%\begin{slide}[toc=]{\ding{55} Simulation too short?}
%\bi
%\item
%In writing these slides, the proceeding graphs were regenerated dozens of times with different random seeds
%\item
%Each time
%the resulting plots were mostly the same, with occasional, very small, rank changes.
%\ei
%\end{slide}
%
\begin{slide}[toc=]{Sanity check: sampling naive?}
\bi
\item
The proceeding experiment drew values from probability distributions of each SILAP variable,
{\em ignoring} any correlations {\em between} variables.
\item
Q: are there large correlations?\newline
A: No

{\tiny
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{r|r@{~}r@{~}r@{~}r@{~}r@{~}r@{~}r@{~}r@{~}r@{~}r@{~}r@{~}r@{~}r@{~}r@{~}r@{~}r}\hline
&HS2&AS2&PF2&EX3&DO3&US3&UC3&CL3&FR3&DT3&RM3&RA3&AM3&CX3&DI3&SS3\\
HS2&&0.41&0.08&-0.06&-0.18&-0.26&-0.22&-0.29&-0.09&-0.42&0.47&-0.16&-0.05&0.07&0&0.13\\
AS2&&&0.44&-0.05&-0.06&-0.16&-0.05&-0.21&0.05&0.01&0.04&-0.01&-0.1&0.34&0.14&0.07\\
PF2&&&&0.01&0.01&-0.02&0.07&-0.07&0.08&0.26&-0.15&0.16&-0.12&0.4&0.12&0.08\\
EX3&&&&&-0.19&0.45&0.21&0.47&-0.11&0.1&-0.19&0.05&0.41&-0.09&0.24&0.18\\
DO3&&&&&&0.13&0.35&0.18&0.2&0.23&-0.13&-0.07&-0.05&-0.04&0.09&-0.23\\
US3&&&&&&&0.44&0.48&0.26&0.43&-0.47&0.29&0.03&-0.22&0.29&0.1\\
UC3&&&&&&&&0.39&0.49& \sq{0.68}{75}&-0.23&0.08&0.14&0.13&0.34&0.01\\
CL3&&&&&&&&&-0.13&0.21&-0.31&0.03&0.24&-0.16&0.17&0.11\\
FR3&&&&&&&&&&0.5&-0.12&\sq{0.53}{75}&-0.02&0.15&0.21&-0.03\\
DT3&&&&&&&&&&&\sq{-0.58}{75}&0.34&-0.12&0.24&0.3&0.09\\
RM3&&&&&&&&&&&&-0.28&0.02&-0.04&-0.23&-0.12\\
RA3&&&&&&&&&&&&&0.02&0.15&0.06&0.2\\
AM3&&&&&&&&&&&&&&0.01&0.11&-0.01\\
CX3&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&0.05&0.14\\
DI3&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&0.18\\
SS3&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
}
\item
Besides, when we run the raw data for ``all'' through SILAP, it picks tasks very similar to 
the simulation for ``all'' .
\ei

\end{slide}
