why is Betsy no longer working here?
well, you see, she missed a period
2 Likes
Took me a second to see the caption above. My very first thought was the caption.
My second thought was that I always hated having to draw graphs free hand. Same reason I hated art class or any class where I was required to draw something that was supposed to resemble something. Something that extended even to my writing both script and numbers.
1 Like
Avoid negativity. y=x^2
Of course, the scale of the y axis might have units of sqrt(y) (I think) which would be nonstandard and most likely beyond the capabilities of a T-shirt designer.
Glasses frames benefit for next year (new portal to choose benefits online for the first time ever):
- In network: $170 every 24 months
- Out of network: $170 every 24 hours
So we can buy glasses every day as long as it’s out of network?
3 Likes
Also, apparently my beneficiary change request was never processed, as Jaspex was still listed as the group life beneficiary. 
3 Likes
The NYTimes election meter:
I guess “Likely” is 85% to 95%.
1 Like
I assume they were trying to calibrate to how people “feel”. Which is hard because how people feel is way off from how %s work.
I also felt like they were pretty conservative with their %s, so basically double-understated.
I don’t think the average American is quite that stupid. Just give them a linear scale from 0-100 and they can figure it our just like speedometers on cars.
A few of us might wonder if events of the past 24 hours suggest the contrary.
1 Like
He could be right. Klaymen’s statement did not specify which direction from “that stupid”.
1 Like
I mean that if you tell someone you are 80% confident that something will occur, they will tend to take it as a sure thing and accuse you of lying if it doesn’t.
In general I think of course people are idiots. If they had non-zero grasp on probability they would not play slot machines.
1 Like
Lots of actuaries gamble…
Hopefully few of them do so believing they have a positive financial expectation. For the others, does having passed an exam on probability guarantee a non-zero grasp on probability? Guarantee, even despite possible evidence to the contrary?
(Gambling is an observable characteristic. Believing they have a positive financial expectation is not. Hence no reasonable way to decide which people would go into the conditional sample space.)
There’s a 42% chance of rain. Will it rain?
Most likely
I would expect many actuaries to play poker, since you can win by understanding odds.
I’d be surprised if they sat at slot machines though. Well, somewhat surprised. Maybe I’m underestimating the glory of potacular.
I knew someone who eventually became a consulting ACAS who recognized the odds were in his favor … and didn’t care.
How many of them gamble “seriously” at slots and similar casino games?
Most of the gambling actuaries I know focus their activities on games with an element of skill (like poker), or betting where there is an element of analysis (blackjack, betting on sports).
(That of course doesn’t exclude the possibility of throwing a few bucks in a slot or video poker machine, or buying the occasional lottery ticket…)