Injury Report Chiefs/Ravens - Clark with 2nd full practice

[JakeF]

https://www.chiefs.com/news/week-2-i...iefs-vs-ravens

Week 2 Injury Report | Chiefs vs. Ravens

Injuries for the Chiefs Week 2 matchup against the Baltimore Ravens
Sep 15, 2021 at 05:06 PM

[SupDock]

Originally Posted by ChiefsFanatic

And in a vacuum a feather falls at the same rate of speed as a 16# bowling ball. But, dropped off of a 10 story building at the same time, the bowling ball will hit the ground first every single time. Every. Single. Time.

The point you think you made, isn't a point at all.

Sent from my GM1915 using Tapatalk

I’m not sure I understand what point you are making

Eventually the Ravens will beat us, that makes sense. The point is, the previous wins don’t make it more likely that we will lose a specific game.

[ChiefsFanatic]

Originally Posted by SupDock

Eventually the Ravens will beat us, that makes sense.

Are you sure you don't understand my point?



Sent from my GM1915 using Tapatalk

[SupDock]

Originally Posted by ChiefsFanatic

Are you sure you don't understand my point?



Sent from my GM1915 using Tapatalk

Yes?

The law of averages has nothing to do with a specific single outcome. That’s my point.

[Baby Lee]

Originally Posted by ChiefsFanatic

And in a vacuum a feather falls at the same rate of speed as a 16# bowling ball. But, dropped off of a 10 story building at the same time, the bowling ball will hit the ground first every single time. Every. Single. Time.

The point you think you made, isn't a point at all.

Sent from my GM1915 using Tapatalk

Irony, in that this assertion is a mess.

It is structured to sound like it's saying something substantive, but it doesn't make sense in any technical or rigorous reading.

Originally Posted by RealSNR

I'm... not getting it. How does the bowling ball/feather in/out of vacuum example relate to the law of averages?

It doesn't, and it's inaccurate even if it did 'apply.' I'd characterize it as flim-flam talk, make a big assertion that everyone has to ponder, taking up analytical resources from the subject at hand.

But that's fine, just let it go and move on.

[ChiefsFanatic]

Originally Posted by RealSNR

I'm... not getting it. How does the bowling ball/feather in/out of vacuum example relate to the law of averages?

It doesn't, it's a rebuttal to the take that previous outcomes don't affect the next outcome. While that statement seems true, like the fact that all objects fall at the same rate of speed, in practice it is not.

Sent from my GM1915 using Tapatalk

[SupDock]

Originally Posted by ChiefsFanatic

It doesn't, it's a rebuttal to the take that previous outcomes don't affect the next outcome. While that statement seems true, like the fact that all objects fall at the same rate of speed, in practice it is not.

Sent from my GM1915 using Tapatalk

[Baby Lee]

Originally Posted by Baby Lee

But that's fine, just let it go and move on.

EDIT - Or more satisfyingly and apt, make the face below. . .

Originally Posted by SupDock

[ChiefsFanatic]

Originally Posted by SupDock

Do you think that Patrick Mahomes will ever lose a game in September?

Do you think Patrick Mahomes will ever throw an interception in September?

Do you think Lamar Jackson will ever beat Patrick Mahomes?

Is your answer to any of those questions yes?

Sent from my GM1915 using Tapatalk

[SupDock]

Originally Posted by ChiefsFanatic

Do you think that Patrick Mahomes will ever lose a game in September?

Do you think Patrick Mahomes will ever throw an interception in September?

Do you think Lamar Jackson will ever beat Patrick Mahomes?

Is your answer to any of those questions yes?

Sent from my GM1915 using Tapatalk

Yes, but that has nothing to do with the probability that any of those things happen in a specific game, and the longer these things go without happening they do not become more likely to happen on any specific play or game.


For example, he will lose a game in September, but that has nothing to do with whether or not we lose tomorrow.

[Frazod]

Some of Blakeman's greatest hits.

[SupDock]

Originally Posted by Frazod

Some of Blakeman's greatest hits.

Great share. Ridiculous

[ChiefsFanatic]

Originally Posted by SupDock

Yes, but that has nothing to do with the probability that any of those things happen in a specific game, and the longer these things go without happening they do not become more likely to happen on any specific play or game.

Why is your answer to those questions yes?

Again, what you are saying is in theory absolutely correct. Previous outcomes have no bearing on future outcomes.

But, why do you really think your answer is yes to those questions? Whether you recognize it, or admit it, your answer to those questions is yes because you know that one outcome cannot be the only outcome.

To use a previous example given as to why I am wrong, if you flip that fair coin 100 times, and the first 5 times it lands on heads, there is no reason to believe that landing on heads the next 95 times isn't possible. Because, previous outcomes do not affect future outcomes, correct?

What I am saying is that every time that coin lands on heads, the next flip becomes more likely to land on tails, regardless of the fact that previous outcomes do not influence future outcomes. Again, what you are saying is true, but in actual practice we all know that coin is going to land on tails at some point during those next 95 flips.

Honestly, people can play with semantics, or whatever all they want, but what I am saying is correct.

Sent from my GM1915 using Tapatalk

[SupDock]

Originally Posted by ChiefsFanatic

What I am saying is that every time that coin lands on heads, the next flip becomes more likely to land on tails,

Sent from my GM1915 using Tapatalk

Absolutely false

[SupDock]

Originally Posted by ChiefsFanatic

Why is your answer to those questions yes?


To use a previous example given as to why I am wrong, if you flip that fair coin 100 times, and the first 5 times it lands on heads, there is no reason to believe that landing on heads the next 95 times isn't possible. Because, previous outcomes do not affect future outcomes, correct?

Sent from my GM1915 using Tapatalk

It is absolutely possible, but improbable for any specific series of 100 flips.

The probability of flipping a fair coin and getting 100 Heads in a row is 1 in 2^100. That's 1 in 1,267,650,600,228,229,401,496,703,205,376.

If you flipped heads 99 times in a row, the odd of the next being heads is still 50 percent.

[Frazod]

Originally Posted by SupDock

Great share. Ridiculous

He single-handedly turned that Green Bay/Detroit game with his bullshit calls. Almost as bad as the way Triplette ****ed us in that Titans playoff loss.