Heavy cigar use and deep inhalation can give you the comparable problems to cigarette use, but that isn't applicable to a lot of cigar users who moderate a lot more than cigarette users and don't deeply inhale. Studies comparing the two tend to assume deep inhalation, and even then, for a cigar a day, you end up with a couple percent or less increase in issues like lung cancer and mortality as compared to a non-smoker. Lifestyle choices can easily make a bigger difference than that, and there was limited studies done on less frequent cigar users who inhale less (although I am a year or two out of date on that).

That said, oral cancer isn't pretty.

Tricksters including bored humans, as flashing a flash light with the right timing is supposed to attract male fireflies too.

If you just wanted to say the story was incongruous with your experiences, that would have been easy: "Did she really have that many inappropriate interactions? This sounds far worse than my experience with college campuses and it trivializes the harassment woman face in more extreme places." I would've found a response like that quite reasonable. But you spend half of your posts making assumptions and personal attacks that suggest motivation beyond just sharing. Do you not see the discord between promoting use of ridicule and malicious rhetoric while complaining of witchhunts and political rats?

I never said I believed her, nor do I disbelieve her. I'm trying to not make guesses about situations I've been told little about, but I have experienced environments that make the story plausible. This comes from having worked at half a dozen universities, over nearly two decades, and several private companies not counting consulting work on the side. I've worked with groups ranging from engineers to miners to construction workers to production shops, plus a lot of time around restaurant work.

There is no doubt that some men's lives have been ruined and others fear things, but that is a statement without context or scale. I have actually been an innocent male subjected to disciplinary actions when I was a university student due to the actions of a subset of our group (as I said, I've been on different sides of the disciplinary process). Our lives weren't ruined, we weren't left in fear, and I find discussion of such gratuitous to this story.

So, what do you hope to achieve by speaking out? You've shared very little of your experiences and spend most of your time talking about what you think is true of others. What are others supposed to take away, considering, for example, you try to make a point about my sex but can't get that correct? Am I to suppose such assumptions factor into all of your experience?

Failures of due process and disproportionate responses don't bolster your original claims, and instead should be arguments to fix the actual processes. Publicized accounts in media signify little about frequency of actual occurances of problems and mishandled problems. There are some massive problems with media, and several very broad categories where guilt is presumed, resulting in ruined lives. In general, calling people nutjobs and trying to fight stereotypes with stereotypes does not help, but is resorting to the same sensationalism that is at the root of many of these problems. The problem with assuming guilt against men is not fundamentally a women vs man issue, but a general human issue of making serious assumptions, of which assuming that a particular woman is lying without much context is another example.

I've been involved in different sides of university discipline processes, which can be best described as running like molasses and rarely amounting to any actions. And in the case where there have been guilty verdicts, no lives were ruined, only a couple of hours taken up by the process and resulting action, because proportional responses do happen. I would also argue from experience that college campuses are worse than average for such problems, but such discussion should require numbers and far more subtle reasoning than one finds in Internet arguments.

College campuses are a very potent mixture of new found freedom, peer pressure, and often (but not always or required) alcohol. I didn't see as much of a problem when I was in undergrad (but I saw plenty still) as I had choice in what friends I hung out with and what events I went to, but I was quite surprised by grad school when seeing how students interacted with TAs. More than once, students who are failing a lab assignment with limited time remaining try to start a conversation with me about which students in the class I would want to sleep with. That requires some messed up priorities and lack of awareness, to say the least. There were some stark differences between reviews all TAs and profs received, where there are always some disgruntled students that vent, but male TAs got complaints about lack of knowledge and teaching skill, while some female colleagues got very personal attacks irrelevant to the classroom. Students would try to get hugs from female TAs for minor things. You can hear them discussing stories of how their weekend revolved around getting girls drunk. There was more, and that is a lot considering it is crossing what was a perceived authority barrier in what was not a social situation. And considering TAs usually worked in pairs in the intro classes, the difference in attention received by male and female TAs could be quite obvious.

