In which Kaylee decides to sit in a trash can:
Thursday, July 21, 2011
This week in In Which Kaylee Decides
I doubt this will become a weekly thing. But I do hope so. We can at least pretend that it is a weekly thing. Without further ado, here's this week's In Which Kaylee Decides:
In which Kaylee decides to sit in a trash can:
In which Kaylee decides to sit in a trash can:
Saturday, July 16, 2011
Rolling Dice
Everyone loves to roll dice. It's in our very nature (well, at least my very nature). However, sometimes rolling dice is not the best tactical decision.
I was over at Miniwargaming's website watching the Tyranids and Salamanders slaughter each other in an epic 3000 point Apocalypse mission (Eldrad was there to make sure that the terminators were all rolling ones for their armor saves). Coming down to turn 7, each player held three objectives. The entire board, once filled with swarms of gargoyles and termagaunts, had been whittled down to one unit per objective. However, in one corner of the board, the Tryanids were launching an assault. It looked like this:
After careful consideration, the Salamander player decided to disembark his marines, move them forward to block the movement, and rapid fire into the gargoyles. He was reminded that both the warrior and the gargoyles were winged, so any left over could fly over his marines in order to get to the objective. It should also be noted that since this was Apocalypse, all vehicles are scoring, so he still was holding the objective.
This allowed the last Tyranid Warrior to fly next to the rhino, assault it, and contest the objective within only a couple of millimeters to spare. On a side note, let this be a lesson to all you Space Marine players; rhinos are just under three inches wide. Don't let this happen to you!
This was a bad tactical decision on the part of the Space Marine player. Because the Warrior was hiding behind cover, there was no way that he could have removed both threats in the same turn, especially while he had to stay close to the objective. As much as I despise Space Marines, they do do one thing exceptionally well; they're very hard to kill. And you need to take advantage of that. He should have realized early on that there was no way that he could remove the threat. However, there are other things that you can do in order to solidify your position without rolling dice.
Here are some rules to keep in mind:
1. Enemy units, unless assaulting, must remain 1" away from your units.
2. Jump infantry, while they can move over units during the movement phase, follow all movement rules for infantry during assault. They cannot move through enemy units and can only move through gaps wider than their bases.
3. To initiate an assault, the closest two models are moved together first.
Keeping that in mind, you have several objectives you need to accomplish during your main phase. First, you have to make sure that the pesky flying type units cannot land behind you to contest the objective. In essence, this means that you have to force units out of the 3" capture zone around the objective by spreading out your marines. Second, you have to make sure that no models can move through your lines in order to come into base to base contact with models in the back. This makes it so they can't contest just with an assault move. Third, you have to make sure that your models are staying close enough to the objective to hold it at the end of the turn. This is my solution.
With this setup, if the marines are assaulted, then their pile-in move leaves the second row of marines to be just holding the objective. The rhino is in a much better position because it's forcing any other units from that side at least 5 inches from the objective. I've also placed some marines behind the rhino in order to try to block a consolidation move if the rhino is destroyed.
As I've mentioned, this takes out a lot of the probability and randomness of the game. Which is great if you want to win. The first person's strategy depended on being able to kill all of the gargoyles, which had a decent probability of succeeding. Nevertheless, if there is a way to win the game without rolling any dice, you should take it.
As an added bonus, 7 of the marines were in rapid fire range of the gargoyles in my deployment. Which is still a decent number of dead gargoyles.
I was over at Miniwargaming's website watching the Tyranids and Salamanders slaughter each other in an epic 3000 point Apocalypse mission (Eldrad was there to make sure that the terminators were all rolling ones for their armor saves). Coming down to turn 7, each player held three objectives. The entire board, once filled with swarms of gargoyles and termagaunts, had been whittled down to one unit per objective. However, in one corner of the board, the Tryanids were launching an assault. It looked like this:
 |
| That rhino is full of marines bee tee dubs. |
After careful consideration, the Salamander player decided to disembark his marines, move them forward to block the movement, and rapid fire into the gargoyles. He was reminded that both the warrior and the gargoyles were winged, so any left over could fly over his marines in order to get to the objective. It should also be noted that since this was Apocalypse, all vehicles are scoring, so he still was holding the objective.
 |
| Fracking |
 |
| Objective contested! All ur biomass r belong to nids! |
This was a bad tactical decision on the part of the Space Marine player. Because the Warrior was hiding behind cover, there was no way that he could have removed both threats in the same turn, especially while he had to stay close to the objective. As much as I despise Space Marines, they do do one thing exceptionally well; they're very hard to kill. And you need to take advantage of that. He should have realized early on that there was no way that he could remove the threat. However, there are other things that you can do in order to solidify your position without rolling dice.
