Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 28 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
16162
|
Posted - 2013.08.21 08:53:00 -
[211] - Quote
S Byerley wrote:The victims (and everyone else) are correct assuming sensible definitions. However, you'd be ill-advised to pursue an activity based on risk without considering cost and profit. So a risk of 200k ISK is greater than a risk of 2bn ISK according to this GÇ£sensible definitionGÇ¥? Yeah, no. That's why that particular definition is rejected as nonsensical and replaced with the actual definition of risk.
Quote:Can't blame me for what other people do. I'm not. I'm explaining to you where the opposition to their claims come from.
Quote:Then you're wasting your bits trying to prove it Good news: I'm not trying to prove it. I'm presenting it as the way risk is calculated, and then it's up to you to prove that it doesn't work. So far, you haven't.
Quote:You're arguing a definition of "risk", which is a semantic argument by definition - unless you'd like to contest those definitions as well. GǪand you have not been able to show that it is logically inconsistent, whereas the notion that costs are not risks immediately leads to the self-contradictory conclusion that an near-infinitely smaller probability can lead to an infinitely higher risk even when the cost is left constant, which isGǪ well, I don't know what that is but it sure isn't a useful definition of risk. Maybe it could be used to measure fear or anxiety, since the mind has this funny habit of normalising common risks.
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan 2.0. |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
11288
|
Posted - 2013.08.21 08:55:00 -
[212] - Quote
S Byerley wrote:Malcanis wrote:A simple solution might be to have a chance that CONCORD doesn't turn up at all. The most obvious way of doing this is to make the chance that CONCORD appears equal the trusec of the system.
The attacker will then be taking a risk and everyone will be happy! S Byerley wrote:The problem is that suicide ganking (or at least certain forms) is risk-free, highly profitable, and requires minimal investment. It's the combination that makes it unbalanced - because Eve generally balances activities around the three.
Your example generates risk, but ignores the associated increase in profit - thus the nonsensical conclusion. Why you always so derivative Malcanis?
It's integral to my character.
1 Kings 12:11
|
Tauranon
Weeesearch
231
|
Posted - 2013.08.21 08:58:00 -
[213] - Quote
Infinity Ziona wrote:S Byerley wrote:Tippia wrote:As always, risk = cost +ù probability. Just because the probability is 1 doesn't mean it's not a risk GÇö it just means that the risk is so hight that it has the same value as the cost. Too lazy to read the entirety; are you still arguing that suicide cats (which work out to about the isk/hour of BS ammo) are inherently risky? Like most people, I tend not to factor ammo costs into my risk assessment. You are correct. When suicide ganking the ship is the expendable ammo. A risk is not a risk if the outcome is certain. A risk requires an element of chance. So there is no risk in ganking. Just expenditure.
The outcome isn't certain. One thing that does happen is the target goes to ground when you are setting up, even if its not because they saw the impending gank. Mack filling is a trigger for people to make decisions like log off after all. In which case you risk time passing without fun and without making isk (either from bits of dead exhumer or by opportunity cost of not doing other activities).
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
11288
|
Posted - 2013.08.21 09:02:00 -
[214] - Quote
When will people learn not to argue with Tippia?
Just because there's a 100% chance you'll lose doesn't mean you're not wasting your time because there's no risk she'll lose.
1 Kings 12:11
|
S Byerley
The Manhattan Engineer District
118
|
Posted - 2013.08.21 09:13:00 -
[215] - Quote
Tippia wrote:So a risk of 200k ISK is greater than a risk of 2bn ISK according to this GÇ£sensible definitionGÇ¥? Yeah, no. That's why that particular definition is rejected as nonsensical and replaced with the actual definition of risk.
I'm separating cost vs. risk and you're not; when you correctly factor that difference in: 200k < 0 + 2b, or 200k > 2b -2b
Whichever you prefer, it's all perfectly consistent.
Quote:Good news: I'm not trying to prove it. I'm presenting it as the way risk is calculated, and then it's up to you to prove that it doesn't work. So far, you haven't.
You're presenting the way you want to define/calculate risk. If you want to argue that's the commonly accepted way, it's another matter entirely; you've offered no evidence to that effect.
