As an avid 4WD'er, I've never heard of the tire myth ending up with a fully inflated tire. The trick is only for seating the tire, not inflating it. Post explosion, additional air is always required.
Agreed, I've watched Heavy D Sparks channel, where they did it a few times to reseat tires, but they always pumped the tires to required pressure afterwards.
Yeah, the whole point is to seat the tire, so that you can put a hose on it and fill it up. Without seating the air can't stay in the tire. But then again, the Mythbusters occasionally did come to some questionable conclusions, as they fell into the trap of either "I didn't understand it, so it's busted" or "because I couldn't do it, it's busted"
@@Mike__B Yeah, there was one episode where they tested the myth of the Archimedes Death Beam. They did visit it again, but both times, they used flat mirrors rather than concave mirrors to focus the sunlight. If they had used the concave mirrors, then they would have had a vastly different result, since concave mirrors focus the sunlight far more than flat mirrors.
Yep, only seats the tire. Used a similar method for seating semi tires when I worked in semi-repair shop. We would seat them with a "cheater" or bead blaster. Its just an air gun with a short barrel that flattens out at the end. You just pop the valve on the cheater and "foopf!" the tire is seated.
Army Vet here... In training (BTC 2003) I was told, If a grenade lands next to you, dive away from the grenade and have your feet pointing toward the grenade. This wasn't to "completely avoid" shrapnel, It was to give you the best chances of survival. Because, if a grenade lands next to you you are guaranteed a bad time, the only question is how bad of a time you will have.
Correct as you want to have the smallest profile possible so as to minimize a hit, plus, a hit to the feet/legs is far less likely to be lethal than one to the head/shoulders, never mind the fact that jumping away takes you out of that five foot kill radius and potentially puts more hard cover between you and the grenade. During WWII when soldiers were fighting in the Black Forest, they found that they had to change their SOP for incoming artillery since it was to fall flat to the ground, however, the shells were striking the trees and producing air bursts, meaning that the soldiers had to learn to stand straight up so as to minimize surface area.
18:37 As a former home improvement store worker, I can say with authority that most people have no idea how much building materials can weigh or what the capacity of their vehicle is. I routinely had people ask me to overload their little cars with bags of mulch, paving stones, sand, gravel and potting soil. Usually they didn't make too much of a stink about it, but there were a few times that I had to report to the manager that I'd refused to assist loading and that the customer had elected to do it themself. The most memorable occasion was definitely when a person asked with a straight face, why I wouldn't load the entire pallet of pavers (~3000 lbs) that they had just purchased, into their car for them. It took all my self control not to laugh in their face and reply that they might find it difficult to drive away with the car's undercarriage crushed into the pavement by the weight of an entire second car piled in the back seat and trunk. Thankfully they decided after loading 20 or so of the stones themselves that they would rent the store's truck after all.
14:02 They revealed which door had the prize everytime, so they definitely have the data of whether it was better to stay or switch. The psychological aspect of staying with your original choice is avoiding the sense of regret. People are more likely to regret changing from a correct choice than to not change and lose.
It seems like deception. People think they're being coerced to switch because they picked the correct door. I think that's a factor. I love the Monty Hall problem. Your first choice has a 1/3 chance to win. Switching is 50/50. Oh. Jamie explains it.
My take: Imagine you first get to padlock one of the doors shut. Then the host opens a non-padlocked door to reveal a loss. (They can't open the locked door, as only you have the key.) Now you can choose a door: you can either open the remaining closed unlocked door, or you can remove your padlock and open the door you initially locked. This is logically exactly the same game, just with different terminology: you initially lock a door instead of 'choosing' that door. So if someone is having troubles following the logic, give them this game, convince them that picking the unlocked closed door is best, then point out that it is the same as the traditional game.
@@ThatGuy-6669actually switching is better then 50/50. You use the fact that the door you picked would never be opened and so the odds for that door dont change, for the remainder, it does change bc they could have potentially been opened, but werent either by chance or bc the price was behind it. Like stated in the video and clearly visible on the sticky note board, the final odds end up being 1/3 vs 2/3. I agree with the remark on deception though. Its not common in every day life to have a choice like this, where the knowledgable party will pick a "door" truly at random and even when you picked incorrectly. Im not even sure how clear those two parts of the rules are. Its no wonder its not intuitive.
42:24 it is used to reseat a tire not to inflate it. This is really common with tractor tires. If you have a tractor dead in a field, getting something out there to remove the tire, transport it back, just to reseat it and take it back out and reatachment (all of which is likely miles away from where the tractor is), is a real task. So you reseat it with the ether and then use a compressor to refill it. Other than just an emergency tactic to reseat a tire before you fill it, it is just a trick to impress some friends.
The advantage of a hip fired shot is the faster first shot as you draw. The British SOE taught their people to do this for the first shot and bring the gun up to a more reliable stance as they fire more shots.
anybody wondering, the SOE were similar to the SAS, but were disbanded after wwII, like they tried to disband the SAS, but realised they probably better keep them just in case, between them they did a lot of destruction behind enemy lines that helped turn the tide of the war. Good men doing bad things on our behalf, so we can sleep sound in bed at night. Thanks to all of them.
The flaw in this is that 9/10 you are wasting ammo just to save a near negligible amount of time. If you practice a proper draw and punch out you can fire as you are punching out which puts you in a much better position. Though I will say point shooting is a skill that everybody should practice, because in an emergency good luck with those sights.
The FBI through their history were taught to fire from the hip, and then with bent elbows, and finally with the modern straight-arm position. When tested for accuracy, it turned out that no one position was more accurate than the others; rather, it was an individual's familiarity with the position that determined accuracy. In other words, firing from the hip is just as accurate as modern firing position, but only if you're more used to aiming in that position. (Please note, this is not to say that all firing positions are equal. Snipers are still best firing from a prone position, due to the extreme precision needed, and firing a pistol sideways is a pretty good way to miss what you're shooting at.)
@@crimson182 There have been a lot of tests done with close range shooting and firing from the hip does just fine at 10-15 yards. Obviously you don't fire from the hip at maximum range. The training was for situations where you were in dense forest or urban environments and were surprised by an enemy.
@@michaelnewswanger2409 can be close but with significantly more training than aiming down sights. Point shooting is useful. Firing from the hip specifically has niche uses. Predominantly at super close ranges, such as CQC situations. But you are better off in almost all situations. Punching out into a weaver stance, It gives you a sight picture, a stable base, and a known position. These all improve accuracy. And these are things I or any firearms instructors can teach you fairly quickly. I learned a solid weaver stance in a day it took a long time to get proficient with point shooting. Even then I can't always do it well I am better at doing it with certain platforms because pistol grips vary so much.
I mean, the voice over talking about "complex probability problem" clearly shows a dude writing down chemical formulae of ammonium phosphate (assumed) so it is about fertilisers, not probability? Lol They're clearly going for visually interesting, not accuracy.
@@cooljammer00 Let me try to put it in a way other people will understand. No, you did not hit the target if your arrow hit the man instead of the apple.
I love that those are Chessx dice boxes on the wheel. They probably got them wholesale, but I'd like to think that Adam just had fun putting together a massive dice bag for himself.
Marine here. Was trained if you have a grenade land near you to lay face first away from it with your feet pointing at it. This avoids (helps) life threatening injuries.
I know they did it that way to have more footage for the show, but they definitely had all the data they needed for the statistical portion from the psychological portion. Everyone stuck, some portion of them won, the rest lost. The reciprocal of the win/loss ratio is the win/loss ratio if everyone switched. Whichever is higher is the better way to play.
@@matteomatwallace Granted, they got _more_ data, which is always good for a statistical test, by running through another hundred and noting the stick/switch results for each, instead of defaulting to the initial twenty.
The trickery in the Monte Hall Paradox is that it's actually TWO separate choices. Your first choice has 1 in 3 odds...but then after one of the losers has been revealed it becomes a new game with 1 in 2 odds. The fallacy here is the 'always' doing one or the other of stay or switch. Being that the second choice is actually a 50/50 odds you might as well flip a coin because the 2/3 odds no longer exist once the losing door has been revealed. Knowing how the game is played means you should always pick the middle door which then simplifies the problem down to 'middle or sides' which is a 50/50. You KNOW that if you pick the middle door that one of the side doors will be eliminated ....so you never really had a 33% chance...it always was 50% as long as you have the option to switch your original choice once a losing door has been revealed. This would hold true so long as the prize door is truly a random choice by the show and not biased toward any of the three doors.
@@recoilrob324 Revealing a losing door technically doesnt matter. What the host is doing after the contestant picks a door is combining the 2 remaining doors. Sticking remains a 1/3 while switching becomes a 2/3.
So with the reseating tires myth, the myth I feel comes in with the "stays inflated" part. It's definitely good for reseating a tire, quick and easy. But you still have to inflate it afterwards.
@@JonatasAdoM the original myth is that this a way to reseat a tire on its rim not to inflate it and keep it inflated. They misquoted the myth since the myth was never that this could fill a tire but ive heard the reseating myth however everyone ive heard it from knows you still need to fill the tire... so my point is the changed the parameters of the myth to make it something it never was supposed to be i have no clue where they heard it would fill a tire...
They missed a key component of the shooting test, when firing with the gun turned to the side, it is critical to yell, "Break yoself!" as you are firing.
Hey don’t forget to also yell out imma bust a cap in this fool! Really just yell out most anything said in GTA San Andreas and it should be + in accuracy with sideways stance.
My wife's uncle was a "show-shooter" for a well known western attraction in Florida. He was very accurate at shooting from the hip and rapid fire. However, he had done this for decades and had great muscle memory.
i love watching those quick draw competitions, those folks are so incredibly accurate! the two-hand firing is actually a tactic taught by some police, and by military police. for me, i held my off-hand weapon slightly ahead of my strong hand, used it to aim, as if with a rifle, and followed each shot with my strong hand. i could do that while walking and maintain pretty good center mass accuracy. it was the coolest side-arm training i'd ever done
The Monty Hall problem is made extremely obvious if scaled up to, say, 50 or 100 doors. You pick one, the host opens every other door but one. Suddenly the choice to switch is incredibly obvious.
The problem is that this was done in an era where they weren't focused on the statistical analysis. Of course, when extrapolating the problem out to 100, it makes absolute sense.
@@belzedk How about this way of thinking: if the doors are not opened but the contestant is offered the chance to switch to both other doors, then probably most would switch because the chance of winning is doubled. In a real competition, you are kind of offered exactly that opportunity, but you're only shown that one of them won't win, but we already knew that anyway.
