[1] If you have physical cards you are destroying the default hierarchical path if you shuffle them and that could be a pain in arse to reconstruct, and your ability to find a note with physical cards also depends on the hierarchy. Digital cards have different problems.

I won't tell you exactly what to do, but one way to do it is to measure your surprise with me choosing each of those 8 books when you provide a recommendation back to me of what I should read next. I think I get kind of that experience talking to someone about books.

The algorithm didn't do that.

Tigana, Hyperion, A Fire Upon the Deep, Blindsight, Moby Dick

and I got a list. Sure, read all that or wasn't interested for reasons, I added (only Neuromancer on initial recommendations):

Neuromancer, VALIS, Quantum Thief, Towing Jehovah.

List did not get more interesting.

Book recommendations are still kind of difficult.

Supprt: Statistically speaking, on average, for each 1% increase in ADR, there is a 3% decrease in the risk of CRC. (colorectal cancer)

My objection is all the decimal points without error bars. Freshman physics majors are beat on for not including reasonable error estimates during labs, which massively overstates how certain they should be; sophomores and juniors are beat on for propogating errors in dumb ways that massively understates how certain they should be.

This article is up strolls rando doctor (granted: with more certs than I will ever have) with a bunch of decimal points. One decimal point, but that still looks dumb to me. What is the precision of your measuring device? Do you have a model for your measuring device? Are you quite sure that your study, given error bars, which you don't even acknowledge the existence of, don't cancel out the study?

Offering inconsistent defense has got to be thing in France, particularly during criminal prosecution.

(In other words: prove it. I get as many counterexamples as my lawyers can dream .)

Robert T. McGraw, Criminal Law: The Use of Inconsistent Defenses, 26 Marq. L. Rev. 167 (1942).

I get why you are outraged, but also: inform yourself. This is exactly what even minimally competent defense does and should look like.

I /think/ formulating the problem this way means that 12h=power is always relevant. So: where are we?

Related: you are in an audit. The auditor asks you if you know what the time is. Correct answer: yes.

GingerBill has shouted out Go, but Odin doesn't particularly feel like a Go flavo(u)r.

Most folks don’t slow down because they think they feel fine at the beginning of a run and feel that they should be going faster AND feel ridiculous running that slowly or…

Slow down. Solved.

You're doing a math game, math gamified. Let's throw a choice in there.

Since you replied, here's one idea:

(1) present five numbers. (2) You, the player, chose two numbers (3) You perform an operation (3.1) operation: add/subtract/multiply/divide, but perhaps exponentiation and modulo and lcm and factorize and whatever else. it's probably best to keep it simple. (3.1.1) this can get random: what was the highest number last round? how many green letters are there on the screen? (3.2) operations are tied to the special attacks,eg tier 1 attacks are add/subtract, tier 2 mult/div, and so on. (4) you type in your answer (5) if you type in an answer that's the correct result of an operation applied to two of the numbers, then you do the corresponding attack.

So it's not add these two numbers pass/fail. It's you decide what math you want to do, and can do, and can do in a time limit, and that achieves the effect you're looking for.

Anyways, it's always fun to make a thing.