Dope Tech Episode 2

<<@ruth-moreton says : Yep, I found a natural distribution curve in the UK national lottery. Absolutely useless information but made me smile.>> <<@nothingggg1233 says : why doesnt this happen in those arcade games?>> <<@SuperNoncents says : A few factors to consider: Not all of the balls are the same size The funnel system>> <<@david-oval says : I don't know if this is a thing... But maybe this is why there aren't an infinite number of multiverses, but that multiverse theory has merit. Perhaps the brain doesn't see reality as much as filters for the most probabilistic outcomes of millions of tiny decisions? In other words, the multiverses are the tiny ball bearings cycling through an infinite number of the left/right junctions that represent the infinite number of probable outcomes of an infinite number of "decisions." Even as the number of decisions grows, and the "tree" of decisions grows, the number of multiverses defaulting to the middle of the distribution remains essentially consistent. Thus, even in a cosmology where each decision creates a new universe to add to the infinite and growing numbers of universes, only one path is probabilistically favoured, and only a handful of other probabilistic paths hold significance... After which, observation solidifies a reality probabilistically according to the most significant paths.>> <<@Ipso_Non_Facto says : Is this Zipf's law in action?>> <<@Shannon-ij1pm says : Bachelier was foolish because stock prices do not change in a random way. There are always outside forces influencing the stock price. Companies grow and their stock price usually rise as people invest. His model predicts each 50/50 decision as independent without outside influence.>> <<@bonifacy987 says : brillliant, love it>> <<@tapalmer99 says : I always wondered about this because there's a similar type of device on a game show and always wondered how closely the results will fall with a standard deviation curve. And if it could be modeled mathematically, which I'm sure it can As long as the random generator wasn't biased at all but I always wondered about that game. I think it's called plinko I don't know what show though. It's definitely a game show.>> <<@silusiano says : That's sorcery.>> <<@xernihtwalker678 says : But what happens if u do 1 ball at a time 6000 times?>> <<@DizzyCooperSarrosong says : the random larger brass ball is actuly ever so slightly iritating>> <<@ThePhysicalReaction says : lets gamble on it>> <<@amadddd0 says : Lol little did he know stock prices are more imaginary than "I">> <<@kaptnkirk2740 says : Schon mal den Versuch mit jeder Kugel einzeln gemacht?>> <<@dukestt543 says : its only a 50/50 chance if you do one ball at a time, surely?>> <<@gonzalolandriel1587 says : All very nice but where can one get one of these>> <<@whimpypatrol5503 says : The term "random walk" has a slighty different meaning and its use in probability literature post dates the Galton board. A better term might be a "random path" to avoid confusion of every newbe using the term without knowing its true context.>> <<@avijotdiv1910 says : This is not accurate , as each ball is being pushed by other balls. This doesnt gurantee a 50/50 chance. If the balls are dropped one by one , that would be more accurate>> <<@RoshDroz says : What's up with that one single large ball?>> <<@mr_whitehair says : I'm assuming the result would be the same but if you were to isolate each one so that it doesn't have the ability to bump into the other balls what happens?>> <<@roypettigrew6453 says : Plinko!!! Hahaha 😂😂😂>> <<@GoatsEatDirt says : Actually, the congestion before the first peg causes traffic to directly flow either direction. A majority of the balls do not get 50/50 at beginning.>> <<@shaider1982 says : Central Limit theorem visualization👍🏻>> <<@TheSunLights says : The balls has to flow one by one through the channels. Not all together>> <<@Lumencraft- says : What would the pattern look like if you dropped every ball in one at a time?>> <<@doodle1951 says : Balls interact with eachother, limiting the path. Also gravity is pulling the balls straight down, you would need to introduce energy into the system to make the balls go further away from the center, thats why the outermost balls are the slowest. Stock price really is like a ball, its rigged.>> <<@abpob6052 says : For it to be 50-50 you need to do it one ball at a time>> <<@WireWeHere says : Plinko Pathways.>> <<@galgappa says : It was an extraordinary time in history was the 18th and 19th centuries. So much was discovered… without electricity. Without marine engines, without plastic. Building anything was impossibly expensive… and often… the only way of finding out if your idea worked… was to build it!>> <<@m_udge says : Out the gate him saying a 50/50 chance on all of those pegs and 6000 balls, is complete nonsense. Which im surprised to hear from him.>> <<@natepeace1737 says : Proof we live in the Matrix.>> <<@PoM-MoM says : 😍 You make learning 💯 enjoyable>> <<@RuaBeirne says : Whats the gold ball? Its bigger.>> <<@julian-v2u9v says : That one bigger ball>> <<@oleksiychekin6756 says : Based on the logic of the video, there is 50/50 chance that we will die any second :)>> <<@Hank_the_Hunk says : So photons are kinda like these tiny balls, coming from a light source and spreading.>> <<@Qewbicle says : Random is only random of you can't calculate the things. If you could do temperature, angle, velocity, spin, deflection from other things on their path, vibration, etcetera. You'll have the same result. If it's incalculable, then there is no process it takes that path. The fact that it happens, is prove it's calculable. Heck, we even calculate things that don't happen except in theory. I know I know. The point was to illustrate normal distribution. But it brought up the matter of random, which should be defined as difficult to measure and calculate with current knowledge. But if you could, you'd call it a distribution of another name.>> <<@ramin326 says : Not entirely true. If you allow one ball with a path whose width is delra_l, you would have an honest 50/50 chance a ball goes left or right. Since your balls are smaller than path width AND you launch them in mass, they act more fluidically and less randomly.>> <<@MuyLokoFL says : Yeeeeh like the market isnt controled and manipulated>> <<@patrickarmstrong7907 says : However, when u drop so many at once, the answer of left or right path is compromised by the balls around it. I suggest u put one ball down at a time.>> <<@leonix9882 says : stocks are gambling, got it>> <<@ExcieMusic says : If every ball hits the peg alone, it has a 50/50. All those balls at once? They're influenced by eachother, not just the pegs.>> <<@charlestoddsullivanforpres2028 says : All the balls start in the middle, though.>> <<@mineduck3050 says : Valence shells are similar>> <<@RCE says : Nothing can be perfectly 50/50 but everything is 50/50>> <<@OG_Byrdman says : no, they can bounce over. if you watch close enough you can see some changing lanes to the left or right>> <<@Vazh. says : gauss??>> <<@clintoni856 says : Prince on crack 😅>> <<@Space_Cat says : Snowball System 🤔>> <<@yohannesteklewolde1651 says : Don't you think it's highly unlikely for a ball to have a perfect 50/50 chance of bouncing left or right? To achieve those exact odds, the ball must strike the top vertex of the hexagon perfectly. Specifically, an imaginary vertical line would need to pass directly through the center of the ball and both the top and bottom vertices of the hexagon. In reality, most balls don't even hit that top vertex cleanly. What do you think?>>