@@lesalmin I prefer thinking, if you picked a wrong door and change you win, but if you picked the right door and change you lose. But you had 2/3 chance of picking the wrong door, so changing has better odds compared to the 1/3 if you stay.
@@belzedk The 3 door problem is just a subset of the N door problem, where N is an integer and >2. The contestant picks one door, then the host leaves one door from the unchosen set by removing all the other doors of which are empty (and revealed so), then the contestant picks between the two doors left. The only special property the 3 door problem has is that the same number of doors are removed as the contestant picks (one door). It really doesn't change anything in the problem. That said, while it definitely does work the same way, I agree that with fewer doors it is less obvious - which is also what jocax said. I've explained this to a good number of people and the moment I scale it up it clicks for them very quickly, so I do think it is a good way from my experience. Your point about the number of doors removed changing the situation is not relevant at all. Lets consider there are four doors, and the host still only removes one incorrect door. Should you switch to one of the other two doors? Yes. The chance your door is correct is 1/4, or 2/8. The chance the other three doors is correct collectively is 3/4, 6/8. One incorrect door from them being removed doesn't change that, it just condenses the chance down to the remaining two doors. Now those two doors are each 3/8 likely to be correct, which is greater than the 2/8 of your original door chosen. So, you can see that keeping the door removed to one doesn't change the situation (i.e., you should switch), just the numbers involved. As a side note, if the host *did* remove doors randomly there would be no advantage to switching. This is because the host might have removed a correct door, so the larger set would not automatically inherit the greater chance to be correct (the chance to be correct would decrease with each door removed, with each door remaining as likely as any other including your chosen one). In fact, this is even true when the doors are revealed in a random host problem. The reason for this is essentially that you randomly pick a door out of the total set, and the host randomly picks a door out of the total set *to not remove*, and then the rest of the doors are removed. If there are a lot of doors then the outcome is likely neither you nor the host picked the correct door and this will then be known, so gameover. In the case one you did randomly pick the correct door then neither is more likely than the other.
I think the "problem" with tests like around 36:00 is, that Adam and Jamie are used to one style, so of course thats going to be best. They shouldve maybe used complete newbies to test that myth. Although I dont think, that would've changed much of the results
The straight arm shooting style favorably compared to the weaver stance because it was the way people were taught to shoot pistols for over 100 years. Some people still argue its better than weaver for accuracy. From the hip is perfectly fine in very close quarters and if well practiced can perform as well as weaver if you train enough with it, see a lot of cowboy quick shooters.
Early 80’s we were taught, prone face down with boot soles towards the grenade. So head is over 5 ft from detonation and boot soles to interdict the shrapnel.
I was thinking the same. Not only will only a tiny fraction of the shrapnels hit you, you'll also be your own "human shield", protecting your more sensible body parts. They definitely need to retest that myth.
12:00 just want to note that you can diffuse the force, that's how a soldier took two grenades to the guts and survived. Now 'survived' means 'barely' and 'spent 2 years getting shrapnel surgically removed, 3 months of which were unconscious'
Seriously. I remember this type of question in stats or math or something and not being able to wrap my head around, "It's not behind C, so it's either A or B. 1 correct choice between two options, 50/50." Seriously just showing the diagram with B & C in a bracket and a "2/3" label, and I finally get it. 🙃
A question was asked once on a platform about the Russian roulette. After spinning the barrel, if the first chamber was empty at the first attempt, what are the odds the bullet is in the second chamber... without spinning it again of course. The huge majority of people will say the odds are one out five. Actually, the answer is one out of three. After the barrel was spun, the odds of having the bullets in the first two chambers was one out of three. Shooting a blank the first time did not change in which chamber the bullet is, so, the odds remain the same no matter what. You can easily run the experiment yourself with cards.... no, not with a gun 🤣... unless you are shooting at empty cans.
With the grenade myth, it's based in survivability, not 'getting out without a scratch'. If you're ever faced with a grenade, dive away from it, put your feet together towards the grenade, and cover your neck with your hands. This increases the chance that your wounds will be survivable - with immediate battlefield first aid. What shrapnel does hit you has to go through the entirety of your feet and leg tissues before reaching anything that can't be treated with common battlefield first aid. If both legs get blown off by the blast and shrapnel with no other wounds, you can survive if you get tourniquets on soon enough and immediate evacuation to advanced care.If shrapnel gets to your abdomen or torso, it can't be treated as easily as a leg hit. Reason you cover your neck with your hands is to protect your neck from falling or bouncing shrapnel. Again, slow or stop the shrapnel with your expendable hands and fingers before it gets to your non-expendable and non-treatable carotid. Your brain has a skull protecting it, your neck arteries do not. Even with modern grenades, if all you can do is get prone and put your legs between the grenade and your vitals, you might yet live. If you're standing up, your torso, abdomen, throat and head are all getting shredded.
Monty Hall isn't even a paradox when you look at it this way: the option to switch is a bet on whether or not you were right the first time. Your odds of being right were 1 in 3, your odds of being wrong were 2 in 3. So switching does in fact logically and non-paradoxically doubles your odds of winning. Also, yes you do in fact have data even if all 20 trials stuck with their original answer! Because you'd know how often sticking was right out of those 20, and how many would have been better off switching. I'm guessing they just said that to have a reason to do another experiment.
The tire reseating isn't busted. Reseating a tire is almost impossible using tools you typically have in a car. But if you get it back on, just pumping air into it afterwards is trivial.
Part of the process for seating the tire with fire, is to remove the valve from the stem first. This way there is enough compression to seat the tire, only a bit blows out, and then the vacuum won't form and break the bead. Also you want a wet clothe to wipe down any flaming fuel left on the tire, that could start a fire. Safety note, you may want to use the hub of the vehicle to pin down the rim for safety, or keep the wheel on the BLOCKED UP vehicle, so that they don't launch.
@@froggercrak6286 Yeah, and such it works poorly as an inflation technique since you'd have to be very accurate in returning the valve, and there's a real chance to blow it away if you hurry. But for seating it is an useful trick, if you're changing tires even with tools so the tire is wholly unseated most home compressors lack the oomph and airflow to seat the tire, no such limit here.
@@mausklick99 Bike pumps work fine, but they take a while. A few minutes for a normal car tire. You can also carry a 12 V pump. They're cheap, take little space and are easy to use. About the size of a half a cereal box.
They said that it's busted because the video clip made it seem that air will stay in the tire but it escapes once it cools down. The first step of it just resetting itself did in fact work but it's just 1/3 of the process
Another way to understand the Monty Hall problem: imagine if they didn't open the door, but instead said "if you switch, you'll win if the prize is behind EITHER ONE of the other doors." Hell, they'd probably open the known-empty door first for dramatic tension either way. Literally the only difference is what step in the process they show you the empty door.
My late husband, who was former military, told me that in the unlikely event I ever stumble upon a grenade with a pulled pin, the best idea for me is to get at least 10 ft away, lay on my stomach with my feet towards the blast & close together, put my face in the dirt, use one hand to cover the back of my neck & one hand to cover the back of my head with my elbows as close to my ears as possible. Idk why he told me that bit of info but that was his advice after dealing with them on the regular for several years.
Monty Hall explained quickly and simply and completely: First assume tbhe price is behind door number 1. If you pick door number 1 it does not matter which door is revelead, you will lose if you swtich,. If you pick door number 2, the host will have to open door number 3, and you win if you switch. If you pick door number 3, the host will have to open door number 2, and you win if you switch. So you win two times out of three if switching. The corresponding argument is true for the cases where the price is behind door number 2 or door number 3. And _that_ is where the three different situations come from.
@@kaoa10 The whole point is that they are two distinct situations. They are equal, but they are not the same. Thay is like saying that in a crowd of three (Karen, Dennis and Eve), Eve and Karen are the same person becuase they are both female.
Okay. Door A is the winner. B C is the loser. IF you pick A and stay, you win IF you pick A and switch you lose IF you pick B and stay you lose If you pick B and switch you win. 50/50. It does not matter where the losing door is, because once it is removed from the choice. You are now picking between 2 doors. New choice = new odds. The door removal ends the statistics of your original choice.
Okay. Door A is the winner. B C is the loser. IF you pick A and stay, you win IF you pick A and switch you lose IF you pick B and stay you lose If you pick B and switch you win. If you pick C and stay, you lose. If you pick C and switch, you lose. If you stay, you win one out of three. If you switch, you win two out of three. Get it now?
At 33:30 they are using an airsoft guy with a magazine blocked with a piece of plastic (so the gun shoots air, but doesn't shoot any plastic balls at the cameraman). This week at his Tested channel Adam checked the pillows of the armchair he carried with him from the Mythbusters workshop. He found EXACTLY THIS MAGAZINE blocked with a piece of plastic.
The video is called "Surprising Things Adam Savage Found Inside His Couch!". Its crazy how these 2 videos got posted (slash reposted) within 5 days of eachother. :o
Something that I can't figure out. How is it that the fact that no-one switched means that they can't see if it is better to switch? Surely everyone that wins while sticking would lose if switching and vice-versa and therefore giving you data.
That's assuming that P(player does not switch) and P(prize is behind the picked door) are independent probabilities - which they aren't necessarily in the first experiment they did! Remember, Adam knows which door has the prize, in order to ensure that he will always open an empty door. Therefore, the contestants' decision both for which door to initially pick, and on whether to switch/not switch, could be affected by any number of non-verbal cues they pick up from Adam. Intuitively, it might feel like the 100% stay rate should overwhelm any such effects; yet it is still a systematic error source in the data, and to ensure reliable independent data, it is better to run a separate series of tests for that. Additionally, in cases where the contestant picked the correct door to begin with, Adam has two choices for which door to open - which could also skew what contestants choose. Now, if they had significant sample sizes both of people who did switch and people who did not switch, that could cancel out some of those factors and leave two populations that were if not perfectly comparable, then certainly closer to it. But since they only got people who didn't switch, there is no sample of people who did switch to compare it to - and since that experiment involved several significant psychological factors (evidently drastic ones, since no one switched) that could affect both the initial door pick and the switch, comparing population to a strictly hypothetical population who did switch, introduces a risk of failing to account for a potentially infinite systematic bias that could mess with the probabilities involved.
@@RQLexi I guess I just see it from a simply logical point of view: if person A stayed and failed, then that is also a data point that switching lead to success and vice versa. If you simply want to practically test if staying or switching is more likely to yield success, surely psychological factors are unimportant, right?
