Any time you laugh, you win

[JR 137]

 

[Steve]

View attachment 22987

I think burning man is going to be one hell of a party once this is over.

 

[_Simon_]

 

[Steve]

 

[_Simon_]

 

[jobo]

View attachment 23129

yea but there but this is not a 90% risk, for the first example

its hard to say what is is exaxtly but its certainly in single figures

 

[JR 137]

 

[Steve]

yea but there but this is not a 90% risk, for the first example

its hard to say what is is exaxtly but its certainly in single figures

I applaud you for saying "hard to say... exactly" and "certainly in single figures" in the same sentence without a trace of irony. Bravo.

 

[Steve]

 

[jobo]

I applaud you for saying "hard to say... exactly" and "certainly in single figures" in the same sentence without a trace of irony. Bravo.

in single figures is inexactly,

its 5 % pl us or minus 4 if you want it exact

 

[Steve]

in single figures is inexactly,

its 5 % pl us or minus 4 if you want it exact

Depends on the scale, if we're being precise.

 

[jobo]

Depends on the scale, if we're being precise.

1 to 100, thats general how percentages work

 

[Steve]

1 to 100, thats general how percentages work

To what decimal? I mean, are we talking 9.99% or 9.999%? What if the risk is actually 10.001%? How are we measuring risk? As I said... depends on the scale.

In related news, I think it's fascinating to see how you think about things. While most people understand that it's a joke, if anything, they would rightly point out that there's no way to accurately quantify the risk... so 90% vs 30% etc. Numbers taken out of thin air, really. Too many variable to quantify, even if the order of the relative risk is accurate. I mean, most people just get that this is not a scientific scale.

Not you, though. You're like, "Hard to say... for some people. But not for me! It's definitely single digits. Yeah!" You survey the terrain and say, "This... this is the hill I will die on."

 

[jobo]

To what decimal? I mean, are we talking 9.99% or 9.999%? What if the risk is actually 10.001%? How are we measuring risk? As I said... depends on the scale.

In related news, I think it's fascinating to see how you think about things. While most people understand that it's a joke, if anything, they would rightly point out that there's no way to accurately quantify the risk... so 90% vs 30% etc. Numbers taken out of thin air, really. Too many variable to quantify, even if the order of the relative risk is accurate. I mean, most people just get that this is not a scientific scale.

Not you, though. You're like, "Hard to say... for some people. But not for me! It's definitely single digits. Yeah!" You survey the terrain and say, "This... this is the hill I will die on."

to one decimal, thats what single figure means???

5.1 is not single figure, go figure

 

[JR 137]

 

[JR 137]

 

[JR 137]

@jobo and @Steve
I hope you both realize the picture and percentages you’re arguing over are a joke.

 

[Steve]

@jobo and @Steve
I hope you both realize the picture and percentages you’re arguing over are a joke.
View attachment 23136

I thought it was banter. I mean, if I'm scripting out dialogue, things are getting pretty silly.

 

[Steve]

@jobo and @Steve
I hope you both realize the picture and percentages you’re arguing over are a joke.
View attachment 23136

 

[Steve]

View attachment 23135

Reminds me of a video from our local news station, Q13. I saw this live and laughed so hard my stomach hurt: