I am Andrew Hyer, currently living in New Jersey and working in New York (in the finance industry).
aphyer
Karma: 4,983
No stat pairs exhibit interesting effects.
Holly’s score is given by the sum of all 6 stats, plus 20, plus a number from 1 to 12. Despite my initial hope that this was a seventh stat, it is not: or, at least, it exhibits no correlation with success.
Amy’s score actually does seem to have some small but non-zero predictive power that isn’t related to stats. I’ve included it in my regression, though it doesn’t actually change my top three list. It does, however, make me suspicious. There are two possible explanations for this:
Amy might be observing some trait of heroes that is not one of the six stats and nevertheless predictive of their success.
Amy might be slipping some quiet help to her preferred candidates/sabotaging her non-preferred candidates. Votes of 1 and 99 suggest that she’s trying to have as large an effect as possible on the selection of Chosen, and so she might be doing something else sneaky.
Current answer:
My current top candidate is #11 (stats of 7-4-7-10-10-7). If they should Refuse The Call, my current second place is #19, (5-2-5-10-9-10, also supported by Amy), and my current third place is #7 (10-2-9-7-9-6).
I’ll tweak the regression a bit and see if anything changes, but #11 is very far ahead of the pack, with the highest stat total and a skew towards the D/E/F stats that are more valuable, so I don’t expect them to stop being at the top.
A, B and C (the three stats that Bella/Liboulen/Linestra care about) are all slightly positively correlated with one another. D, E and F (the three stats that Fizz/Ister/Ziqual care about) are again all slightly positively correlated with one another.
However, each of A-C is slightly negatively correlated with each of D-F. This is true in the candidate data, it’s not an artefact of how the fairies choose.
My current theory is that e.g. A-C are Physical stats, and D-F are Mental stats (or vice versa), and that these are correlated between potential heroes. This also suggests some faerie politics, with the Physical Stats Caucus and the Mental Stats Caucus pushing for different types of hero.
Most stats seem straightforwardly beneficial to increase. D-F seem slightly more valuable than A-C.
Given that Fizz/Ziqual sound like male names, while Bella/Linestra sound like female names, and our faerie is female, she’s more likely to be in the A-C Caucus than in the D-F caucus: don’t tell her that D-F are more valuable until you figure out her name.
In particular, it looks like A-C have diminishing returns while D-F have increasing returns. Increasing A from 9 to 10 actually might be actively bad. Increasing B/C from 9 to 10 is good, but nowhere near as good as increasing them from 1 to 2. On the other hand, increasing D-F seems to get even better as they get higher (though E in particular looks a bit odd).
Still to do:
Check whether Amy or Holly knows anything that isn’t encapsulated in stats.
Check for interactions between stats: is there a breakpoint on e.g. STR > CON or INT > WIS? We could see the diminishing returns on A-C if they were penalized for being higher than D-F?
Fizz, Ister and Ziqual appear to be driven by three different variables: let’s call them D, E and F (Doubt, Envy and Fear?).
Ister gives 50+D
Ziqual gives (D*E). He then subtracts 1 about half of the time, but never if E==1. (Hopefully also not if D==1, but it’s hard to be certain on that side).
Fizz gives Min(D, E) + 2F + 41.
We now have six variables, which makes me suspect that actually these are meant to be STR/DEX/CON/INT/WIS/CHA in some order. I can’t reconstruct which order, though. (Though if five of them seem valuable and one seems useless I am going to be open to the possibility that this is the same winrate calc as in the original D&D.Sci).
The obvious next step is going to be taking the success/failure data and evaluating it based on these six derived variables. Back soon...
Amy’s score is always 1 or 99, and is completely independent of all other scores, and seems almost uncorrelated with success. She might just be flipping a coin, but she only gives 99 about 1⁄4 of the time. Flipping two coins?
Holly’s score is moderately-well-correlated with all other scores except Amy’s. I suspect her of knowing Amy is flipping a coin, and of just averaging out all the other faeries’ scores to get her own, but I have no proof yet.
Bella, Colleen, Liboulen and Linestra’s scores all heavily correlate with one another. Starting to disentangle them:
Colleen is copying Linestra: she gives a score 1.7 more than Linestra’s, or a 50 if Linestra is sick.
Bella and Liboulen’s scores appear to suggest the following world model:
Each hero has three stats (for lack of anything better I will call them A, B and C, standing for...uh...Attractiveness, Beauty, and Charm).
Each of these stats are integers from 1 to 10.
Bella gives a hero a score of A + B − 1.
Liboulen gives a hero a score of 5A—B + C + 40.7
Linestra is clearly doing something related as well, but I haven’t figured out what yet. Her scores charted against Liboulen’s are particularly bizarre. And sadly, I will need to figure her out in order to reconstruct A, B and C for each hero.
UPDATE: Linestra is something along the general lines of 4A + 1.2B + 2.5C + 22 + a tiny bit of noise.
FURTHER UPDATE: my desire for neatness has caused me to settle on (3.6*A + 1.2*B + 2.4*C) + 23 plus or minus at most 1.
Fizz, Ister and Ziqual again all correlate with one another. I haven’t dug into them yet.
Are you sure that saying ‘without searching’ actually makes it not search?
Suppose I tell you that you have a nice house, and it would be a shame if anything happened to it.
What do I mean?
Ah, round-to-even makes sense, I should have realized that but was thinking it would be some messy floating-point thing. (This gets used in banking because it’s a form of rounding that doesn’t systematically bias the resulting numbers in either direction).
D&D.Sci Tax Day: Adventurers and Assessments Evaluation & Ruleset
Huh. Could you try copy-pasting the spoiler block I have below and see how it comes out for you? It looks like somehow you’ve ended up with quote blocks instead of spoiler blocks. If this doesn’t work, we can go harass LW tech people :P
I see this text as being inside a black spoiler block
And this text too.
If you copy-paste this, does it paste for you as a spoiler?
It looks like your spoiler didn’t come out quite right, could you try to edit it?
There are ten silver pieces to a gold piece. I’ll edit that into the doc.
D&D.Sci Tax Day: Adventurers and Assessments
The phrase “Robbers don’t need to rob people” is generally accurate.
But saying “Robbers don’t need to rob people,” and writing a long argument in support of that, makes it seem like you might be confused about the thought processes of robbers.
To get the virtue of the Void you need to turn off the gacha game and go touch grass. If you fail to achieve that, it is futile to protest that you acted with propriety.
Even if you accept that insects have value, helping insects right now is still quite questionable because it’s a form of charity with zero long-term knock-on effects.
...to my confusion, not only do both of those look fine to me on mobile, the original post now also looks fine.
(Yes, I am on Android.)
On mobile I see no paragraph breaks, on PC I see them.
Edited to add what it looks like on mobile:
If there’s less abuse happening in homeschooling than in regular schooling, a policy of “let’s impose burdens on homeschooling to crack down on abuse in homeschooling” without a similar crackdown on abuse in non-home-schooling does not decrease abuse.
You can see something similar with self-driving cars. It is bad if a self-driving car crashes. It would be good to do things that reduce that. But if you get to a point where self-driving cars are safer than regular driving, and you continue to crack down on self-driving cars but not on regular driving, this is not good for safety overall.
Apropos of nothing in particular, do you think that abolishing the Dept. of Education would make things go better or worse?
Sadly, these are also the same top three candidates, in the same order, as you get by doing none of this work and just running a linear regression.
:(