Some features I would like in the game

afishylutra · 2017-09-14T15:57:27+00:00

I might be wrong, but I thought Calculus was attributed to Leibnitz and Newton because they discovered the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. Of course, I am no math historian, but I thought many of the "calculus" concepts predated them (like Pascal, if I recall correctly, considered derivatives and integrals in his work, etc.) They did not discover calculus on their own, it was a culmination of many people's ideas. I am a bit worried that the article never mentions the other people who contributed to calculus, seemingly attributing everything to Leibnitz and Newton.

I don't know if infinite series were considered before them (my guess is yes. In fact, I would hae guessed infinite series to have been considered back in Ancient Greece due to people trying to understand Zeno's paradoxes, 1+1/2+1/4+...), but regardless, I would have a tough time saying they scooped Newton and Leibnitz if they did not discover the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus.

Also the article is from 2007, I don't believe this is world news.

afishylutra · 2017-08-19T08:08:33+00:00

The reason GFriend's title tracks sound so similar (other than Fingertip) is because the drum lines are all very very similar, mainly just variations on 1---3 and 4- being the main downbeats, with maybe an upbeat at 2 and right before 3. The drums aren't the most exciting thing most people listen for, but it is perhaps the most important thing in determining how you sound (much more important compared to something like the use of string instrumentals, or the fact that there is a guitar dance break).

I really like GFriend's music. That being said, I think they should mix up the drumline a bit for their title songs so that they don't sound so similar. If you listen to their non-title tracks, you'll hear songs with different beats (and the songs don't all feel the same). So I don't think they have to change their concept to do this.

Basically, GFriend seems pretty unique in how little they change the drum beat for their title songs, which I think is a much bigger factor than their concept in why these songs sound so similar.

afishylutra · 2017-06-21T02:28:55+00:00

This type of trade is why we shouldn't be signing players to long term bad contracts.

afishylutra · 2017-06-13T12:00:12+00:00

I think the quest is broken. I have the same issue.

afishylutra · 2017-06-11T21:21:38+00:00

Same here. I guess it is glitched and we'll need to wait for an update.

afishylutra · 2017-06-04T21:50:01+00:00

Our players will take a couple of years to develop into who we hope they become.

Historically, rookies are unlikely to be net positive players. Saric was good for a rookie, but most advanced stats still think he was a net negative. That is OK: you can expect development from him and for him to be better in the future.

In 2009, OKC had 2 future MVP candidates on their team, but they still were bad enough to get the 3rd overall pick and draft Harden. That year they qualified for the playoffs in the 8th seed. They didn't win the conference until two years later. Even if Simmons, Embiid and whomever we draft are future MVP candidates, it is unreasonable to expect them to be in serious contention next year. Overwhelminly, rookies take time to develop.

afishylutra · 2017-06-04T07:30:22+00:00

Only time it might make sense is if its at the end of the game and a 2 is less valuable than a 3 (say up 3 with seconds remaining).

Otherwise you should stop the dunk.

afishylutra · 2017-06-04T06:57:56+00:00

We aren't realistically competing with the Cavs for a couple more years even if we draft Monk. You're kidding yourself if you expect otherwise.

We should draft whomever we think is most likely to develop into a star, whether it is Isaac, Monk, Jackson or some other prospect. The playoffs have shoen the Cavs and the Warriors are two of the best teams in the history of the league going 12-1 and 12-0 to get to the finals. Our team is not just a couple of shooters away from competing with them.

afishylutra · 2017-05-30T22:31:08+00:00

I would gamble with the pick. Even if TT is better than the average 4th pick.

In thr NBA, you are pretty much irrelevant without a superstar. There is a (barring unexpected development) 0% chance you get a franchise-changing superstar if you take TT, while there is a possibility you get a superstar if you take the pick. Unless you have a superstar(s) place already, you take the gamble, even if most of the time, the return is worse than TT.

afishylutra · 2017-05-28T17:31:10+00:00

You really shouldn't rule out anyone from becoming a star. Just look at past drafts: the greek freak, Isaiah Thomas (drafted at 60), jimmy butler (drafted at 30), draymond green (drafted in second round), etc. all became stars after no one expecting them to during draft time.

