statistically speaking, this was bound to come up at some point. And frankly will likely come up more frequently as time goes on. "If you don't change where you are going, you will get where you are headed.", Yogi Berra, maybe.
this post was submitted on 14 Dec 2025
245 points (96.6% liked)
News
33627 readers
1634 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
There's a similar and related math problem for this:
How many people do you need in a room before 2 of them share a birthday?
The answer is around 50, which is way less than most people expect.
At 50 people is is 97% likely and at 60 people it is 99% likely.
So not guaranteed, but surprising if nobody shares a birthday.
The math on it really defies most people's intuition
I think the question is usually frames as "how many people does it take to make it at least 50% likely that two people will share a birthday", or more likely than not etc.
A guarantee would need 366 people. But most people are satisfied with "more likely than not", "90% chance", or "99% chance".
EDIT: I meant 367, not 366!
More than 50% is like 20 people.
It would take 367 for a guarantee because of leap years.
If you assume one mass shooting every three days for the last 15 years, and there being 1700 people "present" for each (within earshot, not necessarily immediately in danger), there are now over 3 million people who have now been present for shootings.
We've had several times to re-evaluate how we deal with firearms in this nation, and here we are more than a quarter century after Columbine and nothing has changed.
The genie's out of the bottle now, you can't feasibly take all the guns away anymore. Best you can do is improved gun control for NEW firearm sales, and perhaps buyback programs. But your countrymen will never accept being disarmed forcibly. Plus with all the shit going on, perhaps it's time for more left-leaning people to arm themselves too. Idk, I'm not from around there.
Now the question is what to do next. A sane country would invest in mental health, generally improving people's overall well-being (health, financial, etc), and rooting out all the right-wing propaganda.
The USA is not that country.
A sane country would invest in mental health
Bro just give people a reason to get up in the morning and this won't happen.
The problem is they feel like they have nothing to lose and want to take their anger out on society.
I mean that is also indirectly an investment in mental health, just not directly in mental health services.
But I don't think it's JUST the "nothing left to lose" mentality. If it was, you'd see more rich people being shot. There's a huge factor of the "nothing left to lose" people being indoctrinated into hating other people like themselves instead of the rich.
Shit, if we could just provide universal health-care like everyone else does, we could remove a huge source of mental health decline, not to mention poverty and homelessness.
I guess your schools are adequately preparing children for university.