Quote:GǪand you have not been able to show that it is logically inconsistent,
I've said several times now, I have no desire to.
Quote:whereas the notion that costs are not risks immediately leads to the paradoxical conclusion that an near-infinitely smaller probability can lead to an infinitely higher risk even when the cost is left constant
You seem confused. If you make the outcome uncertain, that cost becomes a risk with associated probability - the cost+risk term changes continuously in response. If you're bothered by the discontinuity between probable and definite outcomes, that's a separate philosophical and subjective issue. |
baltec1
Bat Country
7610
|
Posted - 2013.08.21 09:13:00 -
[216] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:When will people learn not to argue with Tippia?
Same reason why I **** into the wind. One day I might win. |
S Byerley
The Manhattan Engineer District
118
|
Posted - 2013.08.21 09:17:00 -
[217] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:When will people learn not to argue with Tippia?
Just because there's a 100% chance you'll lose doesn't mean you're not wasting your time because there's no risk she'll lose.
I find talking to walls therapeutic in moderation, personally.
The time spent is a certainty, a cost if you will, but the gain is subject to chance. |
baltec1
Bat Country
7610
|
Posted - 2013.08.21 09:22:00 -
[218] - Quote
So I guess we shouldn't point out the risks of the gank failing or the loot fairy giving the middle finger. |
S Byerley
The Manhattan Engineer District
119
|
Posted - 2013.08.21 09:27:00 -
[219] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:So I guess we shouldn't point out the risks of the gank failing or the loot fairy giving the middle finger.
You can if you want; I'd throw it under profit though - deviation maybe under investment (as in, you have to do it for longer to see the same consistency in payout)
How often do your ganks fail?
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
16163
|
Posted - 2013.08.21 09:34:00 -
[220] - Quote
S Byerley wrote:I'm separating cost vs. risk and you're not; when you correctly factor that difference in: 200k < 0 + 2b, or 200k > 2b -2b GǪand the point is that separating the two is not correct, because the only difference is how high the probability is. In one case, the risk is 200k, all included; in the other case, the risk is 2bn, all included. Any claim that the latter is lower is nonsensical.
Quote:Whichever you prefer, it's all perfectly consistent. I prefer the risk to be reported in full and without parts of it arbitrarily removed for no good reason, at which point it's not particularly consistent to claim that 200k > 2bn.
Quote:You're presenting the way you want to define/calculate risk. If you want to argue that's the commonly accepted way, it's another matter entirely; you've offered no evidence to that effect. Look up ISO 31000.
Quote:You seem confused. If you make the outcome uncertain, that cost becomes a risk with associated probability - the cost+risk term changes continuously in response. No. It's not me being confused GÇö it's you mixing up the terms and confusing yourself. If the outcome is uncertain, the cost becomes a projection based on the risk (equal to cost +ù probability). A risk, meanwhile, is a cost with an associated probability. Once you start talking about risks, you can (and should) include all costs with those associated probabilities, even in the cases where p=1.
If there are no uncertainties at all, you can take the shortcut (or, pehaps more accurately, not take the longer route) and just skip the conversion-to-risk-via-probability-association stop entirely. However, it is still entirely correct to talk about it in terms of risk. If there are any uncertainties, you should stop talking about costs entirely and only really discuss risks (or, at most, talk about projected costs, which is just syntactic sugar for risk). GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan 2.0. |
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
11290
|
Posted - 2013.08.21 09:43:00 -
[221] - Quote
S Byerley wrote:Tippia wrote:So a risk of 200k ISK is greater than a risk of 2bn ISK according to this GÇ£sensible definitionGÇ¥? Yeah, no. That's why that particular definition is rejected as nonsensical and replaced with the actual definition of risk. I'm separating cost vs. risk and you're not; when you correctly factor that difference in: 200k < 0 + 2b, or 200k > 2b -2b Whichever you prefer, it's all perfectly consistent.
You're using the collquial or informal meaning of "risk" whilst Tippia is using the actuarial version. The effect is much the same as Creationists saying Evolution isn't proved because it is "just a theory".
Nevertheless it is obviously ludicrous to say that a 99% chance of losing a ship to CONCORD is more of a deterrent or a cost than a 100% chance of losing one.
tl;dr: there is a such thing as a "100% risk" and it's you who are being obtuse in arguing that there isn't.
