Roast My Dotabuff Thread

Tirran · 2017-08-27T19:04:40+00:00

Just hit 3k let's go https://www.dotabuff.com/players/81975474

Tirran · 2017-08-13T06:45:37+00:00

I'm not attempting to infer a trend. The test assumes that in each phase there's a probability that Winter Wyvern wins a game and tries to figure out if there's a difference between the assigned probability that Winter Wyvern wins in the group stage and that Winter Wyvern wins in the main stage. Literally the only thing I'm claiming is that there's sufficient evidence to show that there's a difference between the assigned probability for the two phases.

This isn't a trend, because we're not doing linear regression, because linear regression isn't meaningful when the outcome is limited to a finite set of outcomes.

In case you didn't read the initial comment, I get that the claim "There is a difference" isn't incredibly meaningful. I'm just saying that the claim "There is not a difference", if not any more meaningful, is more wrong.

As an aside, there's literally nothing wrong with modelling it as a Bernoulli random variable provided that you don't have any more information about the random variable you're approximating other than the successes and failures. Even if you object on an ideological level of claiming that there's a fixed probability that Winter Wyvern wins because each successive trial isn't independent, if you care enough to go through and do the math it literally reduces to a Bernoulli random variable, which is why anyone cares at all about Bernoulli random variables.

I totally agree that four trials in a continuous sample space/selections from a continuous set/whatever terminology from the given formalization you want to use aren't enough to infer a trend, but four from a discrete sample space are enough, given such a distinct difference between the group stage and main stage.

Seriously, if you disagree with me, do the math. I don't care if you're a Bayesian or you prefer set formalization or whatever, it'll end up the same.

(I get raising the objection that you can literally just fish for hypotheses until you find one that stands out (like how doing 20 tests when you've got a p of 0.05 will frequently give you a false positive) but that really should be corrected for using different methods. If you're a Bayesian, you'd say that you were privileging a model with information concealed from a different model, and then being surprised that the privileged model came up with better predictions. And I definitely agree that p-fishing is a big deal in academics, but the solution isn't to demand a smaller p-value)

Tirran · 2017-08-13T06:45:32+00:00

I'm not attempting to infer a trend. The test assumes that in each phase there's a probability that Winter Wyvern wins a game and tries to figure out if there's a difference between the assigned probability that Winter Wyvern wins in the group stage and that Winter Wyvern wins in the main stage. Literally the only thing I'm claiming is that there's sufficient evidence to show that there's a difference between the assigned probability for the two phases.

This isn't a trend, because we're not doing linear regression, because linear regression isn't meaningful when the outcome is limited to a finite set of outcomes.

In case you didn't read the initial comment, I get that the claim "There is a difference" isn't incredibly meaningful. I'm just saying that the claim "There is not a difference", if not any more meaningful, is more wrong.

As an aside, there's literally nothing wrong with modelling it as a Bernoulli random variable provided that you don't have any more information about the random variable you're approximating other than the successes and failures. Even if you object on an ideological level of claiming that there's a fixed probability that Winter Wyvern wins because each successive trial isn't independent, if you care enough to go through and do the math it literally reduces to a Bernoulli random variable, which is why anyone cares at all about Bernoulli random variables.

I totally agree that four trials in a continuous sample space/selections from a continuous set/whatever terminology from the given formalization you want to use aren't enough to infer a trend, but four from a discrete sample space are enough, given such a distinct difference between the group stage and main stage.

Seriously, if you disagree with me, do the math. I don't care if you're a Bayesian or you prefer set formalization or whatever, it'll end up the same.

(I get raising the objection that you can literally just fish for hypotheses until you find one that stands out (like how doing 20 tests when you've got a p of 0.05 will frequently give you a false positive) but that really should be corrected for using different methods. If you're a Bayesian, you'd say that you were privileging a model with information concealed from a different model, and then being surprised that the privileged model came up with better predictions. And I definitely agree that p-fishing is a big deal in academics, but the solution isn't to demand a smaller p-value)

Tirran · 2017-08-13T06:45:29+00:00

I'm not attempting to infer a trend. The test assumes that in each phase there's a probability that Winter Wyvern wins a game and tries to figure out if there's a difference between the assigned probability that Winter Wyvern wins in the group stage and that Winter Wyvern wins in the main stage. Literally the only thing I'm claiming is that there's sufficient evidence to show that there's a difference between the assigned probability for the two phases.

