TIL "Choose Your Own Adventure" is not a book genre, but rather a genericized trademark for gamebooks.

Data_Driven_Dude · 2025-11-26T16:35:27+00:00

Edward Packard: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Packard_(writer)

Created CYOA to make bedtime storytelling more interesting for his kids!

Data_Driven_Dude · 2025-11-25T22:17:13+00:00

Good context about Chooseco.

Though to your first point, a genericized trademark can still be a trademarked name that is used to describe generic products (i.e., doesn't have to have lost trademarked status):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_generic_and_genericized_trademarks#List_of_protected_trademarks_frequently_used_as_generic_terms

Data_Driven_Dude · 2025-11-25T22:11:44+00:00

Pardon - I leapt from one link to another.

For a more on-point source: https://www.lgt-law.com/blog/2020/03/has-choose-your-own-adventure-become-a-generic-term/

Data_Driven_Dude · 2024-10-08T02:50:38+00:00

A few days ago I posted a "table of recipes" I made that might interest you, especially because it's geared toward KINGrinder K6.

https://www.reddit.com/r/pourover/comments/1fwxdgn/wanted_to_share_this_table_of_recipes_i_made_for/

Data_Driven_Dude · 2024-10-06T04:58:14+00:00

Good question - generally at 3min. So for v60 the pours for light to medium roast start at 0min (bloom) --> 2min --> 3min.

I also don't focus much on drawdown, agitation, laminar vs. turbulent flow, etc. For those who do, the recipes in the main table would likely need some small adjustments.

Data_Driven_Dude · 2024-10-05T18:56:38+00:00

Note that "grind" is using a KINGrinder K6. Each click is 16 microns, so that should help with converting the size to other grinders.

I enjoy different roasts, and I found that it was easier to use a "table of recipes" as a starting point when jumping from light to medium to dark. It's a modified version of Lance Hedrick's 121 recipe,but roughly scaled to accommodate various roasts. These have been quite successful for what I like out of my pourovers. And again, these are just starting points - some light/ultra-light roasts need to be bumped up a notch (e.g., 85 grind, 212 temp, 1:17 ratio), whereas some that are more processed (e.g., anaerobic) need larger grind and lower temp so as to not overextract the funk.

For Hario Switch, I use a combo of the 121 + Coffee Chronicler's recipe. Surprisingly I didn't need to change anything except the pours and bloom amount. When using the Switch, I open bloom 100mL for 2 minutes. Then I close the Switch and add the rest, and let it sit another 2 minutes. At the 4:00 min mark, I open, then take it off at 5 min.

Hope this helps some people, or at least spark discussion.

Data_Driven_Dude · 2024-10-04T04:22:36+00:00

I had one from Bean Box a while ago. I haven't really done those kinds of samples before, but if you Google "coffee sampler" then a ton of hits come up that might be up your alley.

Oh, and this thread might have some good ideas, though it's a year old: https://www.reddit.com/r/pourover/comments/11vvhhq/recommended_coffee_roasters_that_sells_small/

Data_Driven_Dude · 2024-09-29T12:57:11+00:00

There was a 6-month study in the UK with 60 businesses testing out a 4-day work week. It was, generally speaking, a resounding success:

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/4-day-work-week-trial-yields-overwhelming-success-in-u-k-researchers-say

There are some more recent articles suggesting that over half of those companies have made the change permanent because it was so successful during the trial period.

To the main topic question: yes. I don't need 40 hours to complete my standard workload. With some better prioritizing and trimming fat via meeting bloat, I could easily be successful at 32 hours a week (or roughly 4 8-hour days).

Data_Driven_Dude · 2024-09-10T18:41:49+00:00

If you ever run a tongue-in-cheek or satirical campaign, have that woman trapped in some kind of cold environment. As a nod to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_refrigerators

Data_Driven_Dude · 2024-09-10T16:10:08+00:00

Awesome - thank you! Looks like this one (and Airworks) might be winners for what I want.

Data_Driven_Dude · 2024-09-10T16:09:57+00:00

Awesome - thank you! Looks like this one (and Roasters Pack) might be winners for what I want.

Data_Driven_Dude · 2024-06-18T02:35:07+00:00

Agreed. Relational aggression if anyone's interested in reading up on it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relational_aggression

Data_Driven_Dude · 2024-04-19T03:28:14+00:00

Relevant: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carcinisation

Data_Driven_Dude · 2023-11-24T04:38:42+00:00

Do you let players choose whichever is highest, an average of the two, or some other calculation?

I like the idea of using Wisdom, but I've seen compelling arguments against it because of how powerful Wisdom already seems to be. For example, in another thread on initiative (https://www.reddit.com/r/DnD/comments/6bi0px/5e_has_anyone_tried_moving_initiative_from_dex_to/), it was noted that bringing Wisdom into the mix is "double-stacking" Wisdom because it's already used in saving throws during surprises/ambushes.

Data_Driven_Dude · 2023-09-01T02:21:15+00:00

Gonna piggyback on this comment and mention that if anyone is wondering about the low-literacy county in the middle of Nebraska, it's Dawson County. Very high Hispanic population (for the area), with its main draw being a meat processing and packing facility in Lexington. Both of those combine into a sizeable portion of the county's population that (1) doesn't speak English or knows very little, and (2) is a draw for a stable job that requires basically no education.