The problem is that they claim that this is some kind of "complex problem", which it is not,. it is the second step after knowing about the probbility of rolling a single die, and before the "more complex" task of rolling two independent dice. It is also pretty obvious that the choice is "independent" of the static position of the price. In this case it is trivial of course,because since about 1/3 of the people that made the wrong choice (sticking) won, 2/3 would have won if they all switched. Sto pretending that mathematics is hard, this part is ltieral childs play, about as hard as breatihng.
@@TheJaguar1983 Not necessarily - if seeing Adam (who knows which door it is) act differently affects which door they picked in the first place, then it’s no longer reliably a 1/3 chance that they picked the right door in the first place, and thus not a 2/3 chance that switching is the right call. An experiment that isn’t designed to account for a specific psychological dimension, cannot be treated as if the resulting data is independent of it
@@RQLexi Ah, that makes sense. Though not all would notice, you can't discount the chance that they change their choice based on Adam's reaction to their first choice. I was thinking in a pure mathematical way.
"With everybody sticking, they don't have any data on whether switching is advantageous." Um... Yes... they most certainly do have data! Although it may be limited date, it is some data. 20 people were tested. All 20 stuck with their original pick. Let's say 7 of them won. That means 13 of them lost. THERE IS YOUR DATA! It would prove, if they had all switched, there would have been 13 winners, instead of only 7. Hence, it is perfectly reasonable to presume - using my simple example - switching would have equated to a 65% chance of winning.
Shooting sideways dumb, but very possible. I cant believe Adam didnt line his eye up to the sights😂 Like dude, even though its awkward, move it 2 inches and youre lined up and can aim lmao
There's no need to rerun the test to determine if switching is better since you simply look at the win/loss ratio of the 20 who all didn't switch - if more of them won than lost, then stick is better; if more lost than won, the switching is better - changing their mind has zero outcome on whether or not they win or lose. Trivia on gangster style - that's the proper technique to fire the full auto .45 Luger as the gun is intended as a room sweeper, thus the recoil and sideways position allows you to sweep an area with the gun far more effectively than if you held it properly. What they should have learned from gunfu is that you don't give two people with little to no firearm experience a .45 instead something a bit more reasonable like a 9mm.
At 28:47 during the slow footage, you can see that the shrapnel that hits the low area happens way after the shrapnel hits the top area. The low area shrapnel is likely ricochets off the ground and rocks from the immediate area around the grenade
They actually do have enough switch/stick advantage data after the first psychological test. You don't even need the test subjects to make the 2nd choice, only the first choice out of 3 (or do it with a dice roll). Then eliminate an empty door that wasn't picked, and just tally whether the prize was under the 1st choice or not.
The tire vacuum thing was something I learned early on -- you have to be quick to get an air chuck on the valve stem after it inflates, because you only have ten seconds or so before the cooling gases suck the tire back off of the rim again.
The Monty Hall problem is very simple from the opposite perspective. If you "pick" door 1, and the host opens 2 or 3 before letting you switch, you're effectively choosing between door 1 or doors 2 and 3, so 33.333% vs. 66.666%.
Incorrect. Door A (winner) Door B and Door C If you pick B... C is removed. If you stay you lose If you pick B... C is removed. if you switch you win. If you pick A.. C is removed. If you stay you win. If you Pick A... C is removed. If you switch you lose. Once one of the doors is removed from the choice, and then you are giving the choice to pick again (calling it "switch" means the same as picking) You are now dealing with new odds. As one of the incorrect doors is gone. The "paradox" in this is that people do not realize that once a door is gone, you are now faced with new odds and new choice. So it is a new game.
@@erich6860 If you're going to tell somebody he's wrong, it helps to have a clue what you're talking about. The explanation I gave is a simplification of the mathematically provable explanation. If you read journal articles on the Monty Hall problem, this is the logic they use. The probability never changes. It's either behind a door or not. The probability of winning is set at the very beginning. The door the player picks has p_win = 0.3333, p_lose = 0.6666. That never changes. If Monty didn't open a door and told the player he could keep the chosen door or take _both_ of the other doors, the choice to switch becomes obvious, even to somebody who doesn't understand probability very well. The open door is actually there to make ignorant people (like you) think both doors have equal probability. To make it even simpler, think of a wall with 100 doors. The player picks door D, which has p_win = 0.01 and p_lose = 0.99. If Monty then opens up 98 losing doors, it doesn't change the two remaining doors to p_win = p_lose = 0.5. Door D still has p_win = 0.01 and p_lose = 0.99. The player now has more information, and knows that D' has p_win = 0.99 and p_lose = 0.01. Anyone who's not an absolute moron would see that and switch.
@@kyrla It took awhile of puzzling this out,,, because it bothered me so bad that so many people said opposite of me. So I ran the same game with 10 doors in my head. It was at this point, I realized that the issue comes from the game rules itself. So I treated the player and Monty as a player. What I realized is that if player 1 gets to pick a single door. You have a 10% chance of being correct. Then player 2 (Monty) gets the other 9 doors, giving him a 90% chance of having the prize behind one of them. Now when we apply the rules of the game, all doors except player 1, and the winning door are removed. The only exception being if player 1 happened to of picked the correct door. This means that 90% of the time, the correct prize door was on players 2 side. So the doors removed are still in play technically, they just cannot be selected. But Monty, that 90% chance is on his side. Thus... switch. I was stupid,,, I literally had to come up with my own method to hit the realization button.
@@erich6860 No that is correct and you are wrong. The odds don't change as the revealed door is a known wrong door. The odds remain 1/3 if you stay and 2/3 if you switch. Did you even watch the video? The physical outcome clearly shows that and that is what math/logic shows.
Holding gun "gangster style": This is a style of terror. It's used to intimidate the enemy Holding gun normally: This is a style of war. It's used to kill the enemy.
Actually the "gangsta" style came from real life thugs who rob people and they hold the gun hand up to hide their face. Their free hand is used to take your wallet, and the gun hand hides their face. Then it started to appear in movies and rap videos. It's not intimidating or terrifying at all it is silly.
I think the psychology behind sticking, is the fear of having chosen correctly and then loose. Like loosing for a bad second decision is worse than loosing for a single one, because you had it and let it go.
shooting from the hip is not accurate but when you are up close to your enemy it's the best choice as they have limited options to rip the gun away from your hand
The main trick of it is as they said "I do not know where it is pointed"... the old western shooters who even now use this constantly (look up revolver speed shooting) shoot so many rounds this way that they know exactly how the gun aims and feels.
The Monty Hall Door Paradox is really clever. You have three doors to choose from (1/3 chance), by "giving" you one of the other doors as a miss they have tricked your brain into treating the situation as a "50/50" chance where you trust your instinct to not change (a result of natural instinct that you usually don't get a second chance in survival), where in reality the choice was always 1-in-3.
This is the first time I've seen a myth on here I knew was true before watching. You absolutely CAN reseat a tire with starter fluid. I did it myself once after seeing a video of it. Friend needed a tire and we found an uninflated one by the side of the road so being dumb teens we took it and I used the starter fluid trick. Never heard of it inflating the tire tho, we knew we had to fill it separately
@14:00. They should have had some data in that about 1/3 of the contestants should have won in the first phase of the test--but they did not disclose this in the show (maybe the statistical error with only 20 people make it indeterminate... Also this puzzle was presented in 1993 by Marilyn Vos Savant in Parade Magazine and many scholars got the math wrong. It was a huge controversy.
Always switch. Problem is you only get 1 shot at that in real life and you might fall in one of the few chances that you had the prize at your first choice door.
@@Monkey_D_Luffy56 Exactly. When repeated, it's always better to switch, but in real life you only have the one shot and you don't want to throw it away even if it's statistically better.
@@InexplicableInside Really meh takeaway. You _always_ want to switch, IRRESPECTIVELY of how many chances you get. I'll absolutely agree that it feels like you've been cheated if you switched away from the winning door, and that feeling would suck. Unfortunately, statistics tends to not give a rats ass about our feelings, so if there is anything other than shits and giggles on the line, you should... ALWAYS SWITCH. Unless you'd rather lose than win, in which case, you do you.
@@dgthe3how are chances twice as good by switching? With 1 door gone you have 50/50, doesnt matter which door goes. Staying in your current door IS a choice with the same chance
I have 2 questions: 1. Why do we assume that separate Monty picks are linked together? 2. Can the winning/losing pattern be different but still keep the same chances overall?
Its a pretty bad explanation, but lucky its one of the most explained paradoxes so if you look on TH-cam you'll easily find a video that does a better job. Vsauce has a great one. I don't know what you mean with your second question.
@@helderboymh thank you for answering! What I was trying to say with my second question is related to the board where they marked with red squares everytime they won. Does this make some more sense now?
@@FlaviusDumitrescu5918 that pattern is completely random. The only thing you can say about it is that Jamie is expected to have about 1 third correct and we expect Adam to have bout two third correct in total.
Because Monty's picks aren't a random event. He will always reveal an empty door and will always be one of the 2 doors that you didn't pick. So if he has a choice of 2 doors, it doesn't matter which one is opened because it isn't a random event.
The primary difference I see between the Weaver and straight arm firing positions (as someone with literally zero firing experience myself) is that your body is sideways relative to your target so you're presenting a narrower profile to your potential enemy. I think it would be safer because it forces your opponent to hit a smaller target and it puts your heart behind slightly more bodymass (which is unlikely to change anything, but against a lethal weapon even a tiny chance to save your life is worth considering).
I always thought that also. But then someone explained that if you're wearing a vest (like military or police), your chances of the bullet going through is much less when facing towards the gunshot vs sideways. Vests are not nearly as impenetrable from the side because of the armpit and possibly the way the plates in the vest are situated (especially if it's a vest with steel plates although not sure they even use that kind anymore).
@@opocald So if you're armored with a vest, face first is better. If you DON'T have armor and are still stuck in a fire-fight then side arm still seems good. But both of these arguments and stances ignore a further and even more critical issue: cover. The best stance is whichever one that lets you aim accurately while remaining behind as much cover as is possible.
I suspect every piece of paper said the same thing, then they forgot which color they had opened in the previous camera shot (who knows maybe they had lunch between them), and simply didn’t bother to check the footage for consistency.
The best way to look at the Monty Hall question is to imagine that a door wasn't opened, and then ask if you want to stick with your door or get the combined prizes from the other two doors. Sure, you're guaranteed to get an empty door (which would be the one they open after your first choice), but overall you are given the choice between a 1 in 3 chance or a 2 in 3 chance.
