"It's hard to believe that the sight of an armless man walking along with a giant TV clamped to his body did not get anyone's attention," said police.
Also, this real headline:
"Unaware police carry guns, mountain lion charges at officer"
You don't say...
Monday, November 10, 2008
On College Football
In response to this piece by Matt Y, which cites this article in the New York Times Magazine on the Texas Tech Red Raiders' offense, it is true that Collegiate recruiting is fundamentally uneven.
That being said, that inequality is one of the reasons that Michael Lewis was interviewing Mike Leach. It's not just the underdog story, though those are always appealing. It's that the unequal nature of high school and collegiate athletics breeds innovation. If Coach Leach tries to compete against University of Texas with a power running game he's going to lose. Every. Time. He needed to develop a system that was innovative and dynamic enough that it could even the odds against teams stacked with highly recruited high school talent.
A very similar story from high school football can be found in the New York Times' story on the A-11 offense here.
High school and collegiate athletics are fundamentally inequitable. At least that inequality breeds creativity, creativity which affects all levels of play. Look at the Miami Dolphins adoption of the wildcat set. Or lowly Kansas City last week scoring on a wide receiver pass to the quarter back Tyler Thigpen.
UPDATE: I should probably say just a bit more about this. It's natural to think that very tight competition breeds innovation, since every competitor is close even a small edge can reap great benefits. One hit every twelve at bats (about 3-4 games) is the difference between a below average hitter and a very good one. But something happens in a system of close peer competition. If each competitor is closely matched at a particular contest, each seeks SMALL advantages. The risk of trying something very new and different is seen as great next to the rewards of doing so. After all, if you are very close to your peers and you make big new changes, those changes are as likely to make you worse as they are better. Making small changes in an attempt to move from JUST behind to JUST ahead are seen as much lower risk.
In systems with fundamental inequality among competitors, the dynamic is different. The top schools are in a peer competitive dynamic. They see the competition in recruiting as much as in coaching. But the mid-majors and the lower Div. 1-A schools can't compete on that level. The risks of them trying something VERY different are seen as small. They've been losing to the football factory schools for years, if they throw their playbook out and try something totally new, what do they have to lose?
You could make an argument that the same thing happens in business. The US car market comes to mind. When small fuel efficient Japanese imports first entered the US market they simply were seen as curiosities. Who would want one of those little things? The GM and Ford knew how to make cars that people wanted, after all, they were selling way more cars than Toyota. Even after it was clear they were headed down the wrong path, GM and Ford continued to lag Toyota and Honda in producing quality compact vehicles. By contrast, when they first started Japanese manufacturers had to innovate. They HAD to make something new. It would have been impossible for them to compete if they insisted on entering the market by competing in 4 door sedans.
Evolution in business, in coaching, and in nature is not about slow improvement. It's about slow, steady stasis punctuated by dramatic leaps and changes.
That being said, that inequality is one of the reasons that Michael Lewis was interviewing Mike Leach. It's not just the underdog story, though those are always appealing. It's that the unequal nature of high school and collegiate athletics breeds innovation. If Coach Leach tries to compete against University of Texas with a power running game he's going to lose. Every. Time. He needed to develop a system that was innovative and dynamic enough that it could even the odds against teams stacked with highly recruited high school talent.
A very similar story from high school football can be found in the New York Times' story on the A-11 offense here.
High school and collegiate athletics are fundamentally inequitable. At least that inequality breeds creativity, creativity which affects all levels of play. Look at the Miami Dolphins adoption of the wildcat set. Or lowly Kansas City last week scoring on a wide receiver pass to the quarter back Tyler Thigpen.
