@nanashi7779 I dropped off at the meme video when they would not let up on Ohio for 10 minutes. I used to be a patreon but they couldn't even upload right at least when I was there. If you like them still go for it, I hopped back because I was hoping they'd have some self reflection, but I guess it was just clickbait
@@personname1008 Crazy. Self reflect? Clickbait? Bro this is PODCAST, they talk about whatever thing they want to, title are just there to summarize the main topic. If you don't have the attention span when click on a podcast, that says a lot.
omg conner saying peanut butter is low in calories followed up by ganrt thinking peanut butter was made with peanuts and butter was some of the best podcast revelations i've ever seen and i'm not even 10mins in. this is gonna be a good ep
Ok but this raises a good point that I need to remember later. Actual butter on bread is good under peanut butter. Like 🎉 😂 Maybe they were onto something there.
Garnt the monk, member of a rockband, And reciever of a shoutout from Mr. Anime will never be a boring person. He has so much lore locked up in the BBC archive we havent seen yet.
>Co-creates one of the biggest western anime fanbases on YT >moves halfway across the world "i just feel like im a boring person sometimes" aight bro...
I remember that clip when it looked like Garnt ignored Connor during their stream. I think it was the cookie tasting one and Garnt said he knew Connor was in a sugar high so he ignored him. 🤣
The mushroom: You change over time. Your ideas, taste, body, everything. Keep giving things a chance, a 2nd, 3rd, 4th time. Don't solidify into an immovable person that shuts things down forever.
Also, acquired tastes are *acquired*, not something you develop on the first try. Maybe you'll find out that you really appreciate certain aspects of something once you get used to the parts that were initially offensive to you.
Its a good idea, but a bad example. You dont need to love mushrooms, you dont need to eat mushrooms. Its funny to think someone who hates mushrooms would try so hard to like mushrooms. In life, some things are better shut down forever (jealousy, anger, resentment...), and sometimes you have to keep trying (to be better, do good things). If you are bad or prone to doing bad things, then of course you should keep trying to be good as long as it takes for you to start liking doing good things instead of bad. But if you are not doing any bad things, its crazy for you to keep trying to do bad things cause maybe you will start liking it someday. Mushrooms may be neutral in this scenario, and the story depicts a real struggle people have, however the message is wrong, you dont always need to keep giving things a chance, for example you dont need to keep giving bad or sinful things/people a chance, but you should keep giving good and virtuous things/people chances. It goes both ways, change is not inherently good, things can change for the better or worse, you can change to better or worse.
Another part is that the mushroom is definitely something that you can learn to appreciate, but even then the crunch never goes away. This could mean that even when you find something that you absolutely (learn) to love, there is always going to be a part of it that is bothersome. You just have to accept that even the best things in life can have an annoying side to it.
I know that I’m parasocial when I can think of a story where a stranger changed joeys life and he can’t even think of it lmao. The time that the woman at the airport gave Joey a free boarding pass for a plane and made him cry is what came to mind.
@@nemesis3089 I have no idea but I remember him telling it in one of the eps. If I find it I’ll lyk. Edit: I found it. It’s on the clips channel called “Joey Was Trapped In Canada for 5 Days and Couldn’t Escape”
One of the biggest keys to the Monty Hall is if you understand the fact that they will NEVER REVEAL THE DOOR WITH THE PRIZE, they will always reveal a blank door. So it ends up narrowing down where the prize actually is. so with that knowledge, let's say we have three doors and prize is in DOOR C: 1. you pick A, they reveal B is blank, swapping for C wins 2. you pick B, they reveal A is blank, swapping for C wins 3. you pick C, they reveal either A or B, swapping loses Swapping will win more than not
Wait why would you not have option 3 be 2 different options? 3. you pick C, they reveal A, swapping for B loses 4. you pick C, they reveal B, swapping for A loses By the logic of 'they will never reveal the door with the prize', shouldn't there be 4 total possibilities for what happens, not 3? which is how we naturally assume it to end up being a 50/50 chance and swapping should not change the odds.
@@Firozaki the only time swapping loses is if your initial pick Is C where as chosing A or B swapping wins. So it's a 1 in 3 chance that swapping loses. At least that's what I think it means. That's probably also where the paradox is, if swapping always wins on A or B but always loses on C then it looks like a 1 in 3 chance but C also has two possibilities of losing so it also seems like 50/50
@@sundern1689yes that is correct. There are only three possibilities: you pick door A which has no prize, the host opens the other empty door and you swap to C, you pick door B and the host opens the other empty door, you again swap to C, or you pick C, the host opens one of the two doors without a prize, doesn’t matter which one, and you swap to a losing door. The three options come from your initial pick, the 2/3 odds of winning after swapping come from the fact that 2/3 of your initial choices will lead the host to reveal the only other door without a prize, thus swapping gives you the prize, while 1/3 of your initial choices lets the host arbitrarily pick an empty door, thus swapping makes you lose.
A lot of people get it when you use more than 3 doors. For example 100 doors. You pick one. Game show host reveals that 98 doors are empty. It's unlikely your first pick was correct, while switching to the last door is very likely to be the winner.
i feel like this probably gets said like every week, but i think it's crazy how much of a routine tuning in for a trash taste episode has become for me and so many other listeners. i keep catching myself thinking on a thursday night "oh, tomorrow is friday, that means another trash taste episode will be released", and i don't know why but i feel comforted by that fact every single time. just these couple of guys getting together to talk about whatever is on their minds makes me feel like i can get through the week no matter how tough it seemed to be going. it never makes me fail to realize just how important the little things in life are. this comment isn't meant to pressure anyone in the office to work more, but merely an observation i needed to get off my chest. if there's ever a time that anyone on set needs to take a break, please do; episodes can wait, always put yourselves first. but with that being said, thank you guys for being so consistent for so long; i (and likely many others) appreciate it more than you probably think
as a fan i totally agree with you here. I've been an all time fan of these boys pretty much since they started this podcast. and at the start of last year i started making it a routine to keep up with every episode as no matter how good or bad life would get, hearing them talk to each other and just having a good time just reminds me of the good stuff in life and never fails to make me smile. This episode did make me think pretty deep, but it was almost a positive deep thinking for once. The boys have helped my positive mindset so much even if they don't know me or realize it and watching or listening to a weekly episode really just is some of the best parts of my week!
Nah man, it's not that crazy. I remember a time when I was in uni and the biggest comfort of my life was Thursdays when the latest scanlated chapter of Naruto got dropped. 20 years later, I'm still a degenerate. That's a comforting thought, too.
It feels really weird for me as I spent 160 episodes writing a long comment on the subreddit time stamped, and joined the subreddit mod team and then went to Japan and wasn’t able to watch it on release and have ended up missing like 30 episodes and just no longer having an easy time to write the long comments. It’s still something I enjoy watching but I lost my magic schedule and don’t know how to get it back.
coffee guy here, the coffee bean that connor talked about is probably a Peaberry, which is a 'whole' coffee bean as opposed to the common coffee beans that is split into two in the coffee cherries. practically speaking, peaberry is just a cover-all term and has no advantages or disadvantages compared the non-peaberry coffees.
Teaching people basic hygiene and how to clean is so real, when I was 20 yo a friend of mine got a job at a tattoo studio and one of his chores was to clean the bathroom everyday and at first he had no idea because his mom always took care of cleaning in his house.
That is small % of kids. And the person they showed in the video... that is mental illness. Teaching them is not going to help. That is the issue with really traditional families. The mom does all the work unless there are children that are girls.
@@IdOnThAvEaUsE42069 Having trash stacked up a tradition now that is wild. You must not have understood what is written I did not say the tradition of not teaching boys to clean is mental illness. But hey way to twist things that I said to argue against then like your own comment.
