ken roberts
@luvrhino.bsky.social
ken roberts...for now I'll mostly use this to respond to specific individuals. My nonsense is primarily on Facebook. [he/him]
I have posted the same warning about April 19 & 20 most years on Facebook, without any special knowledge. I am always happy to be wrong.
I add in April 21 to my trilogy of horrible dates since it's my brother's birthday. That has been mostly safe, recently.
I add in April 21 to my trilogy of horrible dates since it's my brother's birthday. That has been mostly safe, recently.
April 21, 2025 at 4:59 AM
I have posted the same warning about April 19 & 20 most years on Facebook, without any special knowledge. I am always happy to be wrong.
I add in April 21 to my trilogy of horrible dates since it's my brother's birthday. That has been mostly safe, recently.
I add in April 21 to my trilogy of horrible dates since it's my brother's birthday. That has been mostly safe, recently.
Congratulations on getting that far and for raising money for a good cause.
April 17, 2025 at 2:07 AM
Congratulations on getting that far and for raising money for a good cause.
I was disappointed with your conservative bet on the last Double Jeopardy, especially given your difficulty buzzing in.
"Fortunately," had you bet enough to have the lead going into Final Jeopardy, you would have lost anyway...though you would have at least not made a terrible math error.
"Fortunately," had you bet enough to have the lead going into Final Jeopardy, you would have lost anyway...though you would have at least not made a terrible math error.
April 17, 2025 at 2:06 AM
I was disappointed with your conservative bet on the last Double Jeopardy, especially given your difficulty buzzing in.
"Fortunately," had you bet enough to have the lead going into Final Jeopardy, you would have lost anyway...though you would have at least not made a terrible math error.
"Fortunately," had you bet enough to have the lead going into Final Jeopardy, you would have lost anyway...though you would have at least not made a terrible math error.
There may have been foreign-born, non-citizens that became CSA generals.
The best known for being foreign-born was the Irish Patrick Cleburne. I checked and he was a naturalized citizen by 1860 -> traitor.
I don't know if this applies to any of them. Lower ranks, definitely.
The best known for being foreign-born was the Irish Patrick Cleburne. I checked and he was a naturalized citizen by 1860 -> traitor.
I don't know if this applies to any of them. Lower ranks, definitely.
March 29, 2025 at 7:54 PM
There may have been foreign-born, non-citizens that became CSA generals.
The best known for being foreign-born was the Irish Patrick Cleburne. I checked and he was a naturalized citizen by 1860 -> traitor.
I don't know if this applies to any of them. Lower ranks, definitely.
The best known for being foreign-born was the Irish Patrick Cleburne. I checked and he was a naturalized citizen by 1860 -> traitor.
I don't know if this applies to any of them. Lower ranks, definitely.
Stand Watie was a CSA Brigider General and Principal Chief of the Cherokee Nation. The majority of the Cherokee Nation did vote to support the Confederacy, so I think it'd be inaccurate to call him a "traitor."
That doesn't make him a good person.
As for the rest of the CSA generals, absolutely.
That doesn't make him a good person.
As for the rest of the CSA generals, absolutely.
March 28, 2025 at 11:33 AM
Stand Watie was a CSA Brigider General and Principal Chief of the Cherokee Nation. The majority of the Cherokee Nation did vote to support the Confederacy, so I think it'd be inaccurate to call him a "traitor."
That doesn't make him a good person.
As for the rest of the CSA generals, absolutely.
That doesn't make him a good person.
As for the rest of the CSA generals, absolutely.
She had been fake mad because I started the game with a big lead because I got lucky and had a triple run.
This game is one of my earliest memories. I thought I was 4, but my dad insists I was 3.
The triple run was memorable because I had to count it manually as I didn't know I was worth 15.
This game is one of my earliest memories. I thought I was 4, but my dad insists I was 3.
The triple run was memorable because I had to count it manually as I didn't know I was worth 15.
March 14, 2025 at 10:54 PM
She had been fake mad because I started the game with a big lead because I got lucky and had a triple run.
This game is one of my earliest memories. I thought I was 4, but my dad insists I was 3.
