Jerry_Atrick

Dolly Parton has passed away aged 80.. in very long article on the ABC news website, it only mentioned health issues. SWMBO will be devastated

Just got a call from the shop. Apparently the connectors on the loom side of the regulator were knackered (though I thought I checked them... so when I pick up the bike I will see what I missed).. And also, the new regulator itself is a dud. So they are taking a video of it so I can use as evidence to get my £ back... The company that supplied me the regulator should be OK with it though, as the shop is replacing it with one from the same company I purchased from and they have good reputation. Regulator won't arrive until tomorrow and I will not be able t collect until Thursday afternoon... So to London by train this time.

I thought I would ask the question of ChatGPT. Here is the link of the question and answer. https://chatgpt.com/share/6a8d541b-5b14-83ed-b954-fe3fef4f12b3 Not much in it.

The bike went to its next mechanic yesterday. I spoke to the mechanic looking at it, and he was a little stumped. He thinks it may be the stator though as he has a hunch whatever is happening is happening with "random regularity" rather than just intermittently. Today he will be pulling out the stator and putting it through a "sniff test". Apparently, a single wind can be on its way out and cause all sorts of mayhem.

Sounds like drinkable yoghurt.

Drop the prompt/question answer verbatim in here - would be very interesting

Actually, I know many Aussies who lived in the UK because they could earn more here and regularly send money to Aus mostly to buy a house. Most have moved back to Aus

BTW, you can replace drawing balls in an entry with this bit of python code: import secrets def draw_numbers(): return sorted(secrets.SystemRandom().sample(range(1, 45), 6)) print(draw_numbers()) That is it..

The outcome is totally random - yes. As I mentioned, a historical simulation may show a more or less universal distribution of drawn numbers, in which case the odds and the probability would be the same for all practical purposes. However, a historical simulation may show certain combinations of number drawn more often than others material enough to be a pattern or series of patterns emerging that increases the probability of sets of numbers being drawn. The draw is stall random, but the probability - and that is all it is - a probable and no guaranteed - set of drawn numbers may become higher than any old random selection. This could be because of say manufacturing imperfections of the balls where minutely different weight distributions result on some balls being more likely to be scooped than others.. And it could be that the probability if subsequent balls being drawn changes depends on what ball/s were previously drawn for the same reasons. In order to prove it, you would need a lot of data, including that of the factors that we define as determinative to the probability - but without those factors, we can only rely on the historical number draws. Given the permutations and combinations, coming to a single set of numbers likely to be drawn using a historical simulation would improve the probability - but only marginally at best. These simulations predict probable outcomes over various scenarios and normally a confidence level is provided. And it will be a probability map. So for example, it may give a probability for each number of that number being drawn first. For each number, it will give the probability of every other number being drawn second. Then for each number drawn second of the number that was drawn first, it will come up with a probability of each number not drawn yet to be drawn third, and so on. Taking this approach, there are 130m nodes in the map for each number drawn first. So, if 1 is drawn first, there will be a map of 130m possible permutations and combinations. Now multiply by 6 and that is how big the probability map will be. You can use a binary coefficient approach to reduce it, but you attenuate the probability calculation as a result because we don't know the factors that are causing some numbers to be picked more than others. Anyway, for a 6/45 lottery draw, the probability map reaches something like 900m nodes, each with a confidence factor. Of course, if we could pick our numbers just before each number is drawn, we could really improve our probability of winning. But we can't, so the only way to really improve the probability is to try and predict what the first through 6th number is going to be dependent on what we think the first number is going to be. So, in defining our confidence level, we have to look for any other correlations. As we have virtually no other known factors, the only thing I can think of is to look at time based cycles and add that to the algorithm to predict the different potential numbers to draw. And that is the rub. Coming up with one most likely to draw is not really going to to reduce it much; intuitively, I would reckon you need to put around 200k minimum bets on it spread across the different scenarios. And, it is still not guaranteed. I have no idea what the cost of a singe entry is, or 200k entries are against the normal prize value. So, it may be futile.. buit the above is a glimpse of algo trading (well, that would get smashed in the markets.. so I would not recommend it). Now I am rambling as I have had my first wine in 6 months - a Jim Barry McLaren Vale.. and very nice. What impressed me is my local Majestic Wines knew exactly which aisle I was heading for when I entered the shop... I digress. Anyway, chasing the single winning entry will probably not yield too much more likelihood than the basic odds.. it is how you play the probability map.

I currently live under a Ln optional voting and fist past the post system. I am not sure Farage would have been successful given the low voter turnout (44%) delivering him a 27% vote of the total electors in his seat

Sadly, this is as much as a reflection of society as it is of the media. If society didn't watch it, the media wouldn't produce it. Of course, if that is all the media publishes, it leaves people with only a choice not to watch and do something else.. and as creatures of comfort or convenience, people will probably take the idle path.

Of course, no AI or other software can change the odds of winning. But I would argue odds and probability are statistically two different things. The lotto is a totally random selection of 6 or so numbers from 45 (depending which lottery it is you are playing). That gives 1 in 14m-ish odds. We'll leave the system entries out. If you buy a ticket - you have exactly 1 in 14m-ish chances of winning. That is the odds regardless. Assuming you have randomly selected the numbers or say used a child's birthday week in, week out, you are likely to have the same probability as odds. But if you use some sort of historical simulation - especially something like a path-dependent Monte Carlo simulation which assumes randomness in the probability chain, you may detect certain patterns of numbers which come up more often than others. The more data sampling points you have, the more likely these patterns will repeat. However, below a certain threshold, the simulation is meaningless, and you would have to introduce variables into your simulation that you thought were material - that could be simply the combinations of numbers, slight imperfections in the balls that result in certain balls being in the scooping place more often relative to others, the order in which the balls are selected may also change that, the humidity even, etc etc. The point is, with enough historical data, you won't need to observe all those other minutiae factors as the patterns will tell their own story... And you may find, it can better predict the numbers likely to be drawn... and although your odds are exactly the same because it is a totally random draw, your probability of striking it lucky may increase. Of course, because the draw is totally random, it is not fool proof.. But it may say something like, for each number, if it is drawn first, this is the likely set of drawn numbers, and if the number drawn second is x, this is the likely set of following drawn numbers, etc.

I know, but it was funny.

I did rip this off Farcebook (while looking for a cheap and cheerless runabout before getting the next car)