@@IdOnThAvEaUsE42069 funny how I did not call the traditional family a mental illness. Just criticized it for not teaching boys how to clean. I called the girl they showed living with trash piled up mental illness mental illness. Because you have to have a mental illness to live like that. Hey way to misunderstood what is said to be offended.
@@IdOnThAvEaUsE42069 that is not what I have said... but hey way to twist what I said to be offended. Or do you mean have trash stacked up in your house or apartment a tradition.
@@laurencefraser It's funny because his explanation is so weird it's hard to know if he's right for the right or wrong reasons. One way to look at the problem is indeed to treat the host-opened door as a freebie you get for switching doors, thus you do indeed get 2 out of 3 doors.
Connor didn't get it. His explanation was that, "it used to be 1 in 3, but now that 1 is revealed, it's now 50-50 but with a freebie, hence 2 in 3" which makes zero sense if you really think about it. The simplest I can explain the paradox would be: -You start with a 1/3 chance, which means you have a 2/3 chance to be wrong. -When one door is revealed, you still retain the statistic of your own door having 2/3 chance to be wrong. -Because there's only 2 doors left and your own door has 2/3 chance to be wrong, the last remaining door (the one that you didn't pick and wasn't revealed yet) has 2/3 chance to be the correct door.
I've always suspected clapping was an instinctive gesture long before it became a cultural expression, because babies will awkwardly clap their hands when they're excited or having a positive interaction with someone.
But babies are like, learning SPONGES. It's impossible to know if that's truly human nature without raising a baby in a completely controlled environment
the clapping thing doesn't seem weird to me at all because it's a very simple motion that makes a loud noise distinct from your voice, and there's lots of reasons why someone would do that. particularly when one person claps, and other people follow suit, the collective noise feels more united than trying to coordinate something similar through voice, so of course someone put their hands together one time and it caught on. seems almost like monkey behaviour to me. and y'know, just having palms that hit against things seems like a basic intuitive thing people would do, why not hit them against each other?
This episode reminded me of a time my life was changed by a stranger on a holiday to Greece. We had gone to a dinner with some local families and there was this couple there that had to be in their late 70s early 80s. And we hit it off, so much so that we decided to go on a catamaran trip the next day with them for 12 hours. We learned about their time fighting apartheid in South Africa and their lives of strife. They gave us a real look at how it was to live life to it's fullest and never take things from granted. It made me a much more content and appreciative person. I felt like I was more confident in doing what I wanted and what I felt was right. That truly changed my outlook at a time where I felt lost and I will never be able to fully thank them to this day. We still chat on snail mail from time to time! Love them and wish them the best ❤
Garnt: They combine peanut and butter to make peanut butter. Joey: Socrates invented philosophy. These conversations are as deep as the water in a rice field.
Connor saying his biggest insecurity was balding then quickly laughing it off is a great example of how insecure that shit can make you. It legit sucks and it’s such an insecurity that you can’t even say it’s an insecurity without people shrugging it off. you don’t realize how much it can fuck you up unless you experience it.
The 2nd to the last question kinda made me tear up man. At first when I was still in my "rebel" phase or whatever, I sort of planned that I'm going to leave my parents, go abroad and just cut ties with them. I'm still in Uni and now I can't even handle the thought of my old parents being alone in their last moments man.
Something i don't tolerate anymore is people who drinks until wasted or black out. Like when i was younger i did not care because it was whatever, but now that im older i just wanna have fun and talk. Now people just drink and start shit. Always starting something every time we go out.
Fashion magazines. Before youtube there were printed instructions with photos. There were some makeup artists who would make training tapes. You could also go to a department store makeup counter. They would give you a makeover and sell you products.
I know I learned BASIC makeup (eyebrows, eye shadow, lipstick and voluminous hair) from watching my mom and her friends getting ready for nights on the town while I would be left with one of the teenage daughter of my mom's friend. Late 90's early 2000's were a time!
The Monty Hall paradox is one of my favourite problems. As a logical person, it makes so much sense because people overlook the fact that the Monty Hall situation ALWAYS reveals a losing door. In other words, the reason why switching yields a 2/3 chance of winning is because at the very beginning of the problem, you had a 2/3 chance of choosing a losing door.
I absolutely despise it lol. It looks like a a 3rd grader discover the concept of probability in math for the first time. It's honestly even hilariously startling that this got popular. Might even top earth is flat phenomenal at this point...
Connor inheriting Chris persona is hilarious even tho they're both brit's still funny how he got a entirely new vibe and all of them got way too much energy than normal, they're really not aging.
A rugby coach gave me a life time insecurity. We'd finished a drill and a teammates tells me "-my name- you always look serious, smile!" so I half-heartedly did, and immediately this coach shouts "this isn't a time for smiling, get serious!" in an angry tone, directed right at me a freshman high school student. So, now I always have this voice in my head wondering if I'm being too much for those around me.
If people are still confused about the Monty Hall problem, imagine instead of 3 doors there’s 100 doors now with only one of those being the prize. You choose 1 door with 1/100 probability of getting the prize. The host who knows where the prize is opens 98 doors now, leaving your door and an unopened door. You chose your door with 1/100 probability of getting the prize, but this door that you didn’t choose now has a 99/100 probability of having the prize since the other doors were opened. The probability of your door locked itself to 1/100, but the new door went from 1/100 to 99/100.
So it's just GROUPING between 1. the one you chose (1/100) 2. the ones you didn't choose (99/100) I see it now and that's so stupid. I'm keeping my fckin choice just open the door NOW before you guys have enough time to move the prize to a different door.
The annoying thing is the math checks out... But only if you take it as a new choice. I.e. the first choice is always going to be bad odds, but the second will always be 50/50. Someone given the second choice ignorant of the first will have 50/50 odds on EITHER choice. Ergo mathematically the same odds as the normal player should have to swap or stay with their choice. You're gambling no matter what, but claiming it *improves* your odds to swap every time is annoying.
@@JacksonJinn In probability this is called an event. You see the whole event of picking first and then getting the chance to change. That’s how this Monty Hall problem is situated. Hope that helps. :)
@@st.lucient4755 Haha yeah it’s definitely confusing the first time I learned it. Conditional probability is always like that because events can alter the probability.
Heres an explanation of the monty hall paradox they were talking about. Let's say there are three doors, and behind them are like the following: Nothing - Prize - Nothing Let's look at all the possibilities. If you choose Door 1, the host must open Door 3, and if you change your choice to Door 2, you win. If you choose Door 2 and decide to change your door, you lose. If you choose Door 3, the host must open Door 1, and if you change your choice to Door 2, you win. As we can see, in all three possibilities where you change your door, you win twice out of the three possibilities. Similarly, let's consider the possibilities where you stick with your initial choice: If you choose Door 1, you lose. If you choose Door 2, you win. If you choose Door 3, you lose. We can clearly see that the strategy of changing your door gives you a higher chance of winning the prize. It's not a 50/50 scenario, but rather a 2/3 probability of winning if you switch doors. When host opens one of the remaining doors, he provides you with a new information. This information is not changing the initial probabilities but telling you that: "The probability of the prize being in one of the 2 doors you did not choose is 66.7% and I am opening one of these doors for you. In the beginning there was a 66.7% probability that the prize was in one of these two doors, and I showed you which of these doors had a nothing." The 33.3% probability was added because of the information the host gave us. Thus, when we change our door, we have a 66.7% probability of winning.
I like this explanation even if it's a little wordy. Personally I have two other ways to change the aproach: - You can pretend the host asks you to either open your initial door or all of the others (thus you open 2/3 doors and have 2/3 odds). - What if there were 1000 doors and the host openned 998 of them revealing nothing? It would be very unlikely to have picked right at first, so it's sometimes easier for people to get it.