The triple run was memorable because I had to count it manually as I didn't know I was worth 15.
This game is one of my earliest memories. I thought I was 4, but my dad insists I was 3.
The triple run was memorable because I had to count it manually as I didn't know I was worth 15.
The first time I played cribbage, I was 3- or 4-years-old vs. the Michigan Ladies State Champion, who happened to be my great aunt. I missed that a 8-6-A combination of 15 worth 2 pts. Not only did she not give them to me, she took them for herself.
Legal on her part, but I was 4.
Legal on her part, but I was 4.
March 14, 2025 at 10:52 PM
The first time I played cribbage, I was 3- or 4-years-old vs. the Michigan Ladies State Champion, who happened to be my great aunt. I missed that a 8-6-A combination of 15 worth 2 pts. Not only did she not give them to me, she took them for herself.
Legal on her part, but I was 4.
Legal on her part, but I was 4.
I never considered the ordering of which was named first. That order makes sense since Denmark is Scandinavian, despite not being on the peninsula.
I usually don't correct people, but it felt like Mina should know the distinction.
I usually don't correct people, but it felt like Mina should know the distinction.
March 14, 2025 at 9:51 AM
I never considered the ordering of which was named first. That order makes sense since Denmark is Scandinavian, despite not being on the peninsula.
I usually don't correct people, but it felt like Mina should know the distinction.
I usually don't correct people, but it felt like Mina should know the distinction.
Finland isn't in Scandinavia.¹
"Nordics: It just Means More" doesn't have the same ring to it.
----
¹ Part of Finnish Lapland is on the Scandinavian Peninsula, but that still wouldn't include the University of Helsinki.
"Nordics: It just Means More" doesn't have the same ring to it.
----
¹ Part of Finnish Lapland is on the Scandinavian Peninsula, but that still wouldn't include the University of Helsinki.
March 14, 2025 at 3:26 AM
Finland isn't in Scandinavia.¹
"Nordics: It just Means More" doesn't have the same ring to it.
----
¹ Part of Finnish Lapland is on the Scandinavian Peninsula, but that still wouldn't include the University of Helsinki.
"Nordics: It just Means More" doesn't have the same ring to it.
----
¹ Part of Finnish Lapland is on the Scandinavian Peninsula, but that still wouldn't include the University of Helsinki.
I listened to the episode as soon as I could. I very much enjoyed it. I left a more lengthy comment on the YouTube video about an aspect that I found interesting.
However, my favorite part was the I Stand With Planned Parenthood t-shirt from the closing segment. Looks great on you.
However, my favorite part was the I Stand With Planned Parenthood t-shirt from the closing segment. Looks great on you.
March 13, 2025 at 8:19 PM
I listened to the episode as soon as I could. I very much enjoyed it. I left a more lengthy comment on the YouTube video about an aspect that I found interesting.
However, my favorite part was the I Stand With Planned Parenthood t-shirt from the closing segment. Looks great on you.
However, my favorite part was the I Stand With Planned Parenthood t-shirt from the closing segment. Looks great on you.
That was a very defensive use of the Daily Doubles. I wanted you to bet bigger on all except the last one, but your prevent defense wasn't egregious.
Hopefully, your buzzer skills improve in the next game.
Hopefully, your buzzer skills improve in the next game.
March 13, 2025 at 2:08 PM
That was a very defensive use of the Daily Doubles. I wanted you to bet bigger on all except the last one, but your prevent defense wasn't egregious.
Hopefully, your buzzer skills improve in the next game.
Hopefully, your buzzer skills improve in the next game.
Yes. I would have a field day on myself were I to extemporaneously talk about the numerous topics that I dork out about.
There would be corrections. There would be clarifications with citations.¹ There would be punch-ups on humor attempts.
----
¹ There would be footnotes.
There would be corrections. There would be clarifications with citations.¹ There would be punch-ups on humor attempts.
----
¹ There would be footnotes.
March 13, 2025 at 1:49 PM
Yes. I would have a field day on myself were I to extemporaneously talk about the numerous topics that I dork out about.