On a college campus, just politely minding your own business and trying to get things done is enough to be a lightning rod for inappropriate attention for females. It is what you get when people haven't grown out of childish & selfish mentality to adult issues and topics, in an environment with very few consequences and positive feedback. To be fair, it is only a fraction of students that cause such problems. But it can be scary how many people seem to be at college to effectively major in being a drunk asshole, and unfortunately some number of then never grow out of it.

"With the frogs you only have 2 possibilities, male or female,..."

You have to be careful, as just because something can be expressed in terms of two possibilities doesn't mean they 50-50. You can describe any generic pair of MF creatures as either four equal probability possibilities, or three possibilities: MM, M&F, FF, but in the latter case the split is 25-50-25 without any further constraints.

"The whole situation is really only about 1 frog and whether or not it is a male or female."

It isn't about just one frog though. You have information about a group of two frogs, and don't know which of the two it applies to.

"Why is it not true that, knowing that one of the 2 frogs is a male, there is only a 50% chance that the other one is a female. "

If you knew one specific frog was male, then the chances of the second one being male vs. female is 50-50. The problem with situations like the riddle is that you don't know specifically which frog is the one you heard. Even if you could later identify the sex of the frogs, in the 2 male situation you will never resolve which one you heard. You're still adding information though, and it eliminates the possibility of FF. Even if ignoring the whole ordering/positioning thing, you go back to the 1:2:1 ratio of MM, M&F, FF that you start off with before you heard a male frog, eliminate the FF possibility, and still have a 1:2 ratio.

"I know it is beyond my grasp of the nuances of math but,"

With high school level algebra and a little effort to learn basic probability notation, you can learn Bayes' theorem, and then situations like this can be evaluated quite straightforwardly with a simple formula that can replace a hard to understand probability with ones that are often easier to understand.

There have been some huge advances in high speed camera technology, and it isn't just the ability to read images fast enough to take continuous footage at high speed. Some of the current high speed cameras I've seen around will have a peak quantum efficiency of ~60%, and a fill factor of ~50%, so they will convert about 30% of photons to electricity, while having noise figures on the order of tens of photons (although there are some was of fudging those figures). CMOS based cameras have taken over a lot of areas that were only available to ICCD cameras, which are much less common and often limited to 1-2 frames at a time (but still a little more sensitive and faster gating for those frames). Plus burning metal can be pretty bright...

The simple answer is you can run a simulation or experiment and you will get the 2/3 probability.

But otherwise, the ability to distinguish between two things is rather important in math, including applications to physics. All that matters is there is some distinction between the two such that you can label them, it doesn't matter how you label them, or that there exist multiple ways to label them. And in the example you give, if you want top & bottom to not be redundant ways of separating them, as in there is in you separate the situation of the frogs being beside each other or above/below each other, then you end up with a situation where not every case is equally likely, and can get back the 2/3rd number with more careful effort.

The importance of labeling though can go down some deep rabbit holes, as things like the Axiom of Choice can be confusing to even some of the greatest mathematicians, and many pages can be written trying to describe its implications. In physics, you have a drastic difference between bosons and fermions because fermions can be separated by spin while bosons can't.

The same report also says that beverage containers represent 4-20% of the total litter stream. You could remove 100% of beverage containers, and still have a slight impact on total litter according to most of the citations.

And as I said, the deposit can be justified for dealing with other externalities. The impact of waste plastic on the environment can be quite significant. The impact of glass, much, much less so. If tourism impact from garbage on some place like a beach is significant, that would be another externality to account for, although other more targeted options might be better. The same report also gives an example where glass is composes the majority of material used in containers and collected by a deposit program, yet it comprises a small minority of the greenhouse gas savings. And I've seen such reports neglect important sources of greenhouse gases when discussing such savings, e.g. transportation, which can be significant when the recycling itself saves relatively little emissions. Water use seems to be overlooked by many reports too.

I've been places where the deposit depend heavily on the use of the container, instead of the actual material. One place had no deposit on milk containers, another avoided deposit on orange juice but not milk, and I've seen enough times where alcohol had different deposits. Like too many other things, decisions seem to be made with ulterior motives in mind and games are played with some of the reported results as post hoc rationalization.