For the last several years it has been claimed that some 98% of legitimate scientists believe it is a major need to reduce CO2 output so as to stop the world from getting warmer. When Trump visited the pope 4 yers ago, the pope would not speak to him expect to hand him his anti-global warming letter he’d written, “Laudato Si” and to tell Trump to get on board to stop global warming. Trump said he would read the letter.
Trump visits the pope, and the pope does not look happy
I’m not a fan of science established by Papal dictate based on an informal poll of experts, especially here where the minority includes some of the greatest minds of the 20th century, and the poll is taken by Al Gore’s science expert, but that’s where we are when it comes to science and politics. I also find it that the pope blames the US for global warming but not China when the the majority of CO2 came from China, a country committed to increasing its use of coal. But be this as it may be — the pope doesn’t blame China for imprisoning Catholics either, most recently the editor of Hong Kong’s most widely read newspaper.
So I thought I take a step back to look at the desirability of making the world colder. Is a colder world a better world? Sad pictures of polar bears are presented in favor of the colder world, but for all I know, polar bears prefer it warm. Their numbers are increasing.
Paul McCarthy lyrics; Hey Jude.
If we had a global climate adjustment knob somewhere, a magic knob allowing you to make the world warmer or colder by turning it right, or left, I doubt the consensus would be to turn the knob left. There is no real logic to cold being good, but there is a line in “Hey Jude”: “…It’s a fool who plays it cool, by making his world a little colder.” And Svente Arrhenius, one of the great scientists of 100 years ago, said he preferred a warm earth to a cold one to avoid disease and starvation. When the climate turns colder, the result is disease and famine as crops fail and animals freeze. It’s not an option that I’d think most people would prefer. given my choice, I would prefer things a little warmer.
I should also note that our ability to fine tune the climate is not what we’d think. The world climate is chaotic, and there is no reliable knob. Historically, the most common setting is ice-age, and that’s a setting that most people really don’t like.
The Boy Scouts of America filed for bankruptcy some months ago, and I’d began this article as a project to discover what went wrong. They have gotten mountains of bad press amidst land sales and lost membership, and there is a class action law suit over sexual abuse. Everything about this suggested that scouting had lost its way, and I thought I explore what. My sense after some searching is that scouting is doing fine, serving its members despite its troubles and growing in part because of them.
Baden-Powell in Africa his Stetson The Boy Scout retained much form Baden-Powell, including the hat.
The basic idea of scouting was to provide an environment where boys would d become men, learning to be prepared, and be helpful, decent, active human beings. Some details have changed, but the goal remains, and I’d say they are reasonably successful. But that’s getting ahead. I’m better off starting my story by describing two army scouts, one British one American, who met fighting the Boer wars in the late 1890s. The American was an Indian-raised cowboy, a US army scout named Fredrick Burnham. He joined the British in South Africa as a scout against the natives and Dutch (The Boers). He was good at it, gaining valuable information, leading raids, and blowing things up. Such activities made him a hero of boys of a previous generation, but leaves current sensitivities a bit on edge.
The other scout was his boss, lieutenant general Robert Baden-Powell, an excellent scout himself, but also and organizer, artist, writer, speaker, and spy. He’d run intelligence in India, and now ran it in Africa, spying on the Boers and leading others like Burnham to do the same. Burnham taught Baden-Powell survival techniques he’d learned from the Indians, including “woodcraft”. Baden-Powell brought organization and a positive, faith-based attitude towards difficult situations; “Be prepared”
Frederick Russell Burnham with his signature Stetson campaign hat. The hat and curchif would become part of the Scout uniform, and the woodcraft methods of tracking and survival would become central to Boy scouting, both in the US and in England.
Baden-Power also wrote a book on military scouting illustrated with his own drawings, it became a hit with young, male readers in turn of the century England. Retiring from the military, Baden-Powell noted the enthusiasm among boys and put together a military-style scout-camp for boys on Brownsea Island, UK. From there, scouting grew: in numbers, in properties, and in scope. Baden-Powell devised the oath: “On my honor, I will do my best; To do my duty to God and my country and to obey the Scout Law; To help other people at all times; To keep myself physically strong, mentally awake and morally straight.” It was the embodiment of a positive, active, masculine life — but it appealed to women too. A few years later “Girl Guides” were founded in England; Boy Scouts and “Girl Scouts” were founded in the US as independent, parallel organizations. So what went wrong?
