Wikipedia is not a source. It’s fine to take information from Wikipedia. But if you are doing actual research. You need to cross reference that with the source cited to make sure it’s accurate.

Most Wikipedia pages have their sources listed so you can easily look them up and verify their validity.

If there are no sources cited. You should be cautious.

You seriously need to work on your handwriting. I’m impressed OCR can make out anything at all from that.

This isn’t a OCR problem. This is a you problem. I’m human and I can only make out a few words.

Edit. Assuming it’s yours. Or is this from the scientific article? Regardless. Whoever wrote that needs to go back to third grade and redo their writing exercises.

Sweating makes my body dirty, why the hell does showering in water make it clean???

Like who tf made up that rule? Maybe it’s just different kinds of dirty???

I do not believe in fate.

You should stop assuming things because you’re not very accurate with your assumptions.

Do you want to speculate if the rounds fired are hand loaded or factory made? Maybe this specific batch of rounds had black pepper instead of gunpowder? Maybe the hammer will break just as he’s about to shoot, what are the chances of the executioner having a stroke or an aneurysm? maybe your mom would be your dad if she had balls. And your grandma would be a bike if she had wheels.

I’m not going to debate elementary school level statistics with you. Option A and C both will give you ~33% chance of survival. But for you specifically. I’d recommend option B, for all of our sake.

For instance, in the case of 4/6, one must assume the bullets include 2 sequential empty chambers

No. One must not assume that. You are trying to make all the assumptions that benefit you. A certain bald spot somewhere. A bias in the mechanism that they know about, somehow it’s also about capitalism bla bla bla. You put a lot of effort into purposefully misunderstanding how simple statistics work.

And no. If you survive the first pull. You are LESS likely to survive the second. Not more.

It’s still the same 5/6 chance. But you having to get that chance multiple times in row makes it less likely the longer you go on. And the math will have it so after 6 times. It comes out to about ~33%

How you feel about it on a philosophical level doesn’t change the reality around you.

You can choose which ever option you feel more comfortable with. And that’s ok. But it’s not going to change how statistics work.

How are you looking at ~15k / ~45k and deem that terribly low?

The previous shots do matter. Because for you to even reach the 6:th shot, all previous attempts have to be in your favor.

It’s (5/6) you’ll live each pull. But to reach pull #2 you’ll have to survive the first. To reach pull #3 you have to survive the first 2.

You’re looking at events that have to take place is a specific order. You have to multiply each pull to work out the probability of this event following one of those orders. It will come out to (5/6)^6.

(5/6) is the probability you survive. And ^6 because you have to survive it 6 times.

You’re looking at ~33% of getting empty slots 6 times in a row.

Previous attempts always have a bearing on statistics if things need to happen in a certain order.

That’s not how statistics work.

Leta say you’re on your 6:th shot on option A.

For you to even get there, it requires all previous attempts to be in your favor. You’re looking at events that all have to happen in a favorable order. And that is as follows

5/6 chance you live after the first time. (5/6)^2 chance you live after the second. (Because you have to survive the first) (5/6)^3 chance you live after the third. (Because you have to survive the first AND the second) … and so on until (5/6)^6 ~ 33%

Think about flipping a coin. Do you really think getting 6 heads in a row is 50/50? The coin is “reset” between each flip. But it’s not a 50/50 chance to get 6 heads in a row. If you don’t believe me. Try it and see. According to statistics. It will take you 64 attempts to get 6 heads in a row.

Did you know. That every single year. Millions of people are born that has never heard of Jaguar. Because why would they?

Last time I ever heard someone talk about Jaguar was 20 years ago when they sold their f1 team.

Prior to that. I have not given them as much as a single thought. So yes. Them changing their logo certainly did what it was supposed to do. Get people to talk about Jaguar.

It’s not the first time they’ve made a “drastic” change.

As a matter of. They’ve had a logo similar to this before in the 50’s. With just the word “Jaguar”.

You have the world’s combined knowledge at your fingertips. And you choose to be ignorant and blur out something so stupid as “But it’s the first time they’ve made a change as drastic as this.”

Why would no one recognize it? Hardly the first time they’ve changed their logo.

First step is increasing brand recognition. No one will buy if they don’t know you exist.

You’re all making fun of it but this new style did exactly what it intended to do. Everyone is talking about them now.

Funny enough. Sweden already went through that problem. We call it “Age of Greatness”. (Stormaktstiden)

Basically. Sweden got too big too fast, couldn’t maintain an army large enough to secure everything. If i remember correctly, we couldn’t produce enough food, and we lost a bunch of territory.

Not legal in Sweden. Our “IRS” must also accept the name and deem it legal.

I for one like this. As it stops some very stupid people to name their children some very stupid names. Such as “Adolf Hitler”.

And yes. Someone did try to name their child this and they were appropriately stoped from doing it.

Oh don’t get me wrong. We got living wages for all full time jobs. Including waiters. We just don’t have a minimum wage (officially). It’s sorted out by the unions.

As a European. What are you talking about? That’s certainly not the case in my part of Europe. And we don’t even have a minimum wage. (Officially)

I see. I think I’m starting to understand. It makes sense when you mention that energy has been very cheap.

Why spend money on new windows when the difference in the energy bill is just a few bucks.

Windows like we have? It’s just two panes of glass with a gap between the panes for air to act as an insulant.

Even with plastic windows, you can have two panes with a gap and it will work too.

I believe you. I just really struggle to comprehend that not being standard in parta where you get snow and cold. Or it being considered “extra”. It’s not alien technology. It’s two panes with a gap between them. That’s it.

The US. Got it. Say no more.