16th Sep '15 3:51:54 PM

**CaptainCrawdad** Is there an issue? Send a Message

**Added DiffLines:**

**** Again, Mike knew that the later stages of the plan were bigger long-shots than the early phases right from the beginning. He was calculating the plan's success correctly, those odds would already be factoring in the odds he gave at the beginning.

16th Sep '15 3:45:39 PM

**CaptainCrawdad** Is there an issue? Send a Message

**Changed line(s) 27 (click to see context) from:**

** Mike's original odds were based on his own admittedly insufficient knowledge. As the story progresses, and Mike collects more data, he's able to calculate a more accurate probability.

**to:**

** Mike's original odds were based on his own admittedly insufficient knowledge. As the story progresses, and Mike collects more data, he's able to calculate a more accurate ~~probability.~~probability.
*** I never saw that explanation in the story. The only explanation I saw Mike give for decreasing the odds was that their current step was a bigger long-shot then their previous step, which is not how you calculate the odds as a whole.

26th Feb '15 9:34:53 PM

**desmondwhite** Is there an issue? Send a Message

**Changed line(s) 27 (click to see context) from:**

**** Mike's original odds were based on his own admittedly insufficient knowledge. As the story progresses, and Mike collects more data, he's able to calculate a more accurate probability.

**to:**

26th Feb '15 9:34:19 PM

**desmondwhite** Is there an issue? Send a Message

**Changed line(s) 26 (click to see context) from:**

*** It makes sense to me; every success meant a larger, more powerful organization - which means more things that can go wrong - which means a higher chance of the authorities getting nervous enough to employ overkill. Secrecy was their primary (initially their ''only'') advantage, and every success reduced their level of secrecy: the odds started improving again the moment they had Earth-wide news coverage and could start using public opinion, rather than secrecy, as their principal weapon. Actuary tables sometimes have similar counter-intuitive phenomena.

**to:**

*** It makes sense to me; every success meant a larger, more powerful organization - which means more things that can go wrong - which means a higher chance of the authorities getting nervous enough to employ overkill. Secrecy was their primary (initially their ''only'') advantage, and every success reduced their level of secrecy: the odds started improving again the moment they had Earth-wide news coverage and could start using public opinion, rather than secrecy, as their principal weapon. Actuary tables sometimes have similar counter-intuitive ~~phenomena.~~phenomena.
**** Mike's original odds were based on his own admittedly insufficient knowledge. As the story progresses, and Mike collects more data, he's able to calculate a more accurate probability.

19th Jan '15 9:04:17 PM

**CaptainCrawdad** Is there an issue? Send a Message

**Changed line(s) 24 (click to see context) from:**

*** You're not understanding what the entry is talking about. The loonies have a plan with a sequence of steps that all need to be successful for the plan to succeed. Which each step closer to the goal, Mike says that the odds get ''worse'' because there are "more opportunities for failure." This is wrong. The odds for each step should have been calculated from the beginning. To illustrate, if I gamble that I can roll a one on a six-sided die as well as a one on a ten-sided die, my odds are 1 in 60 of winning the bet in one try. If I do manage to roll a one on the six-sided die, my odds improve to 1 in 10. By Mike's logic, my odds are now worse, because there are "more opportunities for failure" when rolling a ten-sided die. Mathematically, even if each step of a plan gets progressively less likely, the more steps you get into the plan, the more likely the plan becomes of succeeding.

**to:**

*** You're not understanding what the entry is talking about. The loonies have a plan with a sequence of steps that all need to be successful for the plan to succeed. ~~Which ~~With each step closer to the goal, Mike says that the odds get ''worse'' because there are "more opportunities for failure." This is wrong. The odds for each step should have been calculated from the beginning. To illustrate, if I gamble that I can roll a one on a six-sided die as well as a one on a ten-sided die, my odds are 1 in 60 of winning the bet in one try. If I do manage to roll a one on the six-sided die, my odds improve to 1 in 10. By Mike's logic, my odds are now worse, because there are "more opportunities for failure" when rolling a ten-sided die. Mathematically, even if each step of a plan gets progressively less likely, the more steps you get into the plan, the more likely the plan becomes of succeeding.

11th Nov '14 4:16:09 PM

**CaptainCrawdad** Is there an issue? Send a Message

**Changed line(s) 24 (click to see context) from:**

*** You're not understanding what the entry is talking about. The loonies have a plan with a sequence of steps that all need to be successful for the plan to succeed. Which each step closer to the goal, Mike says that the odds get ''worse'' because there are "more opportunities for failure." This doesn't make sense. The odds for each step should have been calculated from the beginning. To illustrate, if I gamble that I can roll a one on a six-sided die as well as a one on a ten-sided die, my odds are 1 in 60 of winning the bet in one try. If I do manage to roll a one on the six-sided die, my odds improve to 1 in 10. By Mike's logic, my odds are now worse, because there are "more opportunities for failure" when rolling a ten-sided die. Mike is confusing the odds of each step succeeding and the plan as a whole succeeding.