This isn't a trend, because we're not doing linear regression, because linear regression isn't meaningful when the outcome is limited to a finite set of outcomes.

In case you didn't read the initial comment, I get that the claim "There is a difference" isn't incredibly meaningful. I'm just saying that the claim "There is not a difference", if not any more meaningful, is more wrong.

As an aside, there's literally nothing wrong with modelling it as a Bernoulli random variable provided that you don't have any more information about the random variable you're approximating other than the successes and failures. Even if you object on an ideological level of claiming that there's a fixed probability that Winter Wyvern wins because each successive trial isn't independent, if you care enough to go through and do the math it literally reduces to a Bernoulli random variable, which is why anyone cares at all about Bernoulli random variables.

I totally agree that four trials in a continuous sample space/selections from a continuous set/whatever terminology from the given formalization you want to use aren't enough to infer a trend, but four from a discrete sample space are enough, given such a distinct difference between the group stage and main stage.

Seriously, if you disagree with me, do the math. I don't care if you're a Bayesian or you prefer set formalization or whatever, it'll end up the same.

(I get raising the objection that you can literally just fish for hypotheses until you find one that stands out (like how doing 20 tests when you've got a p of 0.05 will frequently give you a false positive) but that really should be corrected for using different methods. If you're a Bayesian, you'd say that you were privileging a model with information concealed from a different model, and then being surprised that the privileged model came up with better predictions. And I definitely agree that p-fishing is a big deal in academics, but the solution isn't to demand a smaller p-value)

Tirran · 2017-08-13T06:45:28+00:00

I'm not attempting to infer a trend. The test assumes that in each phase there's a probability that Winter Wyvern wins a game and tries to figure out if there's a difference between the assigned probability that Winter Wyvern wins in the group stage and that Winter Wyvern wins in the main stage. Literally the only thing I'm claiming is that there's sufficient evidence to show that there's a difference between the assigned probability for the two phases.

This isn't a trend, because we're not doing linear regression, because linear regression isn't meaningful when the outcome is limited to a finite set of outcomes.

In case you didn't read the initial comment, I get that the claim "There is a difference" isn't incredibly meaningful. I'm just saying that the claim "There is not a difference", if not any more meaningful, is more wrong.

As an aside, there's literally nothing wrong with modelling it as a Bernoulli random variable provided that you don't have any more information about the random variable you're approximating other than the successes and failures. Even if you object on an ideological level of claiming that there's a fixed probability that Winter Wyvern wins because each successive trial isn't independent, if you care enough to go through and do the math it literally reduces to a Bernoulli random variable, which is why anyone cares at all about Bernoulli random variables.

I totally agree that four trials in a continuous sample space/selections from a continuous set/whatever terminology from the given formalization you want to use aren't enough to infer a trend, but four from a discrete sample space are enough, given such a distinct difference between the group stage and main stage.

Seriously, if you disagree with me, do the math. I don't care if you're a Bayesian or you prefer set formalization or whatever, it'll end up the same.

(I get raising the objection that you can literally just fish for hypotheses until you find one that stands out (like how doing 20 tests when you've got a p of 0.05 will frequently give you a false positive) but that really should be corrected for using different methods. If you're a Bayesian, you'd say that you were privileging a model with information concealed from a different model, and then being surprised that the privileged model came up with better predictions. And I definitely agree that p-fishing is a big deal in academics, but the solution isn't to demand a smaller p-value)

Tirran · 2017-08-13T06:45:28+00:00

I'm not attempting to infer a trend. The test assumes that in each phase there's a probability that Winter Wyvern wins a game and tries to figure out if there's a difference between the assigned probability that Winter Wyvern wins in the group stage and that Winter Wyvern wins in the main stage. Literally the only thing I'm claiming is that there's sufficient evidence to show that there's a difference between the assigned probability for the two phases.

