Randomness | SciShow Tangents Podcast

[@NekolatheDruid]

Ceri getting 605 correctly was the highlight of my day too 😂 that rush is unbeatable ❤❤

[@Campfire_Bandit]

+

[@Spaceman647]

Also, getting called "such a nerd" by HANK GREEN has got to be an honor, hahaha!

[@BlackOpMercyGaming]

I literally paused the video and did the exact same thing before they answered. I was quite pleased with myself

[@harsha1306]

The weird part is I also paused and tried to calculate it and I got to 605 as well but the way I went about it was completely different. I took the average of the 120 numbers got 60.5 and multiplied that by 10 for the 10 sides

[@BlackOpMercyGaming]

@@harsha1306I mean, that’s kinda calling 3x3 and 3+3+3 “completely different methods”…

[@petergerdes1094]

As a mathematican who absolutely does useless math I have to say the lost boarding pass problem is super applicable to things like hashing or inventory management.

[@annasfischer]

(120 + 1) × 5 = 605. That's how I figured it out. Explaination: When I was in middle school we had to work out how to quickly add up numbers in a sequence, and for any number sequence with a difference between numbers of one, if you add the highest and lowest numbers in the sequence together, it will be equal to the second highest plus the second lowest, and the third highest plus the 3rd lowest, all the way to the middle. if you have an even number of integers, you just multiply the sum of the highest and lowest number by half the number of integers in the sequence. If you have an odd number, you multiply by half the number of integers minus one, and then add in the middle number in the sequence. So if you were to add all the numbers in 1 through 120 together, you would get 60 × 121. The average of sum of any two randomly chosen numbers in the sequence of 1 to 120 is 121, so the average sum of any ten randombly chosen numbers in the sequence is 10 × 121/2, or 121 × 5, equaling 605. This makes 605 the appropriate value to choose.

[@justforplaylists]

There's a (probably apocryphal) story that when Carl Friedrich Gauss (a mathematician in the 1700s-1800s) was a child, his teacher told the class to add the numbers 1 through 100 as busywork, but Gauss answered almost immediately using this method. This is called the sum of an arithmetic series. It was known in ancient Greece, China, and India, according to Wikipedia.

[@shadebug]

Not to do with randomness but just with pointless maths. My favourite factoid is the existence of the Bridges of Königsberg problem. Mathematicians spent hundreds of years working on the solution to this problem of how to cross seven bridges only once and it was a fully pointless problem but they kept doing it. Then one day, computers existed and suddenly all of the maths that had been done solving that stupid problem became extremely relevant. If you ever wonder how Google is able to search the entire internet in a fraction of a second, it’s because of that stupid problem. Which is to say that pointless things may be pointless but they also might be things you just haven’t discovered the point of yet

[@AmandaBrooks-j8i]

It happens in math all the time - all of high level math is finding surprise tools we'll use later. 😂 Source: have math degree.

[@paulkinzer7661]

Seeing Ceri's joy in the 605 moment just swelled my heart! I think most of us absolutely get the feeling she had, and we got to watch this, and then Ceri's insightful description of it, in the moment. So joyful!

[@jacoblojewski8729]

D120: one of the reasons you'd want to arrange the numbers like this is that the "idea mathematical die" doesn't exist, this is the real world. Imperfections in manufacturing, etc will never end up with a perfectly "unweighted" die. So you don't want clumps of similar numbers around one vertex, on the off chance that the die is weighted in a way that makes that side of the die more likely to face up - giving you a die that *really* likes to give you, say, the numbers 44-53.

[@DarthLlama226]

Regarding the Peter principle: You also have to consider exactly how they measured competency. If you assign a pure 1-100 grade, it's not surprising that when you reroll the stat for the individuals with the lower grade, they have a better chance of getting a new value higher than their old one, as opposed to rerolling the people who already have a high stat. I think rather than a total reroll, it may have been wiser to modify the person's prior score by a random bounded amount (say, + - 30), as it seems more likely at least *some* part of prior competency would inform competency in a new role, even if its just familiarity with the role of the people now under this promoted employee. Perhaps I'll look around to see if any related studies have attempted my variation and seen differing results.

