Look up protect our aquifer. They do a lot of work supporting aquifer protection in the Memphis. www.protectouraquifer.org

Seems very difficult to monetize site scale surveys even if you can dramatically reduce hardware and software costs. Travel and personnel are so expensive

I think that machine learning lets us extend the results of a single method survey further then we could previously. But you have to have enough, good ground truth to constrain it and that seems at odds with the business model proposed. Also concerned about the scale of the work.

pubs.usgs.gov/publication/...

data.usgs.gov/datacatalog/...

No, that would be where the machine learning has to come in. I am actively working on predicting grain size distributions from AEM surveys using machine learning. Maybe too close to it, but the USGS has been actively working to extend geological properties via geophysics for some time

If you dig into the links, it seems like fairly straightforward applications of refraction and MASW. Agree that accelerometers are a bit weird, but you just need a time series and the ability to pick first breaks. Estimating bulk density from p wave velocity is well understood

www.sciencedirect.com/science/arti...

These are really interesting. Is there a way we could also see how this varies with win rate. Maybe overlaying this lone plot on a histogram of win rate?

www.usgs.gov/usgs-publish...

As a Geophysicist that often works with really long profiles, I love the Scientific Investigations Map (SIM) format. Large poster size plates are great for showing relationships between multiple figures

I would put that as a vote for venue diversity.

Maybe I should also plug the USGS Scientific Publishing Network, which produces open access products in a wide variety of formats like Maps and video in addition to more conventional journal publications.

I generally work on the reimbursable side of the USGS, but I can say that the USGS research grade evaluation program recently changed their policy so that products from the USGS's own publisher will be given the same weight as conventional journal publications.

While it's likely due to the kindred nature of the set design, MID seems to have a very high degree of vulnerability. I remember really enjoying that set, but most of the archetypes are hits or misses without a lot of variance. RIP RG werewolves

How are these win rates aggregated. Are they just averaged across the format or at a specific point in a format lifespan? Feel like that's a pretty important thing to note on the graphs. Would be interesting to see 2 weeks after release vs something later in the format's evolution

While it was objectively bad, wow HBG was something. Really hope they bring that one back some time. The highs and lows were spectacular

I guess I'm a Gruul mage. Seeing DMU and ONE right next to one another at the top of the Gruul rankings is pretty striking given that those are, IIRC, the two poles of the format speed continuum

Do you feel that splashing the third color is worth the cost in tempo spent fetching specific lands or dealing with multiple tap lands in the crucial first 2-3 turns? Feels like the deck is structured such to be advantages vs Dimir, often leaving them with 5-7 blank removal spells

Gotta go with Foundations as a solution to several historic problems with standard. Forming a stable core of evergreen effects defines the idea of what standard should be and reduces the financial and emotional costs of a rotating format

How do you feel about this one?
www.reddit.com/r/mtgcube/co...
I find this one worke the best when I am by myself and making packs to the take to the draft.

It's much less shuffling for a single person. It's less optimal than your suggested method if you are shuffling at the event.