's pic. Gold ball was pulled, have to pick from same box.

>>29013562
50/50
you either get a gold ball or don't

>>29018780
The code follows the rules exactly.
> pick a box
> pick a ball from the box
> is it silver? quit
> pick the other ball from the same box

In the trial results list, we have `None` for all the times we picked silver first (about half the time). We filter those out. Then we have `1` for gold and `0` for silver. We count the ones and divide by the total list length, and we find that we got gold about 2/3rds of the time.

I started writing about how IQ is bullshit (I’ve maxed a government issued test and have never made half the poverty line), but driving requires spatial intelligence and IQ tests are all about that. The ability to rotate objects in your mind definitely correlates to driving skill.
But I still think this is stupid. Guns kill more Americans under 20 than anything else, why not address that problem? Eh?

>>29018827
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33343475/
> Taken together, these results suggest the specific contribution of spatial mental transformation skills in the execution of complex behaviors connected to the fitness to drive. Prospectively, the results of the present study relating spatial mental transformation skills and driving processes may be a valuable source of knowledge for researchers dealing with the relationship between cognitive resources and navigation aids.

66%

this question would not be appropriate for an IQ test

>>29018831
You’re right, it would not. It depends on you knowing some silly statistician shit that you have to be taught.

>>29018832
…an IQ test should work the same with a 6 year old that doesn’t know what a fraction is as it would with a 40 year old.

>>29018832
No it doesn't, it's painfully obvious, zero special knowledge is required at all. If you pick a gold ball, you eliminate the silver-only box from the population immediately. That leaves THREE balls remaining in total and TWO are gold. TWO divided by THREE is TWO THIRDS. Literal pre highschool level reasoning, a child should be able to do this.

>>29018840
Yeah, but what about a kid that doesn’t know fractions?
If the adult test is predicated on a good upbringing and education then it isn’t a measure of innate skill.
The kind of questions that correlate to driving skill are the ones where you rotate an object in your mind to know what comes next in the sequence. You’ve surely seen them. You don’t need to know math to do that and it’s the only part that correlates to driving skill.

Even a smart person is going to get a DUI, and do stupid shit on the road that would total 5000 cars and have 10 casualties and such.

>>29018851
Guns kill more Americans under 20. Why aren’t you raving about that? Hmmm?

>>29018853
That's fine with me.

>>29018857
Well, people driving cars is fine with me.
So…

>>29018860
Well, I hope you get hit by a one of those people driving a car.

>>29018861
I have been. Rear ended twice totalling my little subcompacts. I loved those cars. Never got a scratch and I didn’t go assault the people who hit me.
I hope someone having a bad day shoots you in the face.

>>29018864
I have been shot by a nigger when I served on the police force. I hope you are the first to get bombed when the nukes go flying one day.

>>29018867
>”served” in the police force
>wants guns legal but driving cars banned
Nah, you sou sound like an /n/fag who has never worked outside retail posting here to troll because cars “scare you.”

>>29018870
I guess I was trying to say that perhaps IQ would not affect driving ability as much as OP thinks. It sounds good on paper, but disregards other problems such as road rage, focus, alcoholism (some people cannot go without a drink for one day), etc.

>>29018840
You have one gold ball in the hand
You are forced to take the ball from the same box
Two balls have virtually disappeared, you get the confirmation of which one of the two boxes you picked after you pick the second one and it's either silver or gold
50%

>>29018885
I’m glad you clarified because I absolutely agree with that.
Also, alcohol is a lot more addictive than you seem to think. If 15 hours after your last drink you start shaking and your heart stops beating and you’re scared of everyone, you’re gonna have another drink. It’s way more physically addictive than people make it out to be. If you really were a cop, and think someone who drinks every day is human trash, then you’re human trash.

>>29013818
This

Bertrand's Box is 2/3. It's dumb statistics shit, similar to Monty hall.