The fun part of the Monty Hall problem is that even knowing the math behind it, it "feels" like it shouldn't make sense. It does mathematically, but the way we interpret information and logic, makes it seem like it's a 50/50 shot because we know that the prize has to be behind one of the two doors and we know that one out of two is a 50% chance. It's just that we don't naturally think about the third door as still being a factor, because it's been shown to be empty.
as far as the tire inflating, all it's intended to do is set the bead. You will still need to inflate it to the proper PSI somehow, but if you don't have a tire machine and need to seat a bead it's a go-to option.
For the grenade test: if a grenade has a non-spherical blast, then _by definition_ whatever particular orientation it lands/explodes at will make _some_ difference to the surrounding area, and this isn't something the user can control/predict when they throw the grenade.
23:30 The big difference is the weight distribution. In the picture, the weight was far more rear loaded. The car looked like the front wheels were about to come off the ground. Adam had it loaded more on top/center of the vehicle.
i love the paradox. i learned it with the 50/50 on a blind who wants to be a millionaire gameshow. If you have no idea which of the four answers are correct. choose one, do a 50/50, if your guess inside your head is safe from the 50/50 elimination, there is a 75% chance its the other answer. if the 50/50 eliminates your wild guess, you still have a 50/50 shot.
The idea with the monty hall paradox is what they talk about in the movie '21'. You have 33% chance of choosing the correct door, but when you account for variable change, (when they open up another door) that means, your odds of choosing the correct door goes up another 33% when you chose to switch.
I think people don't want to switch their choice of doors mostly because people feel like if they switch from their original choice and they lose, they will regret it so much more than if they had just stuck to their guns and lost. There's a haunting feeling of regret in there.
The Monty Hall problem makes a lot more sense if you use more doors, like at least 5 or 10. First pick out of five or ten was indeed a 20% or 10% chance. But then once it's narrowed down to two doors, it makes perfect sense which switching your pick was now over 50%.
Let's say, for the sake of this example, you're always going to pick door #1, and the presenter knows where the prize is so he'll always open the door without the prize behind it: The prize is behind door #1: [x] [-] [-] = Host opens door #2. If you switch from door #1, you get nothing. The prize is behind door #2: [-] [x] [-] = Host opens door #3. If you switch from door #1, you get the prize. The prize is behind door #3: [-] [-] [x] = Host opens door # 2. If you switch from door #1, you get the prize. So in 2/3 of the cases, if you switch, you get the prize.
The grenade section missed some pressure wave physics. When you hit the deck with feet towards the grenade (all military training is to hit deck with feet towards the blast). This causes the blast pressure wave to hit the feet forts which then deflects the pressure wave and this reduces the pressure wave compared to a non deflected one and this survivable closer. Also, hitting the deck on a grenade isn’t intended to prevent injury but rather to increase the odds of survival as was finally pointed out at the very end.
The Monty Hall deal is a little less complex to figure out because there’s actually two prizes available in the scenario. There’s the grand prize and then a lesser prize and then there’s no prize. The opening of the doors is dependent upon witch door and is picked and if it’s a prize door. The part that people sometimes don’t understand is that if they picked a bad door Hall would give them the choice to correct the choice. This is how the Monty Hall works. The understanding is that you have to know what the prize is and if it’s better then the other prize or worse. The psychological part is greed . But they missed that part of the test because they only offered one prize and not two witch is actually the Monty Hall.
I think the choice of the word, "stick" would prime the person to stay with their original choice. They might think of a phrase like, "stick the landing," which has positive connotations.
They didn't explain the scenario correctly. Here is what they did not say: The host knows what is behind each door and ALWAYS chooses an empty door. Therefore, the host uses his knowledge of what is behind each door, in addition to knowing which door the contestant chose, and then applies the rule above. Since the host is not acting randomly, the host's selection can be used by the contestant to gain some advantage when deciding to stay or switch. There are two sets of cases: (a) the contestant's initial choice is correct and (b) the contestant's initial choice is incorrect. (a) has 6 permutations and (b) has 12 permutations (you can try writing them out). In the (a) cases, the correct choice is that the contestant stays. In the (b) cases, the correct choice is that the contestant switches. The contestant wins the larger set (12) when he switches doors. Therefore, that is the better choice. Note that we are requiring that the contestant choose "stay" for all cases or choose "switch" for all cases. There are a total of 18 permutations, so the sets (a) and (b) results in percentages of 33% (6/18, staying) and 66% (12/18, switching). Here is a simulator: www.mathwarehouse.com/monty-hall-simulation-online/ If you have the simulator run 1,000 simulations, the results for the groups are close to 33% and 66%. This verifies the percentages above. 66% is greater than 33% ((b) versus (a)), so (b) is the correct answer. The contestant should always choose to switch because this decision results in a correct second choice in the majority of cases. It is not intuitive that switching would be better because people assume that the host's choice is random. When the host follows an algorithm and is therefore not random, the result is not intuitive. For example, you could change the host's behavior so that staying is the better overall second choice by the contestant.
The easiest way to explain the Monty Hall problem is that you're likely to be *wrong* 2/3 times you pick the first door. I think most can agree to that. Cool. So that means when you pick, you're at 1/3, which means 2/3 of the remaining chance must be among the two remaining doors. If you then remove one of those doors, the only remaining door must be the one with 2/3, so that's obviously better to pick than the 1/3 you started with. Edit: Okay, they did do this explanation, so I don't know why people are still in the comments saying "it must be 50/50".
Notice the number of winners on the left is almost equal the number of losers on the right I did this in college. I never studied and would fail simple T/F tests. I began switching my answers before turning in the test and turned my grades around.
No! The idea of using flame to seat a tire is totally true! The idea is not to inflate the tire, but to seat it. Seating a tire properly with no tools by the side of the road or other remote location is near impossible. After it is seated, you can use any old air compressor to fill it to proper pressure. I always carry a portable air compressor with me just in case. Mainly I carry it for the emergency battery jump start feature it comes with. Really came in handy during the hurricane when I used it to charge my phone without having to burn gas by running the engine. Also, with the whole grenade thing, hitting the deck decreases your body profile so you are *less likely* to get hit, and less likely to get hit in a vital part of your body, especially if you dive away from the grenade with your feet pointing towards it. You might lose a leg or foot, but you might not lose your life. A grenade going off that close to you is a really bad time regardless. The training to do that is to minimize damage in a fatal scenario. You might be dead regardless but still. Anything that can help even a little bit is much welcomed.
The Monty Hall problem is so fun. Basically, you most likely guessed wrong with your first choice, so by opening an empty door the host is most likely showing you which door you should have picked in the first place (i.e. the remaining closed door).
As an avid 4WD'er, I've never heard of the tire myth ending up with a fully inflated tire. The trick is only for seating the tire, not inflating it. Post explosion, additional air is always required.
yeah i mean the video never claimed it inflated the tire permanently... I thought the same thing I feel like it should have been confirmed
Agreed, I've watched Heavy D Sparks channel, where they did it a few times to reseat tires, but they always pumped the tires to required pressure afterwards.
Yeah, the whole point is to seat the tire, so that you can put a hose on it and fill it up. Without seating the air can't stay in the tire. But then again, the Mythbusters occasionally did come to some questionable conclusions, as they fell into the trap of either "I didn't understand it, so it's busted" or "because I couldn't do it, it's busted"
@@Mike__B Yeah, there was one episode where they tested the myth of the Archimedes Death Beam.
They did visit it again, but both times, they used flat mirrors rather than concave mirrors to focus the sunlight.
If they had used the concave mirrors, then they would have had a vastly different result, since concave mirrors focus the sunlight far more than flat mirrors.
Yep, only seats the tire. Used a similar method for seating semi tires when I worked in semi-repair shop. We would seat them with a "cheater" or bead blaster. Its just an air gun with a short barrel that flattens out at the end. You just pop the valve on the cheater and "foopf!" the tire is seated.
Army Vet here... In training (BTC 2003) I was told, If a grenade lands next to you, dive away from the grenade and have your feet pointing toward the grenade. This wasn't to "completely avoid" shrapnel, It was to give you the best chances of survival. Because, if a grenade lands next to you you are guaranteed a bad time, the only question is how bad of a time you will have.
Same.
Feet pointing towards as in arched to the grenade?
@@lightningninja6905 as in get your head as far from the grenade as possible
@@nickbreakfield1257 ah I get it now, thanks!
Correct as you want to have the smallest profile possible so as to minimize a hit, plus, a hit to the feet/legs is far less likely to be lethal than one to the head/shoulders, never mind the fact that jumping away takes you out of that five foot kill radius and potentially puts more hard cover between you and the grenade.
During WWII when soldiers were fighting in the Black Forest, they found that they had to change their SOP for incoming artillery since it was to fall flat to the ground, however, the shells were striking the trees and producing air bursts, meaning that the soldiers had to learn to stand straight up so as to minimize surface area.
18:37 As a former home improvement store worker, I can say with authority that most people have no idea how much building materials can weigh or what the capacity of their vehicle is. I routinely had people ask me to overload their little cars with bags of mulch, paving stones, sand, gravel and potting soil. Usually they didn't make too much of a stink about it, but there were a few times that I had to report to the manager that I'd refused to assist loading and that the customer had elected to do it themself.
The most memorable occasion was definitely when a person asked with a straight face, why I wouldn't load the entire pallet of pavers (~3000 lbs) that they had just purchased, into their car for them. It took all my self control not to laugh in their face and reply that they might find it difficult to drive away with the car's undercarriage crushed into the pavement by the weight of an entire second car piled in the back seat and trunk. Thankfully they decided after loading 20 or so of the stones themselves that they would rent the store's truck after all.
14:02 They revealed which door had the prize everytime, so they definitely have the data of whether it was better to stay or switch.
The psychological aspect of staying with your original choice is avoiding the sense of regret. People are more likely to regret changing from a correct choice than to not change and lose.
Yeah but their point was the viceral demonstration: it's trivial to simulate the game via a computer, or even longhand on paper.
I actually think the psychological aspect is not wanting to go with the active choice if the choice seemingly doesn't matter.
It seems like deception. People think they're being coerced to switch because they picked the correct door. I think that's a factor.
I love the Monty Hall problem. Your first choice has a 1/3 chance to win. Switching is 50/50. Oh. Jamie explains it.
