"lead you to the supermarket checkout. some specials and rat food get lost in the crowd"
it's all emma kennedy's fault. she's been writing in her blog, which i always read, about having to sing this song for an audition, and after reading it i've spent literally hours poring over how i would sing it in such a situation.
and the most annoying thing is i wouldn't.
i can't act and i hate actors so i would never audition for a musical (though if anyone were to offer me a part in a production of return to the forbidden planet i might just die of excitement).
and even if i did i wouldn't sing a blondie song (although i have done so at karaoke more than once - its part of my only doing songs by female singers rule)
and even if i had to it wouldn't be this one (probably in the flesh since you ask)
so all i've done is waste a lot of time and thought on the artistic decision i would make were i to be in a situation i know - for a fact - i am so unlikely to be in that the probability is negligible.
Showing posts with label probability. Show all posts
Showing posts with label probability. Show all posts
Wednesday, August 08, 2007
Friday, January 05, 2007
"beautiful girl" - the gadjits
"she's using those number systems from reading blaise pascal. she's making babies for now"
i enjoy that show where noel edmonds asks you whether or not you would like to deal.
i am sure that the decision making process should be based on maths, but have always been frustrated by the fact that - since the deal offered is always less than the expected value of the game - simple probability theory states that you should always decline the deal. i have seen the show enough times to realise that there is almost always a point where the player should have dealt.
i am trying to formulate a strategy based on my new theory that - since the offer is a function of the expected value - the probability of getting a higher offer after the next round is the probability of the expected value being greater.
but the formula is getting more and more complicated and wasting more and more of my time - and i doubt if noel would be impressed were i to ask him to wait for a few minutes while i did some calculations before giving him my response as to whether or not i would like to deal.
sometimes i think that maybe theres an argument for thinking less. certainly the vacuous and thoughtless always seem to be ok, under their own limited definitions
i enjoy that show where noel edmonds asks you whether or not you would like to deal.
i am sure that the decision making process should be based on maths, but have always been frustrated by the fact that - since the deal offered is always less than the expected value of the game - simple probability theory states that you should always decline the deal. i have seen the show enough times to realise that there is almost always a point where the player should have dealt.
i am trying to formulate a strategy based on my new theory that - since the offer is a function of the expected value - the probability of getting a higher offer after the next round is the probability of the expected value being greater.
but the formula is getting more and more complicated and wasting more and more of my time - and i doubt if noel would be impressed were i to ask him to wait for a few minutes while i did some calculations before giving him my response as to whether or not i would like to deal.
sometimes i think that maybe theres an argument for thinking less. certainly the vacuous and thoughtless always seem to be ok, under their own limited definitions
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