Here are some rules to keep in mind:
1. Enemy units, unless assaulting, must remain 1" away from your units.
2. Jump infantry, while they can move over units during the movement phase, follow all movement rules for infantry during assault. They cannot move through enemy units and can only move through gaps wider than their bases.
3. To initiate an assault, the closest two models are moved together first.
Keeping that in mind, you have several objectives you need to accomplish during your main phase. First, you have to make sure that the pesky flying type units cannot land behind you to contest the objective. In essence, this means that you have to force units out of the 3" capture zone around the objective by spreading out your marines. Second, you have to make sure that no models can move through your lines in order to come into base to base contact with models in the back. This makes it so they can't contest just with an assault move. Third, you have to make sure that your models are staying close enough to the objective to hold it at the end of the turn. This is my solution.
 |
| If you squint, it looks like a turtle! |
With this setup, if the marines are assaulted, then their pile-in move leaves the second row of marines to be just holding the objective. The rhino is in a much better position because it's forcing any other units from that side at least 5 inches from the objective. I've also placed some marines behind the rhino in order to try to block a consolidation move if the rhino is destroyed.
As I've mentioned, this takes out a lot of the probability and randomness of the game. Which is great if you want to win. The first person's strategy depended on being able to kill all of the gargoyles, which had a decent probability of succeeding. Nevertheless, if there is a way to win the game without rolling any dice, you should take it.
As an added bonus, 7 of the marines were in rapid fire range of the gargoyles in my deployment. Which is still a decent number of dead gargoyles.
Friday, July 15, 2011
Patrick Rothfuss
I hope you read his blog. In fact, I hope you read his books. If not, you should. Anyways, in his latest post he says:
Theorem: Z=Ambrose. ■
Proof: Duh. ■
They e-mail me with their theories and their hopes. They want X to hook up with Y. They want Z to get his comeuppance. They want such and such story tied up in a certain way….As a mathematician, it irks me to see variables unsolved for. So I'll solve for Z, just for fun. I'll leave X and Y for now because it's the summer. And I'm lazy. See: unsolved Price is Right problem.
Theorem: Z=Ambrose. ■
Proof: Duh. ■
Sunday, June 12, 2011
Nothing Good Happens After 2 a.m.
It is further into the wee hours of the morn than I might care to say. And in general, though I occansionally write in a sleep deprived stupor, I am hesitant to share what I've written, or even to read it myself, after a good night's sleep. I will say that this one is not my fault. Damn you Patrick Rothfuss.
Since I've been home, I realize that I've been passively longing for the...perks....of living here. I sat down nearly twenty two hours ago to finish reading Rothfuss' "new" tome, The Wise Man's Fear. It is a hefty behemoth of a novel nearly a thousand pages long and written in pure gold. Regardless, this is not the point of my thoughts...merely the vessel. This afternoon (well, yesterday afternoon if you are to believe the clocks) I witnessed several truly remarkable events which I had always taken for granted while living at home. It's common knowledge to our family that a red-tailed hawk prefers a certain electric wire as a perch; this happens to be a scarce twenty feet from my window. While the hawk was absent from the perch, her voice was not. It was a delight to sit in my room, listening to the screech of the hawk (and while screech is commonly used to describe the noise a hawk makes, I hesitate to use it as it denies the hawk a true description of her voice....I shall have to think on this more when I have more wits about me).
Around midnight, the coyotes started barking and howling.
The most uncommon event of all happened around 3:20. In all my family's years of living at the house (which isn't too many, I suppose...but it is worth noting that I am the unique member to have witnessed this piece), only one similar sighting has happened. I was taking out the garbage one night, probably about nine years ago. The sun had set, leaving only a dim glow behind the mountains and a colorless world on the front range. I looked up from my menial task and there, sitting atop an evergreen as a star on a Christmas tree, formed the unmistakable silhouette of a great horned owl. This morning gave me a second "sighting," when outside my window I heard the soft, piercing hoots of an owl. Whether or not this was the same owl (or even the same species) I haven't the foggiest idea. But I'm a romantic at heart, and it's good to know that my owl has stuck around.
In addition to delving myself deep in the Rothfuss' text and keeping an ear pressed to the window, I also kept an eye on my cat through all of this. She gets frighted by engines. By garage doors. By my dad tromping up the stairs. Yet even though I know that at least some of these sounds must be unfamiliar to her, she barely heeded any of the signs I heard. I knew that in a fight, she could not come out unscathed versus a hawk or an owl. I shudder to think of what would happen if she stumbled into the pack of coyotes. Yet she ignored the hawk, played through the coyotes, and slept through the owl. In fact, the only animals that held her attention all day were several moths at the window screen (which she tried to swat, even through the barrier) and a rather noisy bee, also at the window screen. However, I noticed that she kept her distance. Rather than sitting on the windowsill to watch the bee as she did with the moths, she sat on the chair next to the window to watch. And she didn't swat. Given that she was adopted about 6 months into her life and spent the next 11 months as an indoor cat, I would think that she would have no experience with bees. I wonder if this is instinctual behavior or learned behavior....
Goddammit. I've turned into a biologist. And animal behavior seems to be my newfound passion. Ted Mosby was right....Nothing good happens after 2 a.m.
Since I've been home, I realize that I've been passively longing for the...perks....of living here. I sat down nearly twenty two hours ago to finish reading Rothfuss' "new" tome, The Wise Man's Fear. It is a hefty behemoth of a novel nearly a thousand pages long and written in pure gold. Regardless, this is not the point of my thoughts...merely the vessel. This afternoon (well, yesterday afternoon if you are to believe the clocks) I witnessed several truly remarkable events which I had always taken for granted while living at home. It's common knowledge to our family that a red-tailed hawk prefers a certain electric wire as a perch; this happens to be a scarce twenty feet from my window. While the hawk was absent from the perch, her voice was not. It was a delight to sit in my room, listening to the screech of the hawk (and while screech is commonly used to describe the noise a hawk makes, I hesitate to use it as it denies the hawk a true description of her voice....I shall have to think on this more when I have more wits about me).
Around midnight, the coyotes started barking and howling.
The most uncommon event of all happened around 3:20. In all my family's years of living at the house (which isn't too many, I suppose...but it is worth noting that I am the unique member to have witnessed this piece), only one similar sighting has happened. I was taking out the garbage one night, probably about nine years ago. The sun had set, leaving only a dim glow behind the mountains and a colorless world on the front range. I looked up from my menial task and there, sitting atop an evergreen as a star on a Christmas tree, formed the unmistakable silhouette of a great horned owl. This morning gave me a second "sighting," when outside my window I heard the soft, piercing hoots of an owl. Whether or not this was the same owl (or even the same species) I haven't the foggiest idea. But I'm a romantic at heart, and it's good to know that my owl has stuck around.
In addition to delving myself deep in the Rothfuss' text and keeping an ear pressed to the window, I also kept an eye on my cat through all of this. She gets frighted by engines. By garage doors. By my dad tromping up the stairs. Yet even though I know that at least some of these sounds must be unfamiliar to her, she barely heeded any of the signs I heard. I knew that in a fight, she could not come out unscathed versus a hawk or an owl. I shudder to think of what would happen if she stumbled into the pack of coyotes. Yet she ignored the hawk, played through the coyotes, and slept through the owl. In fact, the only animals that held her attention all day were several moths at the window screen (which she tried to swat, even through the barrier) and a rather noisy bee, also at the window screen. However, I noticed that she kept her distance. Rather than sitting on the windowsill to watch the bee as she did with the moths, she sat on the chair next to the window to watch. And she didn't swat. Given that she was adopted about 6 months into her life and spent the next 11 months as an indoor cat, I would think that she would have no experience with bees. I wonder if this is instinctual behavior or learned behavior....
Goddammit. I've turned into a biologist. And animal behavior seems to be my newfound passion. Ted Mosby was right....Nothing good happens after 2 a.m.
Tuesday, June 7, 2011
Packing
I know it's been a long time since my last post. Forgive me. I was finishing my Master's "thesis." Then trying to find a job. And recovering. And moving back home (with my parents....yuck!).
Anyways, the Price is Right problem is being put on the back burner for now, because it's an involved problem and I don't feel emotionally ready to tackle the whole thing just yet. So instead, I present a problem on packing.
Traditionally, packing spheres into a three dimensional space has proved to be 1) very inefficient and 2) difficult to solve. I was having this exact problem today when I tried to pack some 2-dimensional spheres (ok ok, I'll call them rings...) onto a rectangular tray. You see, this is very important, because I need to maximize the number of rings in order to obtain the maximum number of Utiles (ah, you didn't know I was going to throw economics jargon at you did you?) from this particular exercise.