1 Kings 12:11
|
Lucas Kell
JSR1 AND GOLDEN GUARDIAN PRODUCTIONS SpaceMonkey's Alliance
464
|
Posted - 2013.08.21 09:53:00 -
[222] - Quote
Infinity Ziona wrote:S Byerley wrote:Tippia wrote:As always, risk = cost +ù probability. Just because the probability is 1 doesn't mean it's not a risk GÇö it just means that the risk is so hight that it has the same value as the cost. Too lazy to read the entirety; are you still arguing that suicide cats (which work out to about the isk/hour of BS ammo) are inherently risky? Like most people, I tend not to factor ammo costs into my risk assessment. You are correct. When suicide ganking the ship is the expendable ammo. A risk is not a risk if the outcome is certain. A risk requires an element of chance. So there is no risk in ganking. Just expenditure. The risk in ganking is that the target lives. We minimise that risk by knowing what we are doing, but it doesn't mean the risk isn't there. Just yesterday someone jumped the gun and nearly got us all rapidly killed before out target dropped. We literally got it just as the last ship popped. I've seen many less experienced gank squads fail to execute a gank, or get blapped off the field too quickly to finish it. I've also seen ECM ships suppress a gank enough to save the target ship. If you fail a gank, you are stuck with a blown up ship and a GCC with a failed objective. That's the risk.
And it's no different from the mining risk. I've NEVER had a miner ganked in high sec, even though I've run many a mining operation. Careful choices of location and a keep eye out for gankers and scouts can minimise the risk there too.
So the long and short of it is, don't mistake well performed actions with risk purposely minimised as being inherently risk free activities. The Indecisive Noob - A new EVE Fan Blog for news and stuff. |
S Byerley
The Manhattan Engineer District
119
|
Posted - 2013.08.21 09:54:00 -
[223] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Look up ISO 31000.
You claimed not to be familiar with the business stuff. Can you direct me to a specific standard or are you just trying to bait me into doing the research for you? I'm not really interested in reading up on business stuff for its own sake.
Quote:(or at least no more than there are in the measure of probability GÇö I haven't kept up enough to know if anyone is arguing that probability is a only finitely divisible).
AFAIK mainstream physics says yes; it falls out of uncertainty.
Quote:I suppose it would annoy you immensely if I started talking about profits as risks as well?
Less so than cost since there are associated probabilities. |
S Byerley
The Manhattan Engineer District
119
|
Posted - 2013.08.21 10:05:00 -
[224] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:You're using the collquial or informal meaning of "risk" whilst Tippia is using the actuarial version. The effect is much the same as Creationists saying Evolution isn't proved because it is "just a theory".
I can see how you might think that, given all the fancy words she's throw out haphazardly. However, I found her preferred source:
The ISO 31000 (2009) /ISO Guide 73:2002 wrote: definition of risk is the 'effect of uncertainty on objectives'. In this definition, uncertainties include events (which may or may not happen) and uncertainties caused by ambiguity or a lack of information. It also includes both negative and positive impacts on objectives. Many definitions of risk exist in common usage, however this definition was developed by an international committee representing over 30 countries and is based on the input of several thousand subject matter experts.
Also, your example is inappropriate since we're talking about the same thing and quibbling over semantics whereas Creationists dispute events.
Quote:Nevertheless it is obviously ludicrous to say that a 99% chance of losing a ship to CONCORD is more of a deterrent or a cost than a 100% chance of losing one.
You tried that one already; doesn't apply. |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
11290
|
Posted - 2013.08.21 10:15:00 -
[225] - Quote
OK well I'll cut to the chase: There is no traction for a change in the rules for suicide ganking regardless of whether 100% chance of shiploss is or, in whargle-garble land, is not less of a deterrent.
If people want to keep trotting out the rhetorically dishonest "no risk" line when what they're plainly trying to imply is that there's no cost to suicide ganking (That cost being something that the "no risk brigade" never fail to either neglect altogether or blatantly lie about the magnitude of) then their arguments and indeed their wishes will be treated with the derision and contempt they deserve.