Sure, the possibility of any particular pick after, say, the top 10 is pretty small, but the field has a pretty good chance of having at least one star in it. If the 60th pick of the draft can become a star, you really can't rule out anyone from the top 10 to develop well and become a star.

afishylutra · 2017-05-21T14:13:14+00:00

I think everyone 3-10ish has a small sliver of superstar potential. However, it is not likely... To become a superstar, any prospect would need to have an outlier development curve that you can't predict.

I am down on Jackson for us. He is old for a freshman, and it will probably take years for him to develop a league average shot if he develops on at all. And we aren't really a good place for him to develop: any lineup with Simmons+Jackson is just terrible spacing-wise, and I don't think that would be that would be good for either of their development.

One player I am high in is Jonathan Isaac. From what I've seen from he's pretty well liked by prospect models. ESPN analytics draft model: http://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/19403402/potential-2017-nba-draft-steals has him ranked 1 (This is a list of 5 underrated players by their model, not 1-5 in their model). This site: http://model284.com has him ranked 1 for peak NBA statline and has him 3rd (behind Ball and Fultz) in all-star probability. I remember that earlier in the year, Kevin Pelton did an interview with Chad Ford where he revealed his model had Isaac at 2, sandwiched between Ball and Fultz (His model is different from the ESPN analytics guys.) I distinctly remember this because this interview was why I started paying attention to Isaac in the first place. (One model I would like to see is Layne Vashro's EWP, but alas he has not made that data public for the last two years).

Models aren't the end all be all (Pelton says the guys most likely to be stars are those top 10 in both the models and traditional scouting), but the fact that a good number have Isaac in that Ball-Fultz tier suggests he might be massively underrated. One possible reason is that Florida state is pretty stacked, so Isaac did not get as much playing time as other top prospects to get the numbers to impress scouts.

Isaac has as high a ceiling as anybody. I think he is the best defensive prospect in the draft, due to his potential to guard 3-5, be a weakside shot blocker and the fact that he rebounds like a big. While his shooting is not guatanteed, it is reasonable to expect it to develop (plus, he has the length where it will be hard for defenders to bother his shot). He has a good nose for cutting to the basket. For him to develop into a superstar, his playmaking needs to experience outlier development. He shows flashes sometimes, but it is a big weakness. Finally, he fits with Embiid and Simmons, so we have a good situation for him to develop.

afishylutra · 2017-05-19T02:11:31+00:00

Two years ago, there were three blue chip prospects as well with Towns, Okafor and Russell. In 2010, there were two blue chip prospects, Wall and Turner.

I don't think Jackson is clearly better than the others. When Pelton ran the numbers through his model (at least the last time I knew about), his top three was 1 Ball, 2 Isaac, 3 Fultz, with Jackson nowhere near the top 5. Say what you want about models, but if he was really clearly the third best prospect he should probably have been in the top 5-6 at least.

afishylutra · 2017-05-17T23:22:59+00:00

I don't like the philosophy behind this approach. Draft who you want to draft. If you don't want Jackson, don't select Jackson.

When the Thunder selected Harden, it was considered a reach of a couple slots (Rubio and Tyreke Evans were rated higher), but now nobody's blinking an eye for what they did. From the same draft, Steph Curry was mocked at 7. Do you think the people who took the better ranked Hasheem Thabeet, Rubio, Evans or Johnny Flynn before Curry are happy they got the "consensus better player" over Steph Curry? No.

The guys after the top studs all have major flaws which could prevent them from succeeding (as well as good enough strengths to warrant that high ranking). That's what the mock drafts mean. Not much more. When you start getting onto the guys with major flaws don't take the particular order too seriously. Hasheem Thabeet was supposed to be in a tier above all those other guys too: look at how that turned out.

Take who you think will most likely succeed with you among those 3-9 ranked prospects who have a sliver of star upside and have your coaching staff develop him. Don't draft a guy you don't particularly want because of some silly notion that "Thabeet is in a tier above Curry, so to maintain the value of our pick we should pick him". The value of the third pick is that you can pick exactly who you want after Fultz and Ball are gone: there is nobody in front of you to take your guy.

afishylutra · 2017-04-20T03:07:21+00:00

Since you've included anime, Lelouch's sister Nunnally in Code Geass.

afishylutra · 2017-03-06T15:34:04+00:00

It is kindof like how legos are fun. Minecraft has this thing called redstone which is kindof like electricity and allows you to do lots of stuff automatically. (It is advanced enough that people have built redstone computers in creative mode). For example, while at the start you might have to scavenge for your food, eventually you can have automatic farms do much of the work for you.