It is clear that some of the military aspects of scouting are out of tune with current, non militarism, but that’s not something quite new. Perhaps, I thought, the current problems came because of gender dysphoria – -that active masculinity is somewhat out of fashion, as is the white-supremacy at the heart of the Boer war. Then I thought that, perhaps the problem was when the organization accepted women, and thus it wasn’t for boys, uniquely, or that it had dropped the physical requirements, or the belief in God. What was left. Perhaps the problem was poor financial management, or that sex-laws had become a minefield with #metoo and transgender. These are all problems, but not exactly new, and I no longer see them as problems with Scouts as such.
Boys still want to be active and relevant, and seem to still take to woodcraft even if they realize that woodcraft isn’t likely to be that useful. It is enough that woodcraft is sometimes useful, and that it’s fun and provides a training for other things. Though boy-girl interactions are fraught, I no longer see it as a problem. Scouting provides an avenue to maturity, and If the particulars of maturity have changed, the general attraction has not. That numbers are down is not a problem either. Some religious groups have left, particularly the Mormons, and some scouts have moved on to other activities: soccer, tennis, band, etc. Even with these other avenues, there are still some 4 million Scouts in the US including Scouts BSA and Girl Scouts. After 100 years, that’s not a failing organization.
A lot of the bad press comes, I think, from the fact that things changed fast in the US, far faster than in British version of scouting. In Britain, gay leaders were accepted in the 1980s; the US didn’t accept them till 2015. British scouting accepted girls in the 1970s, the Boy Scouts didn’t admit them till 2018, and didn’t accept transgender members till 2019. It was all so sudden. US scouting changed their name then and dropped the belief in God, also the need for wood lore and swimming. The rapid changes left older leaders dazed, but were probably for the best, and over-due. The law suits and bankruptcy also seems to have caused more trouble to the leaders than for the scouts; scout troops were always fairly autonomous.
As for the military aspect, some of it remains, and I get no sense that it’s resented. it seems to help distinguish the Boy Scouts (Scouting BSA) from the Girl Scouts; Girl Scouts focuses on economics and social activism, while Scouting BSA has been able to use the military preparedness to position itself as the more rugged alternative, and the more masculine, even if it accepts girls.
Some in management would like to go further away from Badden-Powell’s Boer-war outlook, to be more like the Girl Scouts. In Market Week, the Scouts’ director of communications claims to have …”positioned BSA to be the primary internet organization that serves diversity and deprived communities.” That sounds like a me-too to Girl Scouting, and the Girl Scouts have filed suit to prevent it.
In terms of predators and law suits, while one could claim that scouting should have done better, I think the troops themselves did well, though the upper management fell short, and tried to protect their own. Still, it is something of a defense to say you tried your best in an uncertain situation. There are no claims that leaders encouraged pederasts. The only claim is that they did not do enough to prevent them. While not everyone did their best, many did. Pederasts are drawn to kids organizations, and there is always be a tension between inclusiveness and protection. I’m reminded of the Be Prepared song (Tom Lehrer). it seems appropriate to the new scouting.
Jack Ma, disappeared billionaire owner of Alibaba.
Every 25 years or so, for the past 1500 years China gets a new dictator who rounds up the rich and famous for loyalty trials, imprisonment. and worse. This was true of Li Ping following Tianamin Square, and Mao Zedong who killed some 75 million as part of his 10,000 flowers, great leap purges. The current dictator, Jenping Xi. Like, has been rounding up anyone he worries about, and that’s basically anyone he might worry about. The latest is Jack Ma, the founder of Alibaba, China’s version of e-bay and Amazon. Until his disappearance, he was the richest person in China.
