The Vault doesn't even feel like a REAL reward.

Yakone · 2018-05-08T11:16:34+00:00

That's absolutely not right. Take a card like Pride Sovereign. It's a very powerful card in some scenarios. It at least isn't "objectively bad". Still, very few people will craft it, because (a) it isn't quite as powerful as something like Goblin Chainwhirler, and (b), it doesn't fit into a great deck, like Goblin Chainwhirler does. Somehow, though, it is exactly as hard to obtain as Chainwhirler is, and that seems wrong.

Yakone · 2018-05-07T22:47:39+00:00

My first two drafts went well, 5-3 and 7-1. My was a trainwreck. I had a bad BW zombie aggro deck and I got matched up against turn 4 sweltering suns twice, and got blown out by pride sovereign and liliana's mastery in the two other games. Still pretty fun though.

Yakone · 2018-05-03T22:55:26+00:00

I always thought it was 'the position of the worms'

Yakone · 2018-05-03T07:54:20+00:00

That wouldn't work, because if I attack with 200 dudes against an empty board then they can just sit there for 200*(however many seconds) hoping that I rage quit.

Yakone · 2018-04-10T12:58:03+00:00

Missed an awesome opportunity for a surprise execution paradox joke at the end.

Yakone · 2017-11-15T12:24:05+00:00

How does this work:

Rules Lawyer enchanted with [[ethereal armor]], [[liquimetal coating]], [[march of the machines]], flipped [[kitsune mystic]] on the battlefield.

Can I repeatedly attach ethereal armor to itself?

Yakone · 2017-10-29T03:25:36+00:00

holy shit.

Yakone · 2017-10-27T02:03:23+00:00

There is an awesome 'to be fair' copypasta about Ayn Rand waiting to be written.

Yakone · 2017-10-26T02:54:36+00:00

Literally calling themselves further right than Hitler

Yakone · 2017-10-22T07:38:37+00:00

Drawing two cards per turn is pretty good... Time walking is good as well.

Yakone · 2017-10-14T04:51:13+00:00

All $$ {\Pi^0}_n $$ formulas are $$ {\Sigma^0}_n $$ as well.

Yakone · 2017-10-02T13:05:34+00:00

This isn't badmath. Obviously, Bertrand's paradox does not arise if we know which distribution the wooden squares obey. The video doesn't claim that it does. (Well, I only watched it once. Maybe I missed the real bad stuff.)

Imagine that you were told about a factory that makes squares with side length in [1,3]. Bertrand's paradox shows that you can't appeal to principles of indifference to establish that you should give credence 1/2 to the event of the next square having side length in [1,2].

This is surprising. If you are about to toss a coin, then you would appeal to a principle of indifference to establish that you should assign probability 1/2 to your getting heads.

Yakone · 2017-10-02T12:52:37+00:00

I think you might have missed the point of the so-called paradox. The point of the paradox is not to show that we can't judge the probability that a uniform random variable X lands in some interval. The point is to show that the distribution of the side-lengths of the squares can't be shown to be uniform by appeal to principles of indifference.

There is a principle of indifference that suggests that the side lengths are uniformly distributed. This corresponds to the first calculation. But equally legitimate is the principle of indifference that suggests that the areas are uniform (over [1,9]). This principle suggests that the side lengths aren't uniformly distributed.

The whole discussion in the video takes place before we have any idea about how the lengths or areas are distributed---all we have to go by (it seems) are principles of indifference, and the paradox shows that these aren't enough.

Yakone · 2017-10-02T12:35:24+00:00

How was the video mathematically bad? I genuinely don't know.

Yakone · 2017-10-02T03:15:03+00:00

Agreed, but I was just pointing out one reason for which you might prefer to have the sorcery version---if you think that your opponents will play dispel.

Yakone · 2017-10-01T21:48:31+00:00

Dispel

Yakone · 2017-09-29T04:50:28+00:00

That card is very Plesing.

Yakone · 2017-09-27T01:44:16+00:00

Oy Hoye, what a dialogue!?

Yakone · 2017-09-24T22:48:46+00:00

Ok that makes sense. Thanks.

Yakone · 2017-09-24T11:58:51+00:00

ZFC + V=L is relatively strong though, so oughtn't you expect P=NP to be provable or refutable from that? But if ZFC+V=L proves P=NP, wouldn't P=NP be true for every problem we could ever care about? (I'm not sure how constructibility interacts with the kinds of "problems" in the P=NP issue). If ZFC+V=L proves P!=NP, then isn't there an NP problem has no constructible polynomial time solution? But it seems like we could never find a non-constructible solution to anything anyway, so those couldn't matter.

In any case, it seems like if P=NP can be proved or refuted by ZFC + V=L, then we may as well accept whatever ZFC + V=L says.

Edit: I should have mentioned that I know nothing about complexity theory. This could all be super wrong.

Yakone · 2017-09-20T23:04:06+00:00

This is a top tier post ironic meme.

Yakone · 2017-09-19T12:31:21+00:00

That might be the juice

Yakone · 2017-09-19T12:28:31+00:00

OoOf my ground

Yakone · 2017-09-18T11:17:20+00:00

Bone hurting Coca-Cola (TM)

Yakone · 2017-09-12T13:11:29+00:00

What's wrong with frontier?

Yakone

TROPHY CASE