UPDATE: I should probably say just a bit more about this. It's natural to think that very tight competition breeds innovation, since every competitor is close even a small edge can reap great benefits. One hit every twelve at bats (about 3-4 games) is the difference between a below average hitter and a very good one. But something happens in a system of close peer competition. If each competitor is closely matched at a particular contest, each seeks SMALL advantages. The risk of trying something very new and different is seen as great next to the rewards of doing so. After all, if you are very close to your peers and you make big new changes, those changes are as likely to make you worse as they are better. Making small changes in an attempt to move from JUST behind to JUST ahead are seen as much lower risk.
In systems with fundamental inequality among competitors, the dynamic is different. The top schools are in a peer competitive dynamic. They see the competition in recruiting as much as in coaching. But the mid-majors and the lower Div. 1-A schools can't compete on that level. The risks of them trying something VERY different are seen as small. They've been losing to the football factory schools for years, if they throw their playbook out and try something totally new, what do they have to lose?
You could make an argument that the same thing happens in business. The US car market comes to mind. When small fuel efficient Japanese imports first entered the US market they simply were seen as curiosities. Who would want one of those little things? The GM and Ford knew how to make cars that people wanted, after all, they were selling way more cars than Toyota. Even after it was clear they were headed down the wrong path, GM and Ford continued to lag Toyota and Honda in producing quality compact vehicles. By contrast, when they first started Japanese manufacturers had to innovate. They HAD to make something new. It would have been impossible for them to compete if they insisted on entering the market by competing in 4 door sedans.
Evolution in business, in coaching, and in nature is not about slow improvement. It's about slow, steady stasis punctuated by dramatic leaps and changes.
Economic Shadenfreude Watch: Circuit City
Looks like Circuit City is declaring bankruptcy. There was a time when I felt pretty sympathetic towards Circuit City. They were a local Virginia chain that built itself into a national retailer by competing on service and price. Their sales people were (relatively) knowledgeable and they had a pretty good low price policy. I remember my family bought several things from them because we felt their service was good and they stood behind their products (including our FIRST MICROWAVE ooooo!1! which lasted for something like 10 years).
However, as time (and management) changed, so did the company. First Best Buy came along with slightly better prices and a "no hassles" policy, which is great if you have a sales force that doesn't know it's products (We won't hassle you! We don't even know how to turn it on!). As people started using the internet for shopping as well as research, competition became even tighter in the electronic retail market.
So how did Circuit City respond? They fired all of their most experienced sales people because they were too expensive. Say, thanks for working for us for 5 years, you're fired because you earned too many raises. It's ok though, you can reapply for your old job making a starting salary again!
Needless to say, I'm not exactly sympathetic to see them going bankrupt a year and a half after this brilliant business move.
However, as time (and management) changed, so did the company. First Best Buy came along with slightly better prices and a "no hassles" policy, which is great if you have a sales force that doesn't know it's products (We won't hassle you! We don't even know how to turn it on!). As people started using the internet for shopping as well as research, competition became even tighter in the electronic retail market.
So how did Circuit City respond? They fired all of their most experienced sales people because they were too expensive. Say, thanks for working for us for 5 years, you're fired because you earned too many raises. It's ok though, you can reapply for your old job making a starting salary again!
Needless to say, I'm not exactly sympathetic to see them going bankrupt a year and a half after this brilliant business move.
Sunday, November 9, 2008
Satan Is No Match For Modern Lawyering
Just FYI, EULA is "End User Licensing Agreement." That's what comes with every piece of software you buy. You see, you don't "own" software on your computer. What you "own" is a license to use one copy of that program on the machine of your choice, plus the right to make one back up copy of the software.
Bad Analysis Watch: The God Gap
I just wanted to point out this and this from Kevin Drum.
The take away here is if you see someone in the paper or on TV telling you that Obama did well because he convinced regular church goers to vote for him DON'T BELIEVE IT. It's just lazy reporting. As Kevin shows, Obama did improve over Kerry's numbers among self-reported regular church goers, but by no more than he improved among everyone! Obama got more votes! If you want to say Obama did particularly well among a group, you need to compare it to his improvement among other groups and the electorate as a whole. Obama did improve among regular church goers, and those votes help, but anyone that says Obama's message to/more effective persuasion of church goers was WHY he did so much better than Kerry is selling you a bill of goods.
