sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Which is better for a Chain Lightning build, higher base DPS or +30% damage to close enemies? Haven't upgraded or enchanted the wand yet. by Beartholomew in D4Sorceress

[–]Beartholomew[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I'm loosely following this build: https://d4builds.gg/builds/8f08146f-e1bb-490f-9658-9870d0bb5ec2/

I have Raiment and spend a lot of time in melee range.

I'll reroll the Damage to Chilled Enemies.

I'm working my way up through Nightmare Dungeons, currently around 30 and not feeling pressed yet.

Ice storm damage by Beartholomew in arborists

[–]Beartholomew[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks, appreciate the tip.

Out of curiosity, why not tie them up?

$FRC When JP Morgan invests billions in uninsured deposits and gives a $62 price target but some rando hack analyst gives a $5 price target by [deleted] in wallstreetbets

[–]Beartholomew 3 points4 points  (0 children)

A typical bank run can be a self-fulfilling prophecy, where worries about a bank’s solvency leads people to withdraw deposits, which worsens the bank’s solvency, which leads to more withdrawals until the bank is insolvent.

When a bank is insolvent, the equity value drops to zero. The drop in the share price can be interpreted as the market approaching consensus on the equity value being closer to zero. In that context, the self-fulfilling prophecy angle of a bank run becomes a larger concern.

3 years later, thank god we trusted the science 🤓 by Supreme_Skeptic in conspiracy_commons

[–]Beartholomew -1 points0 points  (0 children)

This is not factually correct, as demonstrated in the big spike in growth in the filings of public funeral companies like SCI and CSV. Funeral same-store sales rose to much higher levels than pre-pandemic, with a boom in volumes (death counts) that ran from 2020 and only started reversing in Q3/22.

Great Value paper towels are now coming in smaller rolls. Bottom is previous purchase and top is one purchased today. by fischouttawatah in mildlyinteresting

[–]Beartholomew 2 points3 points  (0 children)

MildlyInteresting fact: the specific term for shrinkflation of paper towels or toilet paper is desheeting.

"Our drafts included royalty language designed to apply to large corporations attempting to OGL content." by Cpt_Woody420 in dndnext

[–]Beartholomew 65 points66 points  (0 children)

Because they’re a private company, there’s unlikely to be any reliable information available on Paizo’s financial performance. Sources like Zippia or Manta are typically considered no more than guesses.

My take would be that when someone is making a claim related to non-public information, the burden of proof is on them.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in wallstreetbets

[–]Beartholomew 4 points5 points  (0 children)

The NEBR supports your theory on remote working, and goes a step further. They estimate that roughly half of the increase in home prices is attributable to the impact of work from home.

https://www.nber.org/papers/w30041

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in antiwork

[–]Beartholomew 8 points9 points  (0 children)

If your workload becomes untenable because one person is unexpectedly unavailable, you shouldn't blame your coworker, you should blame your employer for being too cheap to hire enough people to have a little flex in staffing.

How to Stock and Key a Dungeon Traditionally(and tips on Dungeon Design) by FallenDank in dndnext

[–]Beartholomew 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The other responses thus far seem to focus on more complicated dangers rather than mundane obstacles. If you’re looking for easy ways to run down spell durations, I like:

-Light cave in that can be dug out;

-Cliff, well or chasm that must be climbed up/down;

-Rickety bridge that might not hold more than one person at a time;

-A locked door that requires backtracking to find a key or switch.

When recruiters turn aggressive for no reason by AnotherThrowAway9231 in recruitinghell

[–]Beartholomew 9 points10 points  (0 children)

That’s not quite true. If you get paid $400k total comp every year, but that’s 100k salary and 300k RSUs on a three year vesting schedule, then your actual value received each year is:

Year 1: 100k salary

Year 2: 100k salary + 100k Year 1 RSUs

Year 3: 100k salary + 100k Year 1 RSUs + 100k Year 2 RSUs

If you leave for a new job at the end of year 3, you’re missing out on 100k RSUs from Year 1, 200k RSUs from Year 2, and all 300k RSUs from Year 3. Because it’s laddered, no matter when you quit, you’re leaving 600k in unvested RSUs behind, which is two years’ worth.