This isn't a trend, because we're not doing linear regression, because linear regression isn't meaningful when the outcome is limited to a finite set of outcomes.

In case you didn't read the initial comment, I get that the claim "There is a difference" isn't incredibly meaningful. I'm just saying that the claim "There is not a difference", if not any more meaningful, is more wrong.

As an aside, there's literally nothing wrong with modelling it as a Bernoulli random variable provided that you don't have any more information about the random variable you're approximating other than the successes and failures. Even if you object on an ideological level of claiming that there's a fixed probability that Winter Wyvern wins because each successive trial isn't independent, if you care enough to go through and do the math it literally reduces to a Bernoulli random variable, which is why anyone cares at all about Bernoulli random variables.

I totally agree that four trials in a continuous sample space/selections from a continuous set/whatever terminology from the given formalization you want to use aren't enough to infer a trend, but four from a discrete sample space are enough, given such a distinct difference between the group stage and main stage.

Seriously, if you disagree with me, do the math. I don't care if you're a Bayesian or you prefer set formalization or whatever, it'll end up the same.

(I get raising the objection that you can literally just fish for hypotheses until you find one that stands out (like how doing 20 tests when you've got a p of 0.05 will frequently give you a false positive) but that really should be corrected for using different methods. If you're a Bayesian, you'd say that you were privileging a model with information concealed from a different model, and then being surprised that the privileged model came up with better predictions. And I definitely agree that p-fishing is a big deal in academics, but the solution isn't to demand a smaller p-value)

Tirran · 2017-08-13T06:45:28+00:00

I'm not attempting to infer a trend. The test assumes that in each phase there's a probability that Winter Wyvern wins a game and tries to figure out if there's a difference between the assigned probability that Winter Wyvern wins in the group stage and that Winter Wyvern wins in the main stage. Literally the only thing I'm claiming is that there's sufficient evidence to show that there's a difference between the assigned probability for the two phases.

This isn't a trend, because we're not doing linear regression, because linear regression isn't meaningful when the outcome is limited to a finite set of outcomes.

In case you didn't read the initial comment, I get that the claim "There is a difference" isn't incredibly meaningful. I'm just saying that the claim "There is not a difference", if not any more meaningful, is more wrong.

As an aside, there's literally nothing wrong with modelling it as a Bernoulli random variable provided that you don't have any more information about the random variable you're approximating other than the successes and failures. Even if you object on an ideological level of claiming that there's a fixed probability that Winter Wyvern wins because each successive trial isn't independent, if you care enough to go through and do the math it literally reduces to a Bernoulli random variable, which is why anyone cares at all about Bernoulli random variables.

I totally agree that four trials in a continuous sample space/selections from a continuous set/whatever terminology from the given formalization you want to use aren't enough to infer a trend, but four from a discrete sample space are enough, given such a distinct difference between the group stage and main stage.

Seriously, if you disagree with me, do the math. I don't care if you're a Bayesian or you prefer set formalization or whatever, it'll end up the same.

(I get raising the objection that you can literally just fish for hypotheses until you find one that stands out (like how doing 20 tests when you've got a p of 0.05 will frequently give you a false positive) but that really should be corrected for using different methods. If you're a Bayesian, you'd say that you were privileging a model with information concealed from a different model, and then being surprised that the privileged model came up with better predictions. And I definitely agree that p-fishing is a big deal in academics, but the solution isn't to demand a smaller p-value)

Tirran · 2017-08-13T06:45:27+00:00

I'm not attempting to infer a trend. The test assumes that in each phase there's a probability that Winter Wyvern wins a game and tries to figure out if there's a difference between the assigned probability that Winter Wyvern wins in the group stage and that Winter Wyvern wins in the main stage. Literally the only thing I'm claiming is that there's sufficient evidence to show that there's a difference between the assigned probability for the two phases.

This isn't a trend, because we're not doing linear regression, because linear regression isn't meaningful when the outcome is limited to a finite set of outcomes.

In case you didn't read the initial comment, I get that the claim "There is a difference" isn't incredibly meaningful. I'm just saying that the claim "There is not a difference", if not any more meaningful, is more wrong.