@@justsomeguysHandleChangedByYT There are multiple definitions of a paradox, and situations with counter-intuitive solutions are one of them. Look-up Jan Misali's video on the 5 kind of paradoxes, he breaks the definitions down very well.
Something about this episode banter so far sets it apart from the rest i don’t know why, maybe we've been getting too many prompts (not complaining tho)
Switching in the Monty hall problem gives you a 2/3 to win because let’s split up the problem with a tree diagram. When you first pick your door, you have 1/3 to win, 1/3 to lose and another 1/3 to lose. When you switch, all these outcomes flip so 1/3 to lose, 1/3 to win, and then another 1/3 to win. Thus, switching results in an overall 2/3 to win. If you are just looking at the switching scenario alone without the context of the 3 doors, then it is 1/2 to win or lose but because we have extra information before that, it does alter the chances.
Or, as there's many explanations, one that doesn't require a tree: The revealed empty door is not random. This is what breaks the intuitive 50/50 chance. The door you're shown is *always* empty, therefore unless you were right the first time - which you know is always 1/3 - the remaining door is always the winner. If the revealed door was random, or non-random but based on a system that doesn't depend on the prize location, like always revealing the door to the right of the pick, then it would become 50/50, because sometimes the remaining door will be a loser because the prize just got shown. This doesn't really make for a good gameshow, though - but is relevant if there's tiers of prizes, instead of winner and two losers. Top winner being revealed tells you less, and potentially nothing, about where second place is.
Honestly, Joey saying how he likes when people aren’t afraid to ask questions when confused because I do that all the time and feel bad about it, especially after some responses. Been feeling down about myself more than usual, recently; so, thank you for that immensely, Joey 💙.
When Garnt said he feels he’s boring, I felt that so much 😭. You’re not alone, Garnt! The comparison game is brutal, and overcoming it may take a lifetime, but I hope you know you’re one of my favorite people and definitely not boring 😆😭💙
When you talked about strangers changing lives, you guys do with this and other videos of yours, whether it’s these podcast episodes or anything. Sometimes, you guys say something that makes me tear up because it makes me feel okay about myself and how I am. Whether it’s in agreement with things I feel or believe in or something you like in a person, it helps. So, thank you ❤.
Joey brother your honesty in this episode was God Tier. Maybe bc the othe guys were high or something but you got newgound respect from dude. Extremely well spoken 👏
As a modern student, i was taught internet safety, how to talk to people, and how to do taxes. I dont remember any of it because that was in elementary school
The Monty Hall Problem basically says that the probabilty changes because it's NOT Random. You will ALWAYS be shown the wrong door. It's really freaking counter-intuitive.
Bro, the "peanut butter is just ground peanuts" reveal brought back a memory I had from daycare of us unshelling peanuts while Lion King 2 is playing and seeing them ground the peanuts in front of us so we can make peanut butter and jelly sandwiches 😲
23:09 This is unironically a good idea. We've hit the first point in human history where kids are uploading the majority of illegal videos of children in sexual situations instead of it being adults, which is the kind of stat that freaked out my entire criminology class. We're letting kids run around online without any safety advice and it's not ending well.
The anxiety of the two british men deflecting for the first like 10 or so minutes of the video to delay "getting deep". 🤣😂. Garnt getting super random and Connor being "hyper" from the muffin. Poor Joey who was trying to navigate their chaos😁
The door paradox is easier to comprehend with percentage. Like, you have ~33% to choose correct door and ~66% to choose wrong one. Statistically you will more often choose wrong. So by reviling (eliminating) one wrong door, and asking if you want to switch your choice -- *statistically* you should. Cause again you probably choose wrong one in the first place *statistically*.
@@SavantGardeEXI'd guess it's cuz butter was way more prominent in the 19th century and processed food wasn't a thing at the time. I associate pastes with super processed food. Just a guess tho.
1:21:31 On the Monty Hall problem: When you first choose the door, there is 1/3 chance you pick the car. So, there is 2/3 chance the car is behind one of the other two doors. Now, the host will always reveal a door that does not contain a car. Since there was a 2/3 chance that the car is behind one of the other two doors, after one of the doors is eliminated, there is a 2/3 chance that the car is behind the door the host did not reveal. The important thing here is that the host does not reveal the door on random, but according to where the car is. So, his choice of revealing a door gives you information.
About the Monty Hall question, Connor is kind of right. Why it’s not a 50% chance is because you likely picked a door with nothing (66%), thus when the other nothing door is revealed, the only event where switching is wrong is when you picked the right door first try on a 33% chance, effectively making switching the right play 66% of the time.
Connor's logic regarding the Monty Hall problem is basically correct. It's a lot more clear if you imagine there are more doors. Suppose there were 100 doors instead of 3. You choose one, they reveal 98 doors to be empty. Now there's two unopened doors, your original choice and one other door, do you switch? Obviously yes. Another good way of thinking of it: You have a 1/3 chance of choosing correctly on the first guess and a 2/3 chance of choosing incorrectly. If you always switch, you lose the 1/3 of the time you guessed correctly. But you win the 2/3 of the time your initial guess was incorrect because there were two other options and now it's narrowed down to only one, which must be the correct option because your initial guess was wrong and the other one you didn't guess is the open door.
The issue is people think of the switching of the doors like a coin toss. Switching of the doors represents switching the probabilities around. Initially you had a 1 in 3 chance of being correct and 2 in 3 chance of being wrong. When you are told you can swap you are being told that you can hedge your bets on the fact that you didnt hit the 1 in 3, but rather that you hit the 2 in 3. Therefore making swapping give you a 2 in 3 chance of winning the game every time.
@@TheHirosa yeah the coin toss logic seems intuitively correct but isn't because of the added information of the open door To rephrase what you said in my own words: You have a 1/3 chance of choosing correctly on the first guess and a 2/3 chance of choosing incorrectly. That's obvious. If you always switch, you lose the 1/3 of the time you guessed correctly. But you win the 2/3 of the time your initial guess was incorrect because there were two other options and now it's narrowed down to only one, which must be the correct option because your initial guess was wrong and the other one you didn't guess is the open door.
I actually first came across this paradox a couple weeks ago and came to another conclusion but your thought process helps explain why the statistics work out the way they do. When I first looked into this there was an added stipulation that you KNEW the host would always reveal a junk door first so my thought was it was actually a 50/50 from the very beginning. But if you do not know that then your way of thinking works out.
@@kamekaze878 It doesnt matter if you know or not. If you pick a door with a goat (2/3) and switch, you win. If you don't switch, you have to pick the door with a car (1/3) immediately.
how the monty hall paradox works is that if you chose an empty door to begin with switching always gives you the prize, if you chose the prize to begin with, switching will give you an empty door, the odds you selected the prize is only a 1/3 chance, and the odds you selected an empty door is 2/3 chance therefore switching wins the prize 2/3 times
To explain the 3 doors paradox, you could think of it like this. Because the host knows the right door and the door you picked (and never reveals either), it modifies the original question. "What are the chances of choosing the one correct door, if you chose between one out of the three, or the remaining two" This is because you get free information from the host, and because you influenced the host too. They can't reveal the door you initially picked, making the free reveal only apply to the other 2 Source: I have no experience or knowledgeable about any of this. I'm just thinking about it
Tbh I love nothing more on a rainy, cold night than listening to the boys while drinking a few cold ones and cooking some good food(preferably a recipe, that takes a bit longer, so I can finish the episode, while I eat). I live alone, so it makes me feel like I have company and am just a part of the boys. Much love from germany!😊❤
If you want to EASILY UNDERSTAND the MONTE HALL paradox, you have to think of it with 100 doors. When you make your initial choice you have 1/100 chance it is the right door. So there is a 99% chance it is the wrong door. Then we open all the other doors showing you there is nothing behind them and you are left with your choice and another door. You should switch, because you know that your door has 99% chance of being wrong. When you made your first choice the odds were not in your favor so you should switch because now there is less chance of it being wrong.