You see, anybody who knows anything about something must know that onion rings are delicious (the proof is left to the reader). And if you're going to go through the trouble of making onion rings at home, you know that you have to maximize the number of breaded goodness that comes out of your oven. So here I was, making a delicious batch of onion rings for myself, and here's my original solution to my "ring packing problem."
At this point, however, I still had some rings of onion to place on the baking sheet. And then the most obvious solution to the "sphere" packing problem dawned on me......
You're welcome, math.
p.s. The recipe I use makes delicious onion rings without having to go through the both of deep frying at home is Chef John's recipe (over at Food Wishes) with the following changes:
1) No Cayenne Pepper. It doesn't go well with the cheese.
2) Reduce the cooking time by about 2 minutes.
3) Once the rings are "done" cooking, sprinkle Parmesan cheese over top (if you notice, I put down some foil on the pan...this makes it a lot easier since you don't have to worry about getting the melted cheese off later).
4) Place the rings under the broiler for about 2 minutes to allow the cheese to melt and the breading to completely brown.
Anyways, the Price is Right problem is being put on the back burner for now, because it's an involved problem and I don't feel emotionally ready to tackle the whole thing just yet. So instead, I present a problem on packing.
Traditionally, packing spheres into a three dimensional space has proved to be 1) very inefficient and 2) difficult to solve. I was having this exact problem today when I tried to pack some 2-dimensional spheres (ok ok, I'll call them rings...) onto a rectangular tray. You see, this is very important, because I need to maximize the number of rings in order to obtain the maximum number of Utiles (ah, you didn't know I was going to throw economics jargon at you did you?) from this particular exercise.
You see, anybody who knows anything about something must know that onion rings are delicious (the proof is left to the reader). And if you're going to go through the trouble of making onion rings at home, you know that you have to maximize the number of breaded goodness that comes out of your oven. So here I was, making a delicious batch of onion rings for myself, and here's my original solution to my "ring packing problem."
 | |
| NOT ENOUGH!!! |
 |
| Nest Them!!!! |
p.s. The recipe I use makes delicious onion rings without having to go through the both of deep frying at home is Chef John's recipe (over at Food Wishes) with the following changes:
1) No Cayenne Pepper. It doesn't go well with the cheese.
2) Reduce the cooking time by about 2 minutes.
3) Once the rings are "done" cooking, sprinkle Parmesan cheese over top (if you notice, I put down some foil on the pan...this makes it a lot easier since you don't have to worry about getting the melted cheese off later).
4) Place the rings under the broiler for about 2 minutes to allow the cheese to melt and the breading to completely brown.
Saturday, April 9, 2011
The Price is Right (Part 1)
I've been watching a lot of the Price is Right over spring break. Some people really take this game seriously and study in order to really perform well on the show.
Now, if you do seriously study for the Price is Right, there are two places where your game can loose clout. First is getting George to tell you to come on down. Second is the Big Wheel, because no matter how hard you study, it's a completely random process and there's no way to "guarantee" a win. However, you can maximize your chances of winning.
Assume you don't spin first. Then there is a bid that your spin must beat, and there is little choice on the contestant's part. Thus, we assume that you spin first. Now we need to figure out what number you should try to get above in order to maximize your chances of winning.
Since the wheel has values from 5 to 100, there are 20 spots for the wheel to stop. The goal is to get closest to 100 from one or two spins without going over. If your final total is a 50, then either person spinning after you can beat that score to knock you out (to simplify things, let's ignore ties for now). For each person, they can either spin above a 50 (10/20) OR they can spin below a 50 and then spin a number which will not put them over. I will consider each individual spin in order to correctly get the probabilities: if your first spin is a 5, then you have to get at least a 50, but not 100 (or 1/20*10/20). If your first spin is a 10, you have to get between a 45 and a 90 (or 1/20*10/20). If your first spin is a 45, then you have to spin between a 10 and a 55 (or 1/20*10/20).
This means that if you stay at a 50, then your chances of the first person beating you is (10/20+9*1/20*10/20=29/40), or almost 3/4. The chances of either person beating you (roughly speaking) is 3/4+1/4*3/4, or 15/16. We need a better number if want to get into the Showcase Showdown.
Continued in Paaaaaaart twwwwwwwo....
 | |
| I'm looking at yoooou Barney! |
Now, if you do seriously study for the Price is Right, there are two places where your game can loose clout. First is getting George to tell you to come on down. Second is the Big Wheel, because no matter how hard you study, it's a completely random process and there's no way to "guarantee" a win. However, you can maximize your chances of winning.
Assume you don't spin first. Then there is a bid that your spin must beat, and there is little choice on the contestant's part. Thus, we assume that you spin first. Now we need to figure out what number you should try to get above in order to maximize your chances of winning.
