In the version I’ve played, any word that fits a clue is sufficient to rebut it (even if it’s not the attacker’s intended word). The attackers can then make a more specific clue for the intended word.
Measure
Karma: 323
The short answer is that both statements are true, so the “or equal to” part is satisfied and the inequality holds. The values involved are probabilities over binary truth/falsity, not degrees of truth.
At least in the TSA case, you have to consider that your adversity may be optimizing against you. Maybe you don’t get very many attempted attacks precisely because you’re putting effort into security. This isn’t to say the current level of effort is optimal, just that you need more than simple cost-benefit calculation if your intervention decisions feed back into the event distribution.
Maybe Scott means cumulative cases here?
1a. Because it’s a difficult process, it can’t be assumed that everyone who is vaccinated will be able to provide such proof. This makes it difficult/expensive to require proof from large numbers of people.
It’s not obvious to me that the information you’re looking for is not present in a single toe. In the same way that an advanced AI could discover General Relativity by carefully examining a few frames of a falling apple, couldn’t it infer something about human/rabbit/rainforest values by observing the behavior of a toe? My concern would instead be that there is too much information and that the AI would pick out some values but not necessarily the ones you expect.
Can people who are prevented from getting the J&J vaccine due to the suspension and later get Covid sue the FDA?
“Note deaths” → “Not deaths”
I wonder how many times I’ll have to click “not interested—I’ve watched this before” for it to learn to stop recommending videos I’ve watched before.
From the treatment group with 100% effective vaccine, we get 1 true-positive...
I think this should be “99% effective”.
After reading gjm’s point about unexplained excess sinkings, I’m less confident in my choices. I had briefly looked at them at the beginning of my analysis and concluded that most of the unknowns were Demon Whales, but Super-Water-Elementals seem like a real possibility as well considering their unusual damage distribution (and thematically that makes more sense than Super-Harpies). If I could have a do-over, I’d give up arming the carpenters to get the foam swords and a second cannon.
As long as we’re considering things thematically, Pirates could probably board and commandeer a vessel without doing enough damage to risk sinking it, and they’re the most common encounter, so maybe some of the excess unknowns are successful Pirate attacks?
General:
I didn’t notice any variation over years or months except that in the last five years Pirate attacks were less common and did slightly less damage. Considering we’re making voyages in both directions over ten consecutive months, such variation shouldn’t change the analysis much anyway. The most important factors are the distribution of possible damage amounts for each type of encounter and the relative frequency of each type.
Encounters:
Crabmonsters have a wide variation in damage with a long tail into the lethal range.
Harpies consistently do minimal damage.
Krakens do moderate damage with moderate variation but never lethal.
Merfolk do moderate damage with a wide variation into the lethal range.
Nessie does high damage with moderate variation into the lethal range.
Pirates do low-to-moderate damage but never lethal.
Sharks do low-to-moderate damage but never lethal.
Water Elementals do consistently high damage in a tight spread from 70-90. Never lethal.
We can ignore everything except Demon Whales, Crabmonsters, Merfolk, and Nessie since those are the only lethal threats.
Interventions:
Shark Repellent—Worse than useless since it increases the chance of a lethal encounter of another type.
Armed Carpenters—Good since it’s cheap and should effectively reduce the lethality of Crabmonsters.
Merfolk Tribute—Possibly worthwhile even though it’s expensive.
Additional Oars—Over half of all lethal encounters are Demon Whales, so as many oars as we can get.
Additional Cannons—We don’t care about Pirates, but Nessie has a moderate chance of lethal damage and is one of the more common lethal encounters, so reducing that is worthwhile. Given the apparent damage distribution for Nessie, two is somewhat better than one and three might be slightly better than two.
Rifles—Useless since Harpies aren’t lethal.
Foam Swords—Water Elementals aren’t lethal, but if we have leftover budget we can considerably reduce repair costs.
Allocations:
Spend 20gp to arm the carpenters.
Spend 45gp for Tribute to the Merfolk.
Spend 20gp for +20 additional oars.
Spend 10gp for +1 additional cannon.
There was a choice at the end between [Merfolk tribute + 1 Cannon] or [Foam swords + 3 cannons]. I’m eyeballing that without intervention Merfolk and Nessie have about equal share of lethal encounters and 1 Cannon should significantly reduce lethal Nessie encounters. Eliminating Merfolk encounters does slightly raise the chance of encountering a Demon Whale, but overall I think it’s still an improvement.
My read is that the winner-take-all voting system causes the two-party system, which in turn amplifies polarization. Maybe voting reform can be the/an issue to unite the center? If we can destabilize the two-party attractor, I expect a new center would be a natural consequence without further effort (or things would shift such that “new center” is no longer a meaningful/useful concept).
Is it assumed that we spend some amount on interventions up front and then undergo all ten voyages with that setup? Are repair costs unaffected by interventions?
Whenever I encounter a new system/situation/environment, I often find myself automatically asking “What are the possible ways this could be, which of those would I most prefer, and can I make that happen?” Even in mundane situations, there is often low-hanging fruit for improvement that most people don’t notice or bother to take.
Thanks! I’m glad I read this.
I think it’s meant to have the geography of our Japan and the (former) function of our Australia.
What analysis has been done regarding tactical poll responses? For example, in a two-party FPTP election, isn’t there an incentive to claim to support your less-prefered candidate in order to motivate your preferred candidate’s supporters and make the other’s complacent?
What about Black/Green?
In my version, clues are normal sentences/definitions. In edge cases it’s up to the group to decide whether a word fits the clue.