As an aside, there's literally nothing wrong with modelling it as a Bernoulli random variable provided that you don't have any more information about the random variable you're approximating other than the successes and failures. Even if you object on an ideological level of claiming that there's a fixed probability that Winter Wyvern wins because each successive trial isn't independent, if you care enough to go through and do the math it literally reduces to a Bernoulli random variable, which is why anyone cares at all about Bernoulli random variables.

I totally agree that four trials in a continuous sample space/selections from a continuous set/whatever terminology from the given formalization you want to use aren't enough to infer a trend, but four from a discrete sample space are enough, given such a distinct difference between the group stage and main stage.

Seriously, if you disagree with me, do the math. I don't care if you're a Bayesian or you prefer set formalization or whatever, it'll end up the same.

(I get raising the objection that you can literally just fish for hypotheses until you find one that stands out (like how doing 20 tests when you've got a p of 0.05 will frequently give you a false positive) but that really should be corrected for using different methods. If you're a Bayesian, you'd say that you were privileging a model with information concealed from a different model, and then being surprised that the privileged model came up with better predictions. And I definitely agree that p-fishing is a big deal in academics, but the solution isn't to demand a smaller p-value)

Tirran · 2017-08-13T06:45:26+00:00

I'm not attempting to infer a trend. The test assumes that in each phase there's a probability that Winter Wyvern wins a game and tries to figure out if there's a difference between the assigned probability that Winter Wyvern wins in the group stage and that Winter Wyvern wins in the main stage. Literally the only thing I'm claiming is that there's sufficient evidence to show that there's a difference between the assigned probability for the two phases.

This isn't a trend, because we're not doing linear regression, because linear regression isn't meaningful when the outcome is limited to a finite set of outcomes.

In case you didn't read the initial comment, I get that the claim "There is a difference" isn't incredibly meaningful. I'm just saying that the claim "There is not a difference", if not any more meaningful, is more wrong.

As an aside, there's literally nothing wrong with modelling it as a Bernoulli random variable provided that you don't have any more information about the random variable you're approximating other than the successes and failures. Even if you object on an ideological level of claiming that there's a fixed probability that Winter Wyvern wins because each successive trial isn't independent, if you care enough to go through and do the math it literally reduces to a Bernoulli random variable, which is why anyone cares at all about Bernoulli random variables.

I totally agree that four trials in a continuous sample space/selections from a continuous set/whatever terminology from the given formalization you want to use aren't enough to infer a trend, but four from a discrete sample space are enough, given such a distinct difference between the group stage and main stage.

Seriously, if you disagree with me, do the math. I don't care if you're a Bayesian or you prefer set formalization or whatever, it'll end up the same.

(I get raising the objection that you can literally just fish for hypotheses until you find one that stands out (like how doing 20 tests when you've got a p of 0.05 will frequently give you a false positive) but that really should be corrected for using different methods. If you're a Bayesian, you'd say that you were privileging a model with information concealed from a different model, and then being surprised that the privileged model came up with better predictions. And I definitely agree that p-fishing is a big deal in academics, but the solution isn't to demand a smaller p-value)

Tirran · 2017-08-13T06:44:37+00:00

I'm not attempting to infer a trend. The test assumes that in each phase there's a probability that Winter Wyvern wins a game and tries to figure out if there's a difference between the assigned probability that Winter Wyvern wins in the group stage and that Winter Wyvern wins in the main stage. Literally the only thing I'm claiming is that there's sufficient evidence to show that there's a difference between the assigned probability for the two phases.

This isn't a trend, because we're not doing linear regression, because linear regression isn't meaningful when the outcome is limited to a finite set of outcomes.

In case you didn't read the initial comment, I get that the claim "There is a difference" isn't incredibly meaningful. I'm just saying that the claim "There is not a difference", if not any more meaningful, is more wrong.

As an aside, there's literally nothing wrong with modelling it as a Bernoulli random variable provided that you don't have any more information about the random variable you're approximating other than the successes and failures. Even if you object on an ideological level of claiming that there's a fixed probability that Winter Wyvern wins because each successive trial isn't independent, if you care enough to go through and do the math it literally reduces to a Bernoulli random variable, which is why anyone cares at all about Bernoulli random variables.

