To answer the question about the 3-sided die: the question is flawed for 2 reasons.
First, the way you phrased it, you know the information a priori. It's like me learning that the car isn't behind door #1 before I choose. In that case, I have a 50/50 chance on the other doors.
But what if you didn't tell me before? This introduces our second problem. Let's say I roll the die and you hide it under a cup. I tell you I chose side A and you tell me A is physically impossible and ask me if I want to switch. Well of course I want to switch ... but I didn't learn any more information about sides B and C. It's a 50/50 toss-up. In terms of the game show, you basically just opened the constant's door.
A critical element of the original problem is when the information is learned and knowing that the contestant's door will not be opened. It is what allows the phrasing from zaksoup above.
And episode 8, "Sisters of the Sun"[1], covered Pickering and his "colleagues", several women nicknamed computers, namely Annie Jump Cannon, and Cecilia Payne.
"Mr. Moy’s past work, however, that makes his presence among us interesting."
I don't know why. He was Director of the US Mint: he printed coins. It's a manufacturing business. It has nothing to do with monetary policy, fiscal policy or law as far as I know.
If the Secretary of the Treasury said something ... well, then we'd have a story.
Yet he's no manufacturing guru... "[...] graduated with a triple major in economics, international relations and political science." Aside from helping start the DHS, wiki says he's chief strategist for... Morgan Gold, a company which I can't find out much about except their "F" rating with the Better Business Bureau.
My sister just released a game early access on Steam[1] called "The Counting Kingdom"[2]. It targets the U.S. core math curriculum for 6-8 year olds.
The idea is that by embedding mathematics into the core mechanics of the gameplay – instead of having it simply be a hurdle players have to get by before they get to further gaming (e.g. a popup quiz) – will allow players to consistently reinforce, grow, and retain their learning without necessarily consciously thinking about learning. It's learning through play.
I think the notion has legs, but I think it will really take a strong effort between game developers and educators alike.
Hi choffstein, I'm also one of the Mathbreakers founders.
Counting Kingdom looks awesome -- thanks for sharing! We definitely share the same philosophy about learning through games. Popup worksheets != gameplay!
We'd love to chat and nerd out with you and your sister. How do we reach you?
I passed the "The Counting Kingdom" and "Mathbreakers" links on to a friend for her children (aged 7 and 9). Not only were they enthusiastic about what they saw, but they decided then and there to create their own "monster maths game" for show and tell. There is no better way to learn than to teach, and if this new breed of educational games not only motivates children to exercise skills, but also engages their creativity to create their own learning tools, that would be an astounding success.
I suppose if your estimator is biased and not consistent -- due to some sort of omitted variable -- you can end up with "significant" estimates that are completely removed from reality. Great explanation at http://eranraviv.com/blog/bias-vs-consistency/.
Is it possible to set this up so that you can point it to a remote URL to fetch the CSV? For example, I'd love it if I could point it towards a Yahoo! Finance API call that returns a CSV file and have my dashboard auto-update. Or Dropbox URL. Or any remote URL. That would be awesome.
That exact use case is not currently possible, but it's something we've talked a bit about. We're still considering doing something like it in the future.
"When designs are cheaper than builds, e.g. a skyscraper or a bridge, big up front design makes good sense. But when builds are cheaper than designs, e.g. software or oil painting, short and iterative design and build steps are best."
I couldn't agree with that more.
I work in an industry where builds are not cheap and iteration after launch is nearly impossible. You better believe we have a very, very long design cycle.
This is why I like coming here. I'd never thought of the tradeoff in that way before reading that quote, yet it makes perfect sense.
(I'm not arguing with your point at all, but of course there's software... and then there's software. Building might be cheap for both, but cost of deployment could be entirely different. Spacecraft control, microcode in an appliance, even certain classes of enterprise software all benefit from big up-front design because it's so expensive to patch later.)
I would go further and argue that software is design.
I don't know that much about real-world engineering, but I imagine you can plan out a car, or a bridge, or a skyscraper, almost perfectly before you build it.
Wheras the only perfect design for a piece of software is the software itself. If you wrote pseudocode that was unambigious and covered every detail, it would simply be code.
You might want to check out the "AI Game Programming Wisdom" series. I think at this point, there are four of them. "Game Programming Gems" is another series worth checking out (I think there are 8 at this point); each book normally has a section on game AI.
The books are a series of articles written by industry practitioners solving a problem they have run across. Normally the articles contain inline code, and the books come with a CD with executable examples and code to accompany the articles.
Absolutely true, but consider what log utility also creates a decision rule that leads to growth-rate optimization under multiplicative bets.
You may find these notes from Ole Peters interesting https://ergodicityeconomics.files.wordpress.com/2017/03/ergo...