![](/static/253f0d9b/assets/icons/icon-96x96.png)
![](https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/5170ed37-415d-42be-a3e7-3edd79eda681.png)
No, for all jobs there is only limited supply. If more people want the job than there are jobs available, some of the people who want the job must necessarily end up not getting the job.
No, for all jobs there is only limited supply. If more people want the job than there are jobs available, some of the people who want the job must necessarily end up not getting the job.
Why the law of large numbers?
I’d think it’s p-hacking. Meaning if he tried out many different combinations, the chances are high he’d eventually come across some which are only correlated by chance. Here’s a related XKCD:
I’m kind of dissatisfied with the answers here. As soon as you talk about actually drawing a line in the real world, the distinction between rational and irrational numbers stops making sense. In other words, the distinction between rational and irrational numbers is a concept that describes numbers to an accuracy that is impossible to achieve in real life. So you cannot draw a line with a clearly irrational length, but neither can you draw a line with a clearly rational length. You can only define theoretical mathematical constructs which can then be classified as rational or irrational, if applicable.
More mathematically phrased: in real life, your line to which you assign the length L will always have an inaccuracy of size x>0. But for any real L, the interval (L-x;L+x) contains both an infinite number of rational and an infinite number of irrational numbers. Note that this is independent of how small the value of x is. This is why I said that the accuracy, at which the concept of rational and irrational numbers make sense, is impossible to achieve in real life.
So I think your confusion stems from mixing the lengths we assign to objects in the real world with the lengths we can accurately compute for mathematical objects that we have created in our minds using axioms and definitions.
When people want to enter a bus, especially a crowded one, it makes a lot more sense to wait for the people who want to get out of the bus to leave first.
This one is so baffling to me, it’s really changed my view of how stupid some people really are. What do they even expect, that the other passengers magically disappear? It’s really not an abstract problem if the other passengers are trying to leave right in front of you. Trying to enter a bus is also not a rare situation, so you’d expect people to understand this at least after the first few times. Unbelievable.
Is this not just a (mildly oversimplified) framing of what psychologists call ego depletion [1]? This appears to be a well-replicated finding. I don’t see any reason to call it “wildly incorrect”.
[1] The strength model of self-control. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2007-18261-013
Edit: After some more research, it looks like the science is inconclusive on ego depletion. So I would not call it “well-replicated”, but also not “wildly incorrect”.
This blog post summarizes the science nicely: https://scopeblog.stanford.edu/2023/10/30/a-conversation-about-the-science-of-willpower/ TL;DR: You can train your willpower. It does act like a limited resource [Edit: Science is inconclusive on this claim]. But most importantly, it is strongly affected by your sleep, nutrition and stress level.
I found that mindfulness meditation was helpful for me. Practically, you can achieve an effect that is similar to having strengthened willpower by organizing your life in such a way that you don’t encounter many temptations in the first place.
Even NDS games should be pretty playable on a phone. Give Heart Gold/Soul Silver a try if you’ve missed it, they’re the best Pokémon games.