Nah, doesn't work like that in practical (spoken) Finnish. Someone born in 1975 would be "seiskafemma", someone in 1984 "kasinelonen" and so forth. Even spelling the whole word out would be along the lines of "ysitoista seitenviis" (19 75). No-one would ever say "yksi-tuhat..."
They do on the TV (and, I assume, radio) news. But even they sometimes stumble over them, which leads me to further assume that the announcers only speak that way on the air.
Hmm. I mean, "femma" is like a "fiver". "Seiska" is the nickname for the tabloid "7" (that became its official name). "Seiskafemma" though? Seems weird.
Yeah, "femma" is literally "fiver" in Swedish. (Or "fifth"; "Jag kom femma i loppet" means "I placed fifth in the race".) And "seiska" is the colloquial pronunciation of seven in general, not just that publication.
So "seiskafemma" is just the digita concatenated; "seven-five" in stead of "seventy-five". Doesn't feel all that weird to me. For one thing, other languages do that too. And for another, it's all the "-kymmenen" bits that are too long to pronounce, so leaving them out (when that doesn't introduce confusion, of course) seems eminently sensible. Really not weird at all.
Ghosting obviously sucks. But, I challenge the OP to post a link to their code here. Hardly anyone on this planet writes 2Kloc of fresh tested, error-free ("ironed out the edge cases") code in 6 hours.
Happy to do a free code review if it's in one of my native languages.
There have been a lot of versions and revisions of D&D over the years. Amongst players of the earlier (or "classic") versions of the game, 'B/X' stands for play based around the Basic Set edited by Tom Moldvay, and the Expert Set edited by "Zeb" Cook, both published in 1981.
The 'B/X' edition of the game came after the "Holmes" boxed set,first published in 1977 and edited by J. Eric Holmes, and before the BECMI (Basic, Expert, Companion, Masters, Immortals) published in 1983 and later (and eventually compiled in the D&D Rules Cyclopedia published in the early '90s). They existed at the same time as Advanced Dungeons & Dragons, which had more, and more complex, rules.
Probabilities and statistics don't work like that. Between 2011 and now there's been loads of earthquakes in Japan, in most months, many stronger than 7.0.
That searches magnitude 7 and above for the last 24 months in a rectangular region that includes Japan and Taiwan. There's only been three, one was yesterday and two roughly a year ago in February and March.
So your intuition said arrogantly about earthquakes in Japan is incorrect, waay incorrect. Also I don't know if I got the probabilities totally right (but it seems fair for the probability of those other three earthquakes being in March, versus other months), but you said this as if you knew what you were talking about. But you don't. Seems like I'm the one here who knows what he's talking about, not you, sorry. Why not do a little research before you make your bold and arrogant claims trying to contradict someone else next time?
To get any meaningful results, we'll need a decent sample size. Magnitude 7.0+ quakes in Japan are a fairly rare phenomenon, occurring 1-2 times per year. If we pull out a somewhat larger data set of 136 such quakes in the last 100 years (https://www.volcanodiscovery.com/earthquakes/japan/largest.h...), we'll notice that the quakes are fairly evenly distributed between the months.
The mean is (of course) 8.33%, and the standard deviation 1.91%. All months fall within 2 standard deviations from the mean (March is highest at 11.62%, followed by Feb at 11.06%, Jun 10.51% and Nov 9.76%). So, nothing particularly interesting to see here. Also, if we do the same "three-month window" analysis you did, the winner is February (with 30.68%, somewhat higher than the expected 25%).
Wow, I just checked out that website and I can't believe you did that analysis! That's pretty awesome. You somehow got the data out of that site, and analyzed it.
But I did a quick sanity check on your numbers (searching on that site quakes from March 18 1922 to March 18 2022) and there are actually 153 quakes 7+ (not 136). If you share the raw data it will be more convincing!
Unless you do I'm going to take my 10 year sample from 2011 with a 68.75% of chance of quake in March (+- 1 month) as gospel :)
So pretty hard to predict and essentially random, meaning predicting when a given quake will occur should be, extremely challenging, essentially predicting a random variable, which would be pretty incredibly amazing. Good to see.
