Strategy:

1. Minimize worst-case damage taken.
2. Maximize worst-case damage inflicted.

Implementation:

http://codepad.org/KEqxSa4j

Results:

• Selected Armor: blue with max damage 6336.0
• Selected Sword: blue with min damage 6080.0

Regarding the "due date" excuses

Two common policies at my school:

1. For recurring assignments/quizzes: your lowest one or two marks don't count, so you can afford to miss/fail a few for whatever medium-good reason you choose. Thus you decide what is "good enough" based on your own expectation.

2. If you want some grace time for an assignment, your excuse better cover the whole working period of the assignment. If you leave something to the last day, and then get sick, it's your own damn fault, that is to say: for assignments emergency excuses are invalid.

My interpretation it perhaps uninformed because I never asked for any grace about deadlines or marking during university.

I don't suppose there are any non-paywall versions?

There's been a lot of discussion about that incest question, but I don't think anyone's come out and said whether they think the scenario represents a moral transgression. I wonder what folks here think of the scenario. In fact, let's consider three scenarios:

• the scenario as stated, with outcome specified (ETA: that is, we know for certain that no harm occurred), under the (default) assumption that these siblings were raised together;
• the scenario with the outcome not specified, but these two have researched the question and, rightly or wrongly, have come to the conclusion that they are not more at risk than any non-sibling pairing; default assumption about raising;
• as above, but the siblings only met as adults.

I'm going to rot13 my reply. V svaq Terrar'f cbfvgvba ntnvafg zbeny ernyvfz pbaivapvat. V guvax gur frpbaq fpranevb unf gur zbfg cbgragvny gb or ceboyrzngvp, fb V jvyy bayl nqqerff vg. V cersre crbcyr abg unez bguref, fb V jbhyq or ntnvafg gur rapbhagre bayl vs gur fvoyvatf unq na rkcrpgngvba bs qnzntvat bar nabgure. Va zl fpranevb, gur jbefg V pbhyq cbffvoyl fnl bs gurz vf gung gurve vasreraprf ner cbbe (naq V unira'g ybbxrq vagb gur vffhr va nal terng qrgnvy, fb V jbhyqa'g rira tb fb sne ng gur cerfrag gvzr).

How about while drunk? One cares a bit less what people think, the urge to signal is weaker. But I wouldn't take this as a trustworthy mode of thought.

Also it seems that a sociopath would be more goal oriented, and only signal when it is beneficial in their own limited sense of the meaning of beneficial.

In situations where a lot is at stake I'd expect (my mental machinery anyway) to put ultimate success over signaling.

Maybe compare the personal finances of money managers to their portfolio? (Only in the case where that which they manage has similar goals, i.e. retirement funds.)

The Best and the Brightest (1972) - David Halberstam

Amazon Wikipdia

from Wikipedia: The Best and the Brightest (1972) is an account by journalist David Halberstam of the origins of the Vietnam War. The focus of the book is on the foreign policy crafted by the academics and intellectuals who were in John F. Kennedy's administration, and the consequences of those policies in Vietnam.

One distinction made by the book is the difference between acting based on reasoning or based on principles. The men acting based on reasoning got good results, but in times of high stress or confusion they made bad decisions.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gEDaCIDvj6I

" Kiai Master vs MMA "