philip_b

Karma: 446

philip_b 22 Jan 2021 17:19 UTC
1 point
in reply to: mike_hawke’s comment on: mike_hawke’s Shortform
After having listened to “Soon it Will be Cold Enough” about 7 times, I must say I agree. I like “Good Knight”, “Anthem”, and “When I Go” most.

“When I Go” is very solsticy because of the repeating words “When I go, I will be long gone” which I think is about death. There is “The Darkest Evening of the Year” which, I guess, is exactly about the winter solstice.

P.s. “Father King” is not a part of “Soon it Will be Cold Enough”, so I’ve never listened to it. Will try now.

philip_b 17 Jan 2021 8:50 UTC

1 point

in reply to: philip_b’s comment on: D&D.Sci II: The Sorceror’s Personal Shopper

After reading other comments I was surprised. I wondered if auto_sklearn gave such bad estimates because I encoded categorical features myself in a way which is not very suitable for it. I wanted to see if I can tinker with it to get it to give me a better answer. I let it choose how to encode categorical features on its own. I got a better mean absolute error and got predictions, which are very different for Hammer of Capability, Pendant of Truth, Ring of Joy, Pendant of Hope:

item	enchantment	refinement	color	thaum	y_pred	price	y_pred/price
Longsword	Wounding	2	red	14	27.306131	66	0.413729
Warhammer	Justice	1	yellow	5	19.637162	41	0.478955
Hammer	Capability	0	blue	35	30.566119	35	0.873318
Pendant	Truth	0	red	40	22.123613	38	0.582200
Ring	Joy	5	blue	29	6.358711	32	0.198710
Warhammer	Flame	2	yellow	48	20.296373	65	0.312252
Battleaxe	Glory	0	blue	7	6.949717	23	0.302162
Plough	Plenty	0	yellow	12	19.923753	35	0.569250
Saw	Capability	1	green	16	18.042059	35	0.515487
Amulet	Wounding	2	green	50	22.919911	35	0.654855
Pendant	Hope	0	blue	77	54.058931	34	1.589969
Pendant	Joy	4	green	42	25.158531	39	0.645091

With these new predictions, I think I can buy Pendant of Hope, Hammer of Capability, Amulet of Wounding, Pendant of Joy, and Pendant of Truth to get approximately 154.83 mana for 181 gold. That’s what I do. Although I understand that this is cheating, since I’ve seen other people’s answers.

philip_b 13 Jan 2021 7:30 UTC

0 points

on: D&D.Sci II: The Sorceror’s Personal Shopper

Solution:

I send the owl back to Wakalix with all of his 200 gp and the following letter attached

Dear Wakalix the Wizard, Unfortunately, the items that are currently sold by the caravans, can’t provide 120 mana for 200 gp. If you are in dire need of 120 mana, please provide me 300 gp instead of 200 gp.

Explanation:

I fit auto-sklearn to the training data, got 7.44 mana mean absolute error and got the following predictions for the test data:

item	enchantment	refinement	color	thaum	y_pred	price	y_pred/price
Longsword	Wounding	2	red	14	24.8726	66	0.376857
Warhammer	Justice	1	yellow	5	18.6423	41	0.454691
Hammer	Capability	0	blue	35	12.0596	35	0.344561
Pendant	Truth	0	red	40	12.0792	38	0.317874
Ring	Joy	5	blue	29	17.9164	32	0.559888
Warhammer	Flame	2	yellow	48	20.3161	65	0.312555
Battleaxe	Glory	0	blue	7	8.35728	23	0.36336
Plough	Plenty	0	yellow	12	19.5171	35	0.557631
Saw	Capability	1	green	16	19.4064	35	0.554468
Amulet	Wounding	2	green	50	23.8462	35	0.681319
Pendant	Hope	0	blue	77	13.0694	34	0.384395
Pendant	Joy	4	green	42	29.5016	39	0.756451

From these predictions (the y_pred column), it seems I can’t get 120 mana for 200 gp. I could get about 110 mana by buying Amulet of Wounding +2, Pendant of Joy +4, Ring of Joy +5, Plough of Plenty, Saw of Capability +1 for 176 gp. If I had a little bit more gold, I could add Warhammer of Justic +1, that’ll be approximately 129 mana for 217 gp, but that would be risky, I could easily end up indebted to Wakalix.

