Why do we treat boy-girl and girl-boy as different outcomes since they are, per the question, equal outcomes thus representing one possible outcome.
We don't care about which came first or second, only what gender each child is.
Thus the answer, to the question given the information you have, is 50%. The only possible outcomes are girl-girl or girl-boy (where order is irrelevant.)
And this is absolutely NOT the Monty Hall Problem. I don't know why some people are making that reference. The Monty Hall Problem contains three possible choices and one is eliminated by the host, this is what makes the statistical math interesting in that problem. None of that is happening here.
Lets look a the exact wording of the question:
> a family has two children. You're told that at least one of them is a girl. What's the
> probability both are girls?
We have a family with two children. Assume we don't know their gender. We'll represent them as XX.
We are told one of them is a female. So now they are represented as GX (remember GX = XG, since order doesn't matter.)
You are left with the question what is the probability that X is female? Well there are only two choices, F and M, and we are told elsewhere that the probability of having a girl is 50/50.
> Assume that the probability of having a girl or boy is 50% and that the birth order has
> no effect on the probability.
So the chance of X being female is 50%. Thus the answer is 50%.
You can't say birth order doesn't matter and then use birth order to say the FM and MF are different results. The only possible results are FM and FF (since birth order is irrelevant.)
What will happen is over time this will become the new baseline for developing software.
It will mean we can deliver software faster. Maybe more so than other advances, but it won't fundamentally change the fact that software takes real effort and that effort will not go away, since that effort is much more than just coding this or that function.
I could create a huge list of things that have made developing and deploying quality software easier: linters, static type checkers, code formatters, hot reload, intelligent code completion, distributed version control (i.e., Git), unit testing frameworks, inference schema tools, code from schema, etc. I'm sure others can add dozens of items to that list. And yet there seems to be an unending amount of software to be built, limited only by the people available to build it and an organizations funding to hire those people.
In my personal work, I've found AI-assisted development to make me faster (not sure I have a good estimate for how much faster.) What I've also found is that it makes it much easier to tackle novel problems within an existing solution base. And I believe this is likely to be a big part of the dev productivity gain.
Just an example, lets say we want to use the strangler pattern as part of our modernization approach for a legacy enterprise app that has seen better days. Unless you have some senior devs who are both experienced with that pattern AND experienced with your code base, it can take a lot of trial and error to figure out how to make it work. (As you said, most of our work isn't actually typing code.)
This is where an AI/LLM tool can go to work on understanding the code base and understanding the pattern to create a reference implementation approach and tests. That can save a team of devs many weeks of trial & error (and stress) not to mention guidance on where they will run into roadblocks deep into the code base.
And, in my opinion, this is where a huge portion of the AI-assisted dev savings will come from - not so much writing the code (although that's helpful) but helping devs get to the details of a solution much faster.
It's that googling has always gotten us to generic references and AI gets us those references fit for our solution.
Isn't this what Anker has largely done. In a world of might be good/might be crap cables, chargers, batteries, etc. You can always select the Anker variety on Amazon. It'll cost you a bit more than whatever random product, but you know they are reliable. It's priced much cheaper than an OEM (Apple, Google, Samsung, etc.) accessory but is more reliable (quality wise) than no-name accessories.
We need to be careful here. Because we still want people to sell off potentially productive land. Lets say I buy two lots along a highway with growing traffic because I believe in the next 5-10 years it will be a good spot for a gas station/convenience store.
So now 5 years later the highway is developing and I build out my location. I decide I want to sell the other lot since I'm not going to build on it.
Now, I don't need to sell it. I could hold on to it, it's not that expensive to own. It would be a great spot for a fast food joint or what not. But I don't want to sell it to someone who immediately develops it as a gas station.
The public would benefit from developing the land - new services and more tax revenue. So it's in the public's interest for the owner to sell.
So you want to allow some amount of anti-competitive restrictions. I get not wanting permanent non-removable restriction.
We can probably define a legal conservation easement as one that prevents further development on a piece of land, as opposed to regulating the uses and types of development.
There is a difference with an HOA. The HOA can be removed if enough members agree. It's not a restriction added by a past owner that can't be removed by the current owner.
Essentially most consumers just didn't care about quality and preferred the lower price over the higher quality product. That seems like normal consumer choice. The people didn't get poorer all of a sudden when the corporate breadmakers came along - the people simply decided they would prefer to get an inferior product at a lower price.
The reality is most people don't want to spend more money for higher quality goods. Or, if they do, it's on a limited set of goods based on personal preference.
Yes. And child psychologists will tell you that babies and children crave consistency, variety is not their thing. In fact, one of the reasons we as parents (adults) expose them to variety is so they develop an understanding of how to cope with inconsistencies. And it's always a careful balance, small amount of variety but mostly consistency.
And I can tell you most little kids love hard boiled eggs which I suspect is because they are incredibly consistent in texture and taste, unspoiled by some cook seasoning them or cooking them differently.
> For example, I think they’d still be able to do the pay once model if they abstracted they storage to work with Dropbox/icloud/OneDrive/whatever.
I get why they don't but I often wish more SaaS companies had a bring your own computer & storage model. It doesn't make sense for 95% of customers and the 5% of us who might like it and have the tech chops to use it would just complain about having to pay more because we are outliers. But I wish it was offered!
We don't care about which came first or second, only what gender each child is.
Thus the answer, to the question given the information you have, is 50%. The only possible outcomes are girl-girl or girl-boy (where order is irrelevant.)
And this is absolutely NOT the Monty Hall Problem. I don't know why some people are making that reference. The Monty Hall Problem contains three possible choices and one is eliminated by the host, this is what makes the statistical math interesting in that problem. None of that is happening here.
Lets look a the exact wording of the question:
> a family has two children. You're told that at least one of them is a girl. What's the > probability both are girls?
We have a family with two children. Assume we don't know their gender. We'll represent them as XX.
We are told one of them is a female. So now they are represented as GX (remember GX = XG, since order doesn't matter.)
You are left with the question what is the probability that X is female? Well there are only two choices, F and M, and we are told elsewhere that the probability of having a girl is 50/50.
> Assume that the probability of having a girl or boy is 50% and that the birth order has > no effect on the probability.
So the chance of X being female is 50%. Thus the answer is 50%.
You can't say birth order doesn't matter and then use birth order to say the FM and MF are different results. The only possible results are FM and FF (since birth order is irrelevant.)