The Lounge is rated PG. If you're about to post something you wouldn't want your
kid sister to read then don't post it. No flame wars, no abusive conduct, no programming
questions and please don't post ads.
That's to show general value per roll. Each value is 0 or 600 (double or nothing). (55.6 x 600)/100 = 333.6. Since it's all or nothing, you could also do (600 x .556). Both calculate the same thing - the average value per roll. The point is that the per-roll evaluation of $333.6 is greater than the $300 evaluation (300 x 1.0). This isn't to show the money you earn but to weight and compare the options.
If you'd like to include personality, monetary situation, and other per-person variables then even though you will statistically get more value out of the 55.6% option the guaranteed $300 may seem more appealing depending on the relative value of $300 to that individual.
There are 36 outcomes from rolling 2 standard dice, and only 8 of them are winners. -- 20 winning outcomes There are 216 outcomes from rolling 3 standard dice, and only 7 of them are winners. -- 91 winning outcomes
What did I miss?
Edit: I was mistaken. I missed a whole bunch of winning outcomes.
There are 36 outcomes from rolling 2 standard dice, and only 8 of them are winners.
How did you get 8 winning combinations? If the first die already wins (in twqo out of six cases), the second one is irrelevant in any case. These already are twelve winning combinations. And then those cases where the first die 'misses', but the second one wins are added.
Chance that the first one wins: 2/6. Chance that the first one mises, bt the second one wins: 4/6 * 2/6 = 8/36 (probably what you thought) Total chance 2/6 + 8/36 = 12/36 + 8 /36 = 20/36 = 0,56 (rounded).
There are 216 outcomes from rolling 3 standard dice, and only 7 of them are winners.
Similar calculation: Chance that the first one already wins: 1/6 Chance that the second one wins if the first fails: 5/6 * 1/6 = 5/36 Chance that the third one winds when the first two fail: 5/6 * 5/6 * 1/6 = 25/216 Adding it all up: 1/6 + 5/36 + 25/216 = (36 + 30 + 25) / 216 = 71/216 = 0,33 (rounded).
"I don't know, extraterrestrial?" "You mean like from space?" "No, from Canada."
If software development were a circus, we would all be the clowns.
The easier way to calculate this imo is to calculate what loses then subtract that from 1. This way the second example is simply 1 - (5/6)^3 = 0.4213... ~ 42.1%. Also in the last step of the second example, (36 + 30 + 25)/216 = 91/216 ~ 42.1% not 71/216 ~ 33%
Two years ago, I got stumped by a problem and solved it with a sloppy workaround. It worked and the website/app was delivered on schedule, but it was a dirty hack and always stayed in the back of my mind.
Getting ready for version 2.0, this was an item that I intended to solve. Almost two weeks of little victories and countless hours of research and trial and error have finally led to success! Even though I've been doing this for almost 20 years, it still invoked a karate kick and a short string of muttered obscenities. 'take that you b*****d!'
For anyone curious, the issue was getting the .net sql reportviewer to work under an Azure website environment. (not vm) Previously after reading somewhere that it wasn't 'officially supported' I resolved to exposing our in-house SSRS to host the reports which connected to the app's Azure database. As mentioned, this worked but it was really slow and difficult to maintain. (there are probably security risks as well)
I realize that this is probably beginner grade stuff for most of you, but it was a nice learning experience for me.
Anyhow, it feels great to finally replace a bad hack with a better one! Now begins the actual grunge work of migrating a few dozen reports from .rdl format to .rdlc.
OK, So I run up VS2017 and get it to create a blank Xamarin Forms cross platform app from it's built in templates. And "Build" ...
18 errors, 2 warnings. "InitializeComponent" does not exist. "Certificate expired" "System" not found. ...
OK, lets see ... check out the .cs file, and there is calls InitialiseComponent - right click, "go to definition" - file opens, there it is. Close the file again. And ... all the errors vanish. Run it and it works.
So, you have to open a file to tell it where the stuff it just created is? O....Kay...
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
The componentization of VS2017 is nice, especially since I work exclusively in native C++, However, I've been underwhelmed by the rest of the release. The CMake support is clunky, at best, and their C++17 support is lacking. I ran into a bug with the RC version that was so blatant, I wondered what else their non-testing let through (and Griff found at lease one!)
Just a shot in the dark: If you have more than one project in the solution, make sure inter-project dependencies are set correctly. If not, the solution may build erratically, giving errors at times and not at other times.
I created different project types and found that about 80% of the templates either 1. Same as was in 2015, so has problem finding the right reference before first compilation (referencing assembly that compiled for 4.5, but the project target is 4.6) 2. Missing references to support the code generated...
Microsoft was so eager to release the 'fast' version of 2015, that decided to build a new version around, but the process went a bit wrong...
Skipper: We'll fix it. Alex: Fix it? How you gonna fix this? Skipper: Grit, spit and a whole lotta duct tape.