Ma had not been seen in public since October 2020, when he and two top lieutenants of Alibaba were called to meet with regulators. He reappeared months later in a 40 second video (some say a hostage video) to say he is more rested now, and that he is positive that China’s regulators do not stifle innovation. As typical for China, there is no information about his whereabouts. What’s novel is that US media companies are involved helping Xi to trace potential opposition and keep questions out of the press. This includes Google, Twitter, and Facebook, as well as US media outlets.
China’s biggest starlet, Fan Bingbing, vanished from sight and the internet for months. She may have said something critical, but has reappeared and recanted it.
In the past the news and social media would have been full of negative comments about China, and Ma’s detention , both from within and without. Now there is hardly anything and what little there is, is mildly positive about Xi. For three months there have been no e-mail or published tweets or Facebook posts from Ma or his lieutenants. Similarly, there is no room for negative speculation within China, and little within the US. The company’s planned IPO was cancelled, one that could have been the richest in history, but this fact got virtually no press, not in China, not in the US. Regulators cancelled it just two days before the start of trading. You’d expect screams from inside and outside China; instead, the story has been covered only briefly by CNN and the Financial Times, generally putting a pro-China spin on it. They stress the importance of regulations and avoiding monopolies, and don’t mention that Alibaba competes with Amazon, e-bay and Walmart. The expectation is that Ma and his higher-ups will be found guilty of monopoly trading and abuse of power. Under Xi, these crimes that have sent corporate leaders to prison for 12 to 20 years.
Ren Zhiqiang, missing billionaire, sentenced to 18 years.
Consider the fate of Ren Zhiqiang, the 69 year old chairman of Huayuan property conglomerate. It was one of the largest property groups in China, but Ren vanished in March 2020 after being heard to have complained about how the government was handling COVID-19. He was expelled from the communist party, and in September 2020 sentenced to 18 years in jail for “taking bribes and abuses of power.” There was hardly a trial, and as with Jack Ma, Facebook and Twitter helped the party silence Ren and his supporters. The result is that he had no recourse to the court of public opinion. About a month later, Facebook and Twitter did the same to Donald Trump, banning him for life from Facebook, Twitter. All other platforms joined, these included Snap and Reddit. As in China they also banned his main lieutenants and his main supporters, including the my-pillow man. The internet services also closed (deplatformed) Parler, the only competing web-service that allowed Trump and his supporters to post.
It can help to have public outcry, as Xi found after he disappeared China’s most popular movie starlet, Fan Bingbing in July 2018. Fan is a star of Chinese TV and movies and appears in Iron Man II and X-Men. As with Ma and Ren, Facebook and Twitter removed all posts, comments, questions, and complaints about Fan, releasing only the official statement that she was under investigation and taking a break. Unlike Ren, Fan reappeared a year later, April 2019 with no official charges filed. Nor has there been any official report. She has apologized for misdoings. and is supposed to have paid some $150 million, but she’s free. My guess is that the pressure of 100 million Chinese fans is what helped Ms Fan to un-vanish.
Had Wu Xiaohui, former chairman of Anbang Insurance Group, and owner to the Waldorf Astoria.
A less positive outcome is when there is no outcry. When Wu Xiaohui, chairman of the Anbang Insurance Group, and the owner of New York’s Waldorf Astoria hotel vanished for two years. When he reappeared, he faced a quiet trial that sentenced him to 18 years in prison. The usual charges: fraud and abuse of power. Wu’s mother claimed she had no access to her son for those two years. Anbang, once one of the largest insurers in China, was taken over by its insurance regulator who has applied to liquidate the company. Why liquidate? Probably because it’s the easiest way to remove potential Wu loyalists.
In the US, there are some claims that Facebook, Twitter, Reditt and a few other companies have too much control of public discourse. Others claim that these companies exercise too little control. These companies claim the right to silence opinion they consider untrue, or inflammatory, and they have been allowed to deplatform their competition. Congress is moving to be in charge of who they silence. I’ve found they don’t like pro-Israel sentiments. While they don’t put words in my mouth, I don’t like it that they take words out of my mouth. As a result, I’ve cut back on my use of these platforms.