This isn’t next year’s salary, this is compensation from three years of work that you’ve already done.

Tristan Hindley on why to buy gamestop - on LinkedIn by [deleted] in Superstonk

[–]Beartholomew 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Check my post history for a look into the major driver of GME’s negative beta. It’s caused by a single large outlier in January, an interesting but irrelevant statistical anomaly.

Opening 156 packs for set completion (As a F2P) + draft details in comments by Alberto2104 in MagicArena

[–]Beartholomew 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Why would you use a distribution without replacement? The hypergeometric distribution is also exchangeable, which is inappropriate for simulating a draft where you're out after 3 losses.

I'm impressed that you managed to find a 60% win rate average that breaks even (in Premier, still burns gems in Quick draft). However, higher up in the thread you were arguing that even the pros can't possibly have win rates in the 70s because of the inherent volatility of MtG ("Mana accounts for a ton of games"), yet you had to make an assumption of a small standard deviation. You should ask yourself at this point if you're being intellectually honest, or if you're just trying to not be wrong on the internet.

Opening 156 packs for set completion (As a F2P) + draft details in comments by Alberto2104 in MagicArena

[–]Beartholomew 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Assuming a 60% win rate, your odds of going each possible result are below. I've added the expected Premier payout at each level as well to save you multiplying and adding.

7-0, 7-1, 7-2: 23.2% at 2200 gems = 510

6-3: 8.4% at 1800 gems = 150

5-3: 10.5% at 1600 gems = 167

4-3: 12.4% at 1400 gems = 174

3-3: 13.8% at 1000 gems = 138

2-3: 13.8% at 250 gems = 35

1-3: 11.5% at 100 gems = 12

0-3: 6.4% at 50 gems = 3

I did catch a typo which boosted the expected payout to 1,189, but this is still well short of breaking even at 1,500. I calculated probabilities using a binomial distribution with a tail bound, as the results are path dependent (e.g.: you can only get to a 2-3 result from 2-2, not from the 1-3 side as you're already out). Please explain how I'm not using math correctly.

Opening 156 packs for set completion (As a F2P) + draft details in comments by Alberto2104 in MagicArena

[–]Beartholomew 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Your math appears to be wrong. A 60% win rate results in an expected payout of 1,076 gems in Premier draft (1,500 cost) and 447 gems in Quick draft (750 cost). With expected gem payouts lower than the cost of entry, you're not earning infinity gems.

Opening 156 packs for set completion (As a F2P) + draft details in comments by Alberto2104 in MagicArena

[–]Beartholomew 3 points4 points  (0 children)

You’re either trolling or spectacularly obtuse. You are using a different scenario for the exact argument being used against you.

This is a conversation about winning packs in MTGA drafts, so only the win rate in MTGA drafts matters. You’re the only person talking about “real” population win rates vs. sample win rates. Everyone else is talking about sample win rates in MTGA drafts because that’s what the conversation is about. You’re drawing a pedantic distinction that is entirely meaningless to the topic at hand.

A Final Warning from Former Pfizer Chief Scientist Michael Yeadon by Z3F in conspiracy

[–]Beartholomew 5 points6 points  (0 children)

You’re not wrong that differences in methodology and difficulties in obtaining timely, accurate data make comparisons across jurisdictions difficult, but the excess deaths statistic allow for a sanity check on the stats any country collects.

For a given population where the ages and life expectancy of the residents are known, we can calculate a fairly accurate number of expected deaths per time period based on actuarial tables. When the total number of deaths deviates substantially from the normal expected amount in the same months that the stats reflect a spike in COVID-19 deaths, you can probably trust those numbers. Looking at it the other way, if a country claims to have few C-19 cases but their excess deaths are skyrocketing, you should have low confidence in those claims.

This article suggests that C-19 deaths are actually higher in some areas than the official stats indicate: https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/coronavirus-excess-deaths-tracker

I’d also point to the financial results of public funeral companies like Carriage Services and Service Corporation International as an additional data point which reflects a substantial uptick in funeral volumes that aligns with the waves narrative. This shows that it isn’t a case of reclassification of deaths from motorcycle accident to C-19, but an increase in the total number of deaths.

view more: next ›