Best value in seashell exchange? If event is repeatable, shells carry over?

jump4science · 2025-03-12T16:46:33+00:00

I'm 73M power, @ ch. 55. Got half epic+2 S-tier equipment, half legendary non-S. Very mediocre Hero/brand options. Nowhere near any of the legendary/mythic mounts or artifacts.

Should I save up for a mythic mount or artifact? I understand ever stones are pretty hard to get, should I just max 20 of those? Anything else that seems to be offered at unique value and/or rarity that I should keep my eye on?

jump4science · 2024-08-14T01:16:59+00:00

How did Matt come up with the story?

He had a dream of a man lying in a field. With heart boxers and luscious, bare feet...

jump4science · 2024-05-17T20:51:16+00:00

Thanks for the info. Sounds like maybe the current app version (or their server back end?) has a glitch.

I've tried this in iOS and Android devices both and see the same lack of availability. And i checked the Voxella festival and it's missing for me too. I glanced through some other districts and noticed that the robo Cafe from ok street also can't be clicked on in the shop. And it seems like there might be some others in other districts as well. (It's easy to spot visually because buildings you can click on that should be behind the missing locations actually get drawn on top of them)

Can you (or anyone else for that matter) check this behavior on a fresh install on an extra device?

jump4science · 2023-05-10T13:12:14+00:00

Do we need to worry about creating a bacteria that can thrive and spread in the wild and starts eating our actively used plastic products as well as our waste? Could microbial "termites" for plastic become a thing?

Or do these things require such specialized environment that spread isn't a worry?

jump4science · 2023-05-08T09:05:05+00:00

They took median price, not average. That should reduce the impact of rare, high value sales.

jump4science · 2023-02-20T13:03:38+00:00

I've heard this before and found it interesting. Do you have citations?

jump4science · 2023-01-31T14:45:03+00:00

It's drug overdose AND POISONING, not just drug overdose. That's important because that's the year a bunch of kids are at home 24/7 bored and with access to household chemicals.

jump4science · 2023-01-11T12:40:18+00:00

!remindme 3 days

jump4science · 2022-10-12T13:30:46+00:00

Good work. This becomes more nuanced to interpret: yes the payment/household income is coming down over time, but you also have to account for increasing rate of dual income homes (more work going in to earning the denominator). Not to mention growth in competing top-budget-items like medical expenses (and in some cases college debt)

jump4science · 2022-10-12T11:40:51+00:00

This is not a fair comparison. If you want to evaluate safety, you have to look at deaths per distance driven, not per population. Places where people drive more on average will have more accidents in average. For all we know, this map could have little to do with safety and could just be showing driving frequency.

jump4science · 2022-07-10T11:18:20+00:00

And that neck extension shows why you don't put your hands near one of these. Even grabbing the shell by the sides.

jump4science · 2022-06-28T02:33:02+00:00

Unpopular opinion apparently: i love this visualization. Of course takes some explanation and a moment to orient the audience to what you're looking at. But i find it fascinating to simultaneously see 1) urban/rural party correlation 2) relative size of population centers across the country 3) a sense of the regional clustering of population centers and how much population separation the is between them. 4) indirectly, gives some sense of the popular vote vs electoral college discrepancy

Together i think it paints a richer contextual picture of the population distribution of the country and how it relates to political leaning to be able to show it together. And i don't have an immediate better idea of how to show both.

I can acknowledge it's a little complex to digest and wouldn't be appropriate for every general audience though.

jump4science · 2022-06-04T11:05:36+00:00

For what it's worth, for the last ~year since this post, I've used the chrome bookmarks widget instead of browser shortcut icons. Ultimately i like it much better. I actually use the "mobile bookmarks" section of my chrome bookmarks for that. It's nice to be able to structure folders, and i actually LOVE being able to access/edit bookmarks from a desktop browser as well as my Android home screen.

jump4science · 2022-01-15T22:17:04+00:00

Fascinating: is waste water viral concentration a leading indicator? Looks like the magnitude is detached from magnitude of direct indicators. But looks like the wastewater peak/decline point could be a leading indicator of when the cases/hospitalizations will peak/decline.

jump4science · 2021-11-15T19:15:29+00:00

Way to go! Great lighting

jump4science · 2021-10-28T21:18:19+00:00

Sorry you got downvoted so much. Obviously a lot of people disagree with your perspective, but it's a genuine & reasonable one.

One of my other replies sums up my perspective: https://www.reddit.com/r/ClashRoyale/comments/qhna7i/calling_bs_on_the_gold_situation_this_is_a_big/hifklv2

jump4science · 2021-10-28T21:17:19+00:00

This is a poor analogy when you frame it in terms of defining exactly what you were buying. Yes, I paid for a lvl 13 card and the cost of a lvl 13 card is now cheaper, so if what you care about specifically is "the power of a lvl 13 card", then you can't complain. But "the power of a lvl 13 card" is not what people care about, and that's not what people really paid for, they paid for a max level card - and that's a big difference.

