Yup, that sounds about right. In Denmark, which have a proportional representative parliament, there recently was a party that tried to combine (kinda-) libertarianism, including support for a UBI with anti-immigration policies. It fell apart after a few years, since that quadrant of the political phase space did not have enough voters for even a small party.
Also, there are parties who goes for the middle of the road. They just cater to the segment of the population who like to see themselves as moderates.
Just putting a guess in here, before I go check if it is true:
Actually the 'Houses' have no effect, they are just the names of the different groups. In order to get a good rating, the members of each house should be as close as possible in Stat-space, or perhaps all be high in one stat (still experimenting with this). Since the early students were all placed by a functioning hat, each house had a well defining place in Stat space that it would carry on with. But since all current students have been randomly selected, we don't have to worry about this historical data. Instead, we should try to get the new students as close as possible to the randomly generated spot in Stat space for the current students. As such, I think Serpentyne might become the new House of Integrity. (I do believe a strange thing like this is also happening in real life, and is one of the main ways that political parties gradually change their positions in Stat space).
A thanks a lot. I was actually working through the earlier scenarios, I just missed that I new one had popped up. Subscribed now, then I will hopefully notice the next one.
Also, my approach didn't work this time, I ended up trying with a way too complicated model. I really like how the actual answer to this one worked.
Ah, late to the party, didn't see this one coming up. Pity.
Anyway, before I check my result I will just try to preregister a few insights and see if they are carried out.
There might probably be some effects in the dataset that are only relevant at lower levels, and so exist mainly as a red herring, since all our fights are between people of at least level 5. I therefore doublechecked everything looking at only the subset of data with all fighters in high level.
The classes seem to work in a such of Rock/Scissor/Paper way, some being much stronger against others.
I plan to try to beat the: Human Warrior with my Ranger / Human Knight with my Monk / Elf Ninja with my Knight / Dwarf Monk with my Fencer.
I really do think this term would be very useful if it could be brought into common usage. Here is two examples I met from just the last 12 hours:
Yesterday I was eating tabletop raclette (kind of like mixed grill) with my family, and my wife tried to tell my son that he shouldn't try to just fry a lot of mushrooms together, that wouldn't be delicious. He got so sad because his shifgrethor was violated while he was having fun trying to cook real food for the first time.
A few hours ago, my wife told me about an article about proffesional test takers in China, who are paid by schools to take the university entrance exam multiple times, thus artificially inflating the schools statistics. I immediatly annoyed her by starting a long theory about how to optimally game the system, instead of just respecting shifgrethor and saying that it sounded really interesting.
Only look at the spoiled text if you are waiving shifgrethor!
::::spoiler I think the word shifgrethor is too hard to pronounce to ever catch on. ::::
Short and very interesting scenario! The fact that the most useful subset of the data was so small (929 people like us getting truly random skills) made me rater afraid that I was fooling myself with random fluctuations. With some very dirty probability I reasoned that the p value for our results for Anomalous Agility + Temporal Distortion was a bit less than 1%, so I went for it.
'I simply believe that assigning truth values to moral sentences such as "killing is wrong" is pointless, and they are better parsed as prescriptive sentences such as "don't kill" or "boo on killing". '
Going to bring in a point I stole from David Friedmann: If I see that an apple is red, and almost everybody else agree that the apple is red, and the only person who disagrees also tend to disagree with most people about all colors and so is probably color blind, then it makes sense to say that it is true that the apple is red.
-Jesus, Muhammed and Luther:
Muhammed did support offensive warfare, but apart from that his religious rules might have been a step up from earlier arabic society. I have noticed that modern Islamic countries actually doesn't have a lot of peacetime violence or crime, compared to equally rich or developed countries. And Martin Luther was opposed to rebellions exactly because he thought anarchy and violent religious movements were worse than the status quo. He did support peaceful movements for peasant rights.
_________________
Finally, why would spirituality only help you overcome 'maladaptive' trapped priors? Might it not just as well cure adaptive, but unwanted ones?
I think you accidentally pointed the link about geeks, mops, and sociopaths to this article. I googled the term instead.
It does a really good work of explaining what happened in most religions in late antiquity, for evidence about Christianity actually being a better subculture than paganism back then you just have to look at how envious the last pagan emperor, Julian the Apostate, was of their spontaneous altruism.
Thanks for the great work. Found out that a simple Random Forest model combined with avoiding everything Crumbly bagged me 20 snarks with a 72.5% survival chance. So expected number of snarks would be 14.5. Looking at it afterwards this seems like actually the worst and most suicidal way to attack the problem. But, hey, at least I got made Boatmaster.
Riders of Justice: imdb.com/title/tt11655202/
Recognizing patterns in a mainly random world, psycho-therapeutic hacking strategies. Can't say much more without risking spoilers.