 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 15/11/2011 02:51 PM, Invisible wrote:
> A few of you may know what I was in the IDTA Freestyle / Rock & Roll
> National Dance Finals on Saturday. (No, we didn't win anything. Are you
> surprised? Because I'm not...)
Woohoo! The results have been released! :-D
There were 13 couples entered in our event. In round 1, the judges
select the 6 best couples.
2 couples were chosen by all 7 judges. (Couples #453 and #459.)
1 couple was chosen by 5 of the judges.
3 couples were chosen by 4 of the judges.
Together, that makes 6 couples. They all went through to the next (and
final) round.
1 couple got only 3 recommendations.
2 couples got picked by 2 judges.
2 couples got only 1 recommendation.
2 couples were picked by absolutely nobody.
Me and Lynn were picked by only a single judge. (Who, I notice, is the
only judge on the list with a masculine-sounding name. Also, the only
judge who picked 4 couples, not 6 like everybody else...) That puts us
in joint 10th place, just above the two unfortunate couples whom
*nobody* wanted to see any more of. (They share joint 12th place.)
In round 2 (the final round), each judge assigns each couple a number
between 1 and 6. And here's where it gets interesting...
As I say, two couples were voted for by all 7 judges - couples #453 and
#459. Now #459 are in my dance class. Apparently they've won this event
God knows how many times over - and naturally, everyone expected them to
win again this year. But actually, they got 2nd place, with
recommendations of 1122234.
And what of #453? Well, they came 4th. Their recommendations were
3345556. Go figure!
So, uh, who won? Well, it was #446, who only got a piffling 4
recommendations in round 1 and nearly went home. But in the final round,
they got 1112236.
Read that again: Three judges thought they should be 1st, two judges
said 2nd, one judge said 3rd, AND ONE JUDGE SAID 6th?!? (As in, last
place.) How can 6 judges place them in the top 3, and the final one
place them last? That's pretty random...
Remember couple #453? One of the two that got 7 recommendations in round
1? In round two, they got 1455666, and therefore came last. Again,
everyone thought they should be bottom, except for ONE judge. THE SAME
ONE, incidentally. I wonder what the hell *she* was watching?
[I can only imagine she was standing at the other end of the room or
something, and so she did see #453 and nobody else did, and she didn't
see #466 and everyone else did. But man, that's some weird stats...]
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 17/11/2011 04:03 PM, Invisible wrote:
> And what of #453? Well, they came 4th. Their recommendations were
> 3345556. Go figure!
Urm... no they didn't. Ignore that line. :-P
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 11/16/2011 3:33, Invisible wrote:
> On 16/11/2011 03:31 AM, Darren New wrote:
>> On 11/15/2011 6:51, Invisible wrote:
>>> Sheesh... You know there are people who do this kind of crap for a
>>> living??
>>
>> You think that's bad? Imagine the same thing for the iTunes metadata
>> database, with like 6 million rows.
>
> If it's anything like CDDB, then that would be why I never use CDDB. :-P
Actually, CDDB was *way* better for me. The main problem there was poor
consistency, not downright inaccuracy. :-)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
People tell me I am the counter-example.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 11/16/2011 6:11, Invisible wrote:
> Downloading 30 files, of 2KB each, is not exactly something that requires
> "optimising".
It's not a question of optimizing speed, but of making it work right at all.
OK, so this one needs a cookie set, that one needs the right referrer, this
other gives you a redirect to a home page offering you to download IE or
firefox if it doesn't see a User-agent header, etc.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
People tell me I am the counter-example.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 18/11/2011 03:38 AM, Darren New wrote:
> On 11/16/2011 6:11, Invisible wrote:
>> Downloading 30 files, of 2KB each, is not exactly something that requires
>> "optimising".
>
> It's not a question of optimizing speed, but of making it work right at
> all. OK, so this one needs a cookie set, that one needs the right
> referrer, this other gives you a redirect to a home page offering you to
> download IE or firefox if it doesn't see a User-agent header, etc.
Fortunately, in this instance, none of that was a problem. (This web
site seems to be stuck in 1997.) Which is very, very fortunate, because
trying to sort that lot out would probably have driven me insane! >_<
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> On 15/11/2011 02:51 PM, Invisible wrote:
> Remember couple #453? One of the two that got 7 recommendations in round
> 1? In round two, they got 1455666, and therefore came last. Again,
> everyone thought they should be bottom, except for ONE judge. THE SAME
> ONE, incidentally. I wonder what the hell *she* was watching?
>
Welcome to the world of subjective points attribution...
> [I can only imagine she was standing at the other end of the room or
> something, and so she did see #453 and nobody else did, and she didn't
> see #466 and everyone else did. But man, that's some weird stats...]
Maybe it was an arrangement with the russian judge...
--
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/* flabreque */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/* @ */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/* gmail.com */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 2011-11-17 22:38, Darren New a écrit :
> On 11/16/2011 6:11, Invisible wrote:
> this other gives you a redirect to a home page offering you to
> download IE or firefox if it doesn't see a User-agent header, etc.
>
I hate those with a passion. "IE and Firefox don't work on my
BlackBerry, you moron! Now, let me see the page and deal with the fact
that I can't see most of your nifty CSS tricks!"
(Rant not addressed to you personally)
--
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/* flabreque */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/* @ */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/* gmail.com */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 16-11-2011 12:34, Invisible wrote:
> On 16/11/2011 03:49 AM, Kevin Wampler wrote:
>
>> As near as I can tell this problem is solved by not bothering to get it
>> right.
>
> Ah yes, the Wikipedia approach.
>
> Required XKCD quote: http://www.xkcd.com/978/
Isn't that also the Fox News way of working?
BTW from a friend I heard that it is almost impossible nowadays to add
something to wikipedia. Everything you do as a new contributor is
flagged for deletion almost automatically.
--
Apparently you can afford your own dictator for less than 10 cents per
citizen per day.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible <voi### [at] dev null> wrote:
> Ah yes, the Wikipedia approach.
> Required XKCD quote: http://www.xkcd.com/978/
I think there was an actual case of exactly that. Apparently a wikivandal
had added an additional name to a person's biografy in wikipedia. It was one
of those people who had a really long list of names (like eg. Picasso,
although I'm pretty sure it was not him in this case). Some magazine or
newspaper then copied the entire name, the fake one included, verbatim from
wikipedia. Then someone added the reference to wikipedia.
Of course in this case checking the fact is relatively simple, as long as
someone notices it and bothers to check: Since wikipedia keeps a log of the
entire history of the page, check if the ostensibly fake name was added
before or after the name's appearance in the referenced magazine. If the
magazine is newer than the date that the name was added, it's immediately
suspect.
I think that should be a rule in wikipedia: All references *must* be older
than the page which includes the (purported) fact being referenced. If it's
newer, then it's not reliable.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel <byt### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> BTW from a friend I heard that it is almost impossible nowadays to add
> something to wikipedia. Everything you do as a new contributor is
> flagged for deletion almost automatically.
One of the major criticisms against wikipedia is that it's basically a
jungle, where actual experts have to compete with egoistic laymen and
outright vandals.
For example, a physicist criticized wikipedia because he read one of its
physics pages (damned if I remember which one) and spotted several errors
and omissions, and proceeded to make lengthy corrections and tidying-up of
the page (probably spending hours on it). The original author of the page
reverted all is changes with the press of a button. The physicist gave up.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