The monty hall paradox can be resolved by rephrasing the question. 1) Pick a door out of three doors. 2) Do you want to swap and open the two remaining doors? Remember that it doesn't matter if the host helped you open a door or you opened it yourself, it's still opening a door. So in this question, obviously you should swap because you can open the remaining two doors. Hence 2/3 The only time you'll get wrong is if you chose the correct dor at the start.
where do girls learn to do make up: we do it in our rooms before we start wearing it until we no longer look odd...i still look odd so im still practicing LOL
Honestly this is one of my favorite episodes. The beginning being as hilarious as it was leading into an episode with some of the deepest advice I’ve gotten in awhile is some of the best dichotomy from the boys we’ve seen in a quite some time. This is definitely going down on my list as one of the greats
For the Monty Hall paradox, there's two ways to change the way to look at the problem to better understand it: - If there were a thouthand doors and the host openned 998 of them after you picked one. -> switching gives you 99.9% odds. - If the question asked wasn't "this door or the unopened one?" but rather "do you prefer opening your door or all of the other doors?" -> you open 2/3 total doors instead of just one. Since the prize won't change place on it's own and you had a low probability of chosing right from the get-go, opening all of the other doors is always going to increase your odds dramatically. Keep in mind the host KNOWS where the prize is but will ALWAYS open a wrong one and propose to switch. When you first pick a door, he cannot open it even if you were wrong.
A subject that should be taught in schools should be Suicide Prevention. Understanding the process from suicidal flashes to thoughts to planning and acting is so important. Not only to save a life but even to save yours and understand what is happening in your mind and seek help. It's also very hard to ask those questions, normalizing it with around teenage will serve them all of their lives to be vigilant and understanding of themselves and their loved ones.
In the Monty hall problem, the reason it makes sense is because the host is FORCED to reveal a non prize door. So the two doors you don’t have have a 2/3 chance of containing the prize. So 2/3 times the host is FORCED to show you a door that does not have the prize, because the other door has the prize in it. So 2/3 times it’s better to choose the door the host didn’t pick, because 2/3 times he is forced to not pick the winning door.
Monty Hall paradox rules are simple. You to host: "open the remaining last wrong door'. 2 times out of 3 (as you have 2 chances to pick a wrong door in the first round) the host HAS to open the last remaining wrong door. Only if in the first round you picked the right door(a 1 in 3 chance), the host can pick a door.
" This episode is gonna be deep ."
(14 minute tangent of peanut butter, $700 juicers, and headphones ensues)
It went deep though.
@@ausreir I'm not sitting through 30 minutes of deflection for that
@@personname1008 is this your first time listening? If not, I'm surprised you haven't figured out what this podcast is about already
@nanashi7779 I dropped off at the meme video when they would not let up on Ohio for 10 minutes. I used to be a patreon but they couldn't even upload right at least when I was there. If you like them still go for it, I hopped back because I was hoping they'd have some self reflection, but I guess it was just clickbait
@@personname1008 Crazy. Self reflect? Clickbait? Bro this is PODCAST, they talk about whatever thing they want to, title are just there to summarize the main topic. If you don't have the attention span when click on a podcast, that says a lot.
omg conner saying peanut butter is low in calories followed up by ganrt thinking peanut butter was made with peanuts and butter was some of the best podcast revelations i've ever seen and i'm not even 10mins in. this is gonna be a good ep
I have played a Point-and-Click-Adventure once where you have to make peanutbutter Garnt's way.
@@brilliantsableye2591point n click rely on creative solutions though?
Ok but this raises a good point that I need to remember later. Actual butter on bread is good under peanut butter. Like 🎉 😂 Maybe they were onto something there.
Garnt hammering in so hard that there would be actual butter in there made me cringe so bad lmfao
Garnt thinking peanut butter has butter in it ducked me up 😂
Connor asking Joey for a new shirt had the energy of a kid talking to his parents.
and Joey and Connor telling Garnt to put the rubiks cube down lol
Joey is always the adult lol
@@oomay1925 Joey dealing with an actual ADHD kid 15:26
It reminds me of the letter an ancient Babylonian child wrote their mother for new clothes 😂
46:31
Garnt the monk, member of a rockband, And reciever of a shoutout from Mr. Anime will never be a boring person. He has so much lore locked up in the BBC archive we havent seen yet.
This feels like the episode with the most tangents because the boys are trying so hard to avoid the deep questions lol. Love it
Imagine talking about biggest insecurity and not mentioning balding
@@curupa66 he did actually mention balding but no one responded and he moved on lol
@@curupa66 he did
@@curupa66balding isn't that big of a deal, he could have easily gotten over it by now
@@mannychen Spoken like someone who hasn't ever worried about it. Go on any related subreddit and you'll find suicide notes lmao
Joey: "this episode is gonna be deep"
Garnt: *cracks open a beer immediately*
"I think paradox means something fucking different mate" - Garnt quote of the year
Joey saying that he hates gossip while also simultaneously having a second channel that talks about the tea of Japan is such a Trash Taste moment
I hate his second channel so much lmao
Then just hate watch it. That way atleast joey can make some money off of you .@@austinwiebe3801
Joey absolutely losing it dealing with 2 children is one of the funniest shit I've ever seen
Not even 5 min into the episode 😅
Timestamp?
@@gutzz1519the whole video
@@gutzz1519 0:00 - 2:05:05
@@gutzz1519 the whole first quarter my guy😭
Garnt: “I just feels like I’m a boring person sometimes”
Tells a heroic story on how he recused an Old Japanese man
Like literally his life events and how he handles them is so not normal lmao
>Co-creates one of the biggest western anime fanbases on YT
>moves halfway across the world
"i just feel like im a boring person sometimes" aight bro...
Connor having a sugar high is the greatest thing I’ve ever seen 😂
Honestly!!!
I remember that clip when it looked like Garnt ignored Connor during their stream. I think it was the cookie tasting one and Garnt said he knew Connor was in a sugar high so he ignored him. 🤣
Sure "A Sugar high" 😂
We need more episodes of the Sugar High Boys because the start was better than them whilst drunk.
The mushroom: You change over time. Your ideas, taste, body, everything. Keep giving things a chance, a 2nd, 3rd, 4th time.
Don't solidify into an immovable person that shuts things down forever.
Also, acquired tastes are *acquired*, not something you develop on the first try. Maybe you'll find out that you really appreciate certain aspects of something once you get used to the parts that were initially offensive to you.
@@Honeybreeeabsolutely,hated sauerkraut,mustard and other bitter things not even a few years ago…. I’ll tear that shit up now🤣
Its a good idea, but a bad example. You dont need to love mushrooms, you dont need to eat mushrooms. Its funny to think someone who hates mushrooms would try so hard to like mushrooms. In life, some things are better shut down forever (jealousy, anger, resentment...), and sometimes you have to keep trying (to be better, do good things). If you are bad or prone to doing bad things, then of course you should keep trying to be good as long as it takes for you to start liking doing good things instead of bad. But if you are not doing any bad things, its crazy for you to keep trying to do bad things cause maybe you will start liking it someday. Mushrooms may be neutral in this scenario, and the story depicts a real struggle people have, however the message is wrong, you dont always need to keep giving things a chance, for example you dont need to keep giving bad or sinful things/people a chance, but you should keep giving good and virtuous things/people chances. It goes both ways, change is not inherently good, things can change for the better or worse, you can change to better or worse.