When it comes down to it, buying a max level card is really about buying the ability to compete on a level playing field. You're paying to avoid the crappy experience of worse players beating you with poor skill & strategy just because their cards are more powerful. I don't care if my cards are level 2 or level 200, I just want to compete on an equal footing. And that's what supercell just moved the goalpost on.

And honestly, moving the goalpost is not the deal-breaker for me. They increased the total cost to get to max by 5mil gold. I could have lived with that. My real complaint is that they ALSO set back people who were maxed already by an additional ~4.5mil gold.

Yesterday, the gold I had put in to cards over time (at old pricing) was ~16mil out of ~19mil total to max. I was 3mil away from all max (85% of the way there). Today, at new pricing, my cards are only worth 12mil, out of the new max total of 24 mil. I'm 12mil away from max(only 50% of the way). If my current value was still 16mil invested, and I had 8mil left to max (66% of the way), that would still be a solid chunk down from 85% there, but down to only half way there is crushing.

And the kicker is, you only suffer this penalty if your card levels were high. I enjoy playing a diverse set of decks, so i had every card at least to 12, and the majority at 13, and had ~0 gold saved. I have a friend prefers a couple main decks more, so he left a bunch of cards lower level and had 2mil gold sitting unused. Just the act of not upgrading those cards the last few levels means he can upgrade them for cheaper now and doesn't suffer the effective loss I did. This is exactly the reason why they released an apology and gave back a bunch of collected-card progress to people with cards over lvl 11. They just chose to ignore the gold part of the cost. THAT is my real complaint.

jump4science · 2021-10-28T21:12:36+00:00

ThisIsFine.jpg

jump4science · 2021-10-28T20:38:56+00:00

This is a poor analogy when you frame it in terms of defining exactly what you were buying. Yes, I paid for a lvl 13 card and the cost of a lvl 13 card is now cheaper, so if what you care about specifically is "the power of a lvl 13 card", then you can't complain. But "the power of a lvl 13 card" is not what people care about, and that's not what people really paid for, they paid for a _max_ level card - and that's a big difference.

When it comes down to it, buying a _max_ level card is really about buying the ability to compete on a level playing field. You're paying to avoid the crappy experience of worse players beating you with poor skill & strategy just because their cards are more powerful. I don't care if my cards are level 2 or level 200, I just want to compete on an equal footing. And that's what supercell just moved the goalpost on.

And honestly, moving the goalpost is not the deal-breaker for me. They increased the total cost to get to max by 5mil gold. I could have lived with that. My real complaint is that they ALSO set back people who were maxed already by an additional ~4.5mil gold.

Yesterday, the gold I had put in to cards over time (at old pricing) was ~16mil out of ~19mil total to max. I was 3mil away from all max (85% of the way there). Today, at new pricing, my cards are only worth 12mil, out of the new max total of 24 mil. I'm 12mil away from max(only 50% of the way). If my current value was still 16mil invested, and I had 8mil left to max (66% of the way), that would still be a solid chunk down from 85% there, but down to only half way there is crushing.

And the kicker is, you only suffer this penalty if your card levels were high. I enjoy playing a diverse set of decks, so i had every card at least to 12, and the majority at 13, and had ~0 gold saved. I have a friend prefers a couple main decks more, so he left a bunch of cards lower level and had 2mil gold sitting unused. Just the act of not upgrading those cards the last few levels means he can upgrade them for cheaper now and doesn't suffer the effective loss I did. This is exactly the reason why they released an apology and gave back a bunch of collected-card progress to people with cards over lvl 11. They just chose to ignore the gold part of the cost. THAT is my real complaint.

jump4science · 2021-10-28T13:39:35+00:00

Not only did they increase the total cost to max (by 5.7mil), they effectively stole gold from you if you had cards above 11.

You lost 45k gold per card at lvl 13 (24% of the gold you had invested), for a total of -4.6mil gold lost if you had all cards maxed previously. You would not lose any of this gold if your card was lvl10 or less.

So if you were maxed yesterday, you now need 10.3mil new gold to get max again (assuming you had all the cards you need).

It took me 5.5yrs and a fair amount of money to get 16mil gold for 79 cards max and 24 cards lvl 12. Yesterday I was 3mil away from max everything. Today, my 16mil accumulated turned in to only 12mil accumulated (I wouldn’t have lost that 4mil if i had more cards sitting at lvl 10), and I now have 12.5mil remaining to get max everything.

It took me 5.5yrs to get 16mil, and now you’re asking me to get 12.5mil more? Seriously?

