Message
dcguy wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:do you only have her work email?
No I have her mobile etc. too but we live in different countries now and she doesn't whatsapp etc much (her country use their own version of whatsapp alternative, whatever that is). We travel to each other's countries very frequently for work and I have met her outside of work (we met through work). And when we saw each other she flirted, etc. and wanted to spend time together. I'm sure I can't read woman or a situation as well as some of you do here but very certain that I said sometimes she seem interested with a good reason for saying so. -OP
next in line, please?
No more hand wringing. Just follow the formula as explained in this article:
"
Mathematicians can’t help themselves. They want to reduce everything to a formula. Even love.
So listen up, lonely hearts: With Valentine’s Day approaching, if you are wondering how many relationships must come and go in your search for an ideal mate, there is a formula for that.
The solution uses probability calculus to figure out how to maximize the odds of choosing the best option from a series of prospects, which could include a string of dates, a pool of job applicants or, in one novel example, a field of portable toilets.
First published in 1960 by Scientific American, it has become known as the secretary problem or the marriage problem.
In the classic version, the prospects arrive one at a time and in random order, so each one’s rank can only be judged relative to those who have come before. Ties aren’t allowed, and rejections are final
“If you dump someone, that’s it,” said Kyle Siegrist, a professor emeritus of mathematics at the University of Alabama Huntsville.
The conundrum is whether to stick with someone who looks great now at the risk of missing out on someone better, or to keep playing the field and risk losing a good thing.
In mathematics, this is known as an optimal stopping problem.
It’s all about timing. The goal is to choose when to take action to maximize reward and minimize cost, a theory that influences decisions about when to introduce products, exercise stock options or make capital investments.
The question here is at what point should the lovelorn stop searching and settle down?
“You could simply marry the first person you date, which, by the way, is almost never a good idea in mathematics or the real world,” Dr. Siegrist said. “Or you could let the first person go by.”
The best strategy, according to the formula, is to reject the first 37% of the prospects, then select the next person who is better than everyone in the initial group.
“You’re using them to learn what qualities matter to you and what the range of quality is like in the population,” said Neil Bearden, a professor of decision sciences at Insead, a graduate business school, in Singapore. “They’re like a training set.”
A simplified example includes three prospects. No. 1 is ideal, No. 2 is OK and No. 3 is the worst. The three can be ordered six different ways. To maximize the odds of choosing the ideal prospect, the best strategy is to dismiss the first option, no matter what, then choose the next one that is better. If none are better, the final option must be selected.
Using that tactic, the best of the three gets picked 50% of the time. No other strategy will produce better odds.
As the number of candidates increases, the probability of choosing the best one decreases—up to a point.
With 20 prospects, after rejecting the requisite number, the probability of choosing the best is around 38%. With 50 prospects, after the rejections, the probability of choosing the best is about 37%.
“The average person will think that if you had 1,000 candidates, the chances of choosing the best would be practically zero, but that’s not true,” Dr. Siegrist said. “You can essentially get the best person with 37% no matter how large the number of candidates.”
There are clearly flaws with the concept. The rules prohibit recalling an earlier prospect, even though old flames sometimes are rekindled. Your first love might be the ideal mate. A carefully selected person could refuse a proposal. Or someone could be perfectly happy with a partner ranked lower than No. 1.
“If you end up marrying the second best person, life is probably not going to be rotten,” Dr. Bearden said. “The classical version misses that.”
Bothered by the problem’s shortcomings, Dr. Bearden began testing variations. By accident, he noticed that a different threshold could maximize the probability of choosing a very good if not perfect prospect.
Instead of rejecting the first 37%, his formula supports rejecting the square root of the number of prospects before choosing the next best person.
“Decide what your acceptable number of dates is,” he said. “Skip the square root of that number, and then really start looking seriously.”
With 100 prospects, the first 10 would be rejected, rather than the first 37.
“You end up with someone who is quite high if you follow that simple prescription,” he said.
