Dominion Strategy Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Kuildeous

Filter to certain boards:

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 110
General Discussion / Re: Random Stuff Part IV
« on: August 16, 2018, 11:36:00 am »
Right, this is the premise behind Deal or No Deal. Because each chest is opened randomly, you actually do gain new information with each opened chest, and the expected worth of your chest changes each time.

And the mathiness of Deal or No Deal is pretty neat too. Not as controversial as Let's Make a Deal obviously.

Fun fact: I happened across the show while flipping channels and got sucked in by mistake. The contestant was deciding which box to open, and her family was behind her encouraging her to take her time in making such an important decision. So much math rage that day.

General Discussion / Re: Random Stuff Part IV
« on: August 15, 2018, 10:12:39 am »
Is it wrong of me to want to change every reference of Chester A Arthur to Chester an Arthur?

General Discussion / Re: Random Stuff Part IV
« on: August 15, 2018, 09:19:08 am »
I still think it makes much more sense to ask what the probability is when you first pick, and realize that that probability doesn't change when the host opens another door.

I agree that it makes sense, but it isn't intuitive for many people. Even I refused to believe it. The math was right in front of me, but I was so certain I was right that I was ignoring what made sense and looked for evidence supporting my belief (so pretty much human politics). It took the hyperbole of several doors to make me question those beliefs and re-examine the probability. I was a lot more accepting of it at that point.

General Discussion / Re: Random Stuff Part IV
« on: August 15, 2018, 09:14:54 am »
The funny thing is that, if the door that is revealed to have a goat was chosen randomly, then it doesnít make any difference whether you swap doors or not, you have a 50% chance either way. Itís only because the host guarantees that he will open a door with a goat behind it that the odds are skewed in favour of swapping doors.


That's exactly right. And if it is unspecified how the door was chosen, the problem actually doesn't have a right answer. Wikipedia acknowledges this (at least by now).

There are reasonable assumptions you can make though. The puzzle presumes that this always happens in all scenarios. Since 2/3 of the scenarios would involve having the car behind one of the two doors, the revealed goat cannot be randomly chosen.

But if the scenario is such that the car can be revealed by the host, then that does imply that the door is chosen randomly.

It boils down to whether there are reasonable assumptions for the puzzle. Since this is based on a real event, has there ever been a case where the host reveals the car?

General Discussion / Re: Random Stuff Part IV
« on: August 14, 2018, 04:54:59 pm »
Paul Erdos refused to believe the solution to the Monty Hall problem.

A lot of academics refused to believe it as well:

I didn't accept it at first either, but I at least wasn't a petulant little dick about it.

I ate crow when someone suggested expanding the puzzle to 1000 doors. Made me re-examine the math while acknowledging my blinders.

General Discussion / Re: Random Stuff Part IV
« on: August 14, 2018, 02:50:21 pm »
Drop the owner part. How much did the store lose?

The markup is an important distinction, though lost revenue is a thing, but just like many textbook questions, this doesn't figure into the calculation.

My favorite is the woman who talked herself into stating that the store lost $270. Her being wrong was nothing special, but the magnitude in which she was wrong is pretty amazing.

General Discussion / Re: Random Stuff Part IV
« on: August 14, 2018, 01:12:29 pm »
Obviously, those people knew that

x*y = y/x^2 + xy + x.

I'm pretty sure I'm seeing some cleverness happening, but I fear it may be too inside of a joke for it to register with me.

x=2, y=4, Witherweaver is suggesting * from 2+2*4 is a relation, mapping (x,y) to y/x^2 + xy + x. So 2*4 = 4/2^2 + 2*4 + 2 = 11, and hence 2+2*4 = 13

Less of an inside joke and more just a subtle mathematical one. Well played Witherweaver.

Ah, I didn't realize he was justifying the answer as 13. Very nice indeed now that I am aware of that.

Recent Facebook hell now has me scrolling through answers for the question of how much money did a store owner lose if you stole a $100 bill from the register and then used that bill to buy $70 worth of merchandise. I'm more forgiving of this one because for some people, it can be tricky to follow along. At least it's not flat-out ignoring order of operations.

General Discussion / Re: Random Stuff Part IV
« on: August 14, 2018, 08:54:54 am »
Obviously, those people knew that

x*y = y/x^2 + xy + x.

I'm pretty sure I'm seeing some cleverness happening, but I fear it may be too inside of a joke for it to register with me.

General Discussion / Re: Random Stuff Part IV
« on: August 13, 2018, 09:43:14 am »
Argh! My one weakness: A stupid Facebook message with people answering a simple math problem by applying addition before multiplication. Why can't I quit you?

This time, it's a screen shot of a poll asking people to answer 2+2*4.Not only did a distressing majority answer that the correct answer is 16, but the correct answer isn't even listed in the poll. I'm suspecting a troll poll. Then there's a caption that wonders if it's scarier that so many people answered 13 as the correct answer. I can actually see that. It's the closest to the real answer, so these are likely all people trying to point to the correct answer. At least I really hope so.