Another part is that the mushroom is definitely something that you can learn to appreciate, but even then the crunch never goes away. This could mean that even when you find something that you absolutely (learn) to love, there is always going to be a part of it that is bothersome. You just have to accept that even the best things in life can have an annoying side to it.
"For one to have good taste, one must first have no taste" - Gigguk
I’m glad the boys went from hating on Americans to all finding their American significant others.
Joey&Aki
Garnt&Sydney
Connor&Ludwig
I mean even if they're not partners. Mousey is still Puerto Rican. Which is part of the US right?
Yup!@@charapresscott7750
@@charapresscott7750 Si
Joey and Grant have had theirs from the jump of TT. It took Connor a few years to find his American Pride.
@@charapresscott7750True. But find me a Native Puerto Rican that doesn't hate Americans and that'll be a day hell freezes over.
I know that I’m parasocial when I can think of a story where a stranger changed joeys life and he can’t even think of it lmao. The time that the woman at the airport gave Joey a free boarding pass for a plane and made him cry is what came to mind.
@@nemesis3089 I have no idea but I remember him telling it in one of the eps. If I find it I’ll lyk.
Edit: I found it. It’s on the clips channel called “Joey Was Trapped In Canada for 5 Days and Couldn’t Escape”
@@nemesis3089 im pretty sure KOFNY is the stranger that changed ur life now
@@nemesis3089 No worries
@@swooshieblooshie6083 LMAO
Them saying Connor doesn’t have an American partner like Ludwig isn’t just waiting for his pookie to get home and video call him 🥺
you are so right they are soulmates
You mean mouse?
Qt is like 'this is my bf ludwig and this is his bf conner and this is conners friend ironmouse
@@ryana5435joking about ludwig is funny but not mouse lol
@@ryana5435 If it's okay to ship real people now then I ship you and your degen body pillow
Garnt so confidently wrong with peanut butter being butter and peanuts combined. Is astounding.
idk how to explain but the VIBES in this episode are so great
bless that muffin
@@amber-ce9vdand garnt’s beer both of them were losing it 😂😂
One of the biggest keys to the Monty Hall is if you understand the fact that they will NEVER REVEAL THE DOOR WITH THE PRIZE, they will always reveal a blank door. So it ends up narrowing down where the prize actually is.
so with that knowledge, let's say we have three doors and prize is in DOOR C:
1. you pick A, they reveal B is blank, swapping for C wins
2. you pick B, they reveal A is blank, swapping for C wins
3. you pick C, they reveal either A or B, swapping loses
Swapping will win more than not
This helped me finally understand, thank you.
Wait why would you not have option 3 be 2 different options?
3. you pick C, they reveal A, swapping for B loses
4. you pick C, they reveal B, swapping for A loses
By the logic of 'they will never reveal the door with the prize', shouldn't there be 4 total possibilities for what happens, not 3? which is how we naturally assume it to end up being a 50/50 chance and swapping should not change the odds.
@@Firozaki the only time swapping loses is if your initial pick Is C where as chosing A or B swapping wins. So it's a 1 in 3 chance that swapping loses. At least that's what I think it means. That's probably also where the paradox is, if swapping always wins on A or B but always loses on C then it looks like a 1 in 3 chance but C also has two possibilities of losing so it also seems like 50/50
@@sundern1689yes that is correct. There are only three possibilities: you pick door A which has no prize, the host opens the other empty door and you swap to C, you pick door B and the host opens the other empty door, you again swap to C, or you pick C, the host opens one of the two doors without a prize, doesn’t matter which one, and you swap to a losing door. The three options come from your initial pick, the 2/3 odds of winning after swapping come from the fact that 2/3 of your initial choices will lead the host to reveal the only other door without a prize, thus swapping gives you the prize, while 1/3 of your initial choices lets the host arbitrarily pick an empty door, thus swapping makes you lose.
A lot of people get it when you use more than 3 doors.
For example 100 doors.
You pick one.
Game show host reveals that 98 doors are empty.
It's unlikely your first pick was correct, while switching to the last door is very likely to be the winner.
i feel like this probably gets said like every week, but i think it's crazy how much of a routine tuning in for a trash taste episode has become for me and so many other listeners. i keep catching myself thinking on a thursday night "oh, tomorrow is friday, that means another trash taste episode will be released", and i don't know why but i feel comforted by that fact every single time. just these couple of guys getting together to talk about whatever is on their minds makes me feel like i can get through the week no matter how tough it seemed to be going. it never makes me fail to realize just how important the little things in life are.
this comment isn't meant to pressure anyone in the office to work more, but merely an observation i needed to get off my chest. if there's ever a time that anyone on set needs to take a break, please do; episodes can wait, always put yourselves first. but with that being said, thank you guys for being so consistent for so long; i (and likely many others) appreciate it more than you probably think
as a fan i totally agree with you here. I've been an all time fan of these boys pretty much since they started this podcast.
and at the start of last year i started making it a routine to keep up with every episode as no matter how good or bad life would get, hearing them talk to each other and just having a good time just reminds me of the good stuff in life and never fails to make me smile. This episode did make me think pretty deep, but it was almost a positive deep thinking for once. The boys have helped my positive mindset so much even if they don't know me or realize it and watching or listening to a weekly episode really just is some of the best parts of my week!
its nice to see some more love for the pod after everyone's been negative ❤
Since episode one of this podcast, I’ve been religiously watching these guys. A level of authenticity I can’t get from other podcasts is here
Nah man, it's not that crazy. I remember a time when I was in uni and the biggest comfort of my life was Thursdays when the latest scanlated chapter of Naruto got dropped.
20 years later, I'm still a degenerate. That's a comforting thought, too.
It feels really weird for me as I spent 160 episodes writing a long comment on the subreddit time stamped, and joined the subreddit mod team and then went to Japan and wasn’t able to watch it on release and have ended up missing like 30 episodes and just no longer having an easy time to write the long comments.
It’s still something I enjoy watching but I lost my magic schedule and don’t know how to get it back.
coffee guy here, the coffee bean that connor talked about is probably a Peaberry, which is a 'whole' coffee bean as opposed to the common coffee beans that is split into two in the coffee cherries.
practically speaking, peaberry is just a cover-all term and has no advantages or disadvantages compared the non-peaberry coffees.
This episode is looking like a banger bc the lengths these boys are going to not answer the questions is content the world has never seen.
“Life ain’t nothing but bitches and money” - Guts, Berserk
Teaching people basic hygiene and how to clean is so real, when I was 20 yo a friend of mine got a job at a tattoo studio and one of his chores was to clean the bathroom everyday and at first he had no idea because his mom always took care of cleaning in his house.
That is small % of kids. And the person they showed in the video... that is mental illness. Teaching them is not going to help.
That is the issue with really traditional families. The mom does all the work unless there are children that are girls.
@@IdOnThAvEaUsE42069 Having trash stacked up a tradition now that is wild. You must not have understood what is written
I did not say the tradition of not teaching boys to clean is mental illness.
But hey way to twist things that I said to argue against then like your own comment.
@@IdOnThAvEaUsE42069 funny how I did not call the traditional family a mental illness. Just criticized it for not teaching boys how to clean.
I called the girl they showed living with trash piled up mental illness mental illness. Because you have to have a mental illness to live like that.
Hey way to misunderstood what is said to be offended.
@@IdOnThAvEaUsE42069 that is not what I have said... but hey way to twist what I said to be offended.
Or do you mean have trash stacked up in your house or apartment a tradition.
@@DubhghlasMacDubhghlas Sorry, I misunderstood. 💀
I love how connor basically got the monty hall paradox immediately but the others kept explaining it until he wasn't sure anymore.