In the case of marriage, second-best might not sound appealing. But slowing down the process addresses the inclination to rush into things.
“We did lots of experiments using good behavioral protocols to get people to take their decisions seriously,” Dr. Bearden said. “Over and over and over again, they showed a tendency to stop searching too soon.”
As the Supremes noted in 1966, you can’t hurry love. "
Write to Jo Craven McGinty at Jo.McGinty@wsj.com
"
Mathematicians can’t help themselves. They want to reduce everything to a formula. Even love.
So listen up, lonely hearts: With Valentine’s Day approaching, if you are wondering how many relationships must come and go in your search for an ideal mate, there is a formula for that.
The solution uses probability calculus to figure out how to maximize the odds of choosing the best option from a series of prospects, which could include a string of dates, a pool of job applicants or, in one novel example, a field of portable toilets.
First published in 1960 by Scientific American, it has become known as the secretary problem or the marriage problem.
In the classic version, the prospects arrive one at a time and in random order, so each one’s rank can only be judged relative to those who have come before. Ties aren’t allowed, and rejections are final
“If you dump someone, that’s it,” said Kyle Siegrist, a professor emeritus of mathematics at the University of Alabama Huntsville.
The conundrum is whether to stick with someone who looks great now at the risk of missing out on someone better, or to keep playing the field and risk losing a good thing.
In mathematics, this is known as an optimal stopping problem.
It’s all about timing. The goal is to choose when to take action to maximize reward and minimize cost, a theory that influences decisions about when to introduce products, exercise stock options or make capital investments.
The question here is at what point should the lovelorn stop searching and settle down?
“You could simply marry the first person you date, which, by the way, is almost never a good idea in mathematics or the real world,” Dr. Siegrist said. “Or you could let the first person go by.”
The best strategy, according to the formula, is to reject the first 37% of the prospects, then select the next person who is better than everyone in the initial group.
“You’re using them to learn what qualities matter to you and what the range of quality is like in the population,” said Neil Bearden, a professor of decision sciences at Insead, a graduate business school, in Singapore. “They’re like a training set.”
A simplified example includes three prospects. No. 1 is ideal, No. 2 is OK and No. 3 is the worst. The three can be ordered six different ways. To maximize the odds of choosing the ideal prospect, the best strategy is to dismiss the first option, no matter what, then choose the next one that is better. If none are better, the final option must be selected.
Using that tactic, the best of the three gets picked 50% of the time. No other strategy will produce better odds.
As the number of candidates increases, the probability of choosing the best one decreases—up to a point.
With 20 prospects, after rejecting the requisite number, the probability of choosing the best is around 38%. With 50 prospects, after the rejections, the probability of choosing the best is about 37%.
“The average person will think that if you had 1,000 candidates, the chances of choosing the best would be practically zero, but that’s not true,” Dr. Siegrist said. “You can essentially get the best person with 37% no matter how large the number of candidates.”
There are clearly flaws with the concept. The rules prohibit recalling an earlier prospect, even though old flames sometimes are rekindled. Your first love might be the ideal mate. A carefully selected person could refuse a proposal. Or someone could be perfectly happy with a partner ranked lower than No. 1.
“If you end up marrying the second best person, life is probably not going to be rotten,” Dr. Bearden said. “The classical version misses that.”
Bothered by the problem’s shortcomings, Dr. Bearden began testing variations. By accident, he noticed that a different threshold could maximize the probability of choosing a very good if not perfect prospect.
Instead of rejecting the first 37%, his formula supports rejecting the square root of the number of prospects before choosing the next best person.
“Decide what your acceptable number of dates is,” he said. “Skip the square root of that number, and then really start looking seriously.”
With 100 prospects, the first 10 would be rejected, rather than the first 37.
“You end up with someone who is quite high if you follow that simple prescription,” he said.
In the case of marriage, second-best might not sound appealing. But slowing down the process addresses the inclination to rush into things.