There would be corrections. There would be clarifications with citations.¹ There would be punch-ups on humor attempts.
----
¹ There would be footnotes.
There would be corrections. There would be clarifications with citations.¹ There would be punch-ups on humor attempts.
----
¹ There would be footnotes.
Pedantry aside, a comedian dorking out over math shit quite likely is for me.
The previous comment was pedantry and isn't a significant error.
The previous comment was pedantry and isn't a significant error.
March 13, 2025 at 1:41 PM
Pedantry aside, a comedian dorking out over math shit quite likely is for me.
The previous comment was pedantry and isn't a significant error.
The previous comment was pedantry and isn't a significant error.
"Um, Actually," the Renaissance is generally considered to have ended in or around 1600. Calculus was discovered late 17th century by Liebnitz and Newton.
That said, I'm sure there were precursors to calculus that were during the Renaissance. Taylor series was 1715, which I had to look up.
That said, I'm sure there were precursors to calculus that were during the Renaissance. Taylor series was 1715, which I had to look up.
March 13, 2025 at 1:39 PM
"Um, Actually," the Renaissance is generally considered to have ended in or around 1600. Calculus was discovered late 17th century by Liebnitz and Newton.
That said, I'm sure there were precursors to calculus that were during the Renaissance. Taylor series was 1715, which I had to look up.
That said, I'm sure there were precursors to calculus that were during the Renaissance. Taylor series was 1715, which I had to look up.
I would have put Mina's odds of winning in a runaway at 50-60% going in.
Had I seen her conservative Double Jeopardy betting, I would have lowered that a bit. It still was more likely than her being crushed or not having no clue on Final Jeopardy.
Had I seen her conservative Double Jeopardy betting, I would have lowered that a bit. It still was more likely than her being crushed or not having no clue on Final Jeopardy.
March 13, 2025 at 5:49 AM
I would have put Mina's odds of winning in a runaway at 50-60% going in.
Had I seen her conservative Double Jeopardy betting, I would have lowered that a bit. It still was more likely than her being crushed or not having no clue on Final Jeopardy.
Had I seen her conservative Double Jeopardy betting, I would have lowered that a bit. It still was more likely than her being crushed or not having no clue on Final Jeopardy.
She was born in Oklahoma. It's not as though she was valedictorian at Mesquite HS in Gilbert, Arizona or anything.
Oh.
Oh.
March 13, 2025 at 4:47 AM
She was born in Oklahoma. It's not as though she was valedictorian at Mesquite HS in Gilbert, Arizona or anything.
Oh.
Oh.
Absolutely not. I'm pretty confident Mina would agree. The clue was about the song.
Perhaps Ken could have described how the category worked better at the beginning, but I understood it.
Perhaps Ken could have described how the category worked better at the beginning, but I understood it.
March 13, 2025 at 4:45 AM
Absolutely not. I'm pretty confident Mina would agree. The clue was about the song.
Perhaps Ken could have described how the category worked better at the beginning, but I understood it.
Perhaps Ken could have described how the category worked better at the beginning, but I understood it.
As someone born and raised in the north suburbs, I am careful to say I'm from Chicagoland.
No stolen valor here.
Most people don't care, but it seems to be the best option when I talk to people actually from Chicago.
No stolen valor here.
Most people don't care, but it seems to be the best option when I talk to people actually from Chicago.
February 6, 2025 at 6:35 AM
As someone born and raised in the north suburbs, I am careful to say I'm from Chicagoland.
No stolen valor here.
Most people don't care, but it seems to be the best option when I talk to people actually from Chicago.
No stolen valor here.
Most people don't care, but it seems to be the best option when I talk to people actually from Chicago.
Of course, Jack did not succeed on his first attempt, rendering this an unnecessary math(s) challenge, which is my strength.
It looks like Andy did succeed first time. One of five contestants doing it on their first attempt isn't unlikely.
It looks like Andy did succeed first time. One of five contestants doing it on their first attempt isn't unlikely.
December 20, 2024 at 7:57 PM
Of course, Jack did not succeed on his first attempt, rendering this an unnecessary math(s) challenge, which is my strength.