[@lisanorwoodtreefarm]

Happy Birthday, Ceri!

[@markedis5902]

Sam’s fact could improve efficiency in a company by getting rid of the useless two thirds of the HR department

[@make760perday-]

Each step forward matters. This video proves that progress is made by continuously adjusting and learning from what works and what doesn’t.

[@trelligan42]

I remember a Dilbert cartoon in which our hero travels into the depths of the company where the workers all look gnomish. In one of the rooms he's led past there's a gnome calling out the number 9 over and over again. Dilbert asks his escort "Is that random?" The response it "Nobody knows." #FeedTheAlgorithm

[@ptkush3416]

8:05 My layman's understanding of statistics vs probabilities (without looking it up): statistics are for what has happened, and probabilities are for what can happen. Aka, statistics are for the past and probabilities are for the future.

[@jackalope839]

Yeah. You can't have statistics about the future. And Probabilities about the past are nearly useless.

[@krystofdayne]

It's obviously a bit more complicated than that but that's essentially right. Of course you use inferential statistics to make predictions and derive estimators for those probabilities that you are interested in but you still use "past" data for those predictors and estimators.

[@AmandaBrooks-j8i]

Sleeping Beauty problem sounds a lot like the Monty Hall paradox! You are shown three doors, one with a prize behind it. You pick a door, then one of the doors that doesn't have a prize is opened. You then have a choice to stick with your initial guess or switch to the other still closed door - and your chances of success increase significantly if you switch doors, because probability and math. And this one's been empirically treated to prove that your chances go up!

[@MasteringWoodwinds]

I thought you guys might talk about Apple getting complaints back in the iPod days that shuffle was broken because if people heard two songs in a row from the same album or artist, they assumed it wasn't random. What people really wanted (and thought was random) was to have an even distribution of their music.

[@mikep3226]

There was an earlier worm that infected a larger portion of the Internet than Slammer did. It was the Morris Worm (Nov 2, 1988), you can look it up on Wikipedia. I was the Network Manager of the largest Lab Network at MIT when it struck. It got a higher percentage of the net (estimate 10% of all computers) because the network was smaller then and it targeted something more common than SQL, it targeted Mail (among other things). It probably also missed the records on speed because computers weren't as fast then, nor was the network.

[@angelmontgomery6168]

In 1988, 10% of the net was what, 5 computers? j/k😁

[@oliviaglynn5697]

It was the fastest not the first

[@RobertJennings]

When working on a new computer processor design with a built-in (pseudo) random number generator we had an odd test criteria. It wasn't allowed to produce consecutive numbers that were the same. With a string of repeated numbers it wasn't possible to know if the hardware was working or stuck. Always thought it was funny that one criteria was to disallow some form of randomness.

[@kyleward3914]

I still like this show, even if he did say "a dice."

[@JolynBowler]

Enjoyed it, y'all. Thanx 💙🌻💙

[@nd6821]

Impressive Ceri! In evolutionary terms I think it better serves survival to be a pattern recognition / anticipation machines rather than being randomness identifiers.

[@Kalarix]

How did you guys not consider a piss minion for your NFT??

[@anarchyneverdies3567]

Because bass playing tendon Furbies are superior 😂

[@dekulprit]

Because companies are litigious and even if you put enough transformation to meet the "transformative" prong of the fair use test it is subjective and you can get wrapped up in litigation burning money arguing that the yellow you was different enough a piss colored enough that people would obviously know you aren't selling copyrighted materials.

[@TowelGard]

God does play dice with the universe, but they are the best dice. - Michael Vsauce (unless he was quoting someone else, I can't remember)

[@CatBarefield]

Wayne Gretzky, probably

[@kameradave]

That sleeping beauty one is pretty relevant, imo -not just a silly distraction. It's the same kind of thing as the Monty Hall problem where the idea is that probability cancellations should take into account the information that an observer has about the world that sometimes excludes some of the possibilities or makes them less likely than the probability of an independent event like a fine coin flip. It's true both that a coin flip is 50% heads and also that if Sleeping Beauty is being paid for right answers, she should definitely say tails since that's the right answer for her more often. (If you don't believe it, they did the Monty Hall problem on Mythbusters). It's a good analogy that helps form an understanding how probability really works from the perspective of someone with limited information, which is the only perspective anyone actually really has. It's an insight one should know if they're doing anything important enough for accurate predictions to really matter.