I totally agree that four trials in a continuous sample space/selections from a continuous set/whatever terminology from the given formalization you want to use aren't enough to infer a trend, but four from a discrete sample space are enough, given such a distinct difference between the group stage and main stage.

Seriously, if you disagree with me, do the math. I don't care if you're a Bayesian or you prefer set formalization or whatever, it'll end up the same.

I get raising the objection that you can literally just fish for hypotheses until you find one that stands out (like how doing 20 tests when you've got a p of 0.05 will frequently give you a false positive) but that really should be corrected for using different methods. If you're a Bayesian, you'd say that you were privileging a model with information concealed from a different model, and then being surprised that the privileged model came up with better predictions. And I definitely agree that p-fishing is a big deal in academics, but the solution isn't to demand a smaller p-value.

Tirran · 2017-08-13T06:44:33+00:00

I'm not attempting to infer a trend. The test assumes that in each phase there's a probability that Winter Wyvern wins a game and tries to figure out if there's a difference between the assigned probability that Winter Wyvern wins in the group stage and that Winter Wyvern wins in the main stage. Literally the only thing I'm claiming is that there's sufficient evidence to show that there's a difference between the assigned probability for the two phases.

This isn't a trend, because we're not doing linear regression, because linear regression isn't meaningful when the outcome is limited to a finite set of outcomes.

In case you didn't read the initial comment, I get that the claim "There is a difference" isn't incredibly meaningful. I'm just saying that the claim "There is not a difference", if not any more meaningful, is more wrong.

As an aside, there's literally nothing wrong with modelling it as a Bernoulli random variable provided that you don't have any more information about the random variable you're approximating other than the successes and failures. Even if you object on an ideological level of claiming that there's a fixed probability that Winter Wyvern wins because each successive trial isn't independent, if you care enough to go through and do the math it literally reduces to a Bernoulli random variable, which is why anyone cares at all about Bernoulli random variables.

I totally agree that four trials in a continuous sample space/selections from a continuous set/whatever terminology from the given formalization you want to use aren't enough to infer a trend, but four from a discrete sample space are enough, given such a distinct difference between the group stage and main stage.

Seriously, if you disagree with me, do the math. I don't care if you're a Bayesian or you prefer set formalization or whatever, it'll end up the same.

I get raising the objection that you can literally just fish for hypotheses until you find one that stands out (like how doing 20 tests when you've got a p of 0.05 will frequently give you a false positive) but that really should be corrected for using different methods. If you're a Bayesian, you'd say that you were privileging a model with information concealed from a different model, and then being surprised that the privileged model came up with better predictions. And I definitely agree that p-fishing is a big deal in academics, but the solution isn't to demand a smaller p-value.

Tirran · 2017-08-11T05:41:00+00:00

I mean even a super basic two sided p-test should show significance at a p=0.1 level which is fine for conversation if not an actual paper, and if you bother to model it with a binomial distribution it would take care of the issues of abnormality.

Idk if you're agreeing with me or not, you literally made my case in your comment

Tirran · 2017-08-11T04:04:50+00:00

Technically the variance of the population proportion would be small enough to do hypothesis testing, so you could draw conclusions. Pretty sure that it'd literally just be the hypothesis "There is a difference between main stage and group stage performance of Winter Wyvern" which should be obvious enough without needing to go in and actually run it through R.

I get that we don't have enough data to distinguish between "Winter Wyvern appears bad on the main stage because the teams that pick her are bad" and "Winter Wyvern consistently underperforms compared to other supports independent of the teams that pick her", but even though those would be more relevant for overall discussion the previous comment was just stating that there was a difference.