Jack Ma reappeared after 3 months in this 40 second video, shot from an unknown location. To me, it looks like a hostage video, “I’m well and being well treated …” Biden has argued that now is the time to move closer to China.
As I write this, Trump is impeached for the second time. The charge is inflammatory speech. Like with abuse of power, there is no way to prove you didn’t do it, especially after the internet giants silence you and anyone stupid enough to support you. Among Biden’s first acts is to undo Trump dictates that kept China from providing the technology underlying the US power and water system. Clearly Biden feels it is important that China should have a hand in this. I surely am not going to suggest that the bribes Biden is supposed to have received from China played any role. I will say that, when I ran for water commission, one of my goals was to help make the water system more resistant to cyber attack.
Dr. Robert E. Buxbaum. February 8, 2021. As an update, I see that Jimmy Li was arrested. He’s the founder of Hong-Kong’s most popular newspaper, Apple daily. No comment in the US, or from the Vatican. Li is Catholic, and the Vatican used to chime in when prominent Catholics were arrested.
We just got a new toilet. Commonly called a commode, and it’s got a cool feature that I’d seen often in Europe but rarely in the US: two levels of flush strength. There is a “small flush” option that delivers, about 3 liters, intended for yellow waste, and a “big flush” option that delivers 6 liters. It’s intended for brown waste, or poop.
The main advantage of two mode flushing, in my opinion, is that the small flush is quieter than the normal. The quality of the flush is quite acceptable, even for brown waste because the elongated shape of the bowl seems better suited to pushing waste to the back, and down the drain. The flush valve is simple too, and I suspect the valve will last longer than the “flapper valve” of my older, one mode commodes. The secondary advantage is from some cost savings on water. That was about 1¢ per small flush in our area of Michigan, but the water department changed how they charge for water in our area and the cost savings have largely disappeared. Even under the old system, the savings in water cost amounted to only about $15 per year. At that rate it would take 15 years or more to pay for the new commode.
There is no real need for water savings in Michigan, and particularly not in our area, metro-Detroit. In other states there often is, but our drinking water comes from the Detroit river, and the cleaned up waste goes back to the river. It’s a cycle with no water lost no matter how much you flush, and no matter how big shower heads. I’d written in favor of allowing big flush toilets and big shower heads in our state, but the Obama administration ruled otherwise. Trump had promised to change that, but was impeached before he could. Even Trump had changed this, Biden has reversed virtually every Trump order related to resource use including those prohibiting China from providing critical technology to our water and power systems. Bottom line, you have to have a low-flush toilet, and you might as well get a two-mode.
Our commode has an elongated front, and I’d recommend that too. It can minimize floor dribbles, and that’s a good thing. The elongated shape also seems to provide a smoother flush path with less splatter. I would not recommend a “power flush” though for several reasons, among them that you get extra splatter and a louder flush noise. We’d bought a power flush some years ago, and in my opinion, it flushed no better than the ordinary toilet. It was very loud, and had a tendency to splatter. There was some slight water savings, but not worth it, IMHO.
Robert Buxbaum, February 8, 2021. I ran for water commissioner with several goals, among them to improve the fairness of billing, to decrease flooding, and to protect our water system from cyber attack.
While I was writing my essay on the chess ratings formula, I recalled enjoying the occasional chess game, and joined Chess.com, an intern chess site with many features. In one month I have played 12 games against humans and 5 or so against the computer. It’s fun, and Chess.com gives me a rating of 1323. It’s my first rating, and though it’s probably only accurate to ±150, I find it’s nice to have some sense of where you are in the chess world. But the most fun part, I find, are the chess puzzles; see some below. At first I found them impossible, but after playing for a bit, the ideas began to resolve, and I began to solve some. There’re not impossible, just difficult, and they only take a couple of minutes each. If you guess my name, you could win a match.
White to move and win. I see it now, but didn’t originally.
White to move and mate in 2. Magnus Vs Sergey, 2016 World Championship Tiebreaker. I see it!
This is from redditt. It took me forever to see through this.
White to move and win. I see it, I think.white to move and win in two. I see it!white to move and mate (in one?). I see a slower mate.Mate in 3. White to move. I see it.