philip_b 12 Jan 2021 15:48 UTC
1 point
on: D&D.Sci II: The Sorceror’s Personal Shopper
Do we know that the old and the new records are i.i.d.?

philip_b 8 Jan 2021 6:22 UTC
1 point
on: Covid 1/7: The Fire of a Thousand Suns
Yesterday I’ve got the first does of Sputnik V, yay! And will get the second does in 21 days. Now, what do I need to know? How does my probability of getting infected change? How does the expected harm if I get infected change? Will I still be able to be a carrier and infect others without having symptoms myself?

philip_b 30 Dec 2020 11:06 UTC
1 point
in reply to: Ruby’s comment on: LessWrong/EA New Year’s Ultra Party
Do you NEED song suggestions? Or are very good song suggestions merely a nice bonus?

philip_b 30 Dec 2020 11:06 UTC
1 point
in reply to: Ruby’s comment on: LessWrong/EA New Year’s Ultra Party
Wham! - Last Christmas

philip_b 26 Dec 2020 9:11 UTC
1 point
on: 100 Tips for a Better Life
I’ve tried working with 2 monitors (instead of my laptop’s display) for a few months, and it doesn’t do anything for me. I didn’t feel more productive, I barely noticed any improvement. The downside was greater—I was tethered to my table and my chair instead of being free to sit or lay in all the different places in my apartment. This is very bad for me, because my back and a leg ache ache very annoyingly if I sit in one place without moving for a long time. Thus, I ditched the monitors and now I happily work on my laptop’s display.

philip_b 19 Dec 2020 11:31 UTC
17 points
on: LessWrong/EA New Year’s Ultra Party
If I don’t use Facebook, what do I need to subscribe to get updates? By updates I mean things like “Calendar of activities… we’ll share the spreadsheet shortly”. Can you post all updates in the comments of this post? In that case I’ll subscribe to new comments.

philip_b 18 Dec 2020 18:15 UTC
1 point
in reply to: romeostevensit’s comment on: Covid 12/17: The First Dose
Can you elaborate? Where can I read about it?

philip_b 17 Dec 2020 16:17 UTC
1 point
on: crabman’s Shortform
I am looking for a gears-level introductory course (or a textbook, or anything) in cooking. I want to cook tasty healthy food in an efficient way. I am already often able to cook tasty food, but other times I fail, and often I don’t understand what went wrong and how cooking even works.

philip_b 13 Dec 2020 14:02 UTC
1 point
on: Pseudorandomness contest, Round 1
I think generating a good random sequence is VERY HARD. I’ll be very interested to know what’s the best way to do it.

philip_b 13 Dec 2020 13:33 UTC
5 points
on: Pseudorandomness contest, Round 1
Just to clarify, I am not allowed to look at the bits I’ve already written down in my notepad in order to derive something from them? Ideally, I would be sitting in an absolutely uniform room with only 2 buttons “0” and “1″ and pressing them for 150 times. Right?

philip_b 13 Dec 2020 11:25 UTC
1 point
on: Pseudorandomness contest, Round 1
In round 2 when you generate random sequences, will all bits be independent identically distributed with $p (0) = p (1) = 0.5$ ?

philip_b 13 Nov 2020 15:42 UTC
3 points
on: Covid 11/12: The Winds of Winter

He is now saying that it is “bad news” that the vaccine was developed while Trump was in office and he is going to “work with other governors to stop distribution of the vaccine.” Because, you see, they’re having “private providers” distribute the vaccine, which will “leave out” some communities. Seriously. Listen to the clip.

So the vaccine is a cupcake that you have to throw away because you didn’t bring enough for the rest of the class and – seriously listen to the clip if you don’t believe me but this is what he is actually saying – some people don’t live close enough to a CVS, so no one should get vaccinated until Biden is in the White House.