My take: Imagine you first get to padlock one of the doors shut. Then the host opens a non-padlocked door to reveal a loss. (They can't open the locked door, as only you have the key.) Now you can choose a door: you can either open the remaining closed unlocked door, or you can remove your padlock and open the door you initially locked.
This is logically exactly the same game, just with different terminology: you initially lock a door instead of 'choosing' that door. So if someone is having troubles following the logic, give them this game, convince them that picking the unlocked closed door is best, then point out that it is the same as the traditional game.
@@ThatGuy-6669actually switching is better then 50/50. You use the fact that the door you picked would never be opened and so the odds for that door dont change, for the remainder, it does change bc they could have potentially been opened, but werent either by chance or bc the price was behind it. Like stated in the video and clearly visible on the sticky note board, the final odds end up being 1/3 vs 2/3. I agree with the remark on deception though. Its not common in every day life to have a choice like this, where the knowledgable party will pick a "door" truly at random and even when you picked incorrectly. Im not even sure how clear those two parts of the rules are. Its no wonder its not intuitive.
42:24 it is used to reseat a tire not to inflate it. This is really common with tractor tires. If you have a tractor dead in a field, getting something out there to remove the tire, transport it back, just to reseat it and take it back out and reatachment (all of which is likely miles away from where the tractor is), is a real task. So you reseat it with the ether and then use a compressor to refill it. Other than just an emergency tactic to reseat a tire before you fill it, it is just a trick to impress some friends.
I couldn't believe they didn't know to have a compressor ready. Lmao
The advantage of a hip fired shot is the faster first shot as you draw. The British SOE taught their people to do this for the first shot and bring the gun up to a more reliable stance as they fire more shots.
anybody wondering, the SOE were similar to the SAS, but were disbanded after wwII, like they tried to disband the SAS, but realised they probably better keep them just in case, between them they did a lot of destruction behind enemy lines that helped turn the tide of the war. Good men doing bad things on our behalf, so we can sleep sound in bed at night. Thanks to all of them.
The flaw in this is that 9/10 you are wasting ammo just to save a near negligible amount of time. If you practice a proper draw and punch out you can fire as you are punching out which puts you in a much better position.
Though I will say point shooting is a skill that everybody should practice, because in an emergency good luck with those sights.
The FBI through their history were taught to fire from the hip, and then with bent elbows, and finally with the modern straight-arm position. When tested for accuracy, it turned out that no one position was more accurate than the others; rather, it was an individual's familiarity with the position that determined accuracy. In other words, firing from the hip is just as accurate as modern firing position, but only if you're more used to aiming in that position. (Please note, this is not to say that all firing positions are equal. Snipers are still best firing from a prone position, due to the extreme precision needed, and firing a pistol sideways is a pretty good way to miss what you're shooting at.)
@@crimson182 There have been a lot of tests done with close range shooting and firing from the hip does just fine at 10-15 yards. Obviously you don't fire from the hip at maximum range. The training was for situations where you were in dense forest or urban environments and were surprised by an enemy.
@@michaelnewswanger2409 can be close but with significantly more training than aiming down sights. Point shooting is useful. Firing from the hip specifically has niche uses. Predominantly at super close ranges, such as CQC situations. But you are better off in almost all situations. Punching out into a weaver stance, It gives you a sight picture, a stable base, and a known position. These all improve accuracy. And these are things I or any firearms instructors can teach you fairly quickly. I learned a solid weaver stance in a day it took a long time to get proficient with point shooting. Even then I can't always do it well I am better at doing it with certain platforms because pistol grips vary so much.
Adam: "It's the Wheel of Mythfortune!"
Mike Tyson: "Thoundth about right."
Mythsfortune lol. I came to the comments to say they should have added an s there and saw this comment which is supremely underrated 😅
Fiberian huffky
I love how they say jamie missed ever shot and then they show the slomo of a perfect headshot
i counted even 4 headshots, scoring wise its a miss but in real life Adam would be dead anyway 😅
I mean, the voice over talking about "complex probability problem" clearly shows a dude writing down chemical formulae of ammonium phosphate (assumed) so it is about fertilisers, not probability? Lol
They're clearly going for visually interesting, not accuracy.
Except he wasn't aiming for the head at all.
That was on purpose though. He couldn't avoid it.
@@cooljammer00 Let me try to put it in a way other people will understand.
No, you did not hit the target if your arrow hit the man instead of the apple.
Oh the Monty Hall paradox? 18:02 "How... dare you detective Diaz, I am your SUPERIOR OFFICER!!!" "BOOOONE?!"
I love that those are Chessx dice boxes on the wheel. They probably got them wholesale, but I'd like to think that Adam just had fun putting together a massive dice bag for himself.
To be fair, who doesn’t?
uhh sure
Marine here. Was trained if you have a grenade land near you to lay face first away from it with your feet pointing at it. This avoids (helps) life threatening injuries.
yeah, but it puts your twig and berries in the line of fire.
@ true. Better than your noggin however!!
@@30anvz28 I dunno... Lol. No twig and berries... Is it life lol
@@erich6860 hahaha.
@@erich6860 Remember to cross your legs when on the ground, that might help save your future children.
The car with all the construction materials, made me genuinely nervous with both of them sitting in it.
Could’ve been a premature end to the mythbusters
they clearly didnt explain it to their insurance completely
_so what were gonna do is shove this here post in there_
Yeah that was genuinely incredibly dangerous.
I would have put a couple extra posts in there, tbh. One in the back seat and one in the passenger side footwell.
Even then, though😬
@@TrueHelpTV Exactly my thoughts. Perhaps they didn't tell they were getting in.
RIP Grant, I remember the surprise news and felt so sad. This show was such an amazing childhood memory
Is 2024, move on.
@@FreakGeSt are you proud of being a db? congratulations for nothing!
@@FreakGeSt That's not how it works.
I know they did it that way to have more footage for the show, but they definitely had all the data they needed for the statistical portion from the psychological portion. Everyone stuck, some portion of them won, the rest lost. The reciprocal of the win/loss ratio is the win/loss ratio if everyone switched. Whichever is higher is the better way to play.
I’ve been sitting here thinking the same thing
@@matteomatwallace Granted, they got _more_ data, which is always good for a statistical test, by running through another hundred and noting the stick/switch results for each, instead of defaulting to the initial twenty.
The trickery in the Monte Hall Paradox is that it's actually TWO separate choices. Your first choice has 1 in 3 odds...but then after one of the losers has been revealed it becomes a new game with 1 in 2 odds. The fallacy here is the 'always' doing one or the other of stay or switch. Being that the second choice is actually a 50/50 odds you might as well flip a coin because the 2/3 odds no longer exist once the losing door has been revealed.
Knowing how the game is played means you should always pick the middle door which then simplifies the problem down to 'middle or sides' which is a 50/50. You KNOW that if you pick the middle door that one of the side doors will be eliminated ....so you never really had a 33% chance...it always was 50% as long as you have the option to switch your original choice once a losing door has been revealed. This would hold true so long as the prize door is truly a random choice by the show and not biased toward any of the three doors.
That is exactly what I was thinking, when the data is revealed you know exactly what the opposite would be
@@recoilrob324 Revealing a losing door technically doesnt matter. What the host is doing after the contestant picks a door is combining the 2 remaining doors. Sticking remains a 1/3 while switching becomes a 2/3.
So with the reseating tires myth, the myth I feel comes in with the "stays inflated" part. It's definitely good for reseating a tire, quick and easy. But you still have to inflate it afterwards.
You're correct. I'm not sure the myth was ever that it was inflated afterwards. More that it's just a method to seat the bead without a bead blaster.
@@jamescryer2356 yeah i mean i see no claim in the video that it stays inflated that one feels like it should have been confirmed not busted imo...
@@connorriddell6764 The idea in the video is that it is an instant fix for a tyre.
@@JonatasAdoM the original myth is that this a way to reseat a tire on its rim not to inflate it and keep it inflated. They misquoted the myth since the myth was never that this could fill a tire but ive heard the reseating myth however everyone ive heard it from knows you still need to fill the tire... so my point is the changed the parameters of the myth to make it something it never was supposed to be i have no clue where they heard it would fill a tire...
They missed a key component of the shooting test, when firing with the gun turned to the side, it is critical to yell, "Break yoself!" as you are firing.
Hey don’t forget to also yell out imma bust a cap in this fool! Really just yell out most anything said in GTA San Andreas and it should be + in accuracy with sideways stance.
My wife's uncle was a "show-shooter" for a well known western attraction in Florida. He was very accurate at shooting from the hip and rapid fire.
However, he had done this for decades and had great muscle memory.
i love watching those quick draw competitions, those folks are so incredibly accurate! the two-hand firing is actually a tactic taught by some police, and by military police. for me, i held my off-hand weapon slightly ahead of my strong hand, used it to aim, as if with a rifle, and followed each shot with my strong hand. i could do that while walking and maintain pretty good center mass accuracy. it was the coolest side-arm training i'd ever done
The Monty Hall problem is made extremely obvious if scaled up to, say, 50 or 100 doors. You pick one, the host opens every other door but one. Suddenly the choice to switch is incredibly obvious.
The problem is that this was done in an era where they weren't focused on the statistical analysis. Of course, when extrapolating the problem out to 100, it makes absolute sense.
I hate this way of looking at it, because it doesn't really work the same way if you and the host does not open the same amount of doors.
@@belzedk How about this way of thinking: if the doors are not opened but the contestant is offered the chance to switch to both other doors, then probably most would switch because the chance of winning is doubled. In a real competition, you are kind of offered exactly that opportunity, but you're only shown that one of them won't win, but we already knew that anyway.
@@lesalmin
I prefer thinking, if you picked a wrong door and change you win, but if you picked the right door and change you lose.
But you had 2/3 chance of picking the wrong door, so changing has better odds compared to the 1/3 if you stay.
@@belzedk The 3 door problem is just a subset of the N door problem, where N is an integer and >2. The contestant picks one door, then the host leaves one door from the unchosen set by removing all the other doors of which are empty (and revealed so), then the contestant picks between the two doors left. The only special property the 3 door problem has is that the same number of doors are removed as the contestant picks (one door). It really doesn't change anything in the problem.
That said, while it definitely does work the same way, I agree that with fewer doors it is less obvious - which is also what jocax said. I've explained this to a good number of people and the moment I scale it up it clicks for them very quickly, so I do think it is a good way from my experience.