**to:**

*** You're not understanding what the entry is talking about. The loonies have a plan with a sequence of steps that all need to be successful for the plan to succeed. Which each step closer to the goal, Mike says that the odds get ''worse'' because there are "more opportunities for failure." This ~~doesn't make sense.~~is wrong. The odds for each step should have been calculated from the beginning. To illustrate, if I gamble that I can roll a one on a six-sided die as well as a one on a ten-sided die, my odds are 1 in 60 of winning the bet in one try. If I do manage to roll a one on the six-sided die, my odds improve to 1 in 10. By Mike's logic, my odds are now worse, because there are "more opportunities for failure" when rolling a ten-sided die. ~~Mike is confusing the odds of ~~Mathematically, even if each step ~~succeeding and ~~of a plan gets progressively less likely, the more steps you get into the plan, the more likely the plan ~~as a whole ~~becomes of succeeding.

11th Nov '14 4:10:08 PM

**CaptainCrawdad** Is there an issue? Send a Message

**Changed line(s) 24 (click to see context) from:**

*** You're not understanding what the entry is talking about. The loonies have a plan with a sequence of steps that all need to be successful for the plan to succeed. Which each step closer to the goal, Mike says that the odds get ''worse'' because there are "more opportunities for failure." This doesn't make sense. The odds for each step should have been calculated from the beginning. To illustrate, If I gamble that I can roll a one on a six-sided die as well as a one on a ten-sided die, my odds are 1 in 60 of winning the bet in one try. If I do manage to roll a one on the six-sided die, my odds improve to 1 in 10. By Mike's logic, my odds are now worse, because there are "more opportunities for failure" when rolling a ten-sided die. Mike is confusing the odds of each step succeeding and plan as a whole succeeding.

**to:**

*** You're not understanding what the entry is talking about. The loonies have a plan with a sequence of steps that all need to be successful for the plan to succeed. Which each step closer to the goal, Mike says that the odds get ''worse'' because there are "more opportunities for failure." This doesn't make sense. The odds for each step should have been calculated from the beginning. To illustrate, ~~If ~~if I gamble that I can roll a one on a six-sided die as well as a one on a ten-sided die, my odds are 1 in 60 of winning the bet in one try. If I do manage to roll a one on the six-sided die, my odds improve to 1 in 10. By Mike's logic, my odds are now worse, because there are "more opportunities for failure" when rolling a ten-sided die. Mike is confusing the odds of each step succeeding and the plan as a whole succeeding.

11th Nov '14 4:03:05 PM

**CaptainCrawdad** Is there an issue? Send a Message

**Added DiffLines:**

*** You're not understanding what the entry is talking about. The loonies have a plan with a sequence of steps that all need to be successful for the plan to succeed. Which each step closer to the goal, Mike says that the odds get ''worse'' because there are "more opportunities for failure." This doesn't make sense. The odds for each step should have been calculated from the beginning. To illustrate, If I gamble that I can roll a one on a six-sided die as well as a one on a ten-sided die, my odds are 1 in 60 of winning the bet in one try. If I do manage to roll a one on the six-sided die, my odds improve to 1 in 10. By Mike's logic, my odds are now worse, because there are "more opportunities for failure" when rolling a ten-sided die. Mike is confusing the odds of each step succeeding and plan as a whole succeeding.

8th Jan '14 9:42:04 AM

**LBHills** Is there an issue? Send a Message

**Changed line(s) 25 (click to see context) from:**

*** It makes sense to me; every success meant a larger, more powerful organization - which means more things that can go wrong - which means a higher chance of the authorities getting nervous enough to employ overkill. Secrecy was their primary (initially their ''only'') advantage, and every success made their secrecy less certain. Actuary tables have similar counter-intuitive phenomena.

**to:**

*** It makes sense to me; every success meant a larger, more powerful organization - which means more things that can go wrong - which means a higher chance of the authorities getting nervous enough to employ overkill. Secrecy was their primary (initially their ''only'') advantage, and every success ~~made ~~reduced their ~~secrecy less certain. ~~level of secrecy: the odds started improving again the moment they had Earth-wide news coverage and could start using public opinion, rather than secrecy, as their principal weapon. Actuary tables sometimes have similar counter-intuitive phenomena.

7th Jan '14 1:20:14 PM

**LBHills** Is there an issue? Send a Message

**Changed line(s) 24 (click to see context) from:**

*** That still doesn't change the underlying issue. Heck, the odds actually should have improved on several occasions because they managed to convince quite a few people to do just that before fighting started.

**to:**

*** That still doesn't change the underlying issue. Heck, the odds actually should have improved on several occasions because they managed to convince quite a few people to do just that before fighting ~~started.~~started.
*** It makes sense to me; every success meant a larger, more powerful organization - which means more things that can go wrong - which means a higher chance of the authorities getting nervous enough to employ overkill. Secrecy was their primary (initially their ''only'') advantage, and every success made their secrecy less certain. Actuary tables have similar counter-intuitive phenomena.

This list shows the last 10 events of 18. Show all.