Well, howdy there, Internet people it spell again.

So today, we're going to talk about Trump's tourism, Vegas, and an old study.

So today's cool, because we get to talk about the news, the economy, the future, and we get to go over a skill that is universally useful. So, we got a question to start

us off. Hi, you miss Bell. After writing this, I realized it sounded like a gotcha question. I don't mean it to be.

I'm genuinely asking who is right. But if you want to leave this part out and make it a got-you question,

that's cool too, because those are far more fun to watch. Okay, so this is my question.

Ms. Bell, I've been watching news coverage about Vegas tourism, and they've talked to people

on this trip, and they say the reason people aren't coming

is because of random fees at casinos adding up and the overall quality going down.

They talk to Vegas executives, and they also say it's because Vegas has lost its flavor

as it becomes more corporate. But you and other people are blaming Trump.

The people here are saying something different than the people somewhere else. Why should I believe

the people who aren't here? The coverage on the strip is looking at the planes that landed.

Literally, in this case, you're looking at the planes that landed

at Harry Reid. And they're talking to those people. During World War II, there was a study to determine

where to add extra protection to bombers. When the planes would return from a run, they'd look at them

and see where they took damage,

and they were going to add protection where there was the most damage.

A mathematician was basically like, you're doing it wrong.

You should add protection where you don't see any damage on the planes when they get back,

because the planes that took damage there never made it back.

This concept is called survivorship bias if you want to look into it.

...