Your point about the number of doors removed changing the situation is not relevant at all. Lets consider there are four doors, and the host still only removes one incorrect door. Should you switch to one of the other two doors? Yes. The chance your door is correct is 1/4, or 2/8. The chance the other three doors is correct collectively is 3/4, 6/8. One incorrect door from them being removed doesn't change that, it just condenses the chance down to the remaining two doors. Now those two doors are each 3/8 likely to be correct, which is greater than the 2/8 of your original door chosen. So, you can see that keeping the door removed to one doesn't change the situation (i.e., you should switch), just the numbers involved.
As a side note, if the host *did* remove doors randomly there would be no advantage to switching. This is because the host might have removed a correct door, so the larger set would not automatically inherit the greater chance to be correct (the chance to be correct would decrease with each door removed, with each door remaining as likely as any other including your chosen one).
In fact, this is even true when the doors are revealed in a random host problem. The reason for this is essentially that you randomly pick a door out of the total set, and the host randomly picks a door out of the total set *to not remove*, and then the rest of the doors are removed. If there are a lot of doors then the outcome is likely neither you nor the host picked the correct door and this will then be known, so gameover. In the case one you did randomly pick the correct door then neither is more likely than the other.
The great thing about that car is, if you really don't like the color, you can just green-screen it out for a new one!
I think I know where it came from now That's ingenious.
20 people isn’t much of a statistical sample, but you can’t really argue with 100%.
I think the "problem" with tests like around 36:00 is, that Adam and Jamie are used to one style, so of course thats going to be best. They shouldve maybe used complete newbies to test that myth. Although I dont think, that would've changed much of the results
The straight arm shooting style favorably compared to the weaver stance because it was the way people were taught to shoot pistols for over 100 years. Some people still argue its better than weaver for accuracy.
From the hip is perfectly fine in very close quarters and if well practiced can perform as well as weaver if you train enough with it, see a lot of cowboy quick shooters.
Early 80’s we were taught, prone face down with boot soles towards the grenade. So head is over 5 ft from detonation and boot soles to interdict the shrapnel.
I was thinking the same. Not only will only a tiny fraction of the shrapnels hit you, you'll also be your own "human shield", protecting your more sensible body parts.
They definitely need to retest that myth.
@@clemensruis Retest? Mythbusters ended in 2016...
I've heard this, plus expelling as much air from your lungs to protect them from the shockwave.
@@tmas47 I know. It's supposed to be a bit of a bitter-sweet joke - as they often did re-test myths - paired with a bit of wishful thinking.
@@tmas47 no one is stopping you from getting a grenade, ballistic gel and combat boot
12:00 just want to note that you can diffuse the force, that's how a soldier took two grenades to the guts and survived. Now 'survived' means 'barely' and 'spent 2 years getting shrapnel surgically removed, 3 months of which were unconscious'
45:19 aged extremely well
I remember hearing the Monty hall paradox a while ago and for the life of me I couldn’t understand it. Mythbusters is goated for explaining that lmao
wish i found this video when going through my stats class
Seriously. I remember this type of question in stats or math or something and not being able to wrap my head around, "It's not behind C, so it's either A or B. 1 correct choice between two options, 50/50." Seriously just showing the diagram with B & C in a bracket and a "2/3" label, and I finally get it. 🙃
A question was asked once on a platform about the Russian roulette. After spinning the barrel, if the first chamber was empty at the first attempt, what are the odds the bullet is in the second chamber... without spinning it again of course. The huge majority of people will say the odds are one out five. Actually, the answer is one out of three.
After the barrel was spun, the odds of having the bullets in the first two chambers was one out of three. Shooting a blank the first time did not change in which chamber the bullet is, so, the odds remain the same no matter what. You can easily run the experiment yourself with cards.... no, not with a gun 🤣... unless you are shooting at empty cans.
If it helps to reframe the Monty Hall problem, you are switching from choosing one door to the best option of two doors. 2>1
Yeah you have a 33% chance of being right and it never gets better. So knowing you likely picked wrong. Switch
With the grenade myth, it's based in survivability, not 'getting out without a scratch'. If you're ever faced with a grenade, dive away from it, put your feet together towards the grenade, and cover your neck with your hands. This increases the chance that your wounds will be survivable - with immediate battlefield first aid. What shrapnel does hit you has to go through the entirety of your feet and leg tissues before reaching anything that can't be treated with common battlefield first aid. If both legs get blown off by the blast and shrapnel with no other wounds, you can survive if you get tourniquets on soon enough and immediate evacuation to advanced care.If shrapnel gets to your abdomen or torso, it can't be treated as easily as a leg hit. Reason you cover your neck with your hands is to protect your neck from falling or bouncing shrapnel. Again, slow or stop the shrapnel with your expendable hands and fingers before it gets to your non-expendable and non-treatable carotid. Your brain has a skull protecting it, your neck arteries do not.
Even with modern grenades, if all you can do is get prone and put your legs between the grenade and your vitals, you might yet live. If you're standing up, your torso, abdomen, throat and head are all getting shredded.
Monty Hall isn't even a paradox when you look at it this way: the option to switch is a bet on whether or not you were right the first time. Your odds of being right were 1 in 3, your odds of being wrong were 2 in 3. So switching does in fact logically and non-paradoxically doubles your odds of winning.
Also, yes you do in fact have data even if all 20 trials stuck with their original answer! Because you'd know how often sticking was right out of those 20, and how many would have been better off switching. I'm guessing they just said that to have a reason to do another experiment.
The tire reseating isn't busted. Reseating a tire is almost impossible using tools you typically have in a car. But if you get it back on, just pumping air into it afterwards is trivial.
Part of the process for seating the tire with fire, is to remove the valve from the stem first. This way there is enough compression to seat the tire, only a bit blows out, and then the vacuum won't form and break the bead. Also you want a wet clothe to wipe down any flaming fuel left on the tire, that could start a fire.
Safety note, you may want to use the hub of the vehicle to pin down the rim for safety, or keep the wheel on the BLOCKED UP vehicle, so that they don't launch.
@@froggercrak6286 Yeah, and such it works poorly as an inflation technique since you'd have to be very accurate in returning the valve, and there's a real chance to blow it away if you hurry.
But for seating it is an useful trick, if you're changing tires even with tools so the tire is wholly unseated most home compressors lack the oomph and airflow to seat the tire, no such limit here.
Pumping air into it is trivial? With what, a bycicle pump?
@@mausklick99 Bike pumps work fine, but they take a while. A few minutes for a normal car tire. You can also carry a 12 V pump. They're cheap, take little space and are easy to use. About the size of a half a cereal box.
They said that it's busted because the video clip made it seem that air will stay in the tire but it escapes once it cools down. The first step of it just resetting itself did in fact work but it's just 1/3 of the process
37:32 "this funky looking firearm fashion is frankly defunct." For some reason, the way he said it made me laugh.😂
Alright I wasn't ready for 36:31 lmao. Love the shows humor
Another way to understand the Monty Hall problem: imagine if they didn't open the door, but instead said "if you switch, you'll win if the prize is behind EITHER ONE of the other doors."
Hell, they'd probably open the known-empty door first for dramatic tension either way. Literally the only difference is what step in the process they show you the empty door.
I like this one, because it combines really well with the classic explanation of imagining 100 doors.
My late husband, who was former military, told me that in the unlikely event I ever stumble upon a grenade with a pulled pin, the best idea for me is to get at least 10 ft away, lay on my stomach with my feet towards the blast & close together, put my face in the dirt, use one hand to cover the back of my neck & one hand to cover the back of my head with my elbows as close to my ears as possible. Idk why he told me that bit of info but that was his advice after dealing with them on the regular for several years.
Monty Hall explained quickly and simply and completely:
First assume tbhe price is behind door number 1.
If you pick door number 1 it does not matter which door is revelead, you will lose if you swtich,.
If you pick door number 2, the host will have to open door number 3, and you win if you switch.
If you pick door number 3, the host will have to open door number 2, and you win if you switch.
So you win two times out of three if switching.
The corresponding argument is true for the cases where the price is behind door number 2 or door number 3.
And _that_ is where the three different situations come from.
Situation 2 is equal to situation 3. So not really three situations
@@kaoa10 The whole point is that they are two distinct situations.
They are equal, but they are not the same.
Thay is like saying that in a crowd of three (Karen, Dennis and Eve), Eve and Karen are the same person becuase they are both female.
@@kaoa10 They have the same outcomes but the conditions are different.
Okay. Door A is the winner. B C is the loser.
IF you pick A and stay, you win
IF you pick A and switch you lose
IF you pick B and stay you lose
If you pick B and switch you win.
50/50.
It does not matter where the losing door is, because once it is removed from the choice. You are now picking between 2 doors. New choice = new odds. The door removal ends the statistics of your original choice.
Okay. Door A is the winner. B C is the loser.
IF you pick A and stay, you win
IF you pick A and switch you lose
IF you pick B and stay you lose
If you pick B and switch you win.
If you pick C and stay, you lose.
If you pick C and switch, you lose.
If you stay, you win one out of three.
If you switch, you win two out of three.
Get it now?
At 33:30 they are using an airsoft guy with a magazine blocked with a piece of plastic (so the gun shoots air, but doesn't shoot any plastic balls at the cameraman). This week at his Tested channel Adam checked the pillows of the armchair he carried with him from the Mythbusters workshop. He found EXACTLY THIS MAGAZINE blocked with a piece of plastic.
The video is called "Surprising Things Adam Savage Found Inside His Couch!". Its crazy how these 2 videos got posted (slash reposted) within 5 days of eachother. :o
4:10, I just realized what Adam might have looked like if he got out of Door No. 1, first. Oh, the nightmare.
10:30 cameraman just really getting in there
:v
Gotta admit, you would.
Imagine the uncut version where the camera man zooms even further in on that fine burst disk.
Editor liked the shot so much he used it twice
Those shots weren’t too gratuitous.
Something that I can't figure out. How is it that the fact that no-one switched means that they can't see if it is better to switch? Surely everyone that wins while sticking would lose if switching and vice-versa and therefore giving you data.
That's assuming that P(player does not switch) and P(prize is behind the picked door) are independent probabilities - which they aren't necessarily in the first experiment they did! Remember, Adam knows which door has the prize, in order to ensure that he will always open an empty door. Therefore, the contestants' decision both for which door to initially pick, and on whether to switch/not switch, could be affected by any number of non-verbal cues they pick up from Adam. Intuitively, it might feel like the 100% stay rate should overwhelm any such effects; yet it is still a systematic error source in the data, and to ensure reliable independent data, it is better to run a separate series of tests for that.
