Since I barely drive, don't own a car, and hope to remain car-free my entire life, I really hope the hope held out in the housing article for better transportation and more walkable housing in the future is fulfilled.
I worry a bit about whether wherever I move when I'm done grad school will be navigable without a car - or perhaps rather, I wonder how much my options about which academic jobs to take will be confined by whether carless life is possible in that location.
What's funny, of course, is that if it's the sort of lotto I think it is, your odds are best with the computer-generated numbers - the ticket people were first to give up and least encouraged to take.
I know, you are about to say that the odds are the same, but no, they're not. Because in most lottos if two people both have the winning numbers, they share the jackpot. And if you chose "your favorite numbers" then they are probably biased toward the sorts of numbers humans tend to select when picking lotto numbers. The random ticket chosen by someone else likely has the same bias. The computer-generated ticket has the same chance of winning, but a lower chance of splitting the winnings if it wins, and thus has a greater potential rate of return.
I'd have gladly swapped my favorite numbers for two computer-generated tickets.
I know, you are about to say that the odds are the same, but no, they're not. Because in most lottos if two people both have the winning numbers, they share the jackpot. And if you chose "your favorite numbers" then they are probably biased toward the sorts of numbers humans tend to select when picking lotto numbers. The random ticket chosen by someone else likely has the same bias. The computer-generated ticket has the same chance of winning, but a lower chance of splitting the winnings if it wins, and thus has a greater potential rate of return.
Wasn't it last year or the year before, dozens of people won the lottery because they all got the same "lucky numbers" in their fortune cookies?
Similarly, there was a sequence of numbers in the programme Lost which work as lottery numbers. They're a very, very bad idea to pick because you'll be sharing the wealth with a looot of other fans.
In the princess one, ande2994 has got it. This is real William wants a doll territory. Certain colors and styles are forbidden to boys and men in this society. And they talk about male privilege.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2010-10-26 09:01 pm (UTC)I worry a bit about whether wherever I move when I'm done grad school will be navigable without a car - or perhaps rather, I wonder how much my options about which academic jobs to take will be confined by whether carless life is possible in that location.
no subject
Date: 2010-10-26 06:28 pm (UTC)I know, you are about to say that the odds are the same, but no, they're not. Because in most lottos if two people both have the winning numbers, they share the jackpot. And if you chose "your favorite numbers" then they are probably biased toward the sorts of numbers humans tend to select when picking lotto numbers. The random ticket chosen by someone else likely has the same bias. The computer-generated ticket has the same chance of winning, but a lower chance of splitting the winnings if it wins, and thus has a greater potential rate of return.
I'd have gladly swapped my favorite numbers for two computer-generated tickets.
no subject
Date: 2010-10-26 06:29 pm (UTC)Wasn't it last year or the year before, dozens of people won the lottery because they all got the same "lucky numbers" in their fortune cookies?
no subject
Date: 2010-10-26 06:32 pm (UTC)I guess the cake is a lie, but the cookie speaks the truth.
no subject
Date: 2010-10-27 12:11 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-10-27 01:27 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-10-26 06:30 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-10-26 09:17 pm (UTC)