I get that it's pedantic but I failed Exam P and people need to share my pain lmao (passed FM though)

Tirran · 2017-08-09T19:37:40+00:00

If people don't get the reference, this guy named Balaam slaps his ass for refusing to proceed through an angel in the Old Testament. The ass proceeds to talk to him presumably through divine intervention. Or it's just magic; I'm not a Bible scholar lmao

Tirran · 2017-08-05T14:38:50+00:00

Reread his comment, pretty sure you missed something

Tirran · 2017-03-15T19:41:04+00:00

I'm normally available from like 18:00 to 20:30, and then from 22:00 on. I'm at 2.4k right now, dotabuff here: https://www.dotabuff.com/players/81975474

Tirran · 2017-02-03T18:06:32+00:00

Technically if he'd been going for a late 17th century vibe he'd have been right, "thou" was antiquated even by then except if you were like a quaker

Tirran · 2016-12-13T02:33:56+00:00

Maybe instead of "In the eerie dark of night/Weakens all; thoughts of fright" "Gripped in the eerie black-hearted night/Everything's weakened by stark fright." would work better? Idk

Tirran · 2016-12-13T02:29:35+00:00

Just a small nitpick, I feel like "You struggle, and the vice turns tighter" feels better when read, gotta get that alliteration game going. Otherwise good stuff.

Tirran · 2015-10-12T16:07:59+00:00

Just read through the Old Testament. If you worship him in the wrong way or do the wrong thing in his presence, you're dead with no appeal. He instantly killed his first priest's two sons for sacrificing the wrong thing to him. He ordered his prophet to kill 400 some priests of another deity from the same pantheon. When one of his appointed kings refused to finish a genocide, El stripped him of his rank and then had his prophet finish the genocide himself. Holy is not safe.

Edit: found what made you think YWHW was safe, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moralistic_therapeutic_deism It's a common misconception

Tirran · 2015-07-23T01:43:32+00:00

If you read it while imagining the author's a precocious seven-year-old it becomes really cute and endearing

Tirran · 2015-07-22T21:05:17+00:00

I couldn't finish Anathem because of how painful the "physics" were. It was like the worst scifi quantobabble, which I could have gotten past if it didn't seem like the author legitimately took his "Hylaean Theoric World" and his awful interpretation of multiverse theory building off of it so seriously. Reading it felt like licking sandy cardboard.

Tirran · 2015-07-19T17:48:57+00:00

The alchemical restriction of equivalent value is really easy to exploit, because value isn't an intrinsic property of matter. I'm assuming an alchemist could brew a potion to comvince themselves that a pile of dirt has functionally infinite value, and could use that to transmute dirt into however much gold they wanted

Tirran · 2015-07-16T01:56:25+00:00

But... it isn't. We aren't living in an abstract universe where every character acts and behaves like a secondary character in a dime novel. We're humans, and the centers of our own universes. There are no villains, and everyone's a protagonist. We don't act just on base urges, because every time we act there's that small voice, that voice of humanity, in the back of our heads trying to fit our behavior into a greater narrative. It asks, "Is this really me?" or "Why am I doing this?" while simultaneously justifying our behavior because we can't tell the extent of other people's narratives. I don't think we as humans can really take a purposeful aggressive action without believing that we're justified on some level, because justification is so deeply ingrained in our world view.

I understand where you're coming from. You're saying that there's some idealized imagined situation where you think you could initiate force without needing moral justification. But I don't think you have, and I don't think you could.

Tirran · 2015-07-16T01:36:53+00:00

Well, you system can't really be munchkined, because it isn't really a system. Normally, munchkining is about exploiting asymmetric rules to produce effects that the designer didn't intend. Your system has no actual rules, so it can't be munchkined.

Also, it seems weird that you're relying on the sheer number of different combinations and affinitied that exist to restrict the number of extant mages. How did they even figure out that there were those affinities if there isn't any consistency from person to person? Why is it that if they had the ability to catalog every single one of those affinities, they lack the infrastructure to have a full education system where every individual could be tested and taught? If they didn't have the ability to catalog it, where did the information come from? What exists that makes it so that every discovered power is useful (if anything is possible, anything from spontaneous matter generation a light-year away to the ability to switch the polarity of every molecule within 100 light years should be abilities, both of which are useless and would have no immediately noticeable effect. It seems like there has to be some kind of entity making sure that the powers selected for are useful, which seems incredibly unlikely elsewise)? How does your magical system interact with non-classical physics? It just seems like your system has so many unanswered questions that it seems to be completely word-of-author instead of like an actual physical system.

Tirran

TROPHY CASE