[@theperfectbotsteve4916]

as it was said to the last people who messed up cloning in a astronomical level: OG Sam was to preoccupied with whether or not he could he didnt stop to think if he should

[@namywdraco]

Not sure if they still do, but the random data point a lot of people used for a while was a photograph of a large wall of lava lamps. The wall of lamps were always running, so any photo taken was unique to any other

[@shawnholbrook7278]

The reason that random promotions or incompetents' promotions might actually work is that the lower levels know what they are doing, and keep the company running despite management foibles. Possibly, anyone can learn your job, so mentor them to take care of it.

[@junderlandgames1186]

Randomness to me, means “I do not have all the variables to make an accurate prediction” I agree with Ceri that the universe is like Minecraft and that everything could be recreated exactly if you had all the variables. We think quantum physics is random simply because we do not understand it fully yet.

[@Beanedict_C]

Hank: “YOU’RE GONNA DIE-“ *pause* “a 30 Under 30 Luminary”

[@alexwixom4599]

8:11 There IS a Math Wizard in D&D 😅

[@chuckwfinley]

Can confirm, mathematicians LOVE new logic games

[@Bluesmudge]

A format video, a video pod of dear hank and john, and scishow tangents in just about one day???? Yay. :)

[@maddyeasley2296]

If scishow tangents has 100 fans I am one of them, if scishow tangents has 10 fans I am one of them, if scishow tangents has 1 fan I am that fan, if sci show tangents has 0 fans, I am dead and still scishow tangents will be the best podcast ever made

[@strandedtimetraveler8435]

(120+1)/2*10 also works

[@sarahroh1739]

I listened to this ep on Patreon and then wanted to watch it on YT too just to see Ceri's face when getting that 605!!!!

[@harperdilas]

This was a good episode to be high listening to lol

[@CatBarefield]

💯

[@ChristianMasseyAU]

Hey Hank, I'm pretty sure you basically run KZbin so could you have the people in charge of my sub feed move premieres to their own little section? Maybe just at the top of the page under "Upcoming Premieres" or something. I always click the videos without paying much attention and then I'm just sitting here, unable to watch a video. Really shouldn't hit my chronological sub feed until it's live.

[@MrShadowswrath]

I've always hated the premier feature for that reason. I understand that the youtuber has scheduled their video for release at a certain time either for consistency or for some benefit of manipulating the algorithm, but im subbed to so many channels that it's just outright annoying. there's always plenty of stuff to watch, so when I'm browsing my sub feed I only want to see what I can watch now.

[@andrewspohrer7183]

Yes, please let mr KZbin know this, we very much need this feature

[@MissySimpleM]

Yup if the video stays where the premiere is placed I often miss it because i go through my subscriptions chronologically

[@fdulcia8528]

Just 3 very sympathic people with baby faces 😅❤

[@puffthedrake8557]

A boarding pass isn't a ticket though. Tickets are issued by the seller and the boarding pass is issued by the airport. By having a ticket, you can get a boarding pass. This probably also makes it clearer for customers that you need this separate document to be able to board rather than have your ticket.

[@infinitebeastgames1010]

Early to Tangents LFG

[@Whisdom]

605 was peak hotness

[@badmonkey244]

Are NFT still a thing?

[@markedis5902]

Haphazard is a far better word than random

[@CatBarefield]

Hank busting out the Journey to micro voice for his poem 👌

[@icefreezer7]

nope, the time hank mentions nft's I click out of the video

[@illusion-xiii]

Anybody understand the Furby/bass guitar joke at the beginning? Completely went over my head.

