I know it's technically on-topic, but: downvoted. I have a specific question I want answered one way or another, and I think bringing up peripheral issues is unlikely to help me achieve that.
unlike every other vaccine ever
mRNA vaccines are a new invention, so that line of reasoning isn't particularly reassuring.
Protection has shifted from protection against infection to infection against severe outcomes because of antigenic drift: the vaccines are most closely targeted to the ancestral strain. That match is most important for antibody protection: since antibodies are critical to protection against infection, the vaccines produce significantly less protection against infection as the virus drifts further from the ancestral type. T cell immunity
Good thoughts, but in this context I'm more worried about the future than the present, and I'm too introverted to have a statistically significant sample of people I know personally.
Reflections on my attempt:
It looks like I was basically right. Even in the place I came up short – figuring out Trum-Troopas – I knew I was probably missing something, since it would have been weird for that to be the only not-perfectly-predictable part of the problem.
Reflections on the challenge:
This is the first D&D.Sci which is a pure puzzle; that is, the first one without randomness in the linkage between explanatory and response variables. I think this would be unfair for something presented as a social science problem, except that a) the Seussian... (read more)
Noise is generated per-present, and combined additively for each child. Under ordinary circumstances:
I haven't finished my analysis yet, let alone decided a strategy based on it, but I have made some progress.
Findings thus far:
Girls with a Blum-Blooper make 6 Noise.
Girls with a Who-Whonker make 5 or 10 Noise.
Girls with a Fum-Foozler make 8 or 16 Noise.
Boys with a Blum-Blooper make 6 or 12 Noise.
Boys with a Who-Whonker make 9 or 18 Noise.
Boys with a Fum-Foozler make 4 or 8 Noise.
Sloo-Sloonkers make 4+ceiling((1+Age)/2) Noise, except sometimes you give them to boys and they make more.
Gah-Ginkas make 4+ceiling((14-Age)/2) Noise, except sometimes you give the
Sometimes, you have to make an educated guess what your clients will value most; and sometimes, a small dataset prevents you from uncovering beautiful latent structure. I agree it would probably have been more fun if we'd had clearer goals and more rows, but I can't fault this one for realism or artistic merit.
(Thank you again for making it, by the way. I enjoyed it, and I look forward to playing the next one.)
I loved reading this. I hope you enjoyed playing my game!
*after the first week
That's fair. In that case, I'd just have her spend every day after the first in Thunderwood Peaks.
Thank you for making this, and for extending the deadline for me.
After some thought and analysis, after reading everyone else’s research, and in the absence of a more specific evaluation function to optimize for . . . I’ve decided to go all-out on trying to bag at least one Crow That Breaks The Sky. They’re confirmed to be big enough to make the Hunters happy, they’re something Biologists have never seen before, and they’ve been slain 8 times in 260 weeks by a Hunter who wasn’t specifically trying. We have ten chances, and can improve on those
I've been meaning to play this one, but I spent the last week wrapping up work stuff before the holidays and worrying over Omicron. I suspect others may be in a similar position. Could you delay sharing the answer key until the end of the weekend?
I'm extremely happy, and slightly embarrassed, that people are still making use of my older challenges.
I’m pleasantly surprised by how well I did in both a general and absolute sense (if you asked me yesterday I would not have put my strategy’s odds of overall success above 20%). Of course, ~half the credit for this victory goes to Measure, whose inferences about the dungeons’ likely populations I was shameless in making use of.
If I’d had more time and energy to spare, I would have looked into how reliably teams which counter all their encounters win, and how character levels affect this outcome; from what I read here, I think that... (read more)
Thank you for making this.
Disclaimer: I've never tried any of these things on real problems, they just seem like obvious answers.
The oldschool answer is to use Tarot or the Oblique Strategies, creatively interpret what you draw in the context of your problem, and evaluate whether that's an improvement over what you're currently doing. Personally, I'm more fond of the modern counterpart, Weird Sun Twitter's "Have you tried X?" meme, as incarnated here, here and here.
