What? Aspartame is classified as a possible carcinogen, but mostly to encourage further research. There’s an old rat study that claimed to show an increase in variois cancers, but it had a weirdly cancer-free control group and used levels far in excess of “a few cans per day”. AFAIK, no human studies have ever shown any significant correlation. It definitely hasn’t been “proven and accepted by the WHO”.
Doesn’t make him not ace.
Weird comic, why put the punchline in the penultimate panel?
To be fair, based on the (lack of) spelling and grammar in his e-mails, that might actually be how he writes letters.
No, I agree that independence is necessary, not just because of “always”, but because if, as a crude example, your odds of hitting B halve each time you hit A, an infinite number of tries isn’t guaranteed to give you Shakespeare, even if the odds aren’t technically 0. My problem was that what you originally described wasn’t independence, it’s uniformity, which isn’t a prerequisite. And it’s up to 9 upvotes now so I don’t know what’s going on.
What? That’s not what independence means. They need to be independent, yes, because otherwise you might get into weird corner cases where the probably doesn’t converge to 1, but they don’t have to be equally likely. In fact, weighing the odds based on how often letters are used by Shakespeare should lower the expected timeframe. Heck, Shakespeare doesn’t use “J”, why would that key even be relevant? Where in the world do normal distributions even come into this? How does this comment have 4 upvotes? What am I missing here?
Oh no, I’m so sorry, the microplastics got you too: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Language_and_the_euro&diffonly=true#Written_conventions_for_the_euro_in_the_languages_of_EU_member_states
These kind of memes honestly feel like Malboro found a way to circumvent advertising rules, so I assume the joke’s on all of us, I guess.