Let us do the maths:
Example of a typical situation,
Number of seats available: 100
Number of people balloting for a seat: 1000
Probability of each person getting a seat = 100/1000 or 0.1 or 10% chance
So here we are, this moron suggesting that he be given a chance to ballot for TWO SEATS in one go.
Assuming that all (1000) ballots are given an equal chance to win (as per a lottery), the outcome will be different for each ballot, according to this idiots mentality. Simple maths will tell you that his one ballot (10% chance) will be worth TWO SEATS.
Whereas under normal circumstances, if two separate ballots are cast for two separate seats, the odds of both ballots winning the seats should be:
0.1 * 0.1 = 0.01 or 1% chance
So to sum it all up, this idiot is complaining that he be given a x% chance to win TWO seats, whereas the same x% (x is the same in these two cases) for OTHERS should only win ONE seat.
Right...
Moral of the story? Richard Goh, if you want to have twins, don't be lazy. Please don't be an ass and demand for such stupid things. The whole purpose of balloting is for every one to have an equal chance at getting something. Demanding for your own outcome (the seats to ballot for) to be better than others, all while holding onto the same chance, just goes to show how narrow-minded and selfish you are.
You should've aborted right from the start if you think what you are going through can be considered a "woe".
Now imagine the below scenarios:
Scenario 1
The above case gets passed and moron above is allowed to use his one ballot to try for two seats.
A father comes along stating he's got quindecaplets (15 children at one go), and demands for his ballot to be worth 15 seats.
Scenario 2
Both twins get accepted for university education. Father of the twins demands that a single degree gets conferred to both twins, since they should be considered as a singularity.
Scenario 3
"I am having troubles finding a husband for my pair of female twins. Can the government allow my twins to marry the same single guy? This is because I am lazy to find another husband for the other twin... so I'd thought the government should just allow them to have the same man for their husbands."
4 comments:
you don't seem like a very nice person.
You should've aborted right from the start if you think what you are going through can be considered a "woe"
WTF is the first thing that comes to mind. Goh's concern is indeed a valid one. most parents, if not all, would love for their children to be in the same school to minimize hassle. i doubt that having TWO seats will cause any disruption or delay to the balloting system. even if he is awarded that chance, there will most likely be an outcome where he will be asked to give up his extra seat?
you go on with the stupidest scenarios ever that probably would never happen unless hell freezes over.
you complain about other people complaining. however,your blog, at first glance, is filled with rants against other human beings, much in particular those from China.
i suggest you wake up and re-examine your attitude towards other people. perhaps then, the world would be indeed a happier place for you, and more importantly, for the people around you to be living in.
"i doubt that having TWO seats will cause any disruption or delay to the balloting system."
My reply to the above comment made by you is simply this: This is exactly the kind of attitude that spawned this kind of comment in the local newspapers in the first place.
Simply because you "doubt that it will cause any disruption or delay" to the balloting system, doesn't meant that it should be the norm. So if every parent has a pair of twins - no, wait. Let's not even go there...
Let's say among 10 couples with kids who are balloting, 5 have twins (a very possible scenario), and 5 have 1 kid only. So would it still be OK for the 5 couples with twins to ballot for 10 seats at one go? Think about it. There are other similar scenarios which I don't think I won't mention, unless you wish to hear anymore of it.
"you go on with the stupidest scenarios ever that probably would never happen unless hell freezes over."
Please note the word "IMAGINE" when I wrote the post. That is all I have to say.
Finally, thanks for your concern, I am already feeling very happy living here, and so are the people who are living around me. Like the note on this (my) blog says, this is just a place for me to put my nitpicks and rantings of life.
Which part of "nitpick" and "ranting" did you not understand? When a person nitpicks at something, there are definitely those who disagree. Same goes for rants.
You are entitled to your own opinions - I am perfectly OK with that. The same goes for me - I am entitled to my own opinions. I put this up on my blog - I didn't go paste this all around in every local forums or telling every single one of my friends about this blog - that *this* should be the way the balloting system should work. You understand?
I don't force my opinions onto others; neither should you, by "gently suggesting" for me to wake up and re-examine my attitude towards other people.
Thanks for your comments and suggestions though, although my blog, in the first place, was not meant to conform to what other people write in their blogs like "what i ate today", "what i bought today", "where I went today", if you haven't already realised that. :)
Haha... man, I should of discovered your blog earlier. Entertaining "rants" to say the least. :)
Well, I do agree with Lulu that Richard Goh's concern is a very valid one, which I reckon one will appreciate if one had kids (I'm not a parent, BTW).
The problem is solvable, and the easiest way is probably through some sort of weighted lottery system. I give you a better than 1% chance and less than 10% chance for both of your twins to make it to the school, but it's all or nothing - either both kids make it or none at all.
As for the actual mathematical formula, I'll leave it to our highly-paid ministers and their army of scholars to figure out. :)
Hi Jonathan:
"Haha... man, I should of discovered your blog earlier. Entertaining "rants" to say the least. :)"
Thank you. I'll take that as a compliment, since you have been entertained. :)
Yes, the problem is solvable, through a weighted balloting systemm. On the surface it seems to work, but I foresee that there will be other unforeseeable factors and variables that cannot be identified at the moment.
While I agree his concern is a valid one, what he proposes as a solution is only suitable for himself, and other parents in the *exact* same predicament as he is.
In short, a selfish solution.
I think we still need a long way before people write in without this "tunnel vision", to be aware that their suggested solution cannot be one that benefits solely himself, but should benefit "as many people" as a whole.
This rant would have been non-existent if he had suggested a "weighted balloting system" along with his predicament.
Post a Comment