If it’s a CRUD app and slower than the network, it is a dogshit app. Both the app and the webpage should be exactly as fast, since it should be waiting for the network for most of the time.

The cache is not magic though. It doesn’t work for the first visit, and it doesn’t last forever. Some clients might not even use a cache. I don’t know if this is the case, but if the cache is validated to be recent (an HTTP HEAD request or whatever) that’s still a round trip to the server.

That sounds like a shit app. I just don’t use those. And if I have to use them, it’s rarely enough that they fall into browser’s scope.

Of course a good website can beat a shit app. But there’s no way that you can build a website that’s faster than a good app.

First of all, because your website has to run on an actual app, called a web browser. Additionally, you can’t magically remove the initial load time to fetch resources from the server. Those resources are already on your phone on the app so it’s instantaneous.

I’m not a child. But I already have an entire OS running on my phone. Why would I run a browser on top (with all of its UI clutter) so I can use an app.

If I’m going to use an app often, for more than a couple minutes each time, I’m gonna use an app. If I’m just visiting a site for the first time, or I’m just going to stay there a couple seconds (search engines), I’m using the web browser.

Browsers are for browsing the web. Apps (run by the OS, not by a web browser) are for doing things.

They don’t let me choose a password longer than 6 characters. I don’t assume anything about my bank’s security.

No security measure is perfect. When doing security-sensitive things, it’s better to wait when you’re home on an uncompromised network.

But yes, the chances of something happening is very small, even when using an unknown network.

HTTPS solved much of the security issues of untrusted networks. As long as you’re not doing banking or whatever, you should be fine without a VPN.

Not for me :( got “bad” and “is still” the other way around at first

Safety rules are written in blood. When you spend at least 8hours/day doing the same thing, even if that thing has a very small chance of generating an accident, that’s a lot of time spent doing something risky. Everyone has bad days, any one of those could kill you/severely injure you if you don’t take safety protocols seriously.

I tried to answer but idk why Lemmy failed to post it, so I’ll make a tldr instead.

TLDR:

Instead of reasoning I used actual statistics equations and you are correct: the chance in the coins case is 1/3.

However, I was misguided assuming that both the “girl and boy” problem and “coins” problem are the same, when in fact they are not.

In the “coins” case, the statement “at least one of them is heads” has a probability of 3/4. In the “girl and boy” case, the statement “the child that opened the door was a boy” has a probability of 1/2.

You didn’t eliminate BG and GB where a girl opens the door though. If you do that, then the answer is 50%. Because you remove half the probability from BG and GB and you remove none from BB.

I know you didn’t eliminate those cases because you said “That leaves us with 3 possibilities with equal probabilities”. That would be false, BB is twice as likely.

You can’t just end the experiment if the randomly chosen child doesn’t “fit the parameters”, by doing that you aren’t accounting for half the girls in the whole event pool. Half of the girls have siblings that are girls.

Being 2 girls was a possible event at the start, you can’t just remove it. This time it happened to be a boy who opened the door, but it could’ve been as likely for a girl to open it.

If it was phrased like “there are 2 siblings, only boys can open doors. Of all the houses that opened their doors, how many have a girl in them?”, then it will be 2/3. In this example, there is an initial pool of events, then I narrowed down to a smaller one (with less probability). If you “just” eliminate the GG scenario, then the set of events got smaller without reducing the set’s probability.

If you simulate it like that, it leads to a contradiction.

According to the problem, 2 coins are flipped, and we all agree that it leads to an event pool of {TT,TH,HT,HH}, where all 4 events are equally as likely.

In the simulation, however, you just ignore the “TT” situation, which leads to a total event pool of {HT,TH,HH}. Where all events are equally likely.

The way the problem was phrased was “2 coin flips happen, and I have a machine that tells me either if both are Tails or not, this time it turns out that there is at least 1 heads”. But the way you simulated it is “I will make coinflips until I have at least 1 heads”.

deleted by creator

Again, you are assuming that every occurrence has the same chance. When in fact, they have not. There are 3 random events happening here:

1. Flip of one coin (50% chance each)
2. Flip of the other coin (50% chance each)
3. The coin that you told me (let’s say it’s 50% nickel 50% dime for simplicity’s sake)

Also, I am assuming that these 3 events are completely unrelated. That is, the result of a coin flip won’t determine whether you tell me the nickel or dime. A complete list of events is as follows:

T T N

T T D

H T N

H T D

T H N

T H D

H H N

H H D

After telling me that one of them is heads, the list is as follows:

H T D

T H N

H H D

H H N

H H is 50% chance, and the sum of HT + TH is the other 50%

deleted by creator

You assume that the probability of TH = HT = HH

When In fact, the probabilities are as follows:

P(HT)+P(TH) = 50% P(HH) = 50%

For all the probabilities being equal, you’d have to consider 4 cases:

HT, TH, HH (1) and HH (2).

The difference between HH (1) and HH (2) is which one you were told that was heads.

Then P(HH) = P(HH (1)) + P(HH (2)) = 2/4 = 50%

Python also has about 9000 alternatives that are better than this.

Allowing anything other than variables, number literals, and ‘:’ inside list indices was a mistake.

The fascist party (VOX) got almost 10% of votes last elections. The right-wing party (PP) got almost 40%.

Not all the fascists vote VOX though, many vote PP. So the amount of fascists is somewhere between 10% and almost 50%. Depending on how fascist you deem PP. 25% is not too far fetched.