Updated version incoming Fadel Soliman video 1
Added 2021-10-31 06:22:51 +0000 UTCThis video was a couple minutes longer, and probably a little funnier, but I made a very unfortunate factual error. I thought his Descartes argument was based on a different work than it was, purely because of my own case of dumbbrain, and spent some time talking about arguments from that work and how they related to his video. I only noticed the error on my final rewatch before charging the video, and it’s a good thing I did, but deeply frustrating, especially so after some other deeply frustrating experiences making videos this month. It’s odd, because I’ve had this video kicking around mostly finished for a while now, but for some reason it didn’t click until I had some time away from it and got enough distance to ask a few new questions. Anyway, I felt compelled to remove that section, because I’m not comfortable publishing the video with such a flaw. So I cut that part out, and now the video’s a little shorter than I would like, but it’s better for it. It's too bad, though. I really liked what I had for that part. It was just directed at the wrong target, and would have made me look like quite the idiot had I left it in. I have a couple exclusive videos to make in November, and I think one of them might be me talking about this screwup, and showing what I had originally. It’s worth reflecting on mistakes.
Comments
Oh, I know. If that were the only problem I wouldn't bother. But the Descartes bit already had me really pissed off. I was already on the fence about reuploading just to fix that. Since there's another issue (and since the fucky notation is funny), I think it needs to be done.
Logicked
2021-10-31 23:40:54 +0000 UTCNo need to reupload with the pinned comment. Ur right: his fucky notation, your mistake was giving him too much credit!
Oliver Pickford Scienti
2021-10-31 19:14:04 +0000 UTCSo I was wrong about 1:144 being 1/145. I mean, I was totally right, BUT Fadel screwed up the odds notation so bad I became wrong by not noticing. For the odds of drawing any given ball out of 12, he wrote it 1:12 (which would normally mean the odds of drawing 1 ball out of 13). So if he thinks 1:12 means 1/12, then he also thinks 1:144 means 1/144 - which would be correctly written 1:143. Which makes my right answer the wrong answer, by his fucky wrong system. Also, of course I didn't mean that 2 balls 1-12 has 1/145 probability - just that 1:144 as he wrote it means 1/145. But I think it might have come off that way. You know what? Fuck this, I think I'll make some changes to this video and reupload it.
Logicked
2021-10-31 16:17:01 +0000 UTCHoly hell, you're right. I didn't notice that he fucked even that up. Okay, time to pin a comment on the video...
Logicked
2021-10-31 16:09:07 +0000 UTCHate to say it but your 1:144 = 145 times on average argument is wrong, because you've misunderstood his use of notation. You're right the odds of heads to not heads on a coin flip is 1:1, but he would have written it 1:2 when he meant 1 in 2, as odds of drawing 1 of 12 balls is 1 in 12, which he wrote as 1:12. So drawing 2 balls has 144 possible outcomes, 1 is "success", so ratio of success to failure is 1:143, or 1 in 144, which he is, for some confusing reason, writing as 1:144.
Oliver Pickford Scienti
2021-10-31 10:15:06 +0000 UTC
