Grapes in a burrito sounds weird, but raisins don’t sound too bad. Maybe he’s planning on dehydrating them.

Well, I only know how it tends to work in China, where the traditional calendar is used for cultural events such as festivals, while the Gregorian calendar is used for just about everything else, including domestic business. I assumed it’s the same in most modern cultures with a different traditional calendar, but maybe I’m wrong.

Is it? I know some cultures have a traditional lunar calendar, but I didn’t know there were many that didn’t also use the Gregorian calendar for business.

Which cultures have the seven day week without the solar year?

Not quite the same, since in my scenario the player loses everything after a loss while in the St. Petersburg Paradox it seems they keep their winnings. But it does seem relevant in explaining that expected value isn’t everything.

I’m looking at the game as a whole. The player has a 1 in 8 chance of winning 3 rounds overall.

But the odds of the player managing to do so are proportionate. In theory, if 8 players each decide to go for three rounds, one of them will win, but the losings from the other 7 will pay for that player’s winnings.

You’re right that the house is performing a Martingale strategy. That’s a good insight. That may actually be the source of the house advantage. The scenario is ideal for a Martingale strategy to work.

Well, they have to start over with a $1 bet.

I don’t know if that applies to this scenario. In this game, the player is always in the lead until they aren’t, but I don’t see how that works in their favor.

You’re saying that the player pays a dollar each time they decide to “double-or-nothing”? I was thinking they’d only be risking the dollar they bet to start the game.

That change in the ruleset would definitely tilt the odds in the house’s favor.

Right, and as the chain continues, the probability of the player maintaining their streak becomes infinitesimal. But the potential payout scales at the same rate.

If the player goes for 3 rounds, they only have a 1/8 chance of winning… but they’ll get 8 times their initial bet. So it’s technically a fair game, right?

Yeah. I mean I agree that focusing on change at the systemic level is more effective than changing individual habits, but what people don’t realize is that the systemic change we need is the kind that will force those individual changes.

Taxing or regulating the oil companies will help, but it will help by making energy more expensive so people are forced to make do with less.

When you think about it, it’s pretty unreasonable to expect the entire population to become educated and engaged about everything involving running a modern society. Modern government is incredibly complicated. It’s no wonder that tribalism wins over nuance. Who has time for nuance when they’re worried about their jobs and families?

That’s why I’d like to see some form of sortition tried. Draft a jury to do nothing but learn about a single topic for a period of time. Make all of their contact with the outside world public record to ensure nothing shady is going on. Let representatives from all sides of the issue address them. Then let them make their decisions and go back to their normal lives. No campaign donors or political careers to worry about.

deleted by creator

What I can find all say seem to say more or less the same things about every candidate.

The US, but why? How does the answer differ in different countries?

Those are pretty awesome! Thanks, I think I can get a lot of benefit from them.

Ah, hm… I guess that makes sense. Bringing people to the office raises the value of surrounding retail, which in turn raises the value of the office. Thanks, that explanation clears it up.

Buying something to create artificial demand usually isn't a good investment strategy. A "pump-and-dump" can work if you can set off a buying frenzy and sell before it wears off, but it's not a long-term strategy.

Besides, if that was the plan, leaving the buildings vacant would be just as effective as using them.

Ok, so it's about responding to local government incentives? I feel like that's an important piece of the puzzle that's overlooked when people say it's about real estate prices.

I see, so the idea is that they're responding to external pressure from governments and financial institutions? I guess I could see that, though it shouldn't be hard to prove by pointing to specific policies and loan conditions.

But also, some of these companies own those buildings. If they’re not in use, their value in the market drops.

How does that work? Why would a buyer care if the seller was using the building? If anything, I would think using them would depreciate their value due to wear and tear.