Weird thing happened while listening to Paul's Boutique

[Rodie]

This is a dumb, pointless, and time wasting story. But you're here already so you're probably not in the middle of a brain surgery or anything so you may as well read the rest. So a few days ago I was volunteering doing some database stuff. Anyway I was listening to Paul's Boutique on my Zune (Zune rules, what!?) and just this weird little thing happened. Right as I was listening to Ask for Janice, right as the guy started to say "Janice" I looked up at this phone and it had a post it on it that said "Janice ext. XXXX." I'm sorry I thought that was some weird shit. Okay thanks for reading.

[Jazz Martian]

It wasn't a waste of time for me to read that. I can def relate to that kinda stuff. It started happening to me about 15 years ago. After awhile things got weirder and weirder. It started to really mess with me. It didn't take long for me to realize why it was happening. But it did take a few years before I came to the conclusion about the purpose behind it all.

What happened to you wasn't just a "coincidence". How could it be? The odds of that being the case are astronomically against it. It wasn't just a random pointless occurance. I say this all without a shred of doubt.

I'm not gonna get into details of what I believe about it here. But I'm def cool if you, or anybody else, wants to discuss it via PM. Just hit me up.

[faz]

What happened to you wasn't just a "coincidence". How could it be? The odds of that being the case are astronomically against it. It wasn't just a random pointless occurance. I say this all without a shred of doubt.

The odds can be astronomically against it, but still possible

[Jazz Martian]

The odds can be astronomically against it, but still possible

True. But given the odds, don't you think that it's against reason to give much consideration to the extremely unlikely scenario? Not that you shouldn't weigh it in as a possibility. But knowing the odds, which conclusion would you come to, coincidence or not?

[pshabi]

What happened to you wasn't just a "coincidence". How could it be? The odds of that being the case are astronomically against it. It wasn't just a random pointless occurance. I say this all without a shred of doubt.

I'm not gonna get into details of what I believe about it here. But I'm def cool if you, or anybody else, wants to discuss it via PM. Just hit me up.

Please do.

<lights fuse and runs for cover>

[Jazz Martian]

Please do.

<lights fuse and runs for cover>

Haha, no thanks.

[MCScoobyT]

Someone just rented 23 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H24V-u7fNJM).

[Jazz Martian]

Someone just rented 23 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H24V-u7fNJM).

Nah, I'm not even close to being on that tip, lol.

[JohnnyChavello]

You're experiencing what's called confirmation bias. It's true enough that the odds of these particular events happening just as they happen, by chance alone, are astronomically high, but that's only because the possible in any particular event is virtually infinite. If you consider the endless stream of events that make up your experience of life, very little coincide with this kind of perceived significance. You remember only those that do and disregard the far more numerous ones that don't. Taken in whole, it actually does start to reflect the true odds of chance. But if you attach significance only to the events that pique your interest you are confirming a bias for a very particular and unlikely explanation.

[funk63]

^You're a smart motherfucker.

[Laver1969]

Random coincidence estimation from single Beastie event rates has been implemented for the multi-level Beastie scanner. The album histograms every qualified reference and sample (i.e., those meeting the beat threshold requirements) for each Beastie event in the detector ring, providing the capability to calculate random coincidence rates for each line of response in the Beastie scanner.

The estimate is corrected for random coincidences lost at either end of the major system clock cycle (often referred to as the "picket fence" effect), and, at extremely high count rates, for coincidence events lost to capacity limitations of the coincidence electronics.

The randoms estimate is not corrected for changes in the activity distribution due to decay during the course of the acquisition; this effect is small (<1% for an acquisition of one-half of a half-life), and the correction is only accurate if physical decay is the only process by which activity is leaving the LOR.

Software to implement the randoms from singles estimate has been incorporated into both the 2D and 3D reconstruction processing paths for the Beastie scanner. The accuracy of the correction has been validated by comparing the estimate to a delayed beast randoms estimate.

[YoungRemy]

thanks, Arthur.

[carlson.213]

thinking a little too much about a little too little