[@angelmontgomery6168]

I think the Peter Principle study you described is flawed because because it only looks at conditions where either all competencies are carried over or a random set of new competencies is assigned. I don't think either condition describes the real world. I would expect that some and probably most competencies would carry over, although definitely not all of them. I think that switching back and forth between the two does not sufficiently mitigate this problem. I'd be interested in the results of the model being run using various percentages of carry over instead of all or nothing. Still, in order for any results to be valid, I would think you would need to know what percentages match the real world; and probably even which competencies are likely to carry over or not, and also which of those competencies are likely to be required in a new position. In reality, it's all very complicated and I think the study, as you described it, is way too simple to provide any useful information other than indicating that being competent at one job doesn't necessarily mean you will be competent at another. I think common sense would tell you that anyway, without any study.

[@chrismintz3301]

Yea I really didn't like how that study decided to carry itself out. Each promotion was basically a "reroll" on competence, so of course it would be best to never reroll the high competence employee, while always best to reroll a low competence employee. They really just optimized a cup of dice by only rerolling the low valued dice and tried to say that it applied to the Peter Principle.

[@11insalaco82]

i’ve never made it to a premiere for these before!!

[@KindredKin]

Irregularity (as opposed to uniformity) I think is what we humans look for when looking for "randomness". Like rocks scattered irregularly across a field, as opposed to uniformly. If it's uniform we'll be like "someone did this" sus.

[@ChroniclogicalJeff]

👀 NFTs? Are Hankoins next? 😠

[@RobinDSaunders]

Considering how critical of "techbro trends" Hank's been, I was surprised to see this and figured it was probably a joke. But I guess there are people whose only big concern is the "stealing from creators" aspect of generative AI...

[@littlemissevel3607]

Back when I was at school... They would give out tests that I think we're to judge how good the school was doing .. so the results weren't important to me. And they had multiple choice answers... Which I think we're supposed to be at random. Every time I didn't know the answer... I would look at it as a pattern .. and pick what seemed right (BCBBDAC? )... I think I almost always got those right. Less so on answers I thought I knew 😅 I guess it wasn't so random

[@theunknownunknowns256]

Where does one find smart friends like Ceri?

[@rossk7927]

Wouldn't promotion at random being maximizing only work because people get fired and new "better" people get hired? Would be good to consider the churn.

[@Pomegranatek]

13:30 Hank Green admits universe is a simulation Not Clickbait???? /j

[@AidanRatnage]

So if no one is better than the 1st 37% of potential secretaries, you hire nobody?

[@ayesirola]

The art is so cute

[@krellend20]

Why is Hank even joking about NFTs? No one wants those. Why would you even contemplate this?

[@yoomizoomi4098]

Kind of disappointing that a hot Jeff Goldblum isn't guest starring this episode

[@RobinDSaunders]

"The secretary problem was apparently introduced in 1949 by Merrill M. Flood, who called it the fiancée problem in a lecture he gave that year." (says Wikipedia) so you weren't far wrong!

[@angelmontgomery6168]

So, if you go by what they say and the best candidate is among the first 37%, you will always end up with the last person, even if everybody else is better. Assuming the order is random, that would be like eliminating the best candidate, then choosing randomly from the rest. Which would mean you would have been better off just choosing randomly to begin with. It sounds less than ideal, but I assume all that was considered. However, I think the amount of variation between candidates, what might be at stake if the ideal candidate is not chosen, and the cost of continuing your search could all make a big difference in determining the ideal strategy. Sometimes it's gonna make a lot more more sense to just hire the first person who meets your minimum criteria.

[@RobinDSaunders]

@@angelmontgomery6168 Yes, this strategy is specifically for maximizing the chance of getting the absolute best candidate. For many other goals, a different strategy would be better.

[@BlackOpMercyGaming]

Why does Sam sound EXACTLY like ThatDangDad on KZbin?

[@rodneysherrill1248]

Got 605 also. Average of d120 (60.5) × 10.

[@shawnholbrook7278]

😊 hiya

[@LaceNWhisky]

Hank please, you should know better than to get into NFTs.

[@sarahnewton2267]

First here

[@alexwixom4599]

Best NFT: A $0 Dollar Bill 🖨💾💵🤑

[@anarchyneverdies3567]

That's clever 😂 or a voided check? 😂😂