"No one assigns 70% to this statement." (Yes, your friend is an idiot, but that can be remedied, if needed, with a slight modification in the statement)

Already did before reading your comment :D

Deletion restore test

I will delete this comment without trace and another in the regular way. If you see either, please restore it!

Deletion restore test

I will delete this comment in the regular way and another without trace. If you see either, please restore it!

I think you can also delete without a trace, do post authors able to restore that too? (I'd guess no)

(a) 1/3 (b) 1/3

Reasoning is the same as in the standard case: Probability (when used as a degree of belief) expresses the measure of your entanglement with a given hypothetical world. However, it is interesting that in both cases we know what day it is, making this a particularly evil version: Even after Beauty walks out of the experiment their credence still stays 1/3 indefinitely (given it wasn't heads/even in which case beauty will know everything upon waking up on wednesday)!

+white dot is the eye

(And I'm not sure on the tusks)

Overall, i think the tweet goes into my collection of people reporting ai mistakes which are actually examples of the ai outperforming the human.

I hope I'm not the only one who sees an elephant..

Minor thing: If you already use partial derivatives in the post, I don't see why you couldn't have written the one application of lagrange multiplier theorem for the missing part.

The end result is the most elegant formulation of Kelly betting I've seen, however, I will keep using my usual formulation for my betting on prediction markets as that one is, in my opinion, better for quick calculation using only my head than this one.

All B (Yes, I know that variants of eliminativism are not popular here, but I was instructed to answer before reading further)