Aye :'(

I did cry - but in retrospect it was also the day after the worst political defeat of my life so there were a lot of tensions running high.

Huh. I really liked this show and cried my way through the last episode. I loved the fact that no character ever tried to keep a secret and everyone was completely open and sensible about their decisions - Molly immediately told people she was pregnant with space baby. They told Ethan he was wired to blow. I thought…

That is so bizarre - some of the best maths classes I remember are when the whole class had to puzzle over why something wasn't working - teacher included!

I'm really hoping it's my accent or dialogue that had me saying 'wugsss' and not the fact I have the mental capacity of a two year old

Hell, even this dedicated career girl could end up taking her kids to Marvel blockbusters . . . I made myself sad.

It was going to have a huge multi-series arc too.

And I was going to tell him something pretty.

I'd sacrifice every TV show ever* for more Deadwood, but I admit I have a problem.

When the insomniacs see someone sleeping, they fly into an uncontrollable rage and want to tear that person apart with their bare hands.

I know I go on about this a lot in HG related posts, but the Hunger Games is really ALL about family and community, and to what extent you can compromise family and community for political ideals. I don't really think that's a capitalist message at all. If anything it's almost apolitical, because the Hunger Games…

Orgasm just kinda tells the guy when to stop.

Indeed - also, excellent gif usage, shall borrow.

Yes - Gibbelin's comment upthread pointed out the flaw in my thinking there. Now I get it it seems very obvious! Thanks for your explanation though!

I get you! Thanks :)

But if the distribution of the double-condition population is larger than the single condition populations then that's not the case.

This helps only if the examples are neutral - but if you're supplying an example where the x and y conditions are linked by prior experience (regardless of whether that assumption is correct) you are not comparing two examples with equal probability.

I'm still not getting it - there IS a practical difference in terms of assessing probability between the neutral and stereotyped example. Stereotypes provide extra information (regardless of the accuracy of that information) and so by providing extra information you're changing the parameters of the model. Therefore…

Surely a better example is:

Oh come now. That is a terribly tragic incident but not equivalent to a war that is displacing thousands of people.