I'm sure you've already thought about this but bear in mind that as a buyer, I don't want to hear "unlimited" for things that have material scaling costs for my service providers, it just sounds unsustainable and likely to change later or be the cause of an issue.
On the other hand being free from arbitrary limits is great.
i have been involved in quite a few code escrow agreements but none that were actually used. i'd be curious to hear any stories about cases where that did happen.
in my experience it has just been a way to help business decision makers credibly claim they are managing risk when buying from a startup
WGU was a customer when I was at Learning Objects, they always impressed me visionary and outcome oriented. glad to hear a positive anecdote more than 10 years later.
yes, i was part of doing something like this at a small elearning startup for one of the largest publishers in the world circa 2010.
Exactly as you say, brought in to provide the tech platform for a strategic initiative involving a transformative shift to digital-first courseware and content.
in the future our personal editors will create our own editions of these books. mine will have an even longer captain crunch section and yours will be abbreviated
ah i didn't actually explain it, the other responder did though.
6/7th (~85.7%) of parents with b g are knocked out by the day of week filter, while only ~%73.5 of the b b parents are knocked out by it. (if i did that math right) so proportionally the sample has more bb parents than the one without day of week.
true but note that the day of week selector is knocking out 6/7ths, it's quite a dominant excluder of parents. thus countering the effect of "has one boy already" on the composition of the group
what works for me is to think of it like the mob of people is already there in front of you, and you're first grabbing out just a subset of the mob based on some conditions, then checking only those qualified at random which is the same as checking the distributions inside the qualified group.
so for problem 1, the mob is all parents with 2 children, each child is either b or g. the underlying distribution is 25%bb, 25%gg, 50%bg.
you first cull the set by saying "only parents with at least 1 b, line up to be examined". i think it's clear that the selected population will be 1/3 bb parents, 2/3 bg parents, right?
on the other hand the second problem is you saying: "all parents with a b born on tuesday, report to be examined!". note that most of the parents that were in the question 1 selected population are now excluded. try to imagine which parents get selected by this one.
you can't make the inference back to the original question because it's a different question about a broader group of people. question 1 population distrubution actually is 1/3 vs 2/3. the key is to think of it as selecting different subsets of the parent mob.