(Exposure chance) * (infection consequence) = harm prevented by vaccination.
So, giving someone with a high EC, like a healthcare worker, a second dose could be more beneficial than giving someone with low EC and high IC a first dose, depending on the math. Note, also, that IC is higher for young healthcare workers than for people in other jobs.
The deceptive strings aren't just skewed in terms of total 1s vs 0s; I was calculating the relative number of each sub-string. string (000, 001, 010, 100, etc.) compared to the naïve expectation given the overall mix of 1's and 0's. 121 and 122 are non-standard, even by that metric (for example, 122 has literally zero instances of "0000" instead of the expected 2.29, and both have very different numbers of "010" and "101" compared to "001" "100" "110" and "011."
I do not recommend this method, as it didn't identify things very well, picking only 30/60 fake strings (other than mine and #106) and inaccurately calling a full 19 real strings fake. But seconding Guy's note: I deliberately skewed my guesses to extremes, figuring that would be the best way to "win," even though the EV was lower than being better calibrated. (ie 10% chance of 1st place + 90% chance of a negative score > 100% chance of a positive score)
I think your point 3 includes a sampling bias error. The thousands-millions of Americans who do not separate their political and professional make the news, and the tens of millions of examples of Americans separating the two generate only a few news articles. This also applies to personal connections: people who do not separate are way more likely to evangelize their position than those who do.
Also, too, there is a history of direct consumer activism stretching from the cancel culture of today, through the boycotts of the Civil rights movement, the prohibition movement, ::the 1800s, which I don't have a ready example for::, and the Boston Tea Party.
How do these ideas connect to the primary use of currency, which is acting as a medim of exchange?
Also, too, this doesn't seem to have any new insight beyond the Wikipedia entry: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Currency
What is this "we" you are talking about? Vaccines aren't cotton masks, where anyone with $200 of equipment and materials can make a dozen of them. Especially the mRNA version, which requires different equipment than the annual flu vaccine.
Plus, there were X different vaccines being pursued as of March 2020. 6 of them have now been approved (in various countries worldwide), but how many didn't work out. The process of scaling from lab bench to factory is difficult and expensive, and that couldn't even start until it is know which ones are going to work. (Or if someone was willing to spend the $$$ to develop every candidate in parallel. I don't know how much that would have cost, but it didn't happen.)
I see I had a transcription error where I thought the blue Pendant had a reading of 34 instead of a gold cost of 34. In revision, I would go ahead and send in 5 items, spending 177 gold, just in case.
Then I suppose I shall have to pass, as these items are too expensive, even disregarding the downside risk if they come in below average.
Can you buy more than one of an item?
What I did was use Excel to make 9 graphs: "% successful" vs. each stat individually, "highest stat," "lowest stat," and "total stats" under the assumption that there would be some sort of mapping of stats -> success, but that there wouldn't be any dependencies between stats -whoops-!
The discontinuities at 8 STR & CHA were visually obvious, as was the negative slope of Dex... I actually inverted everyone's DEX (trueDEX = 22 - givenDEX] for the highest/lowest/total graphs. The data also showed big gains in the 12-16 range for CON and WIS, so that's where I put the extra points.
"And what about very old friends?"
I think this is also a good place for making better maps, or is that what you meant by "applied rationality"?