Sounds like something right from Liu Cixin’s “Remembrance of Earth’s past”.

philip_b 9 Nov 2020 10:24 UTC
6 points
on: When Hindsight Isn’t 20/20: Incentive Design With Imperfect Credit Allocation
Your solution to the gold sharing problem doesn’t work that well, because that solution allows any pirate to give an ultimatum to any other pirate of the form “Write X less than you actually had, because I am going to write X more. If you don’t do that, you’ll lose it all.” And that’s the Ultimatum game.

philip_b 28 Oct 2020 9:52 UTC
1 point
in reply to: amplemaple’s comment on: Does playing hard to get work? AB testing for romance
Alright, it seems you do know what a null hypothesis is. Glad I could be of help.

philip_b 27 Oct 2020 10:03 UTC
5 points
in reply to: amplemaple’s comment on: Does playing hard to get work? AB testing for romance
What is your null hypothesis? Nowhere does your post says that. I suspect you don’t know what a null hypothesis is.

From your post and your comment, I infer that you want to find the probability of “intentionally reducing reactivity and affection for the first three dates will increase attraction in partners”. That doesn’t work well with bayesian analysis. Instead you should try to get a posterior distribution over the value of how much it increases attraction.

I think if you want to do the bayesian data analysis, then one of the simplest ways you could model your situation is as follows.

If you PHTG, you achieve sex (or whatever it is you’re after, but I’ll just say sex for simplicity) with probability p∈(0, 1). If you don’t PHTG, you achieve sex with probability q∈(0, 1). Currently, you don’t know the values of q and r but you have a prior distribution p(q, r) over them. In this prior p(q, r), q and r are not necessarily independent. On the opposite, I would expect that they correlate (with respect to the prior p(q, r)) very strongly, because if you often achieve sex with one strategy, probably you’ll also be able to do that with the other strategy, and if you can’t achieve sex with one strategy, probably you can’t with the other. Next, you will go and do the experiments (go on dates and randomly choose whether to PHTG). An experiment is like tossing a biased coin. If you are PHTG, you are tossing a coin which lands on heads with probability q. If you are not PHTG, you are tossing a coin which lands on heads with probability r. After n experimental results $e_{1}, \dots, e_{n}$ , you update your distribution over the values q and r: $p (q, r ∣ e_{1}, \dots, e_{n}) = \frac{p (e_{1}, \dots, e_{n} ∣ q, r) p (q, r)}{p (e_{1}, \dots, e_{n})} = \frac{p (e_{1} ∣ q, r) p (e_{2} ∣ q, r) \dots p (e_{n} ∣ q, r) p (q, r)}{p (e_{1}, \dots, e_{n})}$ and this is the result you get. I think this models represents your situation fairly well.

I don’t know what prior p(q, r) you should choose in order to have it fairly close to your actualy beliefs while at the same time making the computation tractable. A simplification you can try is imagining that prior to the experimental data, q and r are totally independent from each other. Then your situation is simply two separate situations, in each you are trying to estimate the biasedness of a coin. Then you take the prior of q to be a beta distribution, and the prior of r to be a beta distribution as well. Then you open “Data analysis a bayesian tutorial—Sivia Skilling” (can be found on libgen) page 14 example 1 “is this a fair coin?” and do whatever it says. Another thing you could probably do is come up with some kind piecewise-constant prior p(q, r) manually and perform the bayesian analysis by simulating everything on the computer rather than tinkering with integrals on paper. Formally, this is called Monte Carlo integration.

Also, instead of treating the outcomes as binary (sex or no-sex), you could treat them as real numbers which represent how well it went. I think this way you’ll need less experiments to get a conclusion. For this case, you can read “Bayesian Estimation Supersedes the t Test—Kruschke 2012”. That paper describes how to do bayesian analysis when you have two groups (treatment and control) and you want to measure what the treatment does if it does anything.

philip_b 26 Oct 2020 20:08 UTC
1 point
on: Does playing hard to get work? AB testing for romance
I found this post useful, because it contains practical ideas about how to perform personal experiments in dating.

I think you are confused about how statistics work. Student’s T-test is a frequentist thing, while in some places you say that you have aprior which suggests you want to do bayesian analysis.

The sentence

My prior is 70% that the H1 is true (conditional on null being false).

makes no sense because of the part in parentheses.

philip_b 25 Oct 2020 17:36 UTC
3 points
in reply to: Mark Xu’s comment on: Introduction to Cartesian Frames
According to your interpretation of controllables, in $C_{2}$ , ${u r, u s}$ isn’t controllable, because it contains $u r$ , which can be found in another row. By the original definition, it’s controllable.