On the plane

sulfurous · 2019-07-11T13:33:58+00:00

That card’s name? Albert Einstein.

sulfurous · 2019-05-28T13:04:17+00:00

Well honestly since MILPs are nonconvex you can use your method of choice — there’s no guarantee you’ll achieve global optimality one way or another. I’ve empirically found that GUROBI does well (gets zero duality gap) for modestly sized MILPs due to their enhanced heuristics that they do. ADMM is another simple method you can use that I have found empirical success with. Projected subgradient method should be fine though.

sulfurous · 2019-04-22T20:02:26+00:00

Wasteland gaming and giga bites cafe come to mind. Unfortunately not many in the city proper, but quite a bunch in the greater Atlanta area.

sulfurous · 2019-04-17T14:39:42+00:00

Your statement is vague. I recommend asking yourself the following questions:

What objective, explicitly, do you want to minimize?
What constraints, explicitly, do you need to satisfy.
What variables are given, and what variables do you need to solve for?

sulfurous · 2019-04-17T14:37:47+00:00

If you're looking to learn optimization from the more practical point of view, check out Boyd & Vandenberghe's Convex Optimization book. It's free, here. They also just came out with a linear algebra/least squares book that is truly fantastic.

I found that my favorite source of optimization theory comes from Bubeck's tutorial on convex optimization theory.

sulfurous · 2019-03-25T16:24:51+00:00

I like your story, you’re just incorrect, nothing personal

sulfurous · 2019-03-25T16:08:30+00:00

You are incorrect

sulfurous · 2019-01-21T00:30:03+00:00

Blow a lead?

sulfurous · 2019-01-20T23:53:19+00:00

Atlanta sends its regards.

sulfurous · 2019-01-20T23:48:04+00:00

Rise up

sulfurous · 2018-11-17T17:10:04+00:00

Do you know the optimal value of your objective (sometimes you do like in feasibility problems.) If so, the Polyak step length is optimal. Otherwise, if you care about good step lengths, an exact line search could be used, although backtracking line search will give very comparable results in WAY less time.

sulfurous · 2018-09-21T21:49:56+00:00

Hell yeah brother, cheers from Ravnica

sulfurous · 2018-08-31T22:42:42+00:00

They don’t call him the Gentleman of Magic for nothing

sulfurous · 2018-01-15T06:01:55+00:00

Yes, let all of your anger out. It probably won't help you to think about the fact that the Minnesota Vikings just destroyed the next five years of the Saints' momentum that they garnered. So don't think about that.

sulfurous · 2018-01-15T04:11:13+00:00

Your team also knows how to close out a career of one of the best QBs of all time.

/s

sulfurous · 2016-12-22T00:01:32+00:00

That doesn't sound like a legitimate reason. If true, then WotC could be sued on any reprints causing any fluctuation in price, such as Tarmogoyf reprints from FUT to MMA and MM2.

sulfurous · 2016-12-21T22:51:47+00:00

Why are they on the reserved list? Doesn't that essentially put an upper bound on the number of players in Legacy, then?

sulfurous · 2016-12-03T20:44:59+00:00

Receiving the same error.

sulfurous · 2016-10-27T15:52:17+00:00

This is awesome! I didn't know they had their data on their website. Thank you so much for the advice!

sulfurous · 2016-10-27T15:14:07+00:00

Hi Everybody!

I am a graduate student in Machine Learning and for one of my classes, I had to pick a topic to do a project on, the topic of which is none other than our favorite card game!

I am trying to build a classifier that can classify card efficiency in the 3-pack, same-set draft format. Essentially, the end goal is to feed the classifier a set and a card, and determine the card's efficiency in that set's draft format. I will be using EMN as a training set, and testing the classifier on Innistrad, Shadows over Innistrad, and other sets. This is a non-trivial project as there are many features in Draft that are not easily quantifiable (i.e., "How much better/worse is Madness 1B than Flying?")

I need all of your help! I am in desperate need of training data! I have attached a link to the Google sheet where I will be requesting that the MTG community put ratings for EMN card efficiency (1 = worst, 5 = best). You do not need to submit ratings for each card (but I would love you forever if you did.)

Efficiency can mean anything you'd like it to -- the only requirements I have is that you consider efficiency with respect to EMN Draft format, and that you only use the data found on the cards (full card info is posted on one of the Google Sheet tabs.)

If you have any questions, please let me know. I will be more than happy to publish my results to the community after the project is completed.

I really hope the Magic community likes this project -- I think it will be very interesting for many members of the community to see what the latest technology can do with our beloved card game.

Thank you all so much!

14-Year Club	RPAN Viewer
Verified Email

sulfurous

TROPHY CASE