File: An-example-item-from-the-(...).png (61 KB, 650x551)

61 KB PNG

Here, a better test to cut off <95IQ people

>>29018956
It's 7.
C1R1: Background lines vertical, dots diagonal
C1R2: background lines rotated 90 deg. Line connects existing dots
C1R3: background lines combined, dots removed, line rotated 45 deg clockwise.

C2R1: Background lines diagonal, dots diagonal
C2R2: Background lines rotated 90 deg. Line connects existing dots
C2R3: background lines combined, dots removed, line rotated 45 deg clockwise.

C3R1: Background lines horizontal, dots diagonal
C3R2: background lines rotated 180 deg. Line connects existing dots.
C3R3:

So in column 3, given that the background lines are combined, dots removed, line rotated 45 deg clockwise, it will be a + with the two waves combined and the dots removed. This only fits 7.

I saw this before and last time it only took me 4 hours to solve. This time I did it in 1 hour so now I'm 4x smarter.

>>29018979
Or you could just say the rows combine the foreground and the columns combine the background but thats less fun.

File: 1779858348426788.jpg (48 KB, 600x752)

48 KB JPG

>>29013562
>Let's face it: we're either going to submit entirely to FSD for all road vehicles or we'll have to raise the bar very significantly in regard to licensure.
Current laws indicate a trend towards criminalizing distracted driving behaviors. I recall in the 2010s where killing someone while distracted was a year of probation. Those times are over, with people silently disappearing into the pen because of reckless disregard of life and limb.

Insurance companies are also aggressively following suit, skyrocketing premiums for drivers who exhibit the combination of distracted and at fault, because they are statistically way more likely to do it again. States are implementing a double whammy where driving without insurance is getting increasingly criminalized and they're adopting no-pay-no-play laws, you cannot sue past mandatory indemnity if you're uninsured. Driving is getting treated like a regulated utility than a de facto right.

When FSD becomes more ubiquitous (which likely requires EV mass adoption because Tesla's system is the leader), people will gladly hand over the steering wheel and pedals so that they don't have to drive. It'll take around 5-10 years for the perception to shift from "I hate driving, so I use FSD" to "I get so much stuff done that I want to that I'd never want to drive."

That is a very long-term projection though, this takes around 15-20 years since it takes about 15 years for last generation's cars to age out of a national fleet, which right now is the 1990-2095 fleet.

The TL;DR of it is that we're in a messy middle ground where people treat driving as a chore not worth doing (hence the skyrocketing distracted driving rates) and the resultant collision physics, and the legal and software reality of autonomous driving. Your best option is to carry a lot of insurance, plus umbrella coverage with UM/UIM kickers (because their broke ass don't carry any insurance), drive a safer car, and just don't crash bro. But people crash anyways.

>>29018992
>1990-2095
1990-2005

Looks like I'm not recovering from that concussion from that girl that drove a smartphone better than a car.

>>29018992
>I get so much stuff done that I want to that I'd never want to drive.
What scares me is that the expectation to get work done outside of a regular 9-5 is constantly being pushed already.

My dad used to show up at the office at 8:30am and get home for 6pm. That was it. My mom didn't have to work because houses weren't a million dollars for a shitbox.

Fast forward to now and (they've) flooded the market with millions of women because you have to work if you want to have a house, so now nobody can have time for a kid. and because everyone is dinking everything is crazy inflated. And because everything is crazy inflated everyone is dinking. Company profits go brrt.

Then I got a remote job and you're getting messages at 7pm "Can you just fix this one thing quickly, I REALLY need it now". and they would phrase it like you had a choice but in reality you didn't have a choice if you wanted to keep your job or get a raise to at least match inflation. Of course remote jobs are far and few between so you'd like to keep your job but working for free is gay as fuck.

Now they're pushing back to office, with the expectation that you still work OT like you're working remote, while you get fuck all for wages because jewish daycare means hiring millions of women in middle management roles taking up all the company profits, and the next logical step is that they're going to consider commuting as "expected" work hours if you can get fsd.

I need to get back into a trade under a union so I don't actually need to work. It's basically semi-retirement at that point.