How does it work?
I think the name may have given the wrong impression. The 'D&D' part of D&D.Sci is mostly the trappings of the genre, not the substance; monsters, wizards and (simulated) dicerolls yes, anything resembling Actual Roleplaying no.
Since you asked . . . from the top, the typical/intended way to Consume my Product is:
What would pressure-testing in the context of rationality look like?Well, honestly, I don't yet know.I have a few bad examples that don't strike me as entirely wrong . . .
What would pressure-testing in the context of rationality look like?
Well, honestly, I don't yet know.
I have a few bad examples that don't strike me as entirely wrong . . .
At the risk of being accused of flagrant self-promotion, I also have a few bad examples that don't strike me as entirely wrong. My data science challenges are only tractable to players with the appropriate skillset, and resemble real-life problems the same way mystery novels resemble real-life detective work . . . but if you're looking for novel ways to test for skill at Inferring T... (read more)
This was extremely good. In particular, I like that you managed to make the challenge tractable to both Analysis and Machine Learning. I also appreciated that you included an explicit Real-world Data Science Moral in the wrap-up; I should try to do that more often.
. . . I feel oddly proud to have continued the tradition of D&D players getting in-universe names wrong.
Nullifying Nightmare, Blaze Boy, Greenery Giant, Tidehollow Tyrant, and . . . yeah, okay, Phoenix Paladin.
(I was on the fence about whether the last spot should go to Paladin or Ranger, but when I saw Measure's answer I decided to let hipsterism be the deciding factor.)
There seems to be a rock-paper-scissors thing going on here: Earthy fighters have an advantage over Watery fighters, Watery fighters have an advantage over Flamey fighters, and Flamey fighters - kinda, sorta, unreliably - have an advantage
I made a Sequence for my replayable challenges, but think we should keep the tag. That way people wanting to make posts about D&D.Sci will have something to tag them with.
You may want to include a link to the challenge in this post, so people seeing it on the frontpage know what you're referring to.
Thank you again for making this; it’s been enlightening to play one of these for a change.
It appears my obliviousness to Encounter Frequency concerns didn’t damage my plans as much as I feared. It’s hard to say how much of my better-than-random result was down to good analysis vs careful management of unknowns vs sheer good luck: if damage from Pirates and Harpies weren’t dependent on things that happened earlier in the voyage (an effect to which I was also oblivious), or if the Atlanteans had been in a different position on their... (read more)
Some thoughts and insights from my notes that I somehow forgot to write up the first time:
After reading your analysis, I think your strategy has a higher chance of success than mine. On reflection,
I'm still wary of sending any ship that spent <5 weeks in port - that rule's probably there for a reason - but you've convinced me I should have sent the Galleon to L13 and the Barquentine to E8.
This challenge is very interesting; thank you for making it. I don't think I've found all the answers, but I've gotten as far as I'm going on my own.
(I thought about a detour to avoid whatever's (not?) going on in L12, but decided it's probably fine.)
(I considered alternate routes that punch through F8 and G8 while avoiding icebergs
NOTE: Because reasons, I've decided to release the evaluator and answer key next Monday instead of this Friday. I'd apologize for the inconvenience but I'm pretty sure nobody minds.
1. How big a deal is "an immortal demon, wreaking horror and bloodshed upon the world"?
Morgan seems to think that ensuring this doesn't happen should be your top priority, but he's biased for obvious reasons. If you feel increasing the probability and/or magnitude of success is worth risking the worst outcome, that's a valid decision.
2. Can the ritual in someway counteract that? Any specific bonuses, or things that are stronger against demons, or more helpful in a world where one is running loose?
3. How would multiple rituals (separately interac
The supernova Morgan mentioned happened partway through the span of time covered by the dataset; however, due to complexities and delays in the relationship between the event and its impact on mana flows, he doesn't know where or whether its effects would show up in his records.