General Discussion / Re: Random Stuff Part IV
« on: August 13, 2018, 09:43:08 am »
kuildeous r u married? @kuildeous


General Discussion / Re: TV shows
« on: July 26, 2018, 03:35:50 pm »
I mean, he's a kid, and kids are dumb.

General Discussion / Re: TV shows
« on: July 26, 2018, 12:08:16 pm »
It does help to remember that Walter White is the villain of the story. Most everything he does is simply toxic. He has good intentions at first, but the series is really about him descending into a spiral of villainy where everyone is pretty much worse off for having known him. Even his "redeeming" action in the finale scars a couple of innocent people for pretty much life.

The show is predicated on dumb actions. Walter's smart, but he's unhinged. Everyone else is usually of average or lower intelligence, so their mistakes are understandable.

Gus and Mike really make the show stand out. They do great jobs and don't typically fall into the trap of doing dumb things (except maybe relying on Walter, who simply fucks everything to shit). I didn't like Saul at first because he seemed so one-dimensional, but he grew quite a bit (and has earned his own series).

It is hard to like the characters in the couple of seasons, and that's too bad. Skylar is portrayed as this vexing shrew who is screwing everything up even though in real life, she'd be completely in the right. Hank comes off as this swaggering tough guy, but he grows as a character as well.

Does Breaking Bad live up to the hype? The hype is so strong that probably no show can live up to it. But it's still a good show.

One thing that bugged me about it, though, was that some of the "foreshadowing" was actually misdirection. It's been a while, but I remember a foreshadowing that implied terrible things for Hank (badge in the aqueduct?), but it turned out he simply threw it in the water. And the plane explosion, while terrible, was an entirely different disaster than the pool foreshadowing scenes made it seem.[/spoierl]

Other Games / Re: Codenames etiquette
« on: July 02, 2018, 03:36:56 pm »
Nice segue.

Hmm, it occurs to me that I haven't updated the list of words since I created that randomizer. Is that still being used?

If it is, I really should see if I can get an updated list of words to add to the randomizer. Though I guess it doesn't technically have to be from the Codenames list.

Other Games / Re: Codenames etiquette
« on: July 02, 2018, 02:57:45 pm »
The discussion that prompted this was someone was asking if it was legal to say THINK, 4 as a clue to encourage the team to think back on the last 4 clues (or words or whatever he was trying to do; it was a really bad and awkward clue anyway). So very much an invalid clue since the spymaster was intending to convey a meaning not related directly to the words.

But how would the other team know? Say he was saying THNK, 2. Then I challenge it because he's not referring to the words. Only he is because he wanted to have the team guess GROUP and IDIOM. He has to explain that for me to be satisfied and now the game is at a weird state. Some of these clues might not get caught as invalid until later.

I'd much rather play the game where an invalid clue was an honest mistake than worry that the other guy is going to try to pull one over on me.

Sorry to invoke the name of the blasphemy, but Monopoly has a similar rule in that if you land on a space and owe rent, you don't have to pay rent if the next person rolls the dice. Seems awfully easy to screw another player over by snatching the dice and rolling them before that player notices. And how has modern gaming changed me? I feel like if I were to play Monopoly again, I would instantly hand over my rent money before the owner realized I landed there because that rule is awful anyway.

Other Games / Codenames etiquette
« on: July 02, 2018, 01:29:39 pm »
What is your stance on etiquette for Codenames?

I saw someone try to justify that it's okay to give invalid clues as long as the other team doesn't catch you. If they don't catch it, then it's a valid clue.

For example, let's say that someone uses the clue LOVE to try to get someone to say GLOVE. Not allowed by the rules, but the opposing team may not realize that's what's happening until later in the game. The spymaster gets away with it!

I feel that this is poor sportsman and is exploiting a rule that is intended for accidental invalid clues, such as saying SHOE for HORSESHOE.

Just making sure I'm not alone in my mini-outrage.

General Discussion / Re: Aging
« on: June 28, 2018, 11:27:26 am »
The aspect of aging that I'm the most worried about is hearing. Just a while ago, I was shocked to realize that my mom literally doesn't hear anything above 8 kHz and then I was further shocked to realize that it's normal for people of her age.

Yeah, getting to experience that myself. Mine may also be hereditary. My father was always hard-of-hearing, and his sister informed me recently that she's been in hearing aids, and her two kids are suffering hearing loss.

So between my father's hearing loss and my mother's macular degeneration, I'm looking at an interesting lottery coming up.

So far, so good. My macula has some drusens, but it's fine right now. I can't hear high pitched noises and I lose conversations in background noise, but I am still functional. Not looking forward to either of those changing since they generally don't change for the better.

General Discussion / Aging
« on: June 28, 2018, 09:48:01 am »
One side effect of aging that people don't tell you: You eventually get to a point where your boss is younger than you.

For the first time, I'm taking orders from someone younger than me. She's cool, and she obviously values my experience and respects me, so it's not an awkward situation. I imagine it can't be, and I think I can see why some older people that I've managed may have been troublesome.

But it's just a weird thought that up until now, I've always had a direct manager who is older. It's just one of those things where I've just kind of equated authority with age.