1 Kings 12:11
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
16164
|
Posted - 2013.08.21 10:21:00 -
[226] - Quote
S Byerley wrote:You claimed not to be familiar with the business stuff. I'm not. Anyway, if an international standard for risk is not your cup of tea, just look at the wiki summary, which a bit further down provides the quantitative analysis version, which is just risk = cost +ù probability.
The shocking part of the ISO standard these days is that it does away with the word GÇ£costGÇ¥ or GÇ£lossGÇ¥ in exchange for GÇ£outcomeGÇ¥ so it doesn't sound as negative, and so that it's easier to conceptualise negative outcomes (gains, if viewed from a loss perspective, losses, if viewed from a gains perspective).
Quote:Less so than cost since there are associated probabilities. They're no more (or less) associated with probabilities than costs are. Common language use has just taught you to GÇ£don't count your chickensGÇ¥ and to equate GÇ£riskGÇ¥ with GÇ£uncertaintyGÇ¥, which has led you to think of both all positive outcomes and all risks as being uncertain, when neither is strictly true.
Meanwhile, how about this for a gank risk assessment:
Gêæ cGéôpGéô - (Gêæ cߦópߦóqߦó)+ù¦Æ(-âGéô)
GǪwhere cGéô is the cost of the ship and fittings, pGéô is the probability that they're lost in the process, cߦó is the cost of the item, pߦó is the probability that the item survives, qߦó is the probability that the item is not stolen, and ¦Æ(-âGéô) is the probability of the gank succeeding as a function of all the ships involved. All these probabilities are <1, by the way so in the end, it doesn't even matter if you reject p=1 as qualifying as risks. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan 2.0. |
Maliandra
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.21 10:41:00 -
[227] - Quote
Tippia wrote:S Byerley wrote:You claimed not to be familiar with the business stuff. I'm not. Anyway, if an international standard for risk is not your cup of tea, just look at the wiki summary, which a bit further down provides the quantitative analysis version, which is just risk = cost +ù probability. The shocking part of the ISO standard these days is that it does away with the word GÇ£costGÇ¥ or GÇ£lossGÇ¥ in exchange for GÇ£outcomeGÇ¥ so it doesn't sound as negative, and so that it's easier to conceptualise negative outcomes (gains, if viewed from a loss perspective, losses, if viewed from a gains perspective). Quote:Less so than cost since there are associated probabilities. They're no more (or less) associated with probabilities than costs are. Common language use has just taught you to GÇ£don't count your chickensGÇ¥ and to equate GÇ£riskGÇ¥ with GÇ£uncertaintyGÇ¥, which has led you to think of both all positive outcomes and all risks as being uncertain, when neither is strictly true. Meanwhile, how about this for a gank risk assessment: Gêæ cGéôpGéô - (Gêæ cߦópߦóqߦó)+ù¦Æ(-âGéô) GǪwhere cGéô is the cost of the ship and fittings, pGéô is the probability that they're lost in the process, cߦó is the cost of the item, pߦó is the probability that the item survives, qߦó is the probability that the item is not stolen, and ¦Æ(-âGéô) is the probability of the gank succeeding as a function of all the ships involved. All these probabilities are <1, by the way so in the end, it doesn't even matter if you reject p=1 as qualifying as risks. You're thinking too deeply about this IMO. On one hand I applaud you for that, but on the other hand one must be realistic in understanding how these concepts apply off the paper.
Death as a ganker is in fact inevitable. It's like saying driving a car at 200 mp/h through a red light has a risk of making you run a red light. It is in fact impossible to not run the red light. Through numbers you could have a "risk factor" of 100% but as we come back to reality, the definition of risk inherently involves two potential outcomes that are both plausible. Thus in this scenario using the word "risk" is a rather improper term.
Thus I object to the manner in which you are measuring risk/reward. There is a big difference between risk and chance. Risk involves the potential for loss by definition. There is no potential here, the loss is objective and static. |
S Byerley
The Manhattan Engineer District
119
|
Posted - 2013.08.21 10:42:00 -
[228] - Quote
Tippia wrote:I'm not. Anyway, if an international standard for risk is not your cup of tea, just look at the wiki summary, which a bit further down provides the quantitative analysis version, which is just risk = cost +ù probability.