Additionally, in cases where the contestant picked the correct door to begin with, Adam has two choices for which door to open - which could also skew what contestants choose.
Now, if they had significant sample sizes both of people who did switch and people who did not switch, that could cancel out some of those factors and leave two populations that were if not perfectly comparable, then certainly closer to it. But since they only got people who didn't switch, there is no sample of people who did switch to compare it to - and since that experiment involved several significant psychological factors (evidently drastic ones, since no one switched) that could affect both the initial door pick and the switch, comparing population to a strictly hypothetical population who did switch, introduces a risk of failing to account for a potentially infinite systematic bias that could mess with the probabilities involved.
@@RQLexi I guess I just see it from a simply logical point of view: if person A stayed and failed, then that is also a data point that switching lead to success and vice versa. If you simply want to practically test if staying or switching is more likely to yield success, surely psychological factors are unimportant, right?
The problem is that they claim that this is some kind of "complex problem", which it is not,. it is the second step after knowing about the probbility of rolling a single die, and before the "more complex" task of rolling two independent dice.
It is also pretty obvious that the choice is "independent" of the static position of the price. In this case it is trivial of course,because since about 1/3 of the people that made the wrong choice (sticking) won, 2/3 would have won if they all switched. Sto pretending that mathematics is hard, this part is ltieral childs play, about as hard as breatihng.
@@TheJaguar1983 Not necessarily - if seeing Adam (who knows which door it is) act differently affects which door they picked in the first place, then it’s no longer reliably a 1/3 chance that they picked the right door in the first place, and thus not a 2/3 chance that switching is the right call. An experiment that isn’t designed to account for a specific psychological dimension, cannot be treated as if the resulting data is independent of it
@@RQLexi Ah, that makes sense. Though not all would notice, you can't discount the chance that they change their choice based on Adam's reaction to their first choice. I was thinking in a pure mathematical way.
"With everybody sticking, they don't have any data on whether switching is advantageous." Um... Yes... they most certainly do have data! Although it may be limited date, it is some data. 20 people were tested. All 20 stuck with their original pick. Let's say 7 of them won. That means 13 of them lost. THERE IS YOUR DATA! It would prove, if they had all switched, there would have been 13 winners, instead of only 7. Hence, it is perfectly reasonable to presume - using my simple example - switching would have equated to a 65% chance of winning.
Shooting sideways dumb, but very possible. I cant believe Adam didnt line his eye up to the sights😂 Like dude, even though its awkward, move it 2 inches and youre lined up and can aim lmao
45:19 Feel like Adam knew something about Alec Baldwin we didn't at the time 🤔
Tyre trick. you use the starter fluid to seat the tyre WHILST inflating the tyre normally. it is a quick and easy way to seat the tyre nothing else
Yeah this one annoyed me. They added inflation as part of the myth then busted it when it didn't inflate. Was never about inflation.
There's no need to rerun the test to determine if switching is better since you simply look at the win/loss ratio of the 20 who all didn't switch - if more of them won than lost, then stick is better; if more lost than won, the switching is better - changing their mind has zero outcome on whether or not they win or lose.
Trivia on gangster style - that's the proper technique to fire the full auto .45 Luger as the gun is intended as a room sweeper, thus the recoil and sideways position allows you to sweep an area with the gun far more effectively than if you held it properly.
What they should have learned from gunfu is that you don't give two people with little to no firearm experience a .45 instead something a bit more reasonable like a 9mm.
At 28:47 during the slow footage, you can see that the shrapnel that hits the low area happens way after the shrapnel hits the top area. The low area shrapnel is likely ricochets off the ground and rocks from the immediate area around the grenade
"Cuz I don't point real guns at our cameraman."
Bald statement to make for the win.
They actually do have enough switch/stick advantage data after the first psychological test.
You don't even need the test subjects to make the 2nd choice, only the first choice out of 3 (or do it with a dice roll).
Then eliminate an empty door that wasn't picked, and just tally whether the prize was under the 1st choice or not.
0:59 I’ve always loved this footage of Tori busting his face on the bicycle 😂
The tire vacuum thing was something I learned early on -- you have to be quick to get an air chuck on the valve stem after it inflates, because you only have ten seconds or so before the cooling gases suck the tire back off of the rim again.
Jamie talking about the advantages of being able to see down the sights with the Weaver Technique but has his eyes closed in every slowmo lmao
Wanna bet Jamie was very butthurt that Adam is much better at firing a pistol than him.
The Monty Hall problem is very simple from the opposite perspective. If you "pick" door 1, and the host opens 2 or 3 before letting you switch, you're effectively choosing between door 1 or doors 2 and 3, so 33.333% vs. 66.666%.
Incorrect.
Door A (winner) Door B and Door C
If you pick B... C is removed. If you stay you lose
If you pick B... C is removed. if you switch you win.
If you pick A.. C is removed. If you stay you win.
If you Pick A... C is removed. If you switch you lose.
Once one of the doors is removed from the choice, and then you are giving the choice to pick again (calling it "switch" means the same as picking) You are now dealing with new odds. As one of the incorrect doors is gone.
The "paradox" in this is that people do not realize that once a door is gone, you are now faced with new odds and new choice. So it is a new game.
@@erich6860 If you're going to tell somebody he's wrong, it helps to have a clue what you're talking about. The explanation I gave is a simplification of the mathematically provable explanation. If you read journal articles on the Monty Hall problem, this is the logic they use.
The probability never changes. It's either behind a door or not. The probability of winning is set at the very beginning. The door the player picks has p_win = 0.3333, p_lose = 0.6666. That never changes. If Monty didn't open a door and told the player he could keep the chosen door or take _both_ of the other doors, the choice to switch becomes obvious, even to somebody who doesn't understand probability very well. The open door is actually there to make ignorant people (like you) think both doors have equal probability.
To make it even simpler, think of a wall with 100 doors. The player picks door D, which has p_win = 0.01 and p_lose = 0.99. If Monty then opens up 98 losing doors, it doesn't change the two remaining doors to p_win = p_lose = 0.5. Door D still has p_win = 0.01 and p_lose = 0.99. The player now has more information, and knows that D' has p_win = 0.99 and p_lose = 0.01. Anyone who's not an absolute moron would see that and switch.
@@erich6860 What if you pick C?
@@kyrla It took awhile of puzzling this out,,, because it bothered me so bad that so many people said opposite of me.
So I ran the same game with 10 doors in my head.
It was at this point, I realized that the issue comes from the game rules itself. So I treated the player and Monty as a player.
What I realized is that if player 1 gets to pick a single door. You have a 10% chance of being correct.
Then player 2 (Monty) gets the other 9 doors, giving him a 90% chance of having the prize behind one of them.
Now when we apply the rules of the game, all doors except player 1, and the winning door are removed. The only exception being if player 1 happened to of picked the correct door.
This means that 90% of the time, the correct prize door was on players 2 side.
So the doors removed are still in play technically, they just cannot be selected. But Monty, that 90% chance is on his side.
Thus... switch.
I was stupid,,, I literally had to come up with my own method to hit the realization button.
@@erich6860 No that is correct and you are wrong. The odds don't change as the revealed door is a known wrong door. The odds remain 1/3 if you stay and 2/3 if you switch. Did you even watch the video? The physical outcome clearly shows that and that is what math/logic shows.
Holding gun "gangster style": This is a style of terror. It's used to intimidate the enemy
Holding gun normally: This is a style of war. It's used to kill the enemy.
Actually the "gangsta" style came from real life thugs who rob people and they hold the gun hand up to hide their face. Their free hand is used to take your wallet, and the gun hand hides their face. Then it started to appear in movies and rap videos. It's not intimidating or terrifying at all it is silly.
Now try it with a H&K P90
I think the psychology behind sticking, is the fear of having chosen correctly and then loose. Like loosing for a bad second decision is worse than loosing for a single one, because you had it and let it go.
shooting from the hip is not accurate but when you are up close to your enemy it's the best choice as they have limited options to rip the gun away from your hand
The main trick of it is as they said "I do not know where it is pointed"... the old western shooters who even now use this constantly (look up revolver speed shooting) shoot so many rounds this way that they know exactly how the gun aims and feels.
One gun myth not tested: As this came out WAY before Brooklyn Nine-Nine, no test of "upside down" gunshots.
The Monty Hall Door Paradox is really clever. You have three doors to choose from (1/3 chance), by "giving" you one of the other doors as a miss they have tricked your brain into treating the situation as a "50/50" chance where you trust your instinct to not change (a result of natural instinct that you usually don't get a second chance in survival), where in reality the choice was always 1-in-3.
This is the first time I've seen a myth on here I knew was true before watching. You absolutely CAN reseat a tire with starter fluid. I did it myself once after seeing a video of it. Friend needed a tire and we found an uninflated one by the side of the road so being dumb teens we took it and I used the starter fluid trick. Never heard of it inflating the tire tho, we knew we had to fill it separately
@14:00. They should have had some data in that about 1/3 of the contestants should have won in the first phase of the test--but they did not disclose this in the show (maybe the statistical error with only 20 people make it indeterminate... Also this puzzle was presented in 1993 by Marilyn Vos Savant in Parade Magazine and many scholars got the math wrong. It was a huge controversy.
Wow I had never understood the Monty Hall paradox as well as I do after Jamie explained it lol bravo!
Always switch.
Problem is you only get 1 shot at that in real life and you might fall in one of the few chances that you had the prize at your first choice door.
Yeah and getting nothing on your first choice feels better than switching and getting nothing
@@Monkey_D_Luffy56 Exactly. When repeated, it's always better to switch, but in real life you only have the one shot and you don't want to throw it away even if it's statistically better.
@@Monkey_D_Luffy56 Winning feels better than losing. Chances of winning are twice as good when you switch, therefore switch.
@@InexplicableInside Really meh takeaway. You _always_ want to switch, IRRESPECTIVELY of how many chances you get. I'll absolutely agree that it feels like you've been cheated if you switched away from the winning door, and that feeling would suck. Unfortunately, statistics tends to not give a rats ass about our feelings, so if there is anything other than shits and giggles on the line, you should... ALWAYS SWITCH. Unless you'd rather lose than win, in which case, you do you.
@@dgthe3how are chances twice as good by switching? With 1 door gone you have 50/50, doesnt matter which door goes. Staying in your current door IS a choice with the same chance
I have 2 questions:
1. Why do we assume that separate Monty picks are linked together?
2. Can the winning/losing pattern be different but still keep the same chances overall?
Its a pretty bad explanation, but lucky its one of the most explained paradoxes so if you look on TH-cam you'll easily find a video that does a better job. Vsauce has a great one.