I've already seen this effect outside of work. There are plenty of policemen and doctors younger than me, but they are the authoritative experts in their fields, so I respect them (though some aren't worthy of that respect, I'm sure).

It's not something that I've dwelled on. Perhaps that's a good thing. It means I've accepted people based on their knowledge. It's just now that this has come to my attention.

It's not like this trend is going to stop. It's how aging works.

General Discussion / Re: TV shows
« on: June 26, 2018, 10:18:49 am »
Just finished Ep7 last night. Things are firming up a bit. I see what you are saying about the plot point being important. Also, excited for Ep8 I've heard much hubris about.

I had to look up which episode that is. Yeah, that episode is pretty awesome. Exploring the different characters is pretty neat. While I enjoyed the imagery of the Samurai World diversion, it didn't seem to stick well with me in terms of the overall plot. Though it was neat to see how it's the same story as Maeve's.

Definite Dollhouse feel, though one could argue that Dollhouse got inspiration from the original Westworld. But the movie didn't really go deeply into what happens when you rewrite consciousness.

General Discussion / Re: TV shows
« on: June 26, 2018, 09:49:29 am »

The mind control thing is weak sauce. Some of the reveals are solid. The multiple story arcs is good but sometimes it feels like they have to hit every one every episode and it gets kinda add. The doubled characters was neat. Iím behind a few episodes. I donít think any spoiler tags were needed.

I like the control aspect. It shows that they are still just robots executing code. And one of them has the means to override everything. Without giving anything away, I'll say that this plot point becomes very important later on.

So I watched the season finale last night. On a whim, I fast-forwarded through the credits. To my shock, there was an additional scene after the credits.

Makes me wonder if I missed anything  on the season 1 finale.

General Discussion / Re: Random Stuff Part IV
« on: June 21, 2018, 08:55:59 am »
I rue the fact that we don't say rue enough times.

I feel like that's not how 'rue' is meant to be used...

Yeah, well, and sauerkraut was not meant to be used as underwear insulation, yet here we are.

General Discussion / Re: Random Stuff Part IV
« on: June 20, 2018, 02:00:07 pm »
I had fun with a learning module we're developing. It is superhero-themed. Spent an hour laughing maniacally and uttering villain lines if the learner chooses the side of evil.

I kind of worry that the training might be off a bit as people may choose the wrong answer just to hear what the villains are saying. Certainly more fun that the hero speeches.

And hey, I got to say rue. I rue the fact that we don't say rue enough times.

Other Games / Re: The Mind
« on: June 20, 2018, 12:26:15 pm »
I wondered about an unspoken rule of counting. I feel like maybe that's kinda cheating, but how can you stop yourself without intentionally shooting yourself in the foot?

But it would assume that everyone else is counting too, and that can backfire. 

No idea if musicians would just naturally fall into that without any discussion ahead of time.

Other Games / The Mind
« on: June 20, 2018, 10:08:52 am »
I had read about The Mind, and it intrigued me. I finally got to play a few games at Origins. It doesn't feel like it'd be a game that would work, but it does. I wouldn't expect to get hours of enjoyment out of it at a time, but it's a fun time-killer.

The premise is that you have a deck of cards numbered 1 to 100. At level 1, each player is given a card. The players indicate they are ready by placing their hand on the table. That's the only communication. Now you have to play the cards in ascending order without talking to your teammates.

Some cards are easy to play. If you have a 1-9 in your hand, you should probably play that immediately so that nobody else plays a higher card. But if you have one of those moments where the lowest card in someone's hand is a 48, expect a grueling contest of wills as people try to figure out if they have the lowest card since nobody jumped in first. It reminds me of the logic puzzle of men wearing black and white hats, and the person in front can figure out what his hat color is if the men behind him don't immediately say anything.

Each subsequent level gives you more cards, which is perhaps a bit easier than level 1 because you're likely to see a better distribution of cards, but you still have to contend with the fact that four players at level 5 are trying to lay down 20 cards in numerical order.

There's another element that I haven't seen much of, but I believe that when you gain a "shuriken" after a level, you may spend that shuriken later to have everyone discard their lowest card. So if you reach that 48 scenario, then you may be able to ease things a bit.

It's a goofy game, and it's not exceptionally deep, but it can make you feel like it is.

General Discussion / Re: Random Stuff Part IV
« on: June 20, 2018, 08:42:42 am »
Maybe it took 9 years to finish the song?

Stretching here.

Other Games / Re: Kuildeous' wacky Geekway adventures
« on: May 29, 2018, 09:54:01 am »
I played a game several months ago which I'm pretty sure was called Prime Time that sounds extremely similar to what you described. I can't tell if it's actually the same game, or if it just has the same theme and there are a lot of very natural things to do with that theme. Was there some mechanic where something (I forget what) gets distributed to each player one at a time, but it starts distributing to some players sooner than others?

Sounds like you have your answer, but I'll answer your question that the Networks did not have something distributed to each player one at a time.

But it did have a mechanic where the first person who passes gets a big chunk of money (or viewers). Each person who passes afterwards gets a dwindling amount. That's the closest to what you described, and that isn't much of a match.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 110

Page created in 0.161 seconds with 19 queries.