That's how you calculate it (or at least the standard version), but formulas aren't always applicable.
Quote:They're no more (or less) associated with probabilities than costs are. Common language use has just taught you to GÇ£don't count your chickensGÇ¥ and to equate GÇ£riskGÇ¥ with GÇ£uncertaintyGÇ¥, which has led you to think of both all positive outcomes and all risks as being uncertain, when neither is strictly true.
It's more an issue with timing. I consider the decision made when the cost is paid, making that certain. The outcome/profit, a future event, is never certain - at least not from our frame of reference.
Quote:Meanwhile, how about this for a gank risk assessment:
Gêæ cGéôpGéô - (Gêæ cߦópߦóqߦó)+ù¦Æ(-âGéô)
GǪwhere cGéô is the cost of the ship and fittings, pGéô is the probability that they're lost in the process, cߦó is the cost of the item, pߦó is the probability that the item survives, qߦó is the probability that the item is not stolen, and ¦Æ(-âGéô) is the probability of the gank succeeding as a function of all the ships involved.
I'd simplify out pGéô if you're letting it equal 1; also the item can't be stolen if it doesn't drop, making pߦó and qߦó dependent so you can't multiply them.
In any case, you've lost a lot of information by simply extracting the expectation; information that's important in balancing activities. |
Victoria Sin
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
436
|
Posted - 2013.08.21 10:53:00 -
[229] - Quote
All of you people talking about risk really need to read The Black Swan, by Nassem Talib. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
16164
|
Posted - 2013.08.21 10:56:00 -
[230] - Quote
Maliandra wrote:Death as a ganker is in fact inevitable. Actually, it is in fact not, especially once you start going into actual, traditional gangks.
Quote:There is a big difference between risk and chance. Risk involves the potential for loss by definition. Exactly: risk is not the same thing as chance, which is why risks are still risks even when the outcome is certain.
Again, risk = cost +ù probability, and that cost does not have to actually be a loss, and the probability doesn't have to be <1.
S Byerley wrote:I'd simplify out pGéô if you're letting it equal 1 GǪbut pGéô isn't 1, so that would be an incorrect simplification.
Quote:also the item can't be stolen if it doesn't drop, making pߦó and qߦó dependent so you can't multiply them. GǪwhich is why it measures GÇ£not stolenGÇ¥ as opposed to GÇ£stolenGÇ¥. If you wanted to simplify anything, it would be pߦóqߦó into p[actually getting the goods]. Then again, that part is admittedly timing-based GÇö I suppose we could complicate it further with the odds of the pick-up ship being (counter)ganked, which means we have a pGéô for x=hauler in there as well. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan 2.0. |
|
Lucas Kell
JSR1 AND GOLDEN GUARDIAN PRODUCTIONS SpaceMonkey's Alliance
464
|
Posted - 2013.08.21 11:02:00 -
[231] - Quote
I don't think they are interested in anything like that. They are just interested in trying to make the most amazing looking post while all essentially being completely off topic, even if the topic was about risk. They are pretty much debating the definition of risk, when all they really need to be concerned about is where there is a chance of failure on both sides, to which the answer is obviously yes, thus rendering everything else they say on the subject pointless. Quantifying the risk on each side would have so many variables that each situation would be unique, and the argument started as "ganking is 100% risk free" which is an obvious troll, or an incredibly stupid poster. Either way, not worth discussing. The Indecisive Noob - A new EVE Fan Blog for news and stuff. |
S Byerley
The Manhattan Engineer District
119
|
Posted - 2013.08.21 11:04:00 -
[232] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Quote:also the item can't be stolen if it doesn't drop, making pߦó and qߦó dependent so you can't multiply them. GǪwhich is why it measures GÇ£not stolenGÇ¥ as opposed to GÇ£stolenGÇ¥.
Still dependent (unless you have some weird definition that's not = 1-P[stolen]); have no problem with P[actually getting the goods] though. |
S Byerley
The Manhattan Engineer District
119
|
Posted - 2013.08.21 11:09:00 -
[233] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:while all essentially being completely off topic
Happens when then topic is dumb.
Quote:and the argument started as "ganking is 100% risk free" which is an obvious troll, or an incredibly stupid poster. Either way, not worth discussing.