I don't know what you mean with your second question.
@@helderboymh thank you for answering!
What I was trying to say with my second question is related to the board where they marked with red squares everytime they won. Does this make some more sense now?
@@FlaviusDumitrescu5918 that pattern is completely random.
The only thing you can say about it is that Jamie is expected to have about 1 third correct and we expect Adam to have bout two third correct in total.
Because Monty's picks aren't a random event. He will always reveal an empty door and will always be one of the 2 doors that you didn't pick. So if he has a choice of 2 doors, it doesn't matter which one is opened because it isn't a random event.
Love how it clearly lands on white, he opens red then in the next shot is back on white. Classic casino move
You beat me to it XD
Nando moura sempre esteve certo
33:33 have to add the Turkish silver medal shooter technique of one hand in the pocket :D
i always liked how they try to get the exact car or something similar from the myths.
The crew was super happy to take those building supplies home!!
"Let's just go to the range and detonate some hand grenades." Exactly where does one legally purchase said grenades? Asking for a friend.
Sadly people still try to argue against monty hall same with .9repeating equals 1 both people refuse to learn
The primary difference I see between the Weaver and straight arm firing positions (as someone with literally zero firing experience myself) is that your body is sideways relative to your target so you're presenting a narrower profile to your potential enemy. I think it would be safer because it forces your opponent to hit a smaller target and it puts your heart behind slightly more bodymass (which is unlikely to change anything, but against a lethal weapon even a tiny chance to save your life is worth considering).
I always thought that also. But then someone explained that if you're wearing a vest (like military or police), your chances of the bullet going through is much less when facing towards the gunshot vs sideways.
Vests are not nearly as impenetrable from the side because of the armpit and possibly the way the plates in the vest are situated (especially if it's a vest with steel plates although not sure they even use that kind anymore).
@@opocald So if you're armored with a vest, face first is better. If you DON'T have armor and are still stuck in a fire-fight then side arm still seems good. But both of these arguments and stances ignore a further and even more critical issue: cover. The best stance is whichever one that lets you aim accurately while remaining behind as much cover as is possible.
1:40 First box opened is blue. When reading the myth a yellow box is open on the wheel. Hmmm?
I suspect every piece of paper said the same thing, then they forgot which color they had opened in the previous camera shot (who knows maybe they had lunch between them), and simply didn’t bother to check the footage for consistency.
48:15 they'll all be filmed anyway.
It landed on a white piece but the message was taken from a red one
The best way to look at the Monty Hall question is to imagine that a door wasn't opened, and then ask if you want to stick with your door or get the combined prizes from the other two doors. Sure, you're guaranteed to get an empty door (which would be the one they open after your first choice), but overall you are given the choice between a 1 in 3 chance or a 2 in 3 chance.
The tire seating one is an actual method for seating it but these days we have bead blasters that remove the fire and use compressed air to reseat
mythbusters is still the best science/math show ever made, I miss it, it was such a staple of my childhood
Adam made a mythbusters with kids that was pretty good
The fun part of the Monty Hall problem is that even knowing the math behind it, it "feels" like it shouldn't make sense. It does mathematically, but the way we interpret information and logic, makes it seem like it's a 50/50 shot because we know that the prize has to be behind one of the two doors and we know that one out of two is a 50% chance. It's just that we don't naturally think about the third door as still being a factor, because it's been shown to be empty.
as far as the tire inflating, all it's intended to do is set the bead. You will still need to inflate it to the proper PSI somehow, but if you don't have a tire machine and need to seat a bead it's a go-to option.
14:00 test 1 does have the data. 33% won, so 67% lost. Those 67% would have won by switching.
For the grenade test: if a grenade has a non-spherical blast, then _by definition_ whatever particular orientation it lands/explodes at will make _some_ difference to the surrounding area, and this isn't something the user can control/predict when they throw the grenade.
After seeing the score I'd rather have Jamie shooting at me than Adam. LOL
The tire and accelerant is ONLY about seating the bead. We used this on the farm 45 years ago and it had been used decades before that
Ironically, the myth with the building supplies on the car would've been a great ad for the vehicle lol but they had to hide which brand it was.
23:30
The big difference is the weight distribution. In the picture, the weight was far more rear loaded. The car looked like the front wheels were about to come off the ground. Adam had it loaded more on top/center of the vehicle.
i love the paradox. i learned it with the 50/50 on a blind who wants to be a millionaire gameshow. If you have no idea which of the four answers are correct. choose one, do a 50/50, if your guess inside your head is safe from the 50/50 elimination, there is a 75% chance its the other answer. if the 50/50 eliminates your wild guess, you still have a 50/50 shot.
The idea with the monty hall paradox is what they talk about in the movie '21'. You have 33% chance of choosing the correct door, but when you account for variable change, (when they open up another door) that means, your odds of choosing the correct door goes up another 33% when you chose to switch.
I think people don't want to switch their choice of doors mostly because people feel like if they switch from their original choice and they lose, they will regret it so much more than if they had just stuck to their guns and lost. There's a haunting feeling of regret in there.
The Monty Hall problem makes a lot more sense if you use more doors, like at least 5 or 10. First pick out of five or ten was indeed a 20% or 10% chance. But then once it's narrowed down to two doors, it makes perfect sense which switching your pick was now over 50%.
Let's say, for the sake of this example, you're always going to pick door #1, and the presenter knows where the prize is so he'll always open the door without the prize behind it:
The prize is behind door #1:
[x] [-] [-] = Host opens door #2. If you switch from door #1, you get nothing.
The prize is behind door #2:
[-] [x] [-] = Host opens door #3. If you switch from door #1, you get the prize.
The prize is behind door #3:
[-] [-] [x] = Host opens door # 2. If you switch from door #1, you get the prize.
So in 2/3 of the cases, if you switch, you get the prize.
The grenade section missed some pressure wave physics.
When you hit the deck with feet towards the grenade (all military training is to hit deck with feet towards the blast).
This causes the blast pressure wave to hit the feet forts which then deflects the pressure wave and this reduces the pressure wave compared to a non deflected one and this survivable closer.
Also, hitting the deck on a grenade isn’t intended to prevent injury but rather to increase the odds of survival as was finally pointed out at the very end.
They said the soldier was brave for asking the grenade question, but obviously he's not brave because he's scared of dying.
The Monty Hall deal is a little less complex to figure out because there’s actually two prizes available in the scenario. There’s the grand prize and then a lesser prize and then there’s no prize. The opening of the doors is dependent upon witch door and is picked and if it’s a prize door. The part that people sometimes don’t understand is that if they picked a bad door Hall would give them the choice to correct the choice. This is how the Monty Hall works. The understanding is that you have to know what the prize is and if it’s better then the other prize or worse. The psychological part is greed . But they missed that part of the test because they only offered one prize and not two witch is actually the Monty Hall.
I think the choice of the word, "stick" would prime the person to stay with their original choice. They might think of a phrase like, "stick the landing," which has positive connotations.
They didn't explain the scenario correctly. Here is what they did not say: The host knows what is behind each door and ALWAYS chooses an empty door. Therefore, the host uses his knowledge of what is behind each door, in addition to knowing which door the contestant chose, and then applies the rule above. Since the host is not acting randomly, the host's selection can be used by the contestant to gain some advantage when deciding to stay or switch. There are two sets of cases: (a) the contestant's initial choice is correct and (b) the contestant's initial choice is incorrect. (a) has 6 permutations and (b) has 12 permutations (you can try writing them out). In the (a) cases, the correct choice is that the contestant stays. In the (b) cases, the correct choice is that the contestant switches. The contestant wins the larger set (12) when he switches doors. Therefore, that is the better choice. Note that we are requiring that the contestant choose "stay" for all cases or choose "switch" for all cases. There are a total of 18 permutations, so the sets (a) and (b) results in percentages of 33% (6/18, staying) and 66% (12/18, switching).
Here is a simulator:
www.mathwarehouse.com/monty-hall-simulation-online/
If you have the simulator run 1,000 simulations, the results for the groups are close to 33% and 66%. This verifies the percentages above.
66% is greater than 33% ((b) versus (a)), so (b) is the correct answer. The contestant should always choose to switch because this decision results in a correct second choice in the majority of cases.
It is not intuitive that switching would be better because people assume that the host's choice is random. When the host follows an algorithm and is therefore not random, the result is not intuitive. For example, you could change the host's behavior so that staying is the better overall second choice by the contestant.
Mark Rober did a good video on the science of surviving hand grenades.
Did anybody else notice how many headshots Jamie got during the handgun holding tests?
The easiest way to explain the Monty Hall problem is that you're likely to be *wrong* 2/3 times you pick the first door. I think most can agree to that. Cool. So that means when you pick, you're at 1/3, which means 2/3 of the remaining chance must be among the two remaining doors. If you then remove one of those doors, the only remaining door must be the one with 2/3, so that's obviously better to pick than the 1/3 you started with. Edit: Okay, they did do this explanation, so I don't know why people are still in the comments saying "it must be 50/50".
Notice the number of winners on the left is almost equal the number of losers on the right
I did this in college. I never studied and would fail simple T/F tests. I began switching my answers before turning in the test and turned my grades around.
No! The idea of using flame to seat a tire is totally true! The idea is not to inflate the tire, but to seat it. Seating a tire properly with no tools by the side of the road or other remote location is near impossible. After it is seated, you can use any old air compressor to fill it to proper pressure. I always carry a portable air compressor with me just in case. Mainly I carry it for the emergency battery jump start feature it comes with. Really came in handy during the hurricane when I used it to charge my phone without having to burn gas by running the engine. Also, with the whole grenade thing, hitting the deck decreases your body profile so you are *less likely* to get hit, and less likely to get hit in a vital part of your body, especially if you dive away from the grenade with your feet pointing towards it. You might lose a leg or foot, but you might not lose your life. A grenade going off that close to you is a really bad time regardless. The training to do that is to minimize damage in a fatal scenario. You might be dead regardless but still. Anything that can help even a little bit is much welcomed.
Monty used to rip people off is the problem he would just switch the prize to whatever they didn't pick
This could have avoided that fight between Holt and Kevin… IYKYK
The Monty Hall problem is so fun. Basically, you most likely guessed wrong with your first choice, so by opening an empty door the host is most likely showing you which door you should have picked in the first place (i.e. the remaining closed door).