>>29018889
No. Another way of thinking about this is that your probability of pulling another gold from the first box is 100% and from the second box is 0%, but your probability of having selected your first ball from the box with 2 gold balls to begin with is 2/3, not 1/2.

>>29018992
moving violations are specifically not crimes
speeding is not a crime
distracted driving is not a crime
committing unintentional vehicular manslaughter because you were distracted or speeding is a crime

>>29019040
The initial conditions are irrelevant since you changed the conditions by taking the first ball, you remove one box from the pool of possible answers by the time you ask the question

File: sUDbpx.gif (2.07 MB, 320x240)

2.07 MB GIF

>>29019040
The probability of pulling a gold ball first is 100% because it happens in the setup of the question.

>>29019047
The probability of having taken your first gold ball from the box with two gold balls was not 50%, it was 2/3. It is relevant.

>>29019051
How does it feel telling someone to read when you're wrong? Maybe you should try it too my nigga.

>>29019061
Read the prompt again, it states that you have already pulled out a gold ball.

>>29019064
Yes. What was the probability of that past event? Feel free to read my post again.

>>29019077
>Yes. What was the probability of that past event?
100%, because that's the premise of the question. It has already happened. You are holding one of the gold balls in your hand. What is the probability of pulling another one from the same box?

Why bother with a test? Just say white men can drive, no one else. That will have the same result.

>>29019090
If you think it's 1/2, you do not understand probability. It's called Bertrand Box Paradox for a reason.

>>29019090
Dear Mr. Anon,
We regret to inform you that your driver license renewal application has been rejected. Reason: unsatisfactory exam score - intelligence and reasoning. You may attempt the exam again in 14 days.

Best regards,
DMV

>>29019114
You have already pulled a gold ball, meaning you have pulled from box 1 or 2. The next ball will come from the same box. Whether or not the next ball you pull is gold depends on whether you first pulled from box 1 or 2. Each is equally likely.

GG GG GS SG SS SS are the possible outcomes drawing from the boxes. If you draw one gold, there are only 3 outcomes where that's possible - GG GG GS. The second G has a 2/3 chance of happening from the remaining outcomes.

>>29018799
>lottery odds are 50/50 you either win it or you dont
>therefore just buy 2 lottery tickets :)
>>29018831
pic is not related and i dont really care about the idea of IQ tests for driving, i just wanted to rile up the legally retarded on /o/ - Auto
>>29018889
there are two ways to pick a gold ball from box 1 vs only one way to pick a gold ball from box 2
>>29019124
>since there are two outcomes to playing the lottery, either winning or not winning, the odds of winning the powerball is 50/50
people like you keep casinos in business

This is just a shit Monty Hall problem

>>29019278
It's the predecessor. This low-quality thread was made in bad faith, trying to stir conflict with the topic not being related to cars at all. If you wanted to talk about your newest wikipedia discovery, OP, you could have just made a thread about it on /sci/.

File: 7q54TIA.gif (667 KB, 400x225)

667 KB GIF

>force the passing of an IQ test as part of driving exams
very retarded and american POV
the poorer countries have a way better system that already works
the "knowledge test's" (that in US is a small set of extremely easy bullshit questions) proper form is a much much wider set of questions with most designed to include gotchas, and which cover way larger area, including the very "mathematical" definition of what a lane/intersection is, which enables you to know their precise borders even without road marks, including basics of first aid and few other areas that are omitted even from official state driving exam handbooks
the "driving test's" proper form is an extremely strict exam where the instructor looks at your eyes too and can fail you for shit like not checking the mirror adjustment before starting the car or not looking over your shoulder when you change lanes despite you knowing that the lane is empty or slightly going over a solid white line; you'll need to cross all the t's and dot all the i's during the driving that are legally required or instructor fails you
you either learn how to do ALL of that or you pay a bribe

>>29019461
Extremely retarded post

>>29013562
Disparate impact in the 1991 extension of the Civil Rights Act makes gating anything except private clubs by IQ illegal because black people do poorly on IQ tests.

