I have no clue why they did that.

I think they were trying to replicate this
youtu.be/2MRxQ9dw-ok?t=1m40s

i mean it worked for us

It's a college play, those don't work in the nfl

Look down.
I got to 3/200 with the other method which equals 1 in 66.666...7 dumbass

Don't call me a dumbass because you don't understand high school math. You can't just add probabilities, you'd be double-counting instances when any two or all three of those events happen. The 3/200 answer is incorrect, but the overlap from the probabilities creates a relatively small error in this occasion only because the listed probabilities are small so it'd be rare for them to happen together.

how do you turn 0.014946 into "1 in N"?

1/0.014946 = 67 so it'd be 1 in 67.

Look down.
I got to 3/200 with the other method which equals 1 in 66.666...7 dumbass

Don't call me a dumbass because you don't understand high school math. You can't just add probabilities, you'd be double-counting instances when any two or all three of those events happen. The 3/200 answer is incorrect, but the overlap from the probabilities creates a relatively small error in this occasion only because the listed probabilities are small so it'd be rare for them to happen together.

i'm not sure if that equasion is about flipping 2 coins or my statistics.

It's the answer to your problem.

how do you turn 0.014946 into "1 in N"?

1/0.014946 = 67 so it'd be 1 in 67.

Look down.
I got to 3/200 with the other method which equals 1 in 66.666...7 dumbass

Don't call me a dumbass because you don't understand high school math. You can't just add probabilities, you'd be double-counting instances when any two or all three of those events happen. The 3/200 answer is incorrect, but the overlap from the probabilities creates a relatively small error in this occasion only because the listed probabilities are small so it'd be rare for them to happen together.

cool, I learned something

Alrighty I'll just tax your paper and tea by 70% hope you don't got a problem with it m8s.

What are you even talking about anymore?

You figure it out buddy.

"made affordable"? It's just lubricated rubber. What the hell's so expensive about that?

Either you're implying it's solely the man's responsibility to take preventative measures - which is completely ludicrous - or you're displaying willful ignorance of female birth control, which is even worse.

Birth control pills that are taken daily require a doctor's prescription and can cost as much as $50 USD per month. The morning after pill can cost anywhere from $35 to $50 for a single dose. Vaginal rings (NuvaRing) also require a prescription and can cost as much as $80 per month. IUDs are anywhere from $500 to $1,000. Birth control patches cost anywhere from $10 to $50 per month. And implants cost anywhere from $450 to $800.

So yeah, a woman who wants doesn't want to get pregnant and would rather take matters into her own hands than relying on whoever she's having sex with to be the responsible one will be shelling out a fair deal more cash than a man, even to the point of contraception being affordable to her, which means either don't have sex or put trust in her partner that he'll handle things. Neither, I would imagine, are very attractive options for a lot of women.

How hard is it to see if the man is wearing a condom?

Implying every man who is about to have sex carries condoms, is willing to go buy some if he doesn't have any (if that's even a possibility for him at that point in time), or is willing to even wear one at all. Besides, condoms can break anyway. Or maybe the man is a real scumbag and poked a hole in the tip. What's the woman going to do, spend 20 minutes inspecting every square millimeter of the condom before allowing the man to put it on?

If a woman buys her own contraceptives it removes that concern entirely and gives her the peace of mind to know that she won't be getting pregnant.

UK?
ffs....

so its okay if people take to the streets chimping out every time theres a soccer game on....but kids arent allowed a superhero lunchbox