His explaination of his understanding was terrible.
@@laurencefraser I dont think he understood anything lol.
@@laurencefraser It's funny because his explanation is so weird it's hard to know if he's right for the right or wrong reasons.
One way to look at the problem is indeed to treat the host-opened door as a freebie you get for switching doors, thus you do indeed get 2 out of 3 doors.
He actually didn't get it, but that's because joey and garnt explained the initial problem poorly
Connor didn't get it. His explanation was that, "it used to be 1 in 3, but now that 1 is revealed, it's now 50-50 but with a freebie, hence 2 in 3" which makes zero sense if you really think about it. The simplest I can explain the paradox would be:
-You start with a 1/3 chance, which means you have a 2/3 chance to be wrong.
-When one door is revealed, you still retain the statistic of your own door having 2/3 chance to be wrong.
-Because there's only 2 doors left and your own door has 2/3 chance to be wrong, the last remaining door (the one that you didn't pick and wasn't revealed yet) has 2/3 chance to be the correct door.
I've always suspected clapping was an instinctive gesture long before it became a cultural expression, because babies will awkwardly clap their hands when they're excited or having a positive interaction with someone.
But babies are like, learning SPONGES. It's impossible to know if that's truly human nature without raising a baby in a completely controlled environment
Because parents clapping hand to attract babies’ attention, that’s how babies learned it
the clapping thing doesn't seem weird to me at all because it's a very simple motion that makes a loud noise distinct from your voice, and there's lots of reasons why someone would do that. particularly when one person claps, and other people follow suit, the collective noise feels more united than trying to coordinate something similar through voice, so of course someone put their hands together one time and it caught on. seems almost like monkey behaviour to me. and y'know, just having palms that hit against things seems like a basic intuitive thing people would do, why not hit them against each other?
There’s always that single clap some people do while laughing to think about too.
This episode reminded me of a time my life was changed by a stranger on a holiday to Greece. We had gone to a dinner with some local families and there was this couple there that had to be in their late 70s early 80s. And we hit it off, so much so that we decided to go on a catamaran trip the next day with them for 12 hours. We learned about their time fighting apartheid in South Africa and their lives of strife. They gave us a real look at how it was to live life to it's fullest and never take things from granted. It made me a much more content and appreciative person. I felt like I was more confident in doing what I wanted and what I felt was right. That truly changed my outlook at a time where I felt lost and I will never be able to fully thank them to this day. We still chat on snail mail from time to time! Love them and wish them the best ❤
Garnt: They combine peanut and butter to make peanut butter.
Joey: Socrates invented philosophy.
These conversations are as deep as the water in a rice field.
Well, thanks for Sakuna of the Rice and Ruins, I now know it ain't that deep.
A rice field is quite deep for an ant
Connor saying his biggest insecurity was balding then quickly laughing it off is a great example of how insecure that shit can make you. It legit sucks and it’s such an insecurity that you can’t even say it’s an insecurity without people shrugging it off. you don’t realize how much it can fuck you up unless you experience it.
I can't tell you how relieved I was when Garnt finally recalled the word "intuitive", I was like that meme of the sweating kid with the forehead veins
LMAO fr I was thinking the same thing
Really loved this episode, the difference between being more open & vulnerable instead of just 95% yapping, 5% life updates, was really refreshing
Just love how unhinged Connor was in the first four minutes
The 2nd to the last question kinda made me tear up man.
At first when I was still in my "rebel" phase or whatever, I sort of planned that I'm going to leave my parents, go abroad and just cut ties with them. I'm still in Uni and now I can't even handle the thought of my old parents being alone in their last moments man.
Something i don't tolerate anymore is people who drinks until wasted or black out. Like when i was younger i did not care because it was whatever, but now that im older i just wanna have fun and talk. Now people just drink and start shit. Always starting something every time we go out.
Fashion magazines. Before youtube there were printed instructions with photos. There were some makeup artists who would make training tapes. You could also go to a department store makeup counter. They would give you a makeover and sell you products.
I know I learned BASIC makeup (eyebrows, eye shadow, lipstick and voluminous hair) from watching my mom and her friends getting ready for nights on the town while I would be left with one of the teenage daughter of my mom's friend. Late 90's early 2000's were a time!
When Connor was saying that Peanutbutter was low on calories, I knew this was going to be a goated episode.
we need to give connor more muffins before an episode lmao 😭 his energy is so spontaneous and im loving it
Wow, the beginning of this episode is so high in energy and they already fact checking stuff about bullcrap they thought that might be correct. 😂😂
connor needs a muffin before every episode from now on LOL
The Monty Hall paradox is one of my favourite problems. As a logical person, it makes so much sense because people overlook the fact that the Monty Hall situation ALWAYS reveals a losing door. In other words, the reason why switching yields a 2/3 chance of winning is because at the very beginning of the problem, you had a 2/3 chance of choosing a losing door.
The paradox seems to stem entirely from people being Really Bad at Explaining it.
@@laurencefraserright lol
I absolutely despise it lol. It looks like a a 3rd grader discover the concept of probability in math for the first time. It's honestly even hilariously startling that this got popular. Might even top earth is flat phenomenal at this point...
Honestly, I think that they just need to bone
"Guns don't kill people, rappers do!" is literally a quote froma goldie looking chain song
And they saw it in a documentary on BBC2
Meilyn was the stranger that changed your lives, just that she no longer is a stranger
I love the contrast between host Joey, tipsy Garnt, and sugar high Connor
Bro Connor’s take on love has no reason to go this fucking hard, he went from “bitches” to fully locking in 💀
Connor inheriting Chris persona is hilarious even tho they're both brit's still funny how he got a entirely new vibe and all of them got way too much energy than normal, they're really not aging.
I just like whenever they do the Chris or Connor voice with each other ."Hurumph What is this!?"
@@Che1seabluesdrogba11 yep true, so unbeatable combination.
Speaking of aging, did you know Chris and Garnt are the same age?
@@quandaIedingIei thought that was a joke tho, Thanks for the info, even tho i watch them all these years om.
@@SociaICancer the difference is Garnt is a n Asian 34 while Chris is a British 34
proof complaining about everything makes you age faster
A rugby coach gave me a life time insecurity. We'd finished a drill and a teammates tells me "-my name- you always look serious, smile!" so I half-heartedly did, and immediately this coach shouts "this isn't a time for smiling, get serious!" in an angry tone, directed right at me a freshman high school student. So, now I always have this voice in my head wondering if I'm being too much for those around me.
He must be trolling you bruv😅
@@hyeleven7491 nah, he was just an arse who had no business coaching a women's rugby team.
As someone with angry default face this hits home, some ppl asked if im upset about something even though im just on neutral
connor at the start of the episode reminds me of a kid the month before christmas who just be asking for shit for his list
Garnt is really trying to avoid the questions, but still gives the most cool answers,
Btw the mushroom story is wildly cool
I never seen Connor so happy and interactive..who knew..muffins were the answer 😂
connor in the first half hour of this episode had me crying
If people are still confused about the Monty Hall problem, imagine instead of 3 doors there’s 100 doors now with only one of those being the prize.
You choose 1 door with 1/100 probability of getting the prize.
The host who knows where the prize is opens 98 doors now, leaving your door and an unopened door.
You chose your door with 1/100 probability of getting the prize, but this door that you didn’t choose now has a 99/100 probability of having the prize since the other doors were opened.
The probability of your door locked itself to 1/100, but the new door went from 1/100 to 99/100.
So it's just GROUPING between
1. the one you chose (1/100)
2. the ones you didn't choose (99/100)
I see it now and that's so stupid.
I'm keeping my fckin choice just open the door NOW before you guys have enough time to move the prize to a different door.