Rents in New York and San Francisco are far less expensive than before the pandemic. It’s been a boon for the suburbs, the south and the midwest, one that’s likely to continue unless Biden steps in. Before the pandemic, rent in San Francisco for a one bedroom apartment averaged over $3700 per month. New York rent was similar. People paid it because these cities offered robust business and entertainment, the best restaurants and bars, the best salons and clubs, the best music, museums, universities, and theater. New York was Wall Street, Madison Avenue and Broadway; San Francisco was Silicon valley and Hollywood. These cities were the place to be, and then the pandemic hit.
Post COVID-19, the benefits of big city life are gone, and replaced by negatives. The great restaurants are mostly gone; the museums, theaters, and salons, shut along with Hollywood. Wall Street and Madison Ave have gone on-line, as have the universities. If you can work and study from anywhere, why do it from an expensive hotbed of Corona.
People of means left the big cities with the first lockdowns. Wall Street moved on line, with offices in New Jersey, and many followed, along with college students, and hotel and restaurant workers. New York’s unemployment rate increased from 4-5% to over 9.5% today, among the highest rates in the nation, 9.5%. It would be higher if not for the departures. Crime spiked; the murder rate doubled. To keep people from leaving, landlords have lowered rents and many will now forgive a month or two of rent to keep apartments full with some rent coming in and an illusion of exclusivity. This is good for tenants, but tough on landlords.
Detroit rent history, 2014 to January 2021. Rents fell a lot on election day, maybe because of Biden, or because we think the pandemic is over.
As things stand, the suburbs and smaller cities are the beneficiaries of the exodus. Among the cities benefiting the most are cities in the south and mid-west: states that are more open and are relatively low cost: Phoenix, Oakland, Cleveland, St. Petersburg, and even Detroit. Detroit’s rents were already moving up as auto manufacturing returned from Mexico, see chart. Between early 2017 and October 2020, they went from $500/month to $1250/month for a 1 bedroom apartment, according to Zumper. Detroit rents fell after election day, but are still up 20% on the year. The influx of wealthier working folk to Detroit is welcome to some, unwelcome to tenants who find their rents are raised. I think it’s is a sign of a healthy economy that people follow life-quality, and that rents follow people. Our landlords are happy, but there are a lot of Detroit renters who are not
Joe Biden has promised to step in to make things right for everyone. He promised to have the government pay people’s rent so they don’t get evicted. I presume that means paying about double to people in NY and SF as to those in Detroit. He claims he will shutter smokestack industries too, and create the good jobs of the future in computers and high tech. It’s a nice claim. I suspect it’s a bailout of big city landlords, but what would I know. I suspect that the US would be better off if Joe just sat back and let New York rents fall, while allowing Detroit to gentrify. Detroiters need not worry about rents getting too pricy here. We’ve1500 shootings per year, that 15 times more than NYC, per capita. Unless that ratio changes, Detroit will continue to be the lower rent city.
There are two remarkable things about shootings in Detroit. One is how many there are. About 1500 Detroiters last year, about 0.2% of the city’s population. The other remarkable tidbit is that only about 1/5 of them died. More specifically, there were 1173 non fatal shootings. There were also 327 criminal homicides, but many shooting deaths in Detroit are non-criminal, as in self-defense, or police interventions, and there are also many criminal homicides that are done with knives or poison. Put this together and it seems that only about 1/5 or those shot, perhaps 327 out of 1500 total. The headline from June 21, 2020 reads: 1 fatal, 11 non-fatal shootings in Detroit overnight. You almost feel like getting these guys marksmanship lessons, but there seems to be more at play.
Even in photography, a fair percentage of shooters miss simple head shots.
The number of shootings are way up this year, and drugs – alcohol is to blame, here and in other cities. People have lost their jobs to COVID and globalization, more in Detroit than in most cities, but the government has offered checks that are used for alcohol and drugs. Most Detroit shootings begin as arguments that turn violent. There is also some gang shooting, enhanced by a bout of prison releases, because of COVID.