If you prefer: suicide ganking is too easy/low cost/profitable - certainly worth discussing.
As for the book: I have trouble taking anything that uses the word philistine in a derogatory manner seriously, but I do read a fair bit of philosophy.
|
Infinity Ziona
Cloakers
306
|
Posted - 2013.08.21 11:16:00 -
[234] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Infinity Ziona wrote:You are correct. When suicide ganking the ship is the expendable ammo. A risk is not a risk if the outcome is certain. A risk requires an element of chance. No. A risk only requires an outcome (usually a cost) and a probability. Just because the probability is 1 doesn't mean the risk goes away. Yes but lets be realistic here. When the probability falls so low its not a discernible factor there is little to no risk to the person ganking. But if you like than I'll say
"The risk experienced by suicide gankers blowing up miners in barges and so on is so low it could be considered non-existent for anyone not super pedantic".
Does that satisfy you?
|
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
8615
|
Posted - 2013.08.21 11:18:00 -
[235] - Quote
Infinity Ziona wrote:Yes but lets be realistic here. When the probability falls so low its not a discernible factor there is little to no risk to the person ganking. But if you like than I'll say
"The risk experienced by suicide gankers blowing up miners in barges and so on is so low it could be considered non-existent for anyone not super pedantic".
Does that satisfy you?
And the reward for blowing up miners in barges is next to nothing Twitter: @EVEAndski
TheMittani.com: The premier source for news, commentary and discussion of EVE Online and other games of interest.-á |
MeestaPenni
Mercantile and Stuff
269
|
Posted - 2013.08.21 11:23:00 -
[236] - Quote
Infinity Ziona wrote: "The risk experienced by suicide gankers blowing up miners in barges and so on is so low it could be considered non-existent for anyone not super pedantic".
Good answer.
Has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like?
I am not Prencleeve Grothsmore. |
Dirk Decibel
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
37
|
Posted - 2013.08.21 11:23:00 -
[237] - Quote
What I find way more interesting than blahblah about risk: where do I go to join this interdiction and blow up stuff? |
Infinity Ziona
Cloakers
306
|
Posted - 2013.08.21 11:24:00 -
[238] - Quote
Andski wrote:Infinity Ziona wrote:Yes but lets be realistic here. When the probability falls so low its not a discernible factor there is little to no risk to the person ganking. But if you like than I'll say
"The risk experienced by suicide gankers blowing up miners in barges and so on is so low it could be considered non-existent for anyone not super pedantic".
Does that satisfy you?
And the reward for blowing up miners in barges is next to nothing I disagree. I have done it too. The reward is having killed someone and made them rage. This is probably the most rewarding thing you can get in EvE in my experience.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
16164
|
Posted - 2013.08.21 11:39:00 -
[239] - Quote
Infinity Ziona wrote:Yes but lets be realistic here. When the probability falls so low its not a discernible factor there is little to no risk to the person ganking. There's plenty of risk. We've only gotten started with the first false notion: that the ship loss itself isn't a risk (when the reality is the exact opposite). We haven't even begun to touch the parts that create risk in terms of the pay-off.
Quote:"The risk experienced by suicide gankers blowing up miners in barges and so on is so low it could be considered non-existent for anyone not super pedantic".
Does that satisfy you? No, because it still wilfully or ignorantly disregards all the risk involved. Try this on for size instead: GÇ£The risk experienced by suicide gankers blowing up mining barges and so on is determined by their picking targets where the projected gain is suitably higher than the projected loss and even then, there's the risk of finding no suitable targets.GÇ¥
Risk does not preclude there being a guaranteed loss. Risk does not preclude there being a projected net gain.
S Byerley wrote:Still dependent (unless you have some weird definition that's not = 1-P[stolen]); have no problem with P[actually getting the goods] though. So tell me, how would you write the two in order to control for this dependence on p(stolen)GǪ? GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan 2.0. |
MeestaPenni
Mercantile and Stuff
269
|
Posted - 2013.08.21 11:46:00 -
[240] - Quote
I bet going to the grocery store with Tippia is an absolute hoot. Has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like?
I am not Prencleeve Grothsmore. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 28 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |