[bi/pan/queer] [pisces] [they/them] also CalicoTomcat on Ao3
-
The landscape is your eyes.
-
-
“Stop saying 15 year olds with weird interests are cringe, they’re 15” this is true however you should also stop saying adults with weird interests are cringe because who gives a shit
To wit:
I want to share some wisdom from my high school art teacher.
In my AP Art class, there was a girl who was just starting to experiment with mixed media. At this point she was still playing around, trying to decide what direction she wanted to go with her portfolio. So one critique day, she brought in an abstract canvas with some rhinestone highlights and painted and real peacock feathers. She loved sparkles and peacock feathers so she thought she’d try introducing them a *little*. And after everyone had given some input, the teacher gave her his advice, VERY roughly paraphrased here:
“So here’s the thing… I do not like this style. These are just elements that do not speak to me personally, but I see that you like them, and you’re doing interesting things with them.
“My biggest critique is, I only merely *dislike* this piece. I want you to make me HATE it. Go crazy with the things that you like. Don’t hold back trying to make it palatable to people like me. Because I am NEVER going to like it. And if the audience does not like it, it should drive them crazy seeing how much YOU love it.”
Her portfolio was chock full of neon colors and glitter and rhinestones and splashes of peacock feathers and it was a delight. Our teacher despised every piece lol, but she got great marks and I think even won some awards. And more importantly, she was happy and proud of the results. Because she didn’t limit herself by trying to appeal to people who were never going to enjoy what she enjoyed.
Takeaway here: be as cringe as you want. Don’t limit yourself based on other ppl’s tastes. They’re not you, and you are incredible 💕
-
For the first time since she was introduced 34 years ago…
Princess Daisy is a playable character in a mainline mario title.
That’s actually the result of an internal rule set by Nintendo back in the 90s. Google “Princess Daisy rule 34” to learn more.
(via prokopetz)
-
1987.
Star Trek: The Immoral Generation.
I hope Lee and Debbie were as upset by the racism in Code of Honor and the misogyny in Angel One as they were about the sex in Justice. WHERE THEY ARE NOTABLY NOT UPSET THAT THE FUTURE BEST ENSIGN IN STARFLEET IS SENTENCED TO DEATH FOR THE UNFORGIVABLE CRIME OF STEPPING ON FRESHLY PLANTED FLOWERS.
(via wilwheaton)
-
Casual reminder that The Washington Post is owned by Nash Holdings, which is controlled by good ol’ Jeffery Bezos.
Was going to keep this in the tags BUT I think it’s important people understand that sturgeon caviar is only a luxury in the first place because of colonization. Anishanabae and other Great Lakes area tribes (and I’m sure more I’m just speaking where I am from) have been fishing Sturgeon for literally thousands of years. Besides consuming the fish eggs and meat we also made glue from its bladder, bags from its skin and used the oil from the fish as well. Sturgeon is important to many of our tribes traditionally and spiritually. So much so we even have Clans in honor of the Sturgeon. Than European settler-colonizers showed up and like they decimated Buffalo populations to starve Natives they did similarly with Sturgeon. When they pushed our people onto reservations they also created laws and legislation to keep us from fishing and hunting in our own ancestral lands. Than they built fisheries and Damns, destroying habitats and overfishing sturgeon to near extinction.
a lot of people in the notes are saying “this is the opposite of what happened with Lobster” so I wanted to point out that no it is actually exactly what happened to lobster.
(via origami-penguin)
-
I spent a good chunk of my weekend scrambling to finish this comic. I hope you like it. I was really trying to push myself with the colours.
(via origami-penguin)
-
I generally consider myself a fairly grounded person, but when I manage to biff a dice roll with an 85% chance of success seven times in a row, I can’t help but start to wonder.
Like, rationally I know it’s just because I’m making a huge number of rolls, and the questions “what are the odds of flipping a coin five times and getting five heads?” and “given a thousand sequential coin flips, what are the odds that a run of five consecutive heads appears somewhere in the resulting sequence?” have very different answers, but in the moment the second one feels a whole lot like the first!
OP are you making a million dice rolls? This is super unlucky. I’m blanking on how many rolls you’d need to have even odds of that happening - back in a day or so -
Funnily enough, owing to the tracking features of the dice-rolling software I’m using I can actually give you an exact answer to that: at the time of this posting, I have made that specific 85%-chance-of-success roll 14 987 times.
(I could probably come up with the formula for the odds of a run of seven consecutive failures appearing in 14 987 rolls, but ultimately I’m not sufficiently invested in the answer to feel like working for it.)
I don’t know if there’s a simple formula. Having thought for a few hours on this, all I can come up with is to do it recursively.
I’m going to model it as a coin that’s 85% heads and 15% tails, and you’ve flipped tails 7 times in a row. Say H=0.85 and T=0.15. The chance of just straight flipping 7 tails in a row is T^7, and out of 15000 flips it could be flips 1 through 7, or 2 through 8, etc… but you can’t just add up T^7 a bunch of times. That’s overcounting - it’s possible that you get it on flips 1 through 7 and 2 through 8, and adding separately counts that outcome twice. Or, for that matter, you could get a 10-streak of 1 through 10, or you might get five separate streaks of 7… .
(You probably already know all this - this wordy background is for anyone who finds it helpful!)
I think it’s easier to calculate the chance of doing 15000 flips and not getting 7 tails in a row. And this is… still not straightforward, but I think it can be done recursively.
Math notation ahoy! P(n) will be the chance of not getting 7 tails in a row in n flips.
- P(1) through P(6) are all 1: you have a 100% of not getting 7 tails if you have 6 or fewer flips.
- P(7) is everything except the chance of getting TTTTTTT (all tails), in other words, 1 - T^7.
- P(8) is everything except HTTTTTTT, TTTTTTTH, and TTTTTTTT, in other words, 1 - H*T^7 - T^7*H - T^8.
Ok! Now we’re going to figure out P(n+1) based on P(n) and below. In other words, let’s say we’ve recorded 100 coin flips, and got no streaks of 7 tails in a row. Can we use this to figure out P(101)?
This part is a bit fuzzy - I may have some errors in here (please correct me if you find some!) I think that there are two cases that are important:
- Your first 100 flips do not end in TTTTTT (6 tails), and so the 101st flip can be either heads or tails, and either way is fine.
- Your first 100 flips do end in TTTTTT, and so the last flip must be H.
In case 2, the last flips actually need to be HTTTTTT (1 head followed by 6 tails), or it would not be part of P(100) which represents getting to 100 without getting 7 tails in a row. So the probability of case 2 coming up is P(93)*H*T^6. Since the 94th flip is H, I believe the first 93 flips can be anything (so long as they don’t have 7 tails in a row).
In case 1… that’s the rest of P(100). It’s all the ways of getting to 100 flips that aren’t in case 2, so the probability of case 1 coming up is P(100) - P(93)*H*T^6.
Time to put the full answer together. All we’re missing is the last flip. In case 1, the last flip can be anything, and in case 2, the last flip has to be H. So, all together!
P(101) = (case1 * 1) + (case2 * H)
= [ P(100) - P(93)*H*T^6 ] + [ P(93)*H*T^6 * H]
= P(100) - (1-H)*P(93)*H*T^6.One last step. This is the probability of never having 7 tails, so the probability of getting a streak of 7 tails in 101 flips is 1 - P(101).
I believe the general step is the same as the 101st step, so
P(n+1) = P(n) - (1-H)*P(n-7)*H*T^6.—
I messily wrote up this formula in https://www.online-python.com/:
You can just barely see me calling the function with a value of 15000, representing 15000 coin flips. And it came out as:
If my math is right, your chance of getting 7 tails in a row within 15000 flips is a bit over 2%. Fairly unlucky still, but not vanishingly unlikely!
How many flips would it take to have a 50-50 chance of getting 7 tails in a row at some point? I plugged in random values until the output was about 0.5, and 480000 flips is close.
Reblogging this one for being the only attempt that shows its work and doesn’t fall into the naïve solution’s overcounting trap. Congrats!
Theme: Linear by Peter Vidani