• “I never gamble. Not in a million years.”

    “I bet I can get you to gamble by the end of the day.”

    “You’re on!”

    “Ha! I don’t know how I’m gonna get you, but I’ll figure something out before the day is over, just you wait.”

      • piracy_is_good_xdd@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 months ago
        • Imagine a group of people
        • You look around and notice that there are no ghosts in that group of people
        • Now you need to check if you are a ghost, which you can’t check
        • Therefore, it’s statistically likely that you are a ghost if nobody you know is a ghost
        • voldage@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          3 months ago

          But that would only work under assumption that in any group of people at least one of them has to be a ghost, or at the very least the chance that there is a ghost in a group of people is greater than 0, right? Is it something about the chance of someone being a ghost being truly unknown, and thus all possible values of probability being taken as equally rational, and with infinite number of possible values for probability of someone being a ghost for infinite number of them observing that no one in a group of people you’re in is a ghost… No, that wouldn’t work either, because it would require an assumption that this specific group of people might have a ghost among them. Assuming anyone can be a ghost with unknown probability still only works when the group you’re observing is entire population, does it not? Limiting it to specific group of people relies on it being representative of entire population, and random groups are not. Especially if you were to be a ghost, that would already make a group you’re in rather unique. Or not, depending on what’s the unknown value of probability of someone being a ghost.

          I mean, what???

      • ✺roguetrick✺@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        So first, 👻s obviously are real because everybody has always believed in 👻s. Since we can take that as a given, we can also logically assume that 👻s are a significant portion of sentient minds. If you don’t know any 👻s, then statistically speaking, it is much more likely for you to be the 👻 in the sample size of the 👯👯‍♂️👯‍♀️ you know.

    • dwindling7373@feddit.it
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      Classic joke getting chewed by the hivemind into some kind of collective permanent epiphany about how much brighter we all are compared to online strangers.

        • Sk1ll_Issue@feddit.nl
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          3 months ago

          If you’ve ever dealt with addiction or know someone who has, it’s not obvious. People will go to great lengths to convince themselves they don’t have a problem.

  • LaunchesKayaks@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    My old boss spent all day gambling on his phone and talking about buying a Corvette.

    Dude still lived with (mooched) off his mom and paid no bills. He makes, last time I checked, 80k/year for doing fuck all. He has his underlings done everything.

    Dude lives a shit existence lol

  • son_named_bort@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    As Kenny Rogers said, you got to know when to hold em and so on. I haven’t finished the song yet, but I’m pretty sure it supports this guy.

  • Raglesnarf@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    I see comments/posts like this all the time for drinking and gambling on TikTok and idk why but they always get a laugh out of me. I guess it’s just so stupid/goofy? idk I like what I like