The annoying thing is the math checks out... But only if you take it as a new choice. I.e. the first choice is always going to be bad odds, but the second will always be 50/50.
Someone given the second choice ignorant of the first will have 50/50 odds on EITHER choice. Ergo mathematically the same odds as the normal player should have to swap or stay with their choice.
You're gambling no matter what, but claiming it *improves* your odds to swap every time is annoying.
@@JacksonJinn In probability this is called an event. You see the whole event of picking first and then getting the chance to change. That’s how this Monty Hall problem is situated. Hope that helps. :)
@@st.lucient4755 Haha yeah it’s definitely confusing the first time I learned it. Conditional probability is always like that because events can alter the probability.
@@phaminator3936 thanks for helping me understand this terribly explained paradox though
Appreciate it !
Joey being the dad of the two is hilarous to me 15:29
Garnt asking out of NOWHERE "what is humor?🤔" killed me 😂😂😂
34:45 It got glossed over when he said it here, but Garnt's mom keeping every single card from him is really wholesome ☺
20:58
Joey:*Unintentionally makes a valid point*
Grant and Connor: *Affirmative noises*
Joey: STFU!!
The way they looked at each other in agreement lmaooo
Heres an explanation of the monty hall paradox they were talking about.
Let's say there are three doors, and behind them are like the following:
Nothing - Prize - Nothing
Let's look at all the possibilities.
If you choose Door 1, the host must open Door 3, and if you change your choice to Door 2, you win.
If you choose Door 2 and decide to change your door, you lose.
If you choose Door 3, the host must open Door 1, and if you change your choice to Door 2, you win.
As we can see, in all three possibilities where you change your door, you win twice out of the three possibilities.
Similarly, let's consider the possibilities where you stick with your initial choice:
If you choose Door 1, you lose.
If you choose Door 2, you win.
If you choose Door 3, you lose.
We can clearly see that the strategy of changing your door gives you a higher chance of winning the prize. It's not a 50/50 scenario, but rather a 2/3 probability of winning if you switch doors. When host opens one of the remaining doors, he provides you with a new information. This information is not changing the initial probabilities but telling you that:
"The probability of the prize being in one of the 2 doors you did not choose is 66.7% and I am opening one of these doors for you. In the beginning there was a 66.7% probability that the prize was in one of these two doors, and I showed you which of these doors had a nothing."
The 33.3% probability was added because of the information the host gave us. Thus, when we change our door, we have a 66.7% probability of winning.
blud is cooking
You're the first one to make me understand this paradox despite knowing the answer before
it is not a paradox btw
I like this explanation even if it's a little wordy.
Personally I have two other ways to change the aproach:
- You can pretend the host asks you to either open your initial door or all of the others (thus you open 2/3 doors and have 2/3 odds).
- What if there were 1000 doors and the host openned 998 of them revealing nothing? It would be very unlikely to have picked right at first, so it's sometimes easier for people to get it.
@@justsomeguysHandleChangedByYT There are multiple definitions of a paradox, and situations with counter-intuitive solutions are one of them.
Look-up Jan Misali's video on the 5 kind of paradoxes, he breaks the definitions down very well.
Something about this episode banter so far sets it apart from the rest i don’t know why, maybe we've been getting too many prompts (not complaining tho)
I think Connor should have a muffin every episode 😂
Switching in the Monty hall problem gives you a 2/3 to win because let’s split up the problem with a tree diagram. When you first pick your door, you have 1/3 to win, 1/3 to lose and another 1/3 to lose. When you switch, all these outcomes flip so 1/3 to lose, 1/3 to win, and then another 1/3 to win. Thus, switching results in an overall 2/3 to win. If you are just looking at the switching scenario alone without the context of the 3 doors, then it is 1/2 to win or lose but because we have extra information before that, it does alter the chances.
Or, as there's many explanations, one that doesn't require a tree: The revealed empty door is not random. This is what breaks the intuitive 50/50 chance. The door you're shown is *always* empty, therefore unless you were right the first time - which you know is always 1/3 - the remaining door is always the winner.
If the revealed door was random, or non-random but based on a system that doesn't depend on the prize location, like always revealing the door to the right of the pick, then it would become 50/50, because sometimes the remaining door will be a loser because the prize just got shown. This doesn't really make for a good gameshow, though - but is relevant if there's tiers of prizes, instead of winner and two losers. Top winner being revealed tells you less, and potentially nothing, about where second place is.
Honestly, Joey saying how he likes when people aren’t afraid to ask questions when confused because I do that all the time and feel bad about it, especially after some responses. Been feeling down about myself more than usual, recently; so, thank you for that immensely, Joey 💙.
When Garnt said he feels he’s boring, I felt that so much 😭. You’re not alone, Garnt! The comparison game is brutal, and overcoming it may take a lifetime, but I hope you know you’re one of my favorite people and definitely not boring 😆😭💙
When you talked about strangers changing lives, you guys do with this and other videos of yours, whether it’s these podcast episodes or anything. Sometimes, you guys say something that makes me tear up because it makes me feel okay about myself and how I am. Whether it’s in agreement with things I feel or believe in or something you like in a person, it helps. So, thank you ❤.
we eating good today
We eat trash taste
We laughing, clapping, and the blowing profession today.
🍕😛
Agreed
I’m only 9min and Gigguk and Connor are off the chain. I’d swear they took something before the show lol
Poor Joey.
"Our deepest episode yet" also called as "Connor truly avoiding starting their deepest episode yet"
Joey brother your honesty in this episode was God Tier. Maybe bc the othe guys were high or something but you got newgound respect from dude. Extremely well spoken 👏
The starting 30 mins of this episode: 😆
The rest of it:💀
Connor 200 years ago: "Scurvy is not an illness"
The most manic trash taste episode to date and Im here for it
As a modern student, i was taught internet safety, how to talk to people, and how to do taxes. I dont remember any of it because that was in elementary school
“We gonna talk about deep stuff”
“Avoids deep stuff”
😂
The Monty Hall Problem basically says that the probabilty changes because it's NOT Random. You will ALWAYS be shown the wrong door. It's really freaking counter-intuitive.
As someone who makes peanut butter with his grandma, it's painful to hear garnt saying peanut butter is grind peanuts with butter.
Bro, the "peanut butter is just ground peanuts" reveal brought back a memory I had from daycare of us unshelling peanuts while Lion King 2 is playing and seeing them ground the peanuts in front of us so we can make peanut butter and jelly sandwiches 😲
Garnt is like an alien trying to understanding humans 😂
He is one of us😢
23:09 This is unironically a good idea. We've hit the first point in human history where kids are uploading the majority of illegal videos of children in sexual situations instead of it being adults, which is the kind of stat that freaked out my entire criminology class. We're letting kids run around online without any safety advice and it's not ending well.
Sounds alarming... Do you have a particular study on that? Or any keywords I can use to search for studies about it?
We evolved laughter to let other humans around us know that there isn't any actual danger after a false alarm.
Peanut butter as a combination of peanut and butter is crazy. Gonna be a banger episode!
Imagine the whole episode them avoiding the topic of the episode LOL
The anxiety of the two british men deflecting for the first like 10 or so minutes of the video to delay "getting deep". 🤣😂. Garnt getting super random and Connor being "hyper" from the muffin. Poor Joey who was trying to navigate their chaos😁
as a slavic middle aged woman I couldn't be more farther from Garnt in stats but man do i relate to his insecurities and worries
The door paradox is easier to comprehend with percentage. Like, you have ~33% to choose correct door and ~66% to choose wrong one. Statistically you will more often choose wrong. So by reviling (eliminating) one wrong door, and asking if you want to switch your choice -- *statistically* you should. Cause again you probably choose wrong one in the first place *statistically*.
