#Statistical Modelling

[aloysarrow]

I actually hate this fucking game bc his 2D art looks really good, why tf is he a 4 star??

[girldraki]

White Apple Family does also make the thing with equestria girls big mac into "how do you whitewash a white guy", so there's that

we had blacked out eqg big mac until receiving this ask. god. im not sure we ever totally internalized that that guy was big mac like, emotionally

[kumakuma-circus]

sometimes it feels like i'm the only one in this fandom who's right about teddie,,,,,, /silly

[cantsayidont]

Summer (?) 1992. The final game supplement for the Mayfair Games DC HEROES ROLE-PLAYING GAME was a loose-leaf WHO'S WHO supplement, intended to complement DC's loose-leaf WHO'S WHO update. Only three of the four planned volumes were released before Mayfair lost the DC license. The first volume includes this entry for Legionnaire Brainiac 5, also covered in 2995: THE LEGION OF SUPER-HEROES SOURCEBOOK, which came out months later.

Brainy's game statistics are mostly the same (although this entry gives him 20 more Hero Points), but the special Psychological Instability rules are unique to this version. This wasn't really a problem anymore in the period when this supplement was published, since it really refers to one particular story from 1979 (a guy loses his shit and creates a universe-destroying super-monster ONE TIME and nobody ever lets him live it down …), but it's an interesting mechanic, so I can see why it was included. The reverse side also has a handy checklist of Brainiac 5 appearances, for completists:

The Personality/Role-playing section on the front side makes some dubious assertions. The first paragraph says:

He might be incredibly intelligent, but Brainiac 5 has a great deal of difficulty when it comes to expressing his emotions. When he first joined the Legion, he tried to concentrate on his feelings to fit in with his teammates, none of whom was Coluan. He even fell in love with Laurel Gand and spent a number of peaceful years with her. But inevitably, he became so overwhelmed with leading the team and protecting the universe that he was forced to forgo the luxury of emotion so that he could use his intelligence to its capacity.

While the 2995 sourcebook was written by Legion scripters Tom and Mary Bierbaum, this supplement was not, and I'm not sure what Winninger was talking about in the final sentence. What had happened in the latter third of the 1984–1989 Levitz series was that Brainy had fomented a conspiracy to avenge the death of Superboy by destroying the Time Trapper, one of the Legion's most powerful enemies, a plan that involved sacrificing Brainy's old friend Jaxon Rugarth. The other Legionnaires then put Brainy on trial for violating the Legion code, and although he was exonerated, he was so annoyed by their attitude that he resigned in a fit of pique and went back to Colu. He returned during the Magic Wars and sort of mended fences, although the team subsequently collapsed and he went on to other things during the five-year gap (principally trying to find a cure for the "Validus plague" afflicting Saturn Girl's kids). Some of the specific circumstances were subsequently retconned in ways not reflected in the actual comics, but that was still basically the gist at the time this supplement was published. It was messy, but it was certainly NOT a matter of his forgoing "the luxury of emotion."

The second paragraph says:

As a Brainiac, Dox has an affinity for pure logic. As time goes on, he seems less and less interested in establishing normal relationships with his teammates in the reformed Legion.

This was not at all true. Indeed, one of the charming aspects of the "Five Years Later" period was that Brainy had actually mellowed quite a bit. He was still a little awkward, and there was unresolved baggage between him and Laurel (who in the interim had had a baby with his best friend!), but he was more at peace with himself, and more patient with the people around him, than he'd ever been in past Legion stories. According to the Bierbaums' sourcebook, he was even writing sweet little haiku about his former teammates in his spare time — hardly the action of a cold-blooded logician.

[captainsugaraddict]

Mini rant or fuck ai reason #???

Any random tumblr user can tell that these are different:

NaOH vs. Na2CO3 vs. NaHCO3

Funny enough they also have different names. And synonyms. And it's fairly hard to make soap with the later two. So why in the world does every search engine in shops and general that i ask to fetch me NaOH (in a 1kg packet. ideally pellets but i'll take beads no problem) come up with 'soda (na2CO3) you want soda?' and when i specify i want caustic soda (one name for NaOH) it's like 1 hit for that and the rest is either soda or worse 'baking soda (naHCO3) yaaay!'.

I don't want either of these and unfortunately I can tell exactly what kind of language fuckup is behind these because Na in german = Natrium, but in english it's sodium. So it goes 'ah sodium.. hm closest is soda (which is also called soda in german)' or worse baking soda (aka Backpulver (lit. baking powder) in german).

and don't look for anything containing the word soap either. bc it will offer you just pure soap and ignore that you asked for a specific ingredient, yes to make soap, no i don't want to buy your pussy shaped pink soap (i wish i was joking)

I just want to make soap. Why does the decay of online searches affect my ability to buy basic materials so hard.

And don't get me started on my quest to buy more lanolin without overpaying for a raw material.. i gave up bc i can only look at so many handcremes and shit before i go mad. i still have some. I'll stretch it a bit.