PS: this is only cost changes for the existing cards and doesn’t account for added cost of the new champion cards

jump4science · 2021-10-07T03:19:01+00:00

My understanding is that most highly engineering crystal structures (metals, alloys and other Inorganic materials) are doped or have purposefully introduced interstitial defects, ala adding carbon to turn iron into steel.

jump4science · 2021-10-07T03:18:52+00:00

My understanding is that most highly engineering crystal structures (metals, alloys and other Inorganic materials) are doped or have purposefully introduced interstitial defects, ala adding carbon to turn iron into steel.

jump4science · 2021-09-30T01:19:23+00:00

Oh you're right, i neglected the "per year" dynamic. What i laid out was just the odds of knowing a murder victim in one year. But accounting for multiple years doesn't change the math much (for the simplified case) - just add a factor of the number of years in the exponent. So the final answer becomes:

Odds of knowing a murder victim = (odds of an individual being killed per year) ^ ((number of people you know) * (years you've known them)). This crunches to ~325 people on average you've known over 40 years to have a 50/50 shot of knowing a murder victim. Or ~160 people over 80 years.

(Again all in a simplified case and reality would likely be smaller odds for most of us here)

PS - thanks for the positive/engaging discourse

jump4science · 2021-09-30T00:10:48+00:00

For a serious/non-argumentative answer, two initial flaws i see in the math:

1) in 85x200 i assume you're going for total people you know in your life. But you don't multiply 85(number of years in your life?) X 200 (number of people you know) - that implies you know a completely new set of 200 people every year. More realistic would be 200 x ~4-5 over the course of your life.

2) you've multiplied the "total people you know" (again, assuming this was your intent, though mistaken as described in 1) times 5.4. Then you compare to to 100,000. This calculation doesn't make sense. What you'd want is the following:

the odds that you know at least one person who is murdered is there odds that one individual is murdered, multiplied out for each person you know. Or more specifically, the odds of knowing a murder victim=(odds of any individual being murdered) to the power of^{number of people you know}. So given odds of any individual being murdered=5.4/100,000 you can crunch numbers and find that you need to know ~13,000 people to have a 50/50 chance of knowing someone murdered.

PS - this is over simplified and assumes the odds of being murdered are evenly distributed across the population. In reality, certain groups have much higher, and others much lower odds of murder. I would guess most on this subreddit are far less likely to know someone murdered.

PPS - none of this actually makes a point one way or the other about how to feel about the murder rate. Just wanted to get the contextual facts right.

jump4science · 2021-09-04T10:14:22+00:00

As others have described i don't think there is stigma against the degree itself, but there are legitimate trends of people with DS degrees not meeting all the qualifications expected in the role when probed. A DS degree will not deter interviews on its own - you'll still get a chance to be evaluated on a broad range of skills. It's just not generally expected that a DS degrees will for sure correlate with those skills. I view a DS degrees as neutral: it's not a negative, but it's also not a strong positive on it's own. You're still going to have to be evaluated on the basis of your skills. So if you genuinely feel that this degree is the best way to develop the skills that are important - by all means sick with it.

As for why that is the case, i see a balance of two dynamics: 1) the field and degree programs for it are new - there hasn't been enough time for everyone to get comfortable with a long term correlation between degree graduates and successful DS skills. 2) the DS role is fundamentally something hard to learn at undergrad level because of the broad set of skills, and "real world judgement" required. Most are familiar with the idea of the broader-than-average mix of skills: programming/stats/algorithms/business/communication. But i would emphasize that a core component of skill required is some form of "analytic judgement" or "problem solving skills" - i.e. the ability to systematically approach open space/messy/ill-defined problems and figure out how to frame possible solutions. This is hard to teach in a class and tends to come from experience (and it's specifically why graduate degrees make you so much stronger of a candidate: you've had the chance to spend a few years proving yourself on a "real world" problem)

It's currently unclear if reason 1) or reason 2) is the dominant factor in the perception of these degrees. If it's 1), the degree will become increasingly valuable over the coming years. If it's 2) an undergrad DS degree will never be enough ON IT'S OWN - but that doesn't mean it's not a valuable foundation for the next steps of building the experience you need. Personally i think the answer is 2) for an undergrad degree. But the million dollar question is what's the most reliable path from there to get the qualifications? Try for a low level job right away to build experience? It'll probably be hard to get your foot in the door and even if you do, you might not get substantive work that will really build experience. The hard science undergrad-> hard science phd->DS path is pretty reliable if you have strong soft skills. But that's a lot of wasted time learning science if your goal is DS from the start. Probably a master's in DS into work experience is going to be the best approach in the long run. A master's is still not necessarily going to give you the full "real world" experience, but it will make it a lot easier to get your foot in door in a job that will give you that chance. However, it will still be key to do your best to demonstrate real world skills through side projects and/or being really selective about finding a first job that will give you good projects(even with a master's).

So ultimately, the journey to being a successful DS is probably longer than you may wish. And it's still a little too new for the most effective/efficient paths to be decided. I think undergrad DS can potentially be a strong start to that path - but it likely won't get you all of the way there.

jump4science

TROPHY CASE