Drugs and alcohol help explain the low death rate. It’s hard to shoot straight when you’re drunk or stoned, and hard even if you’re not, as Alexander Hamilton found. In Detroit, many of these hit were hit in non-vital areas (I tell folks to avoid those areas :). But another part of the low death rate is lower caliber bullets. Military caliber bullets were in short supply this year, and as best as I was able to tell, a fair number of shootings were with 22 and 25 instead of the military cartridges, 9mm and bigger that were popular years ago. A 9mm cartridge is shown as the center picture below, between a 22lr and a 45. Big bullets make for big holes and high death rates.
Per capita, the Detroit shooting rate is about 15 times that of New York City. New York saw roughly the same number of shootings as Detroit, 1,531 in a city 15 times bigger, and 462 criminal homicides The cause does not appear economic. but social. When Detroit’s unemployment rate fell, the murder rate did not. Thanks to COVID, Detroit’s unemployment rate is lower than New York’s. My only thought is that the culture is the difference, that the culture in New York is such that arguments do not turn violent as regularly.
Size comparison; 22, 9mm, 45. Big bullets leave big holes.
Stricter gun laws will not help, I think. Michigan’s gun laws make it hard to own pistols with barrels less than 16″ long. The net result is that most crime in the city is done with illegal guns. In general, countries with strict gun laws have more violent crime, not less. I would like to encourage private citizens to choose smaller bullets for self defense though, 22 or 32, and not military grade, 9mm. As a private citizen, you have to bring in the criminal, or storm a building. Your only goal is to get the criminal to stop without harming yourself. A 22 will get the criminal to stop. It will killl too, just less often. A 22 caliber bullet killed Bobby Kennedy, and Reagan was nearly killed with one. A small caliber bullet is less likely to kill you in an accident, or to kill people standing behind the target. This year, some 11 police forces came to a consensus report on use of the minimum of force necessary; read it here. For a private citizen, that’s a 22. Besides, speaking from my own limited experience, I find it easier to aim a small bullet.
Part of the mandate to the 2020 election was to join with Europe and the rest of the western world in agreeing to stop the use of coal. It’s a low cost way to generate energy. Of course we still like to buy things, and we’ve largely turned to China, a country that still burns coal, and thus makes things cheap. The net result of this shift to Chinese goods is that China keeps building coal-fired plants while we shut ours. As it happens, China is worse than the US in terms of CO2 per output, but at least when China pollutes, we don’t see the smoke directly, and we don’t see their new coal plants at all. So we feel better buying things from China than from the US. Besides, slave labor is cheap.
From th eEconomist, December 2020.
Buying Chinese goods is good for the importers, and for the non-manufacturing consumer, at least in the short term. It has the effect of exporting jobs though, and eventually we have to support the displaced workers. It also means we don’t keep up our manufacturing technology. Long term, that affects innovation, and that starts to displace other industries. Antibiotic production has already left the US and along with it semiconductors. Still, we feel good about it since the Chinese don’t let us see the slave labor camps. We do get to see the haze of the pollution.
The Chinese expect this pattern to continue. China is building new coal-fired plants at a furious rate. Presently China has most of the world’s coal-fired power plants. Mostly these are only 4 to 12 years old, far younger than our forty year old plants China plans to build more, and keeps encouraging us to shut down ours. Even 10 years ago, China lead the world in CO2 output. And their fraction of the CO2 keeps climbing.
China is popular with the press. In part, I expect, that’s because they pay the international experts. lAlso, writers and editors are consumers industrial products, but not manufacturers. Consumers benefit from slave labor, or maybe not, but displaced American workers certainly suffer. Also, of course, the news requires pictures and personal stories to keep viewer interest. If you can’t get pictures of young protesters, like Grey Thunberg, you can get an interesting story. Our Chinese pollution is out of sight, and not in the press.
Near the beginning of the movie “The social network”, Zuckerberg asks his Harvard roommate, Saverin, to explain the chess rating system. His friend writes an equation on the window, Zuckerberg looks for a while, nods, and uses it as a basis for Facemash, the predecessor of Facebook. The dating site, Tinder said it used this equation to match dates, but claims to have moved on from there, somewhat. The same is likely true at J-swipe, a jewish coating site, and Christian mingle.
