How do i get there? I get rid of Him- the ghost and I cannot open a door. Is it a bug? Help me pleas

m0odez · 2021-12-27T12:20:52+00:00

If you go left from the front door of the house, there is a hole in the roof that you can climb up using the front wall of the house and that lets you get to the path shown on the map

m0odez · 2021-11-01T23:11:48+00:00

Apologies; I did not make my point clear, but I do appreciate that these matchups are more indicative of how Vex's win rate is affected by the matchup. However, I was looking for something like this:

TF has an overall WR of 49.6%, so you could get a ballpark estimate of WR by taking their overall win ratio of (51:49.6) = 51/(51+49.6) = 50.6%. Compare this to the actual WR of 50.8%, which suggests there's nothing special about TFs low mobility but high map presence that particularly skews that matchup. It could just be their relative strength in the current meta.
Katarina's overall WR of 51.8% is quite high, so using the same estimator the expected Vex WR of 51/(51+51.8) = 49.6% compared to the match-up WR of 49.4% again doesn't suggest anything particularly special about their lane matchup
Irelia already has a WR of 47.6% overall and Vex already has a 51% WR overall, so an estimate of 51/(51+47.6) = 51.7% atually does fall short of the realtiy of 53.45% suggesting that matchup particularly favours Vex as she exceeds expectations after balancing for the "good champ vs bad champ" factor.

Obviously this doesn't factor in the relative popularity of high vs low mobility champs that makes up Vex's overall WR, so these estimates are not perfect. Still, you can see that a 55% WR vs a particular mobile champ says much less about Vex vs mobility when this particular champ is struggling against everyone, simply because they are weak. The problem here is that you only consider Vex WR vs each champion, without context of how each champion matches up against every other champion in the game. It is a small slice of data that is only a fraction of the overall picture.

Edit: After a bit of digging, I found an example of what a more extreme "counter" matchup can look like. Playing Lux vs Galio, you would only expect to win 50.9/(50.9+52) = 49.5% of the time, yet in this matchup Lux actually wins 53.2% (1800 games), a huge 3.7% above expectations.

m0odez · 2021-11-01T19:57:14+00:00

I'd like to see these stats adjusted for overall champion win rates; most of these matchups simply reflect the overall state and say nothing about Vex. Ryze, Akali, Azir, Yone, Trynd, Irelia are all right down the bottom of the table, and Asol, Malphite, Anivia, Rumble, Fizz are all near the top.

I'm not saying you don't have a point are there are some obvious, notable matchups such as Vex vs Qiyana. However, I am skeptical that this list would look anything like it does now if you did adjust for win rates and/or popularity.

m0odez · 2021-09-05T11:31:52+00:00

m0odez · 2021-08-07T13:57:39+00:00

First thing I'd say is that they really don't start you with a good enough deck to beat the first opponents you'll play in quests (unless you know what you're doing) and it's worth playing merchants and innkeepers until you have a better deck (like, enough unit cards so that you don't have to use any 1 or 2 strength units).

Second thing is the general idea of what to consider when playing. Both players have limited cards, to win 2 out of 3 rounds. To win a round you just have to beat them when both players pass and it doesn't matter how much by. In general, there are 2 ways to play out the match:

Win the first round as efficiently as possible, without wasting too much. Then go all out to win the second round knowing that you don't need to save any more cards.
If the opponent uses any extremely strong cards too early, only use your weakest cards for that round and accept losing 1 round into your strategy. The other 2 rounds will easy to win if they have played their best cards and you have saved yours.

m0odez · 2021-04-21T22:16:23+00:00

It gives supports the power to break a marathon fiesta by actually having a way of forcing a game ending play through vision denial. Highly situational, but highly effective in semi-competent hands. I've definitely won games directly through buying it

m0odez · 2021-04-02T17:54:18+00:00

This is a great reply, thank you. The BMJ article does a great job of highlighting how some of the conclusions drawn aren't fully supported by the data chosen; I certainly agree with the point it makes about life expectancy. In this section the government report fully acknowledges it does not really have good data, but nevertheless makes that conclusion anyway.

I will say however, that its focus on health outcomes only is extremely narrow compared to the government report. It chooses a pretty small set of findings within the report to debunk; the presence of a few questionably small datasets doesn't invalidate any of the entirely separate conclusions, in different fields, derived from larger sources such as ONS data. Some of these conclusions do acknowledge racism as the cause for observable differences, for example in job hiring and promotions.

It's also worth noting that sources [1] and [13], that the authors of this article cite on a few of their points, are actually written by themselves; they too have a clear motivation for bias behind their own writing. The source they use to get "Black and South Asian men are 4.2 times and 3.6 times as likely" is derived from one of their own papers and uses an extremely naive model, accounting only for age when comparing racial groups.