Since the wheel has values from 5 to 100, there are 20 spots for the wheel to stop. The goal is to get closest to 100 from one or two spins without going over. If your final total is a 50, then either person spinning after you can beat that score to knock you out (to simplify things, let's ignore ties for now). For each person, they can either spin above a 50 (10/20) OR they can spin below a 50 and then spin a number which will not put them over. I will consider each individual spin in order to correctly get the probabilities: if your first spin is a 5, then you have to get at least a 50, but not 100 (or 1/20*10/20). If your first spin is a 10, you have to get between a 45 and a 90 (or 1/20*10/20). If your first spin is a 45, then you have to spin between a 10 and a 55 (or 1/20*10/20).
This means that if you stay at a 50, then your chances of the first person beating you is (10/20+9*1/20*10/20=29/40), or almost 3/4. The chances of either person beating you (roughly speaking) is 3/4+1/4*3/4, or 15/16. We need a better number if want to get into the Showcase Showdown.
Continued in Paaaaaaart twwwwwwwo....
Tuesday, April 5, 2011
The Social Sciences
I was playing on Wikipedia the other day (basically looking up dropout ages for different states) and I stumbled across a certain philosophy (coined by one John Holt) which struck my interest: the unschooling movement. Basically, this guy wanted to completely do away with compulsory schooling. He said that students should be able to learn what they wanted to learn, when they wanted to learn it. Moreover, he says that it should be the responsibility of the parents to make sure that their kids are being successful, inquisitive learners.
Now here's my problem with the social sciences, and philosophy in particular. It seems that whenever a theory is presented, it's always presented in a perfect world model, and they never address why it might actually be a bad idea.
Here's the first issue that I have; he expects that parents give a shit about their spawn. Talk to any teacher about things they wish they could change about their school system, and I guarantee you that "I wish parents gave a shit about their spawn" would be in the top five. It's not a realistic assumption unless the government can somehow regulate it (which would require major changes in our constitution in order for it to be even legal, much less enforce it, etc.).
The second thing that is glaringly wrong with his argument is that we have already tried non-compulsory education. And it sucks. It created a rift in society where those who were educated had a huge advantage over those who weren't (granted, education was also a mark of wealth, and so part of it was that the rich were educated, not that the educated were rich). I mean, just think for a second about how much money casinos make because of their mathematicians. The mathematics of calculating probabilities is certainly within the grasp of most high schoolers, and yet these people still go to casinos to play losing strategies.
Lastly, schooling provides some students the opportunity to rise up out of their current social situation, and they grow up to be extremely successful. My grandfather grew up in rural Nebraska and was recruited by West Point out of high school and afterwards was very successful (in the American Dream sort of way). Had he been a product of the unschooling movement, I have little doubt that he would have continued working at his parents' gas station in Nebraska until he was old enough to take over.
Now, that's not to say that our current system is better (in fact, it is far from perfect). But in the end, this is, in my eyes, a distinct step backwards.
Now here's my problem with the social sciences, and philosophy in particular. It seems that whenever a theory is presented, it's always presented in a perfect world model, and they never address why it might actually be a bad idea.
 |
| I bet you can guess which side I am on. |
Here's the first issue that I have; he expects that parents give a shit about their spawn. Talk to any teacher about things they wish they could change about their school system, and I guarantee you that "I wish parents gave a shit about their spawn" would be in the top five. It's not a realistic assumption unless the government can somehow regulate it (which would require major changes in our constitution in order for it to be even legal, much less enforce it, etc.).
The second thing that is glaringly wrong with his argument is that we have already tried non-compulsory education. And it sucks. It created a rift in society where those who were educated had a huge advantage over those who weren't (granted, education was also a mark of wealth, and so part of it was that the rich were educated, not that the educated were rich). I mean, just think for a second about how much money casinos make because of their mathematicians. The mathematics of calculating probabilities is certainly within the grasp of most high schoolers, and yet these people still go to casinos to play losing strategies.
Lastly, schooling provides some students the opportunity to rise up out of their current social situation, and they grow up to be extremely successful. My grandfather grew up in rural Nebraska and was recruited by West Point out of high school and afterwards was very successful (in the American Dream sort of way). Had he been a product of the unschooling movement, I have little doubt that he would have continued working at his parents' gas station in Nebraska until he was old enough to take over.
Now, that's not to say that our current system is better (in fact, it is far from perfect). But in the end, this is, in my eyes, a distinct step backwards.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)