The take away here is if you see someone in the paper or on TV telling you that Obama did well because he convinced regular church goers to vote for him DON'T BELIEVE IT. It's just lazy reporting. As Kevin shows, Obama did improve over Kerry's numbers among self-reported regular church goers, but by no more than he improved among everyone! Obama got more votes! If you want to say Obama did particularly well among a group, you need to compare it to his improvement among other groups and the electorate as a whole. Obama did improve among regular church goers, and those votes help, but anyone that says Obama's message to/more effective persuasion of church goers was WHY he did so much better than Kerry is selling you a bill of goods.
Thursday, November 6, 2008
Franken Creeping Closer
As Kos notes here, Norm Coleman's lead over Al Franken has been slowly narrowing as provisional ballots and local recounts slightly adjust the totals. The difference is now a mere 337 votes out of 2,860,110 total votes cast in the senate race.
Once all counties have certified the vote totals, they will go to a mandatory recount. This seat won't be decided until late November.
Update: Now it's a 221 vote margin according to the star-tribune.
Once all counties have certified the vote totals, they will go to a mandatory recount. This seat won't be decided until late November.
Update: Now it's a 221 vote margin according to the star-tribune.
One More Good Thing About That Election
It looks like we won't pick up the 8 seats needed for a filibuster proof majority. However, one good thing about that is the Democrats don't need to placate Joe Lieberman (I-Conn). Harry Reid is meeting with him today. Hopefully Reid will be telling him he's lost all his seniority on his committees. Maybe even that he's no longer welcome in the caucus.
I'd give the odds Lieberman loses his chairmanship around 90%, the chance he's kicked out of the caucus all together around 50%. He's still got some friends in the caucus. Why I don't know but he does.
I'd give the odds Lieberman loses his chairmanship around 90%, the chance he's kicked out of the caucus all together around 50%. He's still got some friends in the caucus. Why I don't know but he does.
Rahm Emanuel To Be Chief Of Staff
Rahm Emanuel, the #4 Democrat in the house has agreed to be Barack Obama's Chief of Staff. Rahm is the representative of Illinois 5th, part of Chicago, so he has long known Barack as part of Chicago politics. Rahm has a record of being tough, take-no-prisoners guy. In his role as a Clinton staffer he earned the nick name "Rahm-bo." After election to congress, he was very successful as the head of the DCCC, leading the campaign that lead to the Democratic take over of the house in 2006. That earned him the position of head of the Democratic Caucus, fourth in the house behind Pelosi, Majority Leader Hoyer and Majority Whip Jim Clyburn.
So, tough, pragmatic, and a record of success. The cons: he has been cautious, and he's has expressed centrist tendencies both in writing (the book he co-authored "The Plan" warns against universal healthcare as politically impractical) and as a member of the "New Democrat" caucus, which is closely aligned with the DLC.
A good run down of the pros and cons can be found here.
So, tough, pragmatic, and a record of success. The cons: he has been cautious, and he's has expressed centrist tendencies both in writing (the book he co-authored "The Plan" warns against universal healthcare as politically impractical) and as a member of the "New Democrat" caucus, which is closely aligned with the DLC.
A good run down of the pros and cons can be found here.
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Oregon Update
Gordon Smith's lead has shrunk to just over 1000 votes. If you mouse over the county by county map of Oregon, you'll see that Multnomah county (Portland) is only 60% reported and Merkley is winning there 67/29, and in Lane county (Eugene) Merkley is winning 58/38 with only 69% of the votes in. Smith carried most of the rural counties, but most of those votes are in. Judging by eyeball, there are more ballots out in Democratic areas than Republican ones, so this seat still has a real chance of flipping.
UPDATE! Merkley has been projected as the winner!
UPDATE! Merkley has been projected as the winner!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)