>>29019040
>but your probability of having selected your first ball from the box with 2 gold balls to begin with is 2/3, not 1/2.
Are you fucking retarded?

>>29013660
IQ is correlated with many factors related to driving, including but not limited to reaction time

>>29018827
>I’ve maxed a government issued test and have never made half the poverty line
IQ is not a guarantee of success
it is (almost always) necessary but not sufficient

>>29013562
50%

>>29013562
>Let's face it
garbage thread
>iq tests for licenses
good premise

>>29020200
>box A contains 1000 gold balls
>box B contains 1 gold ball and 999 silver balls
>but I have the same 0.5 probability of pulling a gold ball from either one cus there's like two boxes dude
>and then if I draw a second it's still 0.5 since uhh like there's two
The greentext is you btw.
How would you feel if you hadn't eaten breakfast? Can you spin an apple in your head?

>>29013562
You should have to take an IQ test in order to be able to live in a White country.

Just popped into this thread, what I see is:
>>29020726
>Discovered it recently from a youtube video or website
>Acts like a "super genius" on an anonymous image board for looking it up
Can you wipe your ass without googling?

>>29018780
You are retarded. You are assuming if you chose the double gold box that you can only pick up one specific gold ball, and not either.

Think of it this way:
Box one has one gold ball with the number 1 and one gold ball with the number 2. The other box has a gold ball with the number 3. Does that change your logic? It should, unless you are an absolute midwit.
You will not always grab the #1 ball from the double gold box, meaning there are two events that can happen WITH JUST THAT BOX. You could grab #1 first, leave #2 there. You can grab #2 first, leaving #1 there. Finally, you can grab #3 in the other box.
Just because both balls are gold in one box does not mean they are the same event.

>>29013568
66%
You have a 1/6 chance of picking any of the balls.
We are told the grey balls are gone, throw them out.
Its now 1/3 chance per balls.
2 of them satisfy criteria, 66%

Pretty much all probability theory comes down to counting in some way. Break things down into a set of 'events' that account for all possibilities & count.

File: 1778509510072023.png (54 KB, 1200x667)

54 KB PNG

>>29013562
The fact you initially pulled out a gold ball means there higher chance of your box being the one with 2 gold balls

It's that shrimple

>>29013562
>Driving is not a fundamental human right and therefore
talking like this is an indicator you dont know what youre talking about.
Youre basically confessing that you lack life experience & are therefore unqualified to render judgement.
You sound educated, but youve been educated by unreliable sources. Sorry.

>>29019124
whatever color you initially pull has a higher chance of coming from a box that contains only that color

Stat problem aside, as usual, people in this thread misunderstand IQ. IQ is not simply an intelligence quotient. It's an intelligence quotient of different categories, and it varies depending on which scale (WAIS, Stanford-Binet, etc).
So yes, there are some components in certain tests that are applicable to driving, like WAIS has a processing speed category, and Stanford-Binet has a visual-spatial processing category.
However, since it's only a component of the whole score, it is very possible for someone to be a fucking retard and still be a great driver. Like many people above seemingly have zero quantitative reasoning, but, assuming they're decent drivers, probably have high visual-spatial processing. Scoring 150 in the latter and 50 in the former averages out to 100, so a seemingly dumb person could be just fine at driving, maybe even great (and in reality, there are more than just two categories of any IQ test and most are not too relevant to driving, so it'd be more like 75, 75, 75, 75, 120 = IQ of an actual retard at 84 but still potentially a good driver).

>>29020740
>Just popped into this thread, what I see is:
Please try to make your samefagging less obvious
>Discovered it recently from a youtube video or website
I get that "two desired out of three total outcomes = 2/3" is definitely something that a person like you needs to look up, I guess we can't all be sentient. How'd you even manage to solve the captcha, by the way?

>>29020765
You had to google it. xD

>>29020767
Since the problem is so easy to look up, what's everyone else's excuse?

>>29020769
I already had seen the answer online, much like the 3-door problem. Because of this I'm not going to act like I magically came up with the answer because I never got a crack at it.