Also I think I was modeling the precision incorrectly, probably. I took "for example, since they say Earwax has an amplitude of 3.2 kCept, you can be 100% sure the true value is between 3.15 and 3.25 kCept" to mean that every value could be plus or minus 0.05, but I think now it actually meant that values were rounded to the nearest digit shown, so a listed value of 0.28 kCept was not between 0.23 and 0.33, but rather between 0.275 and 0.285?
Yes, that's exactly what happened. That ambiguity didn't occur to me; I've now edited the original post to clarify so future players won't have the same issue; mea culpa.
Now it’s all over, I would just like to make sure everyone appreciates the restraint I demonstrated in not using any of the following lines:
“Earwax really shouldn’t have been able to reach you so quickly: it’s a heteropneum, not a heteronyoom.”
“There’s no I in [teem].”
“Good Floornight, sleep Floortight, don’t let the heteropneums Floorbite.”
The phrase "previously considered benign" was intended to convey an unexpected change in attitude, not amplitude; Earwax did not and will not become stronger. Apologies for the confusion.
If your EFS is more than double a heteropneum's amplitude, you can get a (perfectly accurate) recording of what your EFS would have been had you used a different resonance on it. The in-universe justification for this is that Sphere scientists can observe - and infer things about - alternate timelines under the right conditions.
The record is a complete list of all fights. Usually heteropneums can be detected, predicted and managed such that the Sphere never needs to have more than one fight per floorday, and they can send a pilot they feel confident will win; Earwax's actions are unprecendented.
So the 'resonances' are the
Pilot Strength (alpha),Pilot Strength (beta),Pilot Strength (gamma),Pilot Strength (delta),Pilot Strength (epsilon),Pilot Strength (zeta),Pilot Strength (eta)things, from the data file?
Pilot Strength (alpha),Pilot Strength (beta),Pilot Strength (gamma),Pilot Strength (delta),Pilot Strength (epsilon),Pilot Strength (zeta),Pilot Strength (eta)
things, from the data file?
What are floordays?
The Sphere has an idiosyncractic timekeeping system, as regular 24-hour days have been found not to be optimally conducive to keeping your colleagues' souls in their most useful state.
And how do you distinguish between heteropneums? I.e. how do you know that earwax (weak, benign) and Earwax (powerful, malevolent) ar
I hereby affirm that observations of EFS derived via Branch-Loop Analysis are just as reliable as those gained via direct observation. As such, distinctions based on 'what actually happened' - itself a slippery concept for people who regularly work with multiple timelines - are irrelevant.
The "Mild Boar and Jungle Mammoth are just what the person from the Harsh Survivalist Ice Village calls pigs and elephants" speculation is hilarious and I wish I'd done that on purpose; I hereby retroactively declare it canon.
One roll for all universes.
Regarding PCs & NPCs: My plan for handling the NPCs is pretty much as you said; if I end up needing multiple worlds, I'll make sure the human players are distributed as close to evenly as possible.
Regarding the premise: Being better at interdimensional travel than at regular teleportation produces some weird incentives. Also, magic-users are generally understood to be crazy; "that mage is doing something unusual!" is about as concerning as "that fire is hot!"
Thanks, yes, you're completely right; I wrote this for an older version of the scenario and forgot to change it. Edited now.
Your theory is correct. I had some sort of clever justification for why that made sense in-universe but I forget what it was; the Doylist reason was that I wanted the red herring in this puzzle to be as simple as possible.
The original generation code is up here if you want to take a look.
(Good question, by the way; I added a note to the main post to clarify this.)
Yes to the first question.
To the second: you can aim to reduce repair costs with your interventions, but since they won't come out of your budget that's more of an optional extra for further impressing the brass.
That's exactly right.
All your assumptions are correct, with the debatable exception of the last one: you have a record for every voyage