Some performances are more equal than others.

The tie-breaking method employed here is to remove the lowest score, and then add the rest up. Something not obvious here is that this seemingly arbitrary method rewards the performance with the greatest spread of scores (i.e. the ones where the judges were least able to decide what score was proper).

Let's do a bit of math: let's assume that two gymnasts get a score of X. Let's assume that gymnast A got the exact same score from all 4 judges: X/4. On the other hand, gymnast B have judges who disagree strongly about the proper score. Assume that the most irritable judge awards a score equal to X/4-Y (i.e. the score is Y less than the average score for gymnast B). Since the total score ends the same as gymnast A, it follows that there must be a judge or group of judges collectively that awards X/4+Y. By dropping the lowest score and adding the rest, you are giving gymnast B the gold by the margin of Y.

If you lop off the highest score, you instead reward consistency of judging. So, instead of having a tie-breaker reflecting anything having to do with the Olympians, the tie-breaker is really all about the judges.

The most fair thing to do, it seems, is to award two gold medals.

Under the influence of a hyperdemocratic medium like the internet, you can't say anything to anyone that won't be heard by everyone.
-- FT.com

I was reading the news, and came across this line. If you don't click the link, it's yet another media spasm over the recent New Yorker cover (i.e. manufactured news because it's July and the VP picks haven't been announced yet). But, I thought this warranted a comment.

Especially with the rise of blogs and social networking, we keep seeing instance after instance where the actual audience exceeds the expected audience. School teachers fired for being sexual creatures, for example. Or, Obama's "bitter" comments, as another example.

Ultimately, I think we're going to have to have a combination of social and technical solutions. Social network sites will need to build in the concept of audiences, where you push updates to finer-grained groups than the current everyone/nobody choices we have now. Users will have to learn to use those features. But, we as a society will need to draw bright lines delineating what is public and what is consenting adults on their own time.

The other alternative is another Victorian era, where the only real privacy you have is to never put pen to paper or bits to disk.

Mozilla fires first salvo in next wave of browsers

I see comments like "The browser is just extraordinarily strategic.", and think that there's some people who just don't Get It^TM. The browser shouldn't be strategic; it should be invisible. All of the browsers should be standards compliant, secure, and out of the way of the real innovation: the content on the web itself.

Did a few different things yesterday, all with mixed results.

I went to vote at North Carolina's one-stop voting. Of course, I would try to go on the last day; if it wasn't for the last minute, nothing would ever get done. I got over there, and the place was a madhouse. There were cars parked everywhere, and a line stretching out of the door and down the street (and apparently not moving at all). So, Tuesday vote it is. I imagine that the Board of Elections was probably not ready for what was probably historical turnout.

Bing wanted to go check out Wake Forest's Meet in the Street. While it was something to do, we were only there for a couple hours, and it was smaller than something like the Gretna Heritage Festival. Noticeably absent was an abundance of food. Bing seemed to like a few of the import stores in Downtown Wake Forest, though, and generally seemed to have a good time.

Finally, we checked out Fishmonger's Oyster Bar by Brightleaf Square. Overall, it was mediocre; not overly impressive. Perhaps Bing and I have been spoiled by Cajun cooking - we totally need to a shrimp boil sometime and invite over some friends.