“We did lots of experiments using good behavioral protocols to get people to take their decisions seriously,” Dr. Bearden said. “Over and over and over again, they showed a tendency to stop searching too soon.”
As the Supremes noted in 1966, you can’t hurry love. "
Write to Jo Craven McGinty at Jo.McGinty@wsj.com
Anonymous wrote:Dd puked straight liquids, felt like a gallon of apple juice straight on her mattress last night. We googled and tried to find some enzyme based cleaners but when we couldn't, I dabbed it as much as I could with paper towels and left it to dry. Ugh still smells today. Should I still pursue the enzyme cleaners? Will they work a few days after the fact?
Sell it on Craigslist and list it as being in 'perfect condition'
Anonymous wrote:Huma Abedin
Don't you touch my weiner!
It's amazing how imbalanced some relationships can get
......
Anonymous wrote:So we're about to sell some property and are going to be netting about $200K. After we pay off our credit cards, what would you do with the rest? We plan on putting some in DS' 529, though we haven't decided how much yet.
We'd like to find a high interest bearing account for some of it, if one exists anywhere these days.
"two chicks at the same time!"
Anonymous wrote:Kirk Cousins just named starting QB for the 2015 season.
and snyder says he has no plans to block a trade...
White jeans? And you're young and in-shape?
I think you might just have to take a photo and meet me on the explicit thread
I think you might just have to take a photo and meet me on the explicit thread
Anonymous wrote:http://www.yourtango.com/2015275420/this-woman-has-worlds-most-scientifically-beautiful-face?utm_source=zergnet.com&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=zergnet_526009
Wow. She is gorgeous
Anonymous wrote:I have a good friend that I know and love dearly. Years ago When she was struggling I allowed her and her children to move in with my DC and me. (We were both single moms.) She'd gotten Into some legal trouble when she attacked a guy she was dating. Things got so bad she Left the state to get away from it all. Fast forward 10 years and she's completely reinvented herself in this new state: luxury car, kid in private school (the other two off to college) and getting ready to marry an impressive guy who seems to be loaded (put her up in a fancy home).
Me and some other mutual friends were invited to her engagement party in two weeks. I asked her if she'd told him about her assault case from 10 yrs ago. She said no and was shocked I thought he should know about an 'old situation'. I said it's not the guy but the CASE he should know about in case anything comes up later on in the marriage, as I believe in TOTAL honesty in relationships-especially when the person's going to be a life partner. She said 'Well that's DONE!' and claims she doesn't remember the guy's name.
My friends and I are wondering if I/we should tell her fiancé about this when we go up for the party. It wouldn't be done AT the actual party but at some point during the weekend.
Thoughts?
Is it possible you feel your friend doesn't deserve the luxury car and the fancy house because of her past and you are trying to get her to unravel it?
OP?
and...
Was there a spark?
Will you see him again?
Are you going to wait for him to contact you again or would you consider contacting him if you don't hear from him within say, three days?
Was he a bad boy or poli sci major who works on the hill and dreams of working for a big law firm one day?
Where did you go to dinner?
How much did you drink?
Do you both come from similar backgrounds?
Was there a spark?
Will you see him again?
Are you going to wait for him to contact you again or would you consider contacting him if you don't hear from him within say, three days?
Was he a bad boy or poli sci major who works on the hill and dreams of working for a big law firm one day?
Where did you go to dinner?
How much did you drink?
Do you both come from similar backgrounds?
To the OP from the above titled thread...if you are still around would you mind giving us an update?
How are you feeling? Did you stay firm in your decision not to tell?
original thread:
http://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/120/447236.page#6421952
How are you feeling? Did you stay firm in your decision not to tell?
original thread:
http://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/120/447236.page#6421952
Anonymous wrote:I'm op. Hand job references are a troll
I'm glad the HJ reference is just a troll. But still, probably a good reminder for all you ladies out there to wash up thoroughly after giving a handie. I think you're supposed to use soap and warm water and sing happy birthday.