>>29013562
50/50 chance, you’ve already taken out an gold ball so that eliminates one of the boxes.
>IQ test
the test questions are already slimy poorly framed BS as it is.

>>29020774
Acting like coming up with this answer independently is "magic" has me howling. Surely no man is smart enough to outwit such a wickedly paradoxical and arcane problem on his first try, my head is spinning just thinking about 2 divided by 3 again!

File: venturi atlantique.jpg (254 KB, 1800x1050)

254 KB JPG

>>29020797
>I'm so smart, everyone pay attention to meee!!!
You looked it up, bud. And your only retort is me using hyperbolic language.

People like >>29013790 exist to waste the time of people like >>29013780 who know they will sit and take the time to correct them to deplete their energy. If you know the right answer then you know. Do not interact.

>>29020751
And so, since you have already pulled a gold ball, there is a 100% chance you are in either box 1 or box 2

>>29021046
It could just be tested. [googles]
It has been, many times, with people and software both. That's good enough for me.

>>29017187
>stupid people can be successful and get rich
lmao, no. If a stupid person gets rich, it's not some toss-of-the-coin thing. It means they already started out rich and got richer, because rich people are allowed to fail upward.

>>29021053
I can all but guarantee there are stupid people that yolo'd every penny they had into some crypto/nft shit and managed to get out before the dump

>>29018233
>if they are in front of you, that makes them better than you.
It's not even a NASCAR thing, just an American "rugged individuality" thing. An unspoken need to be ahead of as many people as possible, regardless of any actual benefit. It's the same mentality behind retards who crowd the elevator doors and try to get in as soon as they open without letting anyone out, first. Most Americans are niggers, regardless of the color of their skin.

File: getgood.jpg (137 KB, 565x584)

137 KB JPG

>>29021060
sounds like you're too slow

>>29018930
Monty Hall isn't dumb. It's perfectly logical. If you had a million doors to pick from, with one win door and 999,999 lose doors, and then after you picked your door they eliminated 999,998 lose doors such that the only remaining doors were the one you picked and one other door, you would swap every time. It's not different when there are only 3 doors.

>>29018956
Whenever we did these in school I thought they were supposed to work in all directions like a proper matrix and not just left-to-right with each line being its own entity so I always did really poorly.

>>29018992
>States are implementing a double whammy where driving without insurance is getting increasingly criminalized
lmao nothing is enforced at all post-2020

File: n0o7n822xasa1.jpg (67 KB, 874x982)

67 KB JPG

>>29021072

>>29018474
You aren't reading the problem correctly. We don't start by picking a ball at random, we start by picking a box at random. The conditions of picking a BOX at and random and then picking a gold ball result in a 50% chance of having chosen the box with two gold balls.
The OP image is a troll image with the "pick a box at random" line added for the lulz.

Brainlets still think it's 1/2 kek

>>29021293
The actual pstatement for the Bertrand box problem begins with selecting a ball at random, the problem simplified is "what is the probability that a gold ball selected is in box 21?". The answer is obviously 2/3 as of the three gold balls, two are in box #1.
This one begins with selecting a box at random, the question simplified to "what is the probability that a box containing at least one gold ball is box #1?" The answer is obviously 1/2, as two boxes contain at least one gold ball and one of them is box #1.

>>29021386
>pstatement
statement
>box 21
box #1
that's what I get for phoneposting

>>29013828
No because i didnt fuck ya mudda last night

File: 5aea7f24414403.56333cdc70524.jpg (35 KB, 1024x670)

35 KB JPG

>>29021210
>lmao nothing is enforced at all post-2020
States are starting to make this automated. You pass by a cop with ALPR while driving? Cop doesn't have to do anything, the system sees you're driving without insurance and you get a notice in the mail that your license will be canceled if you don't show up to the courthouse within 30 days with proof of new insurance and a $300-500 fine.

>>29021821
>your license will be canceled
That would be a meaningful threat if traffic law didn't stop being enforced in 2020.