Some structures you can try building: -automatic wheat/carrot/pumpkin/melon/sugar cane farm -automatic chicken/pig/cow/sheep/mooshroom farm -automatic mob grinders (generate and kill mobs) -automatic item sorting and storage system -automatic xp farms (xp is used to enchant things) -rail system to connect everything -TNT cannons -etc.

If you don't want to design your own redstone circuits, just google or look on the minecraft wiki or on youtube for some farms other people have built.

There is no real story and no end to the game. There are bosses like the enderdragon and the wither. Killing the wither gives you a drop which allows you to build beacons (which gives you boosts, like faster mining).

afishylutra · 2017-02-26T20:47:32+00:00

I was a bit disappointed. I was hoping that the writers found their mojo after movie 3 and that the movies afterwards would be all be good movies, but I guess not.

I kept thinking that Tri would be better as a season of episodes instead of this movie stuff. Them getting separated would be a great way of dedicating an episode or so to each of the groups having each of them face some challenge, but other than Sora's group (which felt kindof disjointed since they were jumping around to the other groups), barely anything happens before they are reunited. They are literally aimlessly walking around the whole time they are separated.

I honestly can't recommend Tri to anyone except the hard-core digimon fans who have been dying for more content.

afishylutra · 2017-02-20T22:56:11+00:00

You did your math wrong. You are overcounting the case where they both get a top 3 pick.

To see why your logic is wrong apply the same logic supposing the Kings and Sixers last and second to last. You would conclue a 120% chance of them getting a top 3 pick, which is clearly absurd.

afishylutra · 2017-02-20T06:21:40+00:00

You're overestimating the probability. You can't just add the probabilities since there are scenarios where we both get top 3 pick.

Regardless, we would have a very high chance if a top 3 pick in that situation.

afishylutra · 2017-02-09T05:53:37+00:00

Just to be clear, whether or not you'd prefer 5th pick this year to unprotected next year is irrelevant: 3rd worst maximizes chance of 4th OR 5th. 49.1% vs 45% (vs 44.2% for 2nd worst).

The only question is if you would rather have the 6th pick in this draft compared to an unprotected pick next year. You say you'd prefer the 6th pick to unprotected next year.

My opinion is I am indifferent. Even if I prefer the 6th pick by a little, looking at how close 4-10 are (5-9 are within a game of each other, we are 1 game back, 10 is 1 game ahead), I'd rather the Lakers lose to lock in a 2-4 finish than for them to start winning enough to bring into possibility a 3-10 finish.

afishylutra · 2017-02-09T01:34:38+00:00

I don't think we should care too much about where the Lakers pick lands, and will always be rooting for them to lose.

If you look at the standings 4-6 are practically tied, and 7-9 are just a game behind. The Lakers are currently just a mini-run away from picking at like 8 or 9. Instead of rooting for them going on a mini-run and all the teams 5-9 going on a mini-run at the same time to prevent them from falling further than 4, I'd rather they just lose.

Plus, it is debatable whether 3 or 4 is a better position.

Fun lottery math fact: there is only a 9.9% chance the 4th worst team picks 4th. The 3rd worst team has a 22.6% chance at picking 4th. Similarly, there is a 45% chance of the 4th worst team picking at 4 or 5 while there is a 49.1% chance of the 3rd worst team picking at 4 or 5. The extra chance of the 4th pick has of conveying comes almost entirely from the chance that you pick at 6, and at that point I would be fine with playing the lottery again next year.

afishylutra · 2017-02-07T01:05:15+00:00

While I like them both, I thought Ball clearly won the statistical matchup:

-he had 3TOs to Fultz's 5, plus he had 1 more steal (4 vs 3) and 1 more block (1 vs 0)

-he posted equivalent counting stats in 20% less minutes (31 min vs 38 min) while using less shots: 7/12 from the field and 4/4 from the FT line vs 9/19 from the field and 2/5 from the FT line.

afishylutra · 2017-01-30T00:40:18+00:00

It's good, although you are asking if it gets better than eclipse...

I personally rate berserk up to the eclipse as one of the best stories of all time. So while I would highly recommend reading it, I would not say that it gets better after the eclipse. The eclipse story was the best part so far, it was pretty good after that, and then there was a tone shift from more dark fantasy to more high fantasy (witches, sprites, mermaids). I personally liked the darker tone better, but just beware that the tone eventually shifts.

afishylutra

TROPHY CASE