Scene from the social network, Saverin shows Zuckerberg the equations for the expected outcome of a chess match between players of different rankings, Ra and Rb.
I’ll explain how the original chess ranking system worked, and then why it works also for dating. If you’ve used Tinder or J-swipe, you know that they provide fairly decent matches based on a brief questionnaire and your pattern of swiping left or right on pictures of people, but it is not at all clear that your left-right swipes are treated like wins and losses in a chess game: your first pairings are with people of equal rating.
Start with the chess match equations. These were developed by Anand Elo (pronounced like hello without the h) in the 1950s, a physics professor who was the top chess player in Wisconsin at the time. Based on the fact that chess ability changes relatively slowly (usually) he chose to change a persons rating based on a logistic equation, sigmoid model of your chances of winning a given match. He set a limit to the amount your rating could change with a single game, but the equation he chose changed your rating fastest when you someone much better than you or lost to someone much weaker. Based on lots of inaccurate comparisons, the game results, you get a remarkably accurate rating of your chess ability. Also, as it happens, this chess rating also works well to match people for chess games.
The knowledge equation, an S curve that can be assumed to relate to the expected outcome of chess matchups or dating opportunities.
For each player in a chess match, we estimate the likelihood that each player will win, lose or tie based on the difference in their ratings, Ra -Rb and the sigmoid curve at left. We call these expected outcome Ea for player A, and Eb for player B where Ea = Eb = is 50% when Ra = RB. It’s seen that Ea never exceeds 1; you can never more than 100% certain about a victory. The S-graph shows several possible estimates of Ea where x= Ra-Rb, and k is a measure of how strongly we imagine this difference predicts outcome. Elo chose a value of k such that 400 points difference in rating gave the higher ranked player a 91% expectation of winning.
To adjust your rating, the outcomes of a game is given a number between 1 and 0, where 1 represents a win, 0 a loss, and 0.5 a draw. Your rating changes in proportion to the difference between this outcome and your expected chance of winning. If player A wins, his new rating, Ra’, is determined from the old rating, Ra as follows:
Ra’ = Ra + 10 (1 – Ea)
It’s seen that one game can not change your rating by any more than 10, no matter how spectacular the win, nor can your rating drop by any more than 10 if you lose. If you lose, Ra’ = Ra – 10 Ea. New chess players are given a start ranking, and are matched with other new players at first. For new players, the maximum change is increased to 24, so you can be placed in a proper cohort that much quicker. My guess is that something similar is done with new people on dating sites: a basic rating (or several), a basic rating, and a fast rating change at first that slows down later.
As best I can tell, dating apps use one or more ratings to solve a mathematical economics problem called “the stable marriage problem.” Gayle and Shapely won the Nobel prize in economics for work on this problem. The idea of the problem is to pair everyone in such a way that no couple is happier by a swap of partners. It can be shown that there is always a solution that achieves that. If there is a singe, understood ranking, one way of achieving this stable marriage pairing is by pairing best with best, 2nd with second, and thus all the way down. The folks at the bottom may not be happy with their mates, but neither is there a pair that would like to switch mates with them.
Part of this, for better or worse, is physical attractiveness. Even if the low ranked (ugly) people are not happy with the people they are matched with, they may be happy to find that these people are reasonably happy with them. Besides a rating based on attractiveness, there is a rating based on age and location; sexual orientation and religiosity. On J-swipe and Tinder, people are shown others that are similar to them in attractiveness, and similar to the target in other regards. The first people you are shown are people who have already swiped right for you. If you agree too, you agree to a date, at least via a text message. Generally, the matches are not bad, and having immediate successes provides a nice jolt of pleasure at the start.