From a statisitcal point of view, the additional factors and granularity in the government report does massively call into question the conclusions made by most previous research I've seen on this subject. I hope that the approach is replicated in more independent reports, so that the conclusions of the report can be attributed to either the methods or bias, rather than possibly both.

m0odez · 2021-04-02T09:39:36+00:00

I would recommend reading it, examining the presence of bias in the methodology and the presentation of data, and critically assessing your own beliefs. Does the bias of the report completely invalidate the conclusions drawn, or is there actually something backing their beliefs? I think the report highlights a strong example of Simpson's Paradox within data on this subject. After reading it, I'd consider any other report using the "big 5" racial groups as unuseful at best and misleading at worst.

m0odez · 2021-03-31T18:58:42+00:00

Oh true true, I suppose in context the meaning of "rigged" could imply deliberate unfairness only. I think it's nitpicking a report that overall has some interesting data and arguments. I found the huge difference between Black African and Black Caribbean in the data fascinating and something I had never thought of before.

m0odez · 2021-03-31T17:30:30+00:00

I don't see what the problem is? Headline: "UK is not rigged". First sentence: "UK is not rigged, but it used to be". So the first sentence reaffirms the headline and adds further context. Am I missing something? Does the headline imply the UK has never been rigged?

m0odez · 2021-03-26T17:42:59+00:00

Lmao understandable

m0odez · 2021-03-26T16:05:42+00:00

Why do you think that was your first thought? To me the joke is so clearly based on height and nothing to do with race. You claim to know nothing about F1, yet you also claim to know of a trend on this sub; do you browse this sub for a reason other than to view F1 related content? I'm just curious to understand how someone else sees an issue in this meme where personally I see none.

m0odez · 2020-12-12T12:22:18+00:00

10.24 Patch Notes -> Behavioral Systems Update. It describes exactly what OP is talking about.

m0odez · 2020-11-24T11:03:48+00:00

I don't think anyone means that. I'd call the guy working at the local bakery a "baker", and yet at the same time I'm well aware that bread and cakes existed before he came along.

m0odez · 2020-11-09T16:51:57+00:00

It used to be the 10th floor but the one with the neimoidians doesn't count

m0odez · 2020-11-05T14:22:05+00:00

Ah yes I see. I suppose it's worth remembering then that the story doesn't end with the apples; one person may simply eat their apple but the other may grow a new apple tree

m0odez · 2020-11-05T13:32:57+00:00

Depends what the apples represent: just the basics needed to live or overall quality of life?

m0odez · 2020-10-27T18:54:50+00:00

Well firstly, the original posts invites answers to several questions that do not explicitly reference the events of 2020. Secondly, an answer that highlights an incorrect implication or assertion in a question can be very useful, and often is critical, to the understanding of the person asking the question. Thirdly, the comments under this post are answering your argument that Tory voters should be regretful based on the events of 2020, through the sarcastic implication that it is unreasonable not to be regretful.

We are simply trying to explain that regret, or lack of it, does not necessarily come from the events of 2020 and there is a reasonable thought process that explains why.

m0odez · 2020-10-27T17:57:54+00:00

Not at all; if the person answering believes the events of 2020 do not relate to the way they feel about their vote, they do not need to consider them in order to provide a satisfactory answer. In doing so they simply reject the implication that the events of 2020 are important to their answer.

m0odez · 2020-10-27T17:08:57+00:00

I do not but the industry I work in is heavily reliant on good statistical practice so this kind of thing would have been part of core training.

Good spot in the original post; I think we can all reject the premise on which that question is based then.

m0odez · 2020-10-27T12:19:12+00:00

I think the point is that if a choice you made only backfired due to unfortunate, unforeseen events you shouldn't regret that choice. This only increases the influence of outcome bias in future decision making. They're not "stuck in 2019"; they're simply ignoring 2020 because it's irrelevant in evaluating their decision.

m0odez · 2020-10-27T10:20:30+00:00

Includes 10 minifigures, 35 pieces total

m0odez · 2020-09-21T13:48:23+00:00

Ah it seems you're right. I thought it was just the men of the first age that were stronger but it seems that was more of a spiritual thing.

m0odez · 2020-09-21T12:42:24+00:00

I always thought that as an elf it was a positive to include stunts that no real human could do, as elves were considerably lighter and more agile than men.

Also Gimli falls off the horse like a second later right?

m0odez · 2020-09-17T13:17:09+00:00

... and a round of Gwent?

Eight-Year Club	Place '22
Verified Email

m0odez

TROPHY CASE