Holy shit, butter added to pb??? I am absolutely flabbergasted by the ignorance 😂
I know, right! I often smh with these podcasts but this is the first to make me want to comment. 🤦♀️
I mean why is it called peanut butter and nut peanut PASTE
@@SavantGardeEXI'd guess it's cuz butter was way more prominent in the 19th century and processed food wasn't a thing at the time. I associate pastes with super processed food. Just a guess tho.
Ok but you can see how he will get that conclusion about PeaNut BUTTER
Butter and jelly sandwich
1:21:31 On the Monty Hall problem: When you first choose the door, there is 1/3 chance you pick the car. So, there is 2/3 chance the car is behind one of the other two doors. Now, the host will always reveal a door that does not contain a car. Since there was a 2/3 chance that the car is behind one of the other two doors, after one of the doors is eliminated, there is a 2/3 chance that the car is behind the door the host did not reveal. The important thing here is that the host does not reveal the door on random, but according to where the car is. So, his choice of revealing a door gives you information.
I laughed so hard that the first 14 minutes is them actively trying to avoid going on topic
Garnt asking “what’s the purpose of laughter” has to be the highest shit I ever heard
The immediate tangent is incredible
we starting funny > go deep > end with Jackhammer Onahole
PEAK
About the Monty Hall question, Connor is kind of right.
Why it’s not a 50% chance is because you likely picked a door with nothing (66%), thus when the other nothing door is revealed, the only event where switching is wrong is when you picked the right door first try on a 33% chance, effectively making switching the right play 66% of the time.
Connor's logic regarding the Monty Hall problem is basically correct. It's a lot more clear if you imagine there are more doors. Suppose there were 100 doors instead of 3. You choose one, they reveal 98 doors to be empty. Now there's two unopened doors, your original choice and one other door, do you switch? Obviously yes.
Another good way of thinking of it:
You have a 1/3 chance of choosing correctly on the first guess and a 2/3 chance of choosing incorrectly. If you always switch, you lose the 1/3 of the time you guessed correctly. But you win the 2/3 of the time your initial guess was incorrect because there were two other options and now it's narrowed down to only one, which must be the correct option because your initial guess was wrong and the other one you didn't guess is the open door.
The issue is people think of the switching of the doors like a coin toss. Switching of the doors represents switching the probabilities around. Initially you had a 1 in 3 chance of being correct and 2 in 3 chance of being wrong. When you are told you can swap you are being told that you can hedge your bets on the fact that you didnt hit the 1 in 3, but rather that you hit the 2 in 3. Therefore making swapping give you a 2 in 3 chance of winning the game every time.
@@TheHirosa yeah the coin toss logic seems intuitively correct but isn't because of the added information of the open door
To rephrase what you said in my own words:
You have a 1/3 chance of choosing correctly on the first guess and a 2/3 chance of choosing incorrectly. That's obvious. If you always switch, you lose the 1/3 of the time you guessed correctly. But you win the 2/3 of the time your initial guess was incorrect because there were two other options and now it's narrowed down to only one, which must be the correct option because your initial guess was wrong and the other one you didn't guess is the open door.
@@matthewgriisser6079 Thank You!
I actually first came across this paradox a couple weeks ago and came to another conclusion but your thought process helps explain why the statistics work out the way they do.
When I first looked into this there was an added stipulation that you KNEW the host would always reveal a junk door first so my thought was it was actually a 50/50 from the very beginning. But if you do not know that then your way of thinking works out.
@@kamekaze878 It doesnt matter if you know or not. If you pick a door with a goat (2/3) and switch, you win. If you don't switch, you have to pick the door with a car (1/3) immediately.
how the monty hall paradox works is that if you chose an empty door to begin with switching always gives you the prize, if you chose the prize to begin with, switching will give you an empty door, the odds you selected the prize is only a 1/3 chance, and the odds you selected an empty door is 2/3 chance therefore switching wins the prize 2/3 times
To explain the 3 doors paradox, you could think of it like this. Because the host knows the right door and the door you picked (and never reveals either), it modifies the original question.
"What are the chances of choosing the one correct door, if you chose between one out of the three, or the remaining two"
This is because you get free information from the host, and because you influenced the host too. They can't reveal the door you initially picked, making the free reveal only apply to the other 2
Source: I have no experience or knowledgeable about any of this. I'm just thinking about it
Tbh I love nothing more on a rainy, cold night than listening to the boys while drinking a few cold ones and cooking some good food(preferably a recipe, that takes a bit longer, so I can finish the episode, while I eat). I live alone, so it makes me feel like I have company and am just a part of the boys. Much love from germany!😊❤
If you want to EASILY UNDERSTAND the MONTE HALL paradox, you have to think of it with 100 doors. When you make your initial choice you have 1/100 chance it is the right door. So there is a 99% chance it is the wrong door. Then we open all the other doors showing you there is nothing behind them and you are left with your choice and another door. You should switch, because you know that your door has 99% chance of being wrong. When you made your first choice the odds were not in your favor so you should switch because now there is less chance of it being wrong.
The monty hall paradox can be resolved by rephrasing the question.
1) Pick a door out of three doors.
2) Do you want to swap and open the two remaining doors?
Remember that it doesn't matter if the host helped you open a door or you opened it yourself, it's still opening a door.
So in this question, obviously you should swap because you can open the remaining two doors. Hence 2/3
The only time you'll get wrong is if you chose the correct dor at the start.
where do girls learn to do make up: we do it in our rooms before we start wearing it until we no longer look odd...i still look odd so im still practicing LOL
Honestly this is one of my favorite episodes. The beginning being as hilarious as it was leading into an episode with some of the deepest advice I’ve gotten in awhile is some of the best dichotomy from the boys we’ve seen in a quite some time. This is definitely going down on my list as one of the greats
This episode feels like they prerecorded their own parts individually and put them together into 1 video
For the Monty Hall paradox, there's two ways to change the way to look at the problem to better understand it:
- If there were a thouthand doors and the host openned 998 of them after you picked one. -> switching gives you 99.9% odds.
- If the question asked wasn't "this door or the unopened one?" but rather "do you prefer opening your door or all of the other doors?" -> you open 2/3 total doors instead of just one.
Since the prize won't change place on it's own and you had a low probability of chosing right from the get-go, opening all of the other doors is always going to increase your odds dramatically.
Keep in mind the host KNOWS where the prize is but will ALWAYS open a wrong one and propose to switch. When you first pick a door, he cannot open it even if you were wrong.
A subject that should be taught in schools should be Suicide Prevention. Understanding the process from suicidal flashes to thoughts to planning and acting is so important. Not only to save a life but even to save yours and understand what is happening in your mind and seek help. It's also very hard to ask those questions, normalizing it with around teenage will serve them all of their lives to be vigilant and understanding of themselves and their loved ones.
Ok a real note, that humor question actually blew my mind.
In the Monty hall problem, the reason it makes sense is because the host is FORCED to reveal a non prize door.
So the two doors you don’t have have a 2/3 chance of containing the prize. So 2/3 times the host is FORCED to show you a door that does not have the prize, because the other door has the prize in it. So 2/3 times it’s better to choose the door the host didn’t pick, because 2/3 times he is forced to not pick the winning door.
Monty Hall paradox rules are simple.
You to host: "open the remaining last wrong door'.
2 times out of 3 (as you have 2 chances to pick a wrong door in the first round) the host HAS to open the last remaining wrong door. Only if in the first round you picked the right door(a 1 in 3 chance), the host can pick a door.
There's no way they thought peanut butter is actually peanuts mixed with butter lmao
One of my favorite episodes. Very thought provoking. I enjoyed answering the questions while they were going through them