Religious dating sites, J-swipe and Christian Mingle work to match men with women, and to match people by claimed orthodoxy to their religion. Tinder is a lot less picky: not only will they match “men looking for men” but they also find that “men looking for women” will fairly often decide to date other “men looking for women”. The results of actual, chosen pairings will then affect future proposed pairings so that a man who once dates a man will be shown more men as possible dates. In each of the characteristic rankings, when you swipe right it is taken as a win for the person in the picture, if you swipe left it’s a loss: like a game outcome of 1 or 0. If both of you agree, or don’t it’s like a tie. Your rating on the scale of religion or beauty goes up or down in proportion to the difference between the outcome and the predictions. If you date a person of the same sex, it’s likely that your religion rating drops, but what do I know?
One way or another, this system seems to work at least as well as other matchmaking systems that paired people based on age, height, and claims of interest. If anything, I think there is room for far more applications, like matching doctors to patients in a hospital based on needs, skills, and availability, or matching coaches to players.
Robert Buxbaum, December 31, 2020. In February, at the beginning of the COVID outbreak I claimed that the disease was a lot worse than thought by most, but the it would not kill 10% of the population as thought by the alarmist. The reason: most diseases follow the logistic equation, the same sigmoid.
Large chunks of Michigan shut down for the prime days of hunting season, from the middle of October to early November. About 8% of the state gets a hunting license each year, some 800,000 people, all trying to “Bag a buck.” Michigan is an open carry state for rifles and holstered pistols, something seen recently in the state capitol, I’d say this was an illegal example since there is also a brandishing law, but it gives a sense of things here. About 29% of the state owns at least one gun, and usually more. There are about as many guns as people. Getting bullets, on the other hand, is near impossible, both for handguns and for most rifles, shotguns excluded.
A lot of the attraction of hunting is that you get to eat what you kill. Mot people do this or donate it to a food back. Hunting is also cheaper than golf. Rural farmers also hunt to protect their crops from crows, squirrels, rabbits, rats, snakes, and raccoons. This is legitimate hunting, in my opinion, even though you typically don’t eat crow. Some people do hunt bear, but that’s a different story (I like to be dressed). It’s possible that the bullet shortage is just a hiccup in the supply chain, “supply and demand” but it’s been going on for 12 years now so I suspect it’s here to stay.
Michigan, was once a Republican, pro-gun stronghold. It has swung Democrat and anti-gun for the last few years. Bulletes have been scare for about that long, at least since the Obama election or the Sandy Hook shooting. Behind this is a general trend of urbanization and class-action law suits. At this point, few sporting stores carry guns or bullets, and those that do, tend to hide them in a back room. Amazon carries neither bullets nor guns, and the same holds at e-bay, Craig’s list, and Walmart on line. Dunhams still sells guns but the only bullets, when I visited today were, 17 caliber, 227 and duck-hunting, shotgun shells. Gone were normal handgun calibers: 22, 25, 32, 38, 45, 357, and 9mm. The press seems OK with duck or moose hunting; not so OK with anything else.
The salesman at Dunham’s said that he had moved to bow hunting, something that’s becoming common, but it’s incredibly difficult even with modern bows. I can rarely hit a non-moving target at 50 feet on the first arrow, and I can only imagine the frustration of trying to hit a moving target after sitting in a cold blind for days waiting for one to appear whose distance and placement is unknown, and that might disappear at any moment, or attack me then disappear.
Part of the problem is that arrows travel at only about 250 ft/s, or about 1/6 the speed of a bullet. Thus, an arrow fired from 50 yards takes about 0.6 seconds to hit. In that time it drops about 6 feet and must be aimed 6 feet above the deer if you hope to hit it. A riffle bullet falls only about 2 inches, about 1/36 as much. Whaat’s more, though an arrow is about three times heavier than a hunting bullet, its slow speed means it hits with only about 1/10 the kinetic energy, about the same as hunting with a 22 from a handgun.
There are those who say the bullet shortage will go away on its own because of supply and demand. That’s true until the government steps in in the name of public safety. Though recreational marijuana and moonshine are both legal, government regulation means that prices are high and supply is limited, with a grey market of people buying high and selling higher. I’m seeing the same with ammunition; there is tight supply, a grey market, and a fair number of people trying to reload spent ammunition using match-tips for primers. Talk about white lightning.
