• blueamigafan@lemmy.world
    22·
    3 months ago

    A very toxic industry to be in, I used to be an engineer for a company that looked after slot machines here in the UK. High Street betting shops would regularly get smashed up by people after they lost all their money, but they would just pay us to repair them and let them back a few weeks later because they knew they’d be back. Completely taking advantage of people with a very real problem.

  • LaunchesKayaks@lemmy.world
    201·
    3 months ago

    My old boss spent all day gambling on his phone and talking about buying a Corvette.

    Dude still lived with (mooched) off his mom and paid no bills. He makes, last time I checked, 80k/year for doing fuck all. He has his underlings done everything.

    Dude lives a shit existence lol

    • dwindling7373@feddit.itEnglish
      22·
      3 months ago

      Classic joke getting chewed by the hivemind into some kind of collective permanent epiphany about how much brighter we all are compared to online strangers.

        • Sk1ll_Issue@feddit.nlEnglish
          22·
          3 months ago

          If you’ve ever dealt with addiction or know someone who has, it’s not obvious. People will go to great lengths to convince themselves they don’t have a problem.

  • Raglesnarf@lemmy.world
    71·
    3 months ago

    I see comments/posts like this all the time for drinking and gambling on TikTok and idk why but they always get a laugh out of me. I guess it’s just so stupid/goofy? idk I like what I like

  • 🇰 🌀 🇱 🇦 🇳 🇦 🇰 ℹ️@yiffit.netEnglish
    41·
    3 months ago

    “I never gamble. Not in a million years.”

    “I bet I can get you to gamble by the end of the day.”

    “You’re on!”

    “Ha! I don’t know how I’m gonna get you, but I’ll figure something out before the day is over, just you wait.”

      • ✺roguetrick✺@lemmy.world
        41·
        3 months ago

        So first, 👻s obviously are real because everybody has always believed in 👻s. Since we can take that as a given, we can also logically assume that 👻s are a significant portion of sentient minds. If you don’t know any 👻s, then statistically speaking, it is much more likely for you to be the 👻 in the sample size of the 👯👯‍♂️👯‍♀️ you know.

      • piracy_is_good_xdd@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        6·
        3 months ago
        • Imagine a group of people
        • You look around and notice that there are no ghosts in that group of people
        • Now you need to check if you are a ghost, which you can’t check
        • Therefore, it’s statistically likely that you are a ghost if nobody you know is a ghost
        • voldage@lemmy.world
          2·
          3 months ago

          But that would only work under assumption that in any group of people at least one of them has to be a ghost, or at the very least the chance that there is a ghost in a group of people is greater than 0, right? Is it something about the chance of someone being a ghost being truly unknown, and thus all possible values of probability being taken as equally rational, and with infinite number of possible values for probability of someone being a ghost for infinite number of them observing that no one in a group of people you’re in is a ghost… No, that wouldn’t work either, because it would require an assumption that this specific group of people might have a ghost among them. Assuming anyone can be a ghost with unknown probability still only works when the group you’re observing is entire population, does it not? Limiting it to specific group of people relies on it being representative of entire population, and random groups are not. Especially if you were to be a ghost, that would already make a group you’re in rather unique. Or not, depending on what’s the unknown value of probability of someone being a ghost.

          I mean, what???