good thread spaceman

I'd rather ram a car jack in Bogan's teeth and pump it up

so if something is GOAT, is it the milestone for 100%, or is it > 100%?

Sticky imo! Nice read!

Totally agree with OP, concerning the first post.

yep

I always feel weird in the situation where someone asks "Are you 100% sure?" about something and indeed I am positive. But there's a very small chance that somehow all sources are incorrect or that I have for some reason just lost my mind - or hallucinating the whole scenario and that either the person I'm talking to isn't there or some sort of memory jam in the brain that's never happened before - it's probably not impossible. So I tend to answer "Well, no, actually I'm not 100% certain" and then I can tell by their reaction that I've lost a lot of credibility by giving them an accurate answer.

Better if they stopped using the 100% altogether. I remember some HSP where Antonio Esfandiari said he was 1,000,000% sure that he had brought more chips to the table. But he had not. JFC.

Yeah.

Your thought process is just flawed OP.

When I used to manage staff, I warned / fired a lot of employees for persistent lateness. We had a contractual obligation to have our premises open at a certain time and lateness would potentially lose us a major income stream.

I never understood the mindset that employees had where they'd get fired for consistently being under 10 minutes late. Just tell yourself that the job starts at quarter-to and you're fine.

Nobody else cares that OP was diagnosed as a wallet loser so its ok he loses his wallet ****ing everywhere?

uh, this is actually possible. it's possible to be 150% better than something else. could be a 2nd level approach but seems like this is just trying to be funny in the wrong way. why not just quote the movie, which was hilarious.

I am 100% certain I was born with two thumbs.

100% cool thread

OP, your annoyance has a deeper truth.

Most people believe that when we (scientists, mathematicians, traders, doctors, and other respectable professions) use percentages to predict something, it is because we don't know some hidden variable.

I would say that most of the people in this thread believe that the reason the meteorologist says "there's an 80% change it will rain tomorrow" is because they believe the meteorologist does not know something. That if he knows all the variables involve in making rain, that he would be able to tell with certainty (100%) that it will rain.

This belief above is wrong.

On the most fundamental level, quantum mechanics (QM) says that the universe itself is probabilistic. What this means is that, even if we know everything there is to know about something, we still do not know what state it is in nor can we predict its behavior with certainty. We will only know the result when we measure it, and the most accurate description of nature is only given by a probability.

This is so mind-blowing even to Einstein, him and a couple of other guys (EPR) believe that QM is incomplete, that QM is an incomplete description of what actually is. That there is a hidden variable that was not accounted for in QM.

Einstein was proven wrong by experiments ran in the early 80's, 50 years after EPR proposed their theory. This strengthens support for QM, however, this does not mean that QM is a 100% complete theory.

The conclusion is that nature itself is probabilistic, and saying anything with 100% certainty is idiotic at least 99% of the time.

Maybe they're just rounding .95