]]>
]]>Also of note:
Also of note:
]]>
]]>
]]>
]]>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.
]]>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.
]]>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.
]]>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.
]]>