It looks like Andy did succeed first time. One of five contestants doing it on their first attempt isn't unlikely.
It looks like Andy did succeed first time. One of five contestants doing it on their first attempt isn't unlikely.
P(x) = x succeed on first attempt
P(0) = 1 * (.9)⁵ = 59.049%
P(1) = 5 * (.1)(.9)⁴ = 32.805%
P(2) = 10 * (.1)²(.9)³ = 7.29%
P(3) = 10 * (.1)³(.9)² = 0.81%
P(4) = 5 * (.1)⁴(.9) = 0.045%
P(5) = 1 * (.1)⁵ = 0.001%
Odds of at least 2 completing on their first attempt is 8.146%.
P(0) = 1 * (.9)⁵ = 59.049%
P(1) = 5 * (.1)(.9)⁴ = 32.805%
P(2) = 10 * (.1)²(.9)³ = 7.29%
P(3) = 10 * (.1)³(.9)² = 0.81%
P(4) = 5 * (.1)⁴(.9) = 0.045%
P(5) = 1 * (.1)⁵ = 0.001%
Odds of at least 2 completing on their first attempt is 8.146%.
December 20, 2024 at 7:51 PM
P(x) = x succeed on first attempt
P(0) = 1 * (.9)⁵ = 59.049%
P(1) = 5 * (.1)(.9)⁴ = 32.805%
P(2) = 10 * (.1)²(.9)³ = 7.29%
P(3) = 10 * (.1)³(.9)² = 0.81%
P(4) = 5 * (.1)⁴(.9) = 0.045%
P(5) = 1 * (.1)⁵ = 0.001%
Odds of at least 2 completing on their first attempt is 8.146%.
P(0) = 1 * (.9)⁵ = 59.049%
P(1) = 5 * (.1)(.9)⁴ = 32.805%
P(2) = 10 * (.1)²(.9)³ = 7.29%
P(3) = 10 * (.1)³(.9)² = 0.81%
P(4) = 5 * (.1)⁴(.9) = 0.045%
P(5) = 1 * (.1)⁵ = 0.001%
Odds of at least 2 completing on their first attempt is 8.146%.
The binomial part is just accounting for the different combinations of contestants. E.g., it didn't matter if Andy & Jack, Babá & Emma, etc. did it. You may remember "5 choose 2 = 10" from probability. It's that.
Using 10% odds for success, for exactly two to succeed on their first attempt:
Using 10% odds for success, for exactly two to succeed on their first attempt:
December 20, 2024 at 7:47 PM
The binomial part is just accounting for the different combinations of contestants. E.g., it didn't matter if Andy & Jack, Babá & Emma, etc. did it. You may remember "5 choose 2 = 10" from probability. It's that.
Using 10% odds for success, for exactly two to succeed on their first attempt:
Using 10% odds for success, for exactly two to succeed on their first attempt:
Two big problem with the teacher's math(s) on the barrel task:
1) He assumes the contestants only get one go at it.
2) There were 8 tasks, not 9 as the 9th was a freebie.
I think the 50-50 part is a reasonable assumption. He's correct that (.75)⁸ = 10.01% = odds of winning on 1st attempt.
1) He assumes the contestants only get one go at it.
2) There were 8 tasks, not 9 as the 9th was a freebie.
I think the 50-50 part is a reasonable assumption. He's correct that (.75)⁸ = 10.01% = odds of winning on 1st attempt.
December 20, 2024 at 7:45 PM
Two big problem with the teacher's math(s) on the barrel task:
1) He assumes the contestants only get one go at it.
2) There were 8 tasks, not 9 as the 9th was a freebie.
I think the 50-50 part is a reasonable assumption. He's correct that (.75)⁸ = 10.01% = odds of winning on 1st attempt.
1) He assumes the contestants only get one go at it.
2) There were 8 tasks, not 9 as the 9th was a freebie.
I think the 50-50 part is a reasonable assumption. He's correct that (.75)⁸ = 10.01% = odds of winning on 1st attempt.