[orcelito]

Actually it is SO weird to me to remember that I was an engineering student and that later on I had been pursuing a minor in statistics

I may be a IT & com person in the end, but I do have the foundations of engineering and statistics in my brain too. Wild !

[kraniumet]

i do also think the "In that case, a human being inspired by someone's art style, memorizing some vague notion of it and incorporating it into their own art would also be infringing on copyright" argument is intellectually dishonest. I am against IP laws and copyright on the whole. but that's a false equivalency

[taohun]

it's almost 5 in the morning why do i hate myself

[onlinedigitaleducation]

Data Analytics Courses in Ghana

[chattingwithmodels]

The Contemporary Modeling Ecosystem

Trends, Advancements, and Interdisciplinary Connections 🌍 TLDR: The State of Modern Modeling — From Runways to Research Labs 🔥 AI is the game-changer across all types of modeling — fashion, science, 3D, math, and stats — accelerating innovation and reshaping entire industries. 👗 Fashion Modeling 📱 Social Media = New Runway: Models are now influencers, building brands online. 🌈 Diversity &…

[findyiot]

Human Factors: Decision making in the real world

It’s not enough for one person to know what happened yesterday—teams need to spot long-term trends to predict anomalies. Data is streaming, so static analysis doesn’t cut it. Unparsed data dumps don’t help. Being able to visualize data through dashboards or graphs helps to make sense of patterns. It is not about becoming data scientists. You do not need a degree in mechanics to drive a car. Your driving instructor tells you in simple terms how an engine works, where the oil goes, how to turn the steering wheel and which pedal to press.

Data should not be siloed. Maintenance, logistics, management, production teams — everyone needs to know some basics to make cohesive decisions. Cross-functional training is a key element to a deployment. There is a natural reluctance to embrace new things. Knowledge empowers and concurrently dispels fear of change. In hierarchical organizations there can be an aversion to the wider distribution of real-time information outside the management cadre. Inertia comes bottom up or top down, usually it is both at the same time.

[the-ai-perspective]

ChatGPT User Growth Driven by New Features (link in the bio)

[askshivanulegacy]

^^^^

This post is so funny, but yeah. It all literally comes down to the fundamental nature of war.

Each side is in the "right" from the standpoint that they wholly believe in their side and their needs and that it's come down to the last resort of bloodshed to achieve it or defend it.

It doesn't matter that you think one side is "obviously" wrong. Hindsight is 20-20, and history is always written by the victors. There isn't a universal measure of morality.

If you're in the misguided hairtrigger camp that, "we condemn wholeheartedly!" and that's your first impulse, then you need to go back to the drawing board because you do NOT understand the situation or circumstances. You have to understand why the opposing sides thought they were right.

Doesn't mean you have to agree. But history also doesn't ask for or require your agreement. You're just one more person with an opinion who wasn't there and had no circumstances at stake.

You can always follow through with an assessment of your modern day values, and even your present circumstances - why was one side winning or losing that war important to where you find yourself today? Are you in a good position or bad position because of it, or can you even tell anymore? What were the consequences of the result?

"Obviously," America winning the Revolution and the North winning the Civil War were "good," but that's because that's the timeline we ended up in. Your assessment of "right/wrong" as applied to history (not a real quality that history needs, btw!), is not as objective as you might think. And on an individual level from individual participants?? There are so many versions of "right" and "wrong" that it'll make your head spin.

And that's even beside the fact that countries typically fight for one thing only, and people fight for something very different.

It's also never as simple as "unwittingly choosing evil." "Evil" by whose definition? Yours because you won? Or yours because you lost? These are different things and "evil" has no single definition. Maybe you even choose "evil" on purpose simply because it's what's necessary.

Don't go out there thinking that "evil" is simply an uninformed "mistake" you can make if you're not careful enough ... or that you can avoid it if you somehow reached an arbitrary level of carefulness. That very sentence presupposes an all-mighty judge, jury, and executioner dictating all things, and that you would have any possible way of knowing what their answer could possibly be. They don't exist.

You are always simply making the best choice you can with the limited pool of information and obligations you have.

When I was in kindergarten I saw a painting of the American Revolutionary War. I asked my mom, “Who were the good guys and who were the bad guys?” And she said, “That’s not really how war works. It’s not like a TV show. Both sides thought they were right, otherwise they wouldn’t have been fighting.” And my seven year old ass went “Oh ok”

Anyway having internalized that fun fact in literally kindergarten? It surprises me how many college-educated adults still don’t seem to know about it.

[raffaellopalandri]

My life in three years from now?

Daily writing promptWhat will your life be like in three years?View all responses In three years, my life will be both a continuation of my current path and a testament to the accumulated wisdom of that journey. Photo by Ricky Esquivel on Pexels.com Even though I don’t create elaborate plans for a future date as distant as three years, I trust that my principles and the habits I cultivate…