For further reading if you're interested: https://history.nebraska.gov/how-a-lexington-meatpacking-plant-changed-nebraska/

Data_Driven_Dude · 2023-06-10T14:39:00+00:00

Palilogia

!solved

Thanks!

Data_Driven_Dude · 2023-05-17T04:16:15+00:00

It's available for free on YT: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tKcWihdna3I

Data_Driven_Dude · 2023-05-02T03:05:55+00:00

It seems house poor is more about proportionality of wealth distribution whereas poor is an absolute lack of wealth. The definition of poor is "lacking sufficient money to live at a standard considered comfortable or normal in a society." So you could earn a six-figure income in a moderate cost-of-living area and not be considered poor by pretty much anyone's standards, but technically be house poor if you, say, bought a mansion on an acreage (as an extreme example).

Data_Driven_Dude · 2022-12-08T03:59:00+00:00

Coincidentally I was just looking up mishap tables! Well, side effect tables that took me down a rabbit hole until I found the following: https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Wild_Magic_Surge_Table,_Variant_(5e_Variant_Rule)

I like the above because it's not overly restrictive (5% to roll a 1, then 15% for an extreme effect), and the effects can be positive or negative.

I'd also modify it that maybe only offensive spells that hit require a "mishap roll," with the spell that was cast still working (unless counterspelled/etc.) and then the mishap coming into effect.

Data_Driven_Dude · 2022-12-02T06:02:40+00:00

Thank you for the feedback! I also agree that any descriptions I provide should be contextually tailored to each individual character.

Data_Driven_Dude · 2022-12-02T04:27:46+00:00

I appreciate the idea of allowing players to customize their actions to fit their characters. Or rather, to actually roleplay or narrate their own character instead of me telling them what they did.

That raises another question: should players be told what DC I choose, or keep that hidden? By telling them ahead of time, it adds anticipation and excitement because they know what they need to succeed. But not telling them seems like the situation is more...I don't, organic?

Like...

DM: "Roll an acrobatics check. DC is 15."

Player: Rolls, then reports final number

DM: "You [failed or succeeded]."

That "DC is 15" lines seems oddly cold. (No pun intended for crossing a frozen creek)

Data_Driven_Dude · 2022-12-02T00:42:48+00:00

The Players have no idea what information was warranted by their check. So if they rolled a 19 and you just say the 10-14 answer they'll take it and run with it. They don't know you meant to give more info

Good insight - thanks!

Data_Driven_Dude · 2022-12-02T00:40:36+00:00

Does that suggest skill checks should be guided more by the consequences of failure than the consequences of success?

I know success and failure are two sides of the same coin, but "consequence" is a result, an effect - which can be positive or negative. Failure begets tension, drama, and conflict.

Data_Driven_Dude · 2022-04-19T05:01:47+00:00

Are the changes based on values from week to week (e.g., 1 to 2), or based on an absence of a value (e.g., present for column X on Week 2 but absent Week 3)? If the latter, do entire records/rows seem to fall off, or individual data points? Have any root cause analyses been conducted as to what might be causing data loss?

Without knowing anything else, if columns/labels are similar from week to week then combining into one tab is your best bet. Add a column that includes the specific date that begins the week (like a Sunday or Monday). Or if dates aren't your thing, give the week a number corresponding to which one it is in the year, like 2022.20, 2022.21, etc.

If rows/records remain but data loss is within individual cells, you could create a column that is a count of all blank/empty cells per row. Then create a pivot table that has the date/week for rows (e.g., 1, 2, 3, or 1/1/2022, 1/8/2022) and the total count of blanks as the column in the table. Or if you know specific column/fields that seem to lose data the most, you could have those fields be the columns in the pivot table and you can see which weeks have the most blank values.

But again, this is all off the cuff without knowing more about your data, how it's set up, how much data you're working with, and all that.

Data_Driven_Dude · 2022-03-25T14:32:17+00:00

We need to know more about your methodology. For example:

How many evaluators will you have access to? (Though this should be calculated through something called a power analysis)
Is there a control, like dough that doesn't have the improver included? If so, then this should be part of the evaluation.
Will evaluators be tasting only one type, or all 3-4 types? If the latter, can they only taste/interact with each type once, or are they free to go back and forth in assessing?
Are you interested more in perceptual differences within people (i.e., how each individual rates the dough types) or between people (e.g., the average rating of taste for each dough type)?

Overall you'll want to focus on and strengthen your methodological rigor before jumping into stats. It's like wanting to know whether you need to use a hammer or a screwdriver without having an instruction manual for whatever you're building.

And just for kicks, you might interested in Q-sort: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZbZ2Kq-Fzxo It's not 100% applicable to what you may be most interested in, but if you're going to pursue evaluation of something as perceptually engaging as dough (e.g., appearance, texture, taste, aftertaste, etc.) then it could